3 Steps To Change The Nation's Future
We are at a crucial time in our country's financial history. We need everyone's help! Here are 3 steps you can take that will change our nation's future:
1) Pray for your leaders in Washington. Pray for them to resist a spirit of FEAR and to embrace WISDOM. Even if you don't like them or agree with them, pray for them and tell them you are praying for them. There is a spirit over this problem that must be broken. Also, most of the media personalities are afraid as well and that is affecting their reporting. Pray for fear to be removed from them; they are making this worse.
2) Send The Common Sense Fix to your Senators and representatives, and tell them how you expect them to vote, and that if they put this nation in $700 billion of debt, that you will vote them out. Whichever presidential candidate or political party that champions this plan from their leadership down will likely become the next president. That is because this plan fixes the crisis while going along with the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
- Download the PDF here.
- Send it to your Senator and representative.
3) Send a link to this page to everyone in your address book and tell them to urgently follow these three steps TODAY.
of Hawaii listened to what the Hawaiian people
had to say and this swayed his vote against the
$700 billion bail-out. It's refreshing to see
our elected officials listening.
For not engaging in scare tactics, and for giving us the tools we need to take action. I trust your opinions greatly and have already sent this to my local representatives. THANK YOU!!
and it will show you by clicking on the answer you would like to investigate.
It was great how you answered those questions on Cavuto last night! Why did they even bother to have the otheres on there? And, TAX WRITE OFFS?! What was that guy thinking!? He obviously doesn't watch Dave Ramsey!!!
Thank you for your steady and encouraging words to us all. This country needs more people like you to lead us into the future! You're a blessing!
on the bill.
ALABAMA
Democrats - Cramer, Y; Davis, Y.
Republicans - Aderholt, N; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Everett, Y; Rogers, Y.
ALASKA
Republicans - Young, N.
ARIZONA
Democrats - Giffords, N; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, N; Pastor, N.
Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.
ARKANSAS
Democrats - Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.
Republicans - Boozman, Y.
CALIFORNIA
Democrats - Baca, N; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, N; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, N; Schiff, N; Sherman, N; Solis, N; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, N; Waters, Y; Watson, N; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, N.
Republicans - Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Doolittle, N; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, N; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Radanovich, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.
COLORADO
Democrats - DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Salazar, N; Udall, N.
Republicans - Lamborn, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, Y.
CONNECTICUT
Democrats - Courtney, N; DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.
Republicans - Shays, Y.
DELAWARE
Republicans - Castle, Y.
FLORIDA
Democrats - Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, N; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Mahoney, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.
Republicans - Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, N; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Weldon, Y; Young, N.
GEORGIA
Democrats - Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, N; Lewis, N; Marshall, Y; Scott, N.
Republicans - Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.
HAWAII
Democrats - Abercrombie, N; Hirono, N.
IDAHO
Republicans - Sali, N; Simpson, Y.
ILLINOIS
Democrats - Bean, Y; Costello, N; Davis, Y; Emanuel, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, N; Rush, N; Schakowsky, Y.
Republicans - Biggert, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, X.
INDIANA
Democrats - Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, N; Visclosky, N.
Republicans - Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, Y.
IOWA
Democrats - Boswell, Y; Braley, N; Loebsack, Y.
Republicans - King, N; Latham, N.
KANSAS
Democrats - Boyda, N; Moore, Y.
Republicans - Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.
KENTUCKY
Democrats - Chandler, N; Yarmuth, N.
Republicans - Davis, N; Lewis, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, N.
LOUISIANA
Democrats - Cazayoux, N; Jefferson, N; Melancon, Y.
Republicans - Alexander, N; Boustany, N; McCrery, Y; Scalise, N.
MAINE
Democrats - Allen, Y; Michaud, N.
MARYLAND
Democrats - Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.
Republicans - Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y.
MASSACHUSETTS
Democrats - Capuano, Y; Delahunt, N; Frank, Y; Lynch, N; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.
MICHIGAN
Democrats - Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, Y; Stupak, N.
Republicans - Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.
MINNESOTA
Democrats - Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, N.
Republicans - Bachmann, N; Kline, Y; Ramstad, N.
MISSISSIPPI
Democrats - Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, N.
Republicans - Pickering, Y.
MISSOURI
Democrats - Carnahan, Y; Clay, N; Cleaver, N; Skelton, Y.
Republicans - Akin, N; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, N; Hulshof, N.
MONTANA
Republicans - Rehberg, N.
NEBRASKA
Republicans - Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.
NEVADA
Democrats - Berkley, N.
Republicans - Heller, N; Porter, Y.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Democrats - Hodes, N; Shea-Porter, N.
NEW JERSEY
Democrats - Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, N; Payne, N; Rothman, N; Sires, Y.
Republicans - Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, Y; Smith, N.
NEW MEXICO
Democrats - Udall, N.
Republicans - Pearce, N; Wilson, Y.
NEW YORK
Democrats - Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Gillibrand, N; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, N; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.
Republicans - Fossella, Y; King, Y; Kuhl, N; McHugh, Y; Reynolds, Y; Walsh, Y.
NORTH CAROLINA
Democrats - Butterfield, N; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, N; Watt, Y.
Republicans - Coble, N; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.
NORTH DAKOTA
Democrats - Pomeroy, Y.
OHIO
Democrats - Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, N; Wilson, Y.
Republicans - Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Hobson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.
OKLAHOMA
Democrats - Boren, Y.
Republicans - Cole, Y; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.
OREGON
Democrats - Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Hooley, Y; Wu, N.
Republicans - Walden, Y.
PENNSYLVANIA
Democrats - Altmire, N; Brady, Y; Carney, N; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, N; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.
Republicans - Dent, N; English, N; Gerlach, N; Murphy, Tim, N; Peterson, Y; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, N.
RHODE ISLAND
Democrats - Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Democrats - Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.
Republicans - Barrett, N; Brown, Y; Inglis, Y; Wilson, Y.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Democrats - Herseth Sandlin, N.
TENNESSEE
Democrats - Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, Lincoln, N; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.
Republicans - Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp, N.
TEXAS
Democrats - Cuellar, N; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, N; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, N; Johnson, E. B., Y; Lampson, N; Ortiz, N; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, N.
Republicans - Barton, N; Brady, Y; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, N.
UTAH
Democrats - Matheson, N.
Republicans - Bishop, N; Cannon, Y.
VERMONT
Democrats - Welch, N.
VIRGINIA
Democrats - Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, N.
Republicans - Cantor, Y; Davis, Tom, Y; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, Y.
WASHINGTON
Democrats - Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.
Republicans - Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.
WEST VIRGINIA
Democrats - Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.
Republicans - Capito, N.
WISCONSIN
Democrats - Baldwin, Y; Kagen, N; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.
Republicans - Petri, N; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, N.
WYOMING
Republicans - Cubin, Y.
representative that is quick and easy. Go to
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/100
We have been a fan of yours (paid for both our childrens and families to attend your courses) for years and have accepted the fact that you are a Republican. However, you were generally fair. But your criticism of Nancy Pelosi and the silliness of 12 Republicans blaming their votes on her comments is beyond the pale. Since when does a competent legislator- Democrat or Republican - cast a serious vote based on being slightly offended by a little ole lady? Sounds like something coming from windbags Limbaugh and Hannity!You're smarter than that and your listeners, both Democrat and Republican, deserve better in the future.
@Don: Why no chastizement of Pelosi for immature politics??
Don doesn't do that with Pelosi probably becos
she is not worth it.
Way to go. Keep up the great work!
I.a.1. A few words to change --
Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months… Change to:
Rewrite all mortgages that are more than three months…
This will keep the companies from "cherry picking".
III. One sentence to change --
Remove the capital gains tax completely.
Change to:
Eliminate the capital gains tax of personal residences completely for two years.
This change would help all political parties agree with "The Common Sense Fix".
http://www.votesmart.org/official_five_categories....
First, I am not an economists or politician but I have learned a lot in my years of owning my own businesses and trying to survive in difficult times.
I am sharing my thoughts with you not to promote any political party but to hopefully inspire those who normally do not vote to get registered by this Saturday and participate in our democratic process. It has been said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. This is not the time to ?do nothing?. We must have our voices heard loud and clear!
Our Constitution starts out by saying ?We the People??. It is time that we the people started acting like we care about this country. The politicians would have us believe that the Constitution starts with ?The wee people??. Their elitists? attitude toward us and their constant idea that they can run our lives and know better what is good for us has got to stop. There is not one straight talking politician in our government. They tell us that governing is too difficult for us to understand and that we just have to ?trust? them to do what is best for us.
Now our part as the governed has also got to change. We must stop looking to Washington for cures of our ailments. We have accepted the Courts intervention into our lives by allowing them to legislate instead of interpret our laws. This is totally unconstitutional and must be stopped. The politicians are allowing it because they know that if they were to legislate the types of rulings that are coming through our courts then they would not be re-elected. So they turn their backs on the Constitution all the while trampling on our individual rights.
If the Congress was a Board of Directors in charge of a corporation and you were a stock holder would you allow them to make the kinds of decisions they are making or would you call for their resignation?
The role of politician was never intended to be a career. It was designed for service, not self-service, to the public. I know what would cure this aspect of politics but I also know that it will never happen because the ones it would affect are the ones who would have to vote for it ? TERM LIMITATIONS!
Here is a truth that stands today ? ?The borrower is servant to the lender.? We need to have this drilled into our collective heads over and over. As I have learned over the years, you can not borrow your way out of debt. Why is it that we don?t expect the same action from the government that we have to implement in our own lives just to survive? No, we say well the government will help us through this crisis. It is high time that we woke up to the reality that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! The government earns no money but we have given them the power to confiscate money from our earnings. Programs that are funded by the government are paid for from our earnings. There is saying, ?When you find yourself in a hole ?STOP DIGGING!? Fiscal restraint is called for, not more ?government funding?.
That brings me to my final thought. These bailouts are not good for America. These bailouts fly in the face of capitalism and move us closer to nationalism. I am so concerned about the issues facing our nation that I sat down this morning and read all 110 pages of the proposed ?Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.? (www.speaker.gov). The first rule of getting someone to buy into an idea is to use the fear of loss. The fear of loss is more powerful than the potential for gain. So our politicians, along with the media, have set out on a campaign to invoke fear in each American and then say that they have a plan for relieving our fear. And of course we like sheep are led to the slaughter without opening our mouths. Well it is time to open our collective mouths and speak loudly and clearly. Here are some things I found interesting in this latest 700 TRILLION DOLLAR bailout.
The politicians knew that this was going to be a problem over 2 years ago but chose to do nothing preemptive to avert the situation. Why? Because they saw an opportunity to grab more power for themselves at our expense if the system failed and they could use fear to get us to blindly accept their solution. No rational person believes that the politicians have our interest at heart in this bailout. They see an opportunity to grow government by trillions of dollars through this program. The name the politicians have given this program is the ?Troubled Asset Relief Program? or ?TARP?. I think this is a great name because, just as a tarp is used to cover-up things, the politicians are covering-up their real motives in voting for this program.
I did a little research into the ?mortgage crisis? and found that only 2.75% of mortgages are in some stage of the foreclosure process. I also found that there is 10.5 TRILLION DOLLARS in mortgage debt. That means that if all properties in foreclosure are NEVER sold to anyone for any amount of money then the amount of bailout would only be 288 BILLION DOLLLARS. Why are we committing to 700 BILLION DOLLARS?
If this deal is so good for the taxpayer why not let the private sector purchase the underlying assets and benefit directly from the future gains. Why do we need a middle man? Here are exact words from the plan:
(underlining added)
Section 113 Authority, Paragraph 2
(A) ?Hold the assets to maturity for resale for and until such time as the Secretary determines that the market is optimal for selling such assets, in order to maximize the value for taxpayers, and
(B) Sell such assets at a price that the Secretary determines, based on available financial analysis, will maximize return on investment for the Federal government.?
Is it just me or does it seem to you that this deal is about ?holding? the assets for the taxpayer but ?selling? the assets for the benefit of the Federal government. Their intention is not to return the profit to you and I as taxpayers but to use the profits to grow government. The plan gives Congress the power to increase our federal debt to $11,315,000,000,000 DOLLARS. That?s right it is TRILLION! Also in Section 113 Paragraph 3 they call for the private sector to be involved. Here are the exact words-
?Private Sector Participation ? The Secretary shall encourage the private sector to participate in purchases of troubled assets, and to invest in financial institutions, consistent with the provisions of this section.?
In my humble estimation this proves that this is a power grab and not a move to benefit the taxpayer. If the private sector is going to be involved why not just let the private sector (capitalism) operate and leave the government out.
The banking and mortgage industry must bare some consequence for the loans they made. In my simple mind as a business man, if I had a mortgage holder that could not pay what they agreed to in the original loan I would look to renegotiate the loan before I would foreclose. My logic for this is that the person who is defaulting is going to have to live somewhere and pay somebody something for their housing so why not work with them and keep them in their home. But there I go being logical again. I guess it really is too complicated for me so please Mr. Government help me understand what I should do.
BOTTOM LINE ? VOTE!, VOTE!, VOTE!
they go to their rich children to bail them
out not all their grandchildren. Why don't
we go to the states and ask them to contribute
their budget surpluses? Texas has a $10 bill.
surplus the country needs to borrow now.
Thanks for ignoring the fear tactics of the Congress and the media. I think your plan is great. I sent it with the comment that I am a small businessman. If I do stupid stuff and my business is in trouble, nobody will bail me out. Why should I bail out the big boys who have done stupid stuff?
Glenn
You can suspend honesty in accounting rules all you want and wait 2 years, 10 years, or 50 years -- these securities will continue to be worth pennies on the dollar.
I agree that time is needed to figure things out -- but the only thing I can think of is to spend thousands of work-hours and totally unravel the underlying debt items and repackage them as a different type of security backed by the govt.. Even then -- because these securities are highly leveraged in their current form -- the end result will still be pennies on the dollar.
It was great to hear you on Glenn Beck this morning! I had been feeling confused with his saying we have
to get ready for a depression and your saying you think things are going to be okay. I'm glad you met
together to share with the American public!
This will
1) Eliminate the remaining sub-prime mortgages from causing an additonal crisis next year
2) Not punish the people who are acting responsible. The current proposal only provides financial relief to the individuals who are not paying their sub-prime mortgage, while those who are making payments on outrageous interest rates get left behind.
baby steps will correct the problem(s). The bailout plan as it was proposed, is as
much a shot in the dark as anyone elses plan is, including this one. I also firmly
believe and trust in the people that are pulling the strings and those who are
elected and appointed to make decisions in America's best interest. More than one
comment here alleges misconduct and conflict of interest by Paulson. That is
precisely the conspiracy theorist attitude that creates the media frenzy what is our
American media today. Give it a rest, to sit back and expect something to change on it's
own is irresponsible and ridiculous. Furthermore, I am as forgiving as anyone, but to
completely forgive someone because their mortgage payment is 90 days late, catch it
up and lower their APR to 6% is LUDICROUS. Yet again, the midde-class (who actually pay their bills on time) are forced to bail everyone else out.
Your plan reduces all loans that have been delinquent for 3 months to 6% interest rate. It is designed to help borrowers who have been lured into accepting loans that they can't repay. But remember, the lender is not the only one to blame. The borrower is ultimately responsible for their inability to repay a loan, particularly one that they should have never agreed with in the first place.
Your plan rewards borrowers who default, but give nothing to those who diligently pay on time or ahead of time.
There are plenty of people who are barely making ends meet but hold true to their values, that they should repay their debts first and foremost. Those are the people who end up losing with this plan.
That part of your plan also does nothing to account for people who default simply because they are irresponsible, not because they have no money.
Please rewrite your plan to reduce ALL loans to 6%, or some reasonable value that is available for every borrower, not just those who do not pay on time.
I really appreciate Dave and his team for all they do advance the cause of fiscal soundness in both our personal and national lives.
1 item I heard about the Subprimes is that 60 to 70% of the borrowers could have qualified for standard loans but were "steered" into the subprimes because of a higher commision structure and bonuses for the brokers. Anybody else hear that?
being financed entirely by the taxpayers,wall
street and the big banks needs to pony-up with
some money through a program such as dave
ramsey has proposed,its not right to dump all
these bad assets on the taxpayers.
The plan is simple. Create a market for the assets. Nobody will be the first to step in, so the gov't must be the catalyst.
As far as the insurance idea listed, all I have to say is that gig worked out great for AIG...
Ryan
BUSINESS AND NO ONE BAILED ME OUT I SOLD SOME
ASSETS AND LEARNED A HEARD LESSON.
$ 680 billion into the market 3 days ago and it did diddly squat. This bailout is only for one reason, to bankrupt the middle class.
There are people all over my state (Mississippi) who are against this $700 billion bail out and they are contacting our senators and congressman. I have and my statement is don't do it. They will not get my vote ever again if they do.
This will
1) Eliminate the remaining sub-prime mortgages from causing an additonal crisis next year
2) Not punish the people who are acting responsible. The current proposal only provides financial relief to the individuals who are not paying their sub-prime mortgage, while those who are making payments on outrageous interest rates get left behind.
# Posted by dillon-bert | 10/1/08 3:13 PM
Sounds like a plan that actually brings Americans along who were victimized by the predatory lenders. What's wrong with that?
I was home with 3 kids at the time and we sacrificed in order to stay current
What I'm seeing here in the Common Sense Plan (although most of it's great) is that lug nuts who bought WAY more house than they could afford and have
now become delinquent get not only a "free fix" by rolling their delinquent payments back and a waiver of the pre-payment penalty they were silly
enough (and not forward-thinking enough) to sign BUT they get a better rate than I have.
Wait a minute - I bought what I could afford, worked my tail off to make sure I kept my house and THEY get a "get out of foreclosure free" card?!
I understand that most of them are in over their heads and I DO have empathy for them and their families but why are they who don't pay their
bills, don't budget and don't think ahead suddenly get a bailout? At the risk of sounding angry and selfish: what's in it for me? Why do non-payers
get benefits and bill-payers get the shaft?
Senator Cornyn of Texas has yet to make a statement (unbelievably!) as to how he will vote, even though the vote is within a few hours...c'mon man!
I have contacted both of them by phone and email to indicate how this package is inappropriate. Thankfully, my congressman, Sam Johnson...Texas 3rd, has a brain and voted the NO to the House version.
According to the U.S. Department of Treasury guidelines issued in 2001, "Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. They may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories."
I believe that the fixed 6% rate should be extended to ALL loans, subprime or not. Rewarding people with a bad or incomplete credit history, while not rewarding those who have a good credit history (meaning that they have proven responsibility) is akin to the current proposal.
Karen Early
TX
Besides Dave's common sense solution, we need to give the next president the line item veto to cut pork belly spending. And, again "We the people" can hold the next president accountable for his actions in office.
"i like the first 2 bullet points but I don't understand what eliminating the capital gains tax will do to clean up this mess. Won't that just enable the wild-eyed gamblers to go crazy again?"
I'm not sure what eliminating capital gains taxes will do at this point. We have a huge deficit and we need all of the revenue we can get to service this debt. Cutting the cap gains tax now would probably not be a good idea.
The bottom line is that home prices need to fall back in line with incomes. We need to get back to requiring 20% down and a 36% (max) backend DTI to buy a home. The folks in Washington seem to think that falling home prices are the problem, when in fact that is the solution to this mess. Let the prices fall quickly instead of mucking around in the market and prolonging the agony for years.
I also hear the stories that business can only run based on a line of credit -- once they sold stock, and sold items -- and yet they have a great, wonderful businesses... why can't a small business raise money by stock? It's got a thousand regulations... because some people will try to rip you off. But there are many businesses, include such folks as Dave Ramsey, and Chick-fil-a, who can rest on Sunday, and shockingly... stay in business. Practically, how did Microsoft make it for YEARS without debt, if it was so important to have credit... no, as my father-in-law says, Quality wins out.
Growth maybe slower, and the profits not as large, and fewer games played with our crazy tax code... but a line of credit isn't the only thing needed to be successful.
I also hear the stories that business can only run based on a line of credit -- once they sold stock, and sold items -- and yet they have a great, wonderful businesses... why can't a small business raise money by stock? It's got a thousand regulations... because some people will try to rip you off. But there are many businesses, include such folks as Dave Ramsey, and Chick-fil-a, who can rest on Sunday, and shockingly... stay in business. Practically, how did Microsoft make it for YEARS without debt, if it was so important to have credit... no, as my father-in-law says, Quality wins out.
Growth maybe slower, and the profits not as large, and fewer games played with our crazy tax code... but a line of credit isn't the only thing needed to be successful.
My question is what reason do we have to believe that, by pouring money and/or other government assurances into them, they will then proceed to open up the credit pipelines?
Took about 40 minutes to send & I have cable
internet. Hope that means a lot of people are
sending the same message. Thanks Dave!
Carrie in Flower Mound Texas
We need to concentrate on the House again now.
What can we do if it passes in the House?
Some ideas:
* General Strike: shut the country down like they do in France
* Consumption Strike: buy only essentials and whenever possible buy used. No eating out. No coffee at Tarbucks.
Actually, the consumption strike helps those who are striking by enabling them to save more.
Other ideas?
Good point steve schmitt. If anything we need to encourage saving. I'd rather see no taxes on interest income for a few years in order to encourage saving.
People who have bad credit should not be able to get loans. That is what has put us in this situation and now congress is trying to pass this bill to free up credit. FREE Credit is the problem!!
If a person or business has bad credit they should not get a loan. If you can't come up with 20% down then rent and save your money. Don"t spend more money than you earn and save money every month. OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE ARE OVER EXTENDED !!!
That can't work over the long term. If you spend more than you have you go broke and hopefully you learn your lesson and don't do that again.
I make 35000 a year and my house is paid for in full I have 12 months money for an emergency fund in the bank and I fully fund my Roth every month. How did I do that? I pay cash . I Pay No interest to credit cards. I bought a house that I can afford put 20% down and paid extra every month. WATCH DAVE RAMSEY. PEOPLE GROW UP!!!
Vote For this wasteful spending bill and I don't vote for you.
1) To insure these things you have to know how likely they are to default. No one knows. It is doubtful anyone can know. If we did know, this problem would be much easier to solve.
2) For insurance to work you have to charge people what it's worth. If there's a 20% chance of default per year, the value has to be about 20% of what you'd pay out. Let's assume we could figure out what the default chance was and charged that amount. The people who need it most couldn't afford it, it would be too much. The reason they're in danger of going bankrupt is because the probability is too high.
3) The house is on fire already. In many cases, these things are already effectively in default, it's just that no one has said "uh, I don't think the emperor is wearing any clothes." This would be the equivalent of calling up the insurance company and saying "Hey, I'd like to buy homeowner insurance because my house is on fire." They'd laugh you off the line. If they did decide to insure you they'd say "how much would it cost to replace your house Mr. Smith? We'll charge you that much premium." In other words, there's no point.
4) What this means is that either the government doesn't charge them enough to afford to insure them, or it does. If it does, they can't afford it. If it doesn't, then the cost of the banks claiming their insurance payouts will be more than the cost of the premiums.
5) This means that the House bailout is actually the largest bailout suggested by anyone. What they're saying is "minus premiums, we will pay for every single bad mortgage backed security in the system." I guarantee that will run to trillions and trillions of dollars.
Now, the idea of insuring certain types of securities is not a bad one. But the current crop of mortgage backed securities are not a good candidate because they include such a high proportion of fraud and because they include a lot of exotic variations that make them too hard to value. If the government (or anyone else) is going to insure something it has to be simple enough to understand and relatively fraud proof. The current batch is neither. Insuring something like money market funds, on the other hand, would make sense.
On top of that, I understand these fools want to decrease the capital gains tax to zero, which as Think Progress points out is completely pointless (people aren't not investing because they are worried about taxation, they are not investing in these companies because they think they'll lose everything they put in.) Heck, private equity firms raised 323 billion this year, it isn't even that there isn't plenty of capital slopping around, it's just not interested in helping out insolvent financial institutions. The phrase "good money after bad" is probably going through a lot of investors minds.
And then there's the deregulation foolishness, the idea being to allow companies to keep securities on book at their "maturity price" rather than their "market price". Since most of those securities are not going to mature at those prices, which is why the market price is so low, this is the equivalent of saying "let's all just pretend that these securities are still good and that you're not bankrupt. lalalalala, if I plug my ears and close my eyes the big bad financial crisis will go away!"
It is also a version of how the Japanese crippled their economy for going on 20 years now, by keeping zombie assets on the books of zombie banks, which then shuffled along unable to lend enough money to get the economy going.
So yes, Republican bailout ideas. Stupid. Doesn't mean that what seems to be the current consensus Democratic plan is very good either, but at least it isn't brain dead.
(Oh, and in the meantime the House Republicans stopped a 56 billion dollar bill which would have extended food stamps, employment insurance and so on. Glad to see they have their priorities straight.)
To preface, I own a business. I acquired an attractive line of credit this very day. My wife bought a car last week at 4.7525% interest. A Credit Card company enticed me to move one of my personal cards to them on Monday because of their lower interest rate (wait til they figure out I pay in full every month). You see, if you are responsible and pay your bills there is no shortage of credit.
The proposed bill being voted on this evening seems to protect the ability to make loans that make no sense from a business perspective... And to cover the behinds of those financial institutions that were stupid enough to participate in lending to those that had no business borrowing in the first place.
A large resounding NO should be what the Senate does this evening..
I would vote to put you, Donald Trump, Steve Forbes, Sean Hannity, Jack Welch and I would say Warren Buffet until I found out he was advisor to Obama in Congress and get rid of the $160,000 per person that sits in Congress now. I really believe you guys are American and we could probably save on salary by putting you in. For sure we would get real answers and a good return for our money. God Bless you and the others for putting this together. I just pray Congress will listen.
State of MD governor Martin Omalley just this year increased our taxes on everything.... it's killing the economy and the little people.... while the fat cats in government have plenty! They have OUR money. It's time for government to live on a budget like I have too. Raising taxes is no longer a valid way to fix their money shortfalls. The people are paying way too much now to live here.
Time to start analyzing the programs that are currently in place and cost money. If they no longer work, stop tossing money at it and CUT the program or service. Period. If something does not work, tossing more of MY money at it is not the answer.
Barbara Mikulski needs to go... Ben Cardin needs to go.. .and Steny Hoyer.
Here's the tally:
Voted no: (NOTE: I'm missing one, not sure who)
Allard, Wayne
Brownback, Sam
Bunning, Jim
Cantwell, Maria
Cochran, Thad
Crapo, Mike
DeMint, Jim
Dole, Elizabeth
Dorgan, Byron
Enzi, Mike
Feingold, Russ
Inhofe, Jim
Johnson, Tim
Landrieu, Mary
Nelson, Bill
Roberts, Pat
Sanders, Bernie
Sessions, Jeff
Shelby, Richard
Stabenow, Debbie
Tester, Jon
Vitter, David
Wicker, Roger
Wyden, Ron
Voted yes:
Akaka, Daniel
Alexander, Lamar
Barrasso, John
Baucus, Max
Bayh, Evan
Bennett, Robert
Biden, Joe
Bingaman, Jeff
Bond, Kit
Boxer, Barbara
Brown, Sherrod
Burr, Richard
Byrd, Robert
Cardin, Ben
Carper, Tom
Casey, Bob, Jr.
Chambliss, Saxby
Clinton, Hillary Rodham
Coburn, Tom
Coleman, Norm
Collins, Susan
Conrad, Kent
Corker, Bob
Cornyn, John
Craig, Larry
Dodd, Chris
Domenici, Pete
Durbin, Dick
Ensign, John
Feinstein, Dianne
Graham, Lindsey
Harkin, Tom
Hatch, Orrin
Hutchison, Kay Bailey
Inouye, Daniel
Isakson, Johnny
Kerry, John
Klobuchar, Amy
Kohl, Herb
Kyl, Jon
Lautenberg, Frank
Leahy, Patrick
Levin, Carl
Lieberman, Joe
Lincoln, Blanche
Lugar, Dick
Martinez, Mel
McCain, John
McCaskill, Claire
McConnell, Mitch
Menendez, Bob
Mikulski, Barbara
Murkowski, Lisa
Murray, Patty
Nelson, Ben
Obama, Barack
Pryor, Mark
Reed, Jack
Reid, Harry
Rockefeller, Jay
Salazar, Ken
Schumer, Chuck
Smith, Gordon
Snowe, Olympia
Specter, Arlen
Stevens, Ted
Sununu, John E.
Thune, John
Voinovich, George
Warner, John
Webb, Jim
Whitehouse, Sheldon
Not voting, or I missed their vote:
Grassley, Chuck
Kennedy, Ted
Gregg, Judd
Hagel, Chuck
You know what to do.
added a bunch of junk on to seeten the pot.
Typical Washington
problem I guess we need a write in...Maybe we
should vote for Hank Paulsen He seems to have
all of the answers.
anomalous peak in home prices was and then allow people to have their mortgages rewritten for some reasonable percentage lower. This could prevent imminent foreclosures. This could also
prevent those foreclosures not seen coming down the line with the current state of affairs. Also, for the people who bought during that peak who are faring fine with their payments,
well hey, they'd have extra money every month to spend in our economy. That would be like myself, and I'd feel like I got a more fare deal -- not just bailing someone else out. The
lenders would take the losses from this type of plan, but could the losses be as bad as what's happening now? Overall, what I see, is that housing prices inclined way faster than
salaries did, and those two graphs should rate upward similarly given our homes eat up the bulk of our incomes. I'm not an economist, but I feel if we have any kind of "bailout", it
should be one that takes us back in time a little and trends those graphs properly and helps the people in this country who apparently were drawn into a crazy market created by the
big companies, or we won't really stabilize for quite a long time.
You would have my vote!
Thanks for everything. On your home page, you have a link to a list of how representatives voted on the bailout plan. Can you put one up for the Senators that just passed that garbage?
1. Foreclosures are the problem that lead to banks' diminshing asset balances (and subsequent FDIC seizure). Fixing the deliquent mortgage rates to 6% won't help decrease foreclosures, especially if the teaser rates were reset upwards to somewhere around 6%.
2. Changes in accounting rules don't solve the foreclosure problem.
3. Eliminating the capital gains tax completely doesn't cost "nothing". It lowers the amount of money that the government collects - thus increasing government debt. Guess who gets to pay that increased debt back later?
No more stimulus checks backed by asian banks. I run a mahcine shop with 21 employees of which 17 of them makes less than $30,000.
These people spend all of their take home income trying to get thru life. It would be the right thing to let them use their gross
income. The government will get their money thru sales tax.
Looks as if the senators and representatives got scared and voted the way that they wanted, and not the way the people wanted them to vote. Take for Example McCaskill, "stated that the bill was a lousy bill, but she had to vote for it" That is the most absurd thing that I have every heard. Once again for sharing your information about this topic in a way that everyday individuals can understand it. Since the passed bill, I have written the senators and representatives again, and told them not to forget my shareholder check every month, you can bet your sweet _____, that I won't be counting on that check. And the senators and representatives that voted yes on the bill, can for sure kiss their Sweet ______, by counting on being voted out of office.
Missouri
You would have my vote.
Thanks for all you do Dave.
Your three steps make perfect sense but it is hard to quantify results, Will it be enough in time? How about adding a 4th measure. Sell government bonds (like war bonds) to cover the need for immediate liquidity at say 6%. I think Americians would think it was patriotic to invest in a fix to the mess we have and they would be rewarded by a reasonable return. This way the necessary funds come from all of us rather than eventually being paid for by printing money which has led to the ruin of numerous countries. Tell me that the government wont be forced to print huge piles of money money to cover the $700B.
1. Allow a person to withdraw from their retirement accounts to pay off a mortgage or to by a house (must be their primary and only home). The withdrawals would be tax free with no penalties.
2. Reduce the corporate income tax to zero. This would make the United States the corporate tax haven of the world. You would not have enough people to fill all the jobs.
You have a lot of power I think you should pray that your advise is correct.