Mortgage programs and bail out money provided by the new administration still isn't doing what is was intended to. A banks participation in mortgage programs, meant to keep folks in their homes, is voluntary and banks who received bail out money are still raising rates on credit cards and holding back on lending money to people who need it. What's the point? The banks sat through a moratorium on foreclosures just long enough for people to stop yelling about the unfairness, but have started right back up no that the moratorium is over. They are playing this huge game trying to hide the greed, once again. I have a feeling that any programs meant to help the average person will fail. It won't be because Obama didn't provide the mechanism, but it will be because the programs rely on the existing system. What do you think should be done to fix all of this? A separate system that manages the stimulus package by circumventing existing financial institutions?
Prosecuting some of the banking and other corporate bigwigs for fraud and criminal mismanagement would be a start. I think all the other bigwigs would get religion really quick, and use the stimulus for what it was intended.
This is actually doing exactly what Obama knew it would: It is shows as "doing something" to the people and actually giving money to those he owes for getting him elected. Obama isn't going to save you. You had better be ready to save yourself.
And what might that entail, when there is no new system set up to circumvent the existing system? I seriously doubt that anyone expected Obama to save them, but they did expect the financial sector to cooperate, at some level, with keeping their livestock, meaning us, from starving to death. After all, if the whole herd that you depend on for fleece and meat dies off, how do you keep your McMansion?
Anyone who expects" Obama to save them" have got more problems than their finances. People are looking for some kind of parity, not salvation.
Well said, heretoday! I think that, once people realize that the banks are refusing funds and raising their interest rates while they foreclose right and left, the unrest seen in the UK during the G-20, might blossom here!
One can only hope, Twiceshy. Americans are being very apathetic to this crisis, by and large. I can't believe that's because not enough people have been hurt by this, because the problem is so widespread. Someone of revolutionary bent, whose name I have forgotten Said that revolutions can't happen until the middle class is hurting badly enough. One would think we're already there.
But instead of people letting him off the hook, wouldn't it be a great thing if he'd maybe try to *provide* some mechinism that will work instead of using energy and time to blame the last administration? I mean I think we all know where a lot of it went wrong (although many will argue it was during the Clinton run and that's true by and large) but we can't go back and make what Bush did not happen... so we need to pick up the gauntlet here. Instead of "Bush did this wrong, bad bad Bush, goodnight, everyone, God bless America" why not use that energy to *DO* something constructive?
Katharina, I think you're being a tad harsh on our new President. He just passed his 100-day mark. The financiers have had their way for eight happy (for them) years, with tough legislation passed in their favour into law, and will do anything to keep it that way. I do believe that the Obama administration are working very hard to *provide* the very mechanism that you wish for. It isn't going to happen overnight; he never promised it would, and those who expect it "like, yesterday" are being naive. As to the country's economy during the Clinton administration, the people who want to blame our current problems on him are having a bit of selective amnesia. I remember how it felt to have some extra money in my pocket, and I'd dearly like it to happen again. It just won't happen immediately.
We can't forget that there would have been a surplus right now if Bush hadn't put all that stashed tax money back into circulation. I agree that there needs to be some constructive progress, but that isn't being slighted in favor of blame.
Heretoday, You DO realize that Obama has spent this nation so into debt in the first 100 days that the nation will be broke in about 6 hours? That is the earliest in history. As for parity.....excuse me? How about we try this on for size: I earned my money. I made sound financial decisions and saved. I bought less of a house than I could afford because it was plenty for me and my family. I didn't max out my credit cards. I lived beneath my means. Now tell me again why I should foot the bill for those that didn't?
Interesting... those were the years OUR pockets were nearly picked bare and thank goodness started getting better after that. Guess it goes to prove that there really *are* always two sides to every story, eh?
Same here, Frankie. We could have overextended ourselves into bankruptcy but didn't. I did the "max out" for a few years but was soooo glad to get that behind us. I can't really see myself feeling that others should rescue me from my self-imposed situation had the card thing not been fixed by a lot of hard work. In fact, think of the chaos if everyone could just overbuy, overcharge, overextend to their heart's content while thinking "oh well, someone will bail me out in a few years." Eeeew! Wait, I just described corporate America!
I personally don't think that the government should have bailed out the corporations. If they fail, they fail. It would have been better than to be broke.......which we are today. So after today Obama will be getting money from China. After 100 days, I'd tell you to "keep the change" but there isn't any. The only hope is that he doesn't keep spending money.
Katharina, By the way,the reason your pockets were empty during those years was because Clinton took your money and gave it to Here. Bush gave it back to you.
What would you do without Fox to give you your marching orders, Frankie? I've been waiting for "keep the change" to appear on your posts for lo this many a week-and-a-half. You won't argue the merits, because you don't know what they are, you are just terrified someone's coming to take something that's yours, and that's kind of sad.
Uh-oh. OURS and YOURS and neither of you have the slightest idea who you're speaking to. You have no idea who I am and where I come from. The fear of loss, and the hope of gain, is one of the curses given the human race, and you both have got it bad.
Here, The only thing you can say, rather than argue merit, is "You get your marching orders from Fox". Well I don't and it's pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you simply heard a point or two that agreed with your mindset and went with it. You might be afraid of someone taking what you have worked your entire life for if you had anything worth taking.
Here, Actually when you pointed out that it was under Clinton that you had money.....and not under Bush, it became pretty clear. Those who work hard for a living tend do better under Republicans.
Uh... I'd respond to this if I had a clue what you're referring to. My post meant that during the 90s, my husband and I were very bad off financially and in the early to mid 2000s, things got better. If you want to turn that into a political thing, have at it. The post just mentioned who the presidents happened to be at the time. So... no, I don't know who you are but I'm glad you had money when I didn't... otherwise, seems as if something may have been misunderstood here?
