Skip Nav
The Story of 2 High School Friends, Her Illness, and Their Halloween Wedding
10 Group Costumes Inspired by the '90s
9 Signs You're Finally Ready to Date After Divorce

$350 Billion Faceoff: Some Want Bank Bailout, Not Housing

In closed door meetings yesterday, Barack Obama's aides told lawmakers that the new president would spend the remaining $350 billion of the financial bailout (TARP) on the housing crisis by reducing home foreclosures and increasing lending. The Senate is set to vote today on whether to give Obama the funds.

But not everyone is enthusiastic about Obama's creative plans for spending the money. The GOP leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, doesn't want the government to decide the winners and losers in the economy. He said: "We thought the $700 billion, not just $350 billion of it, but all of it, was designed to save the credit system." McConnell, and presumably a good number of Republican lawmakers, would like to see the distribution of funds limited to financial firms.

Still, nothing with this bailout has quite gone according to plan. Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson told lawmakers originally that he would spend the money to buy toxic assets — instead banks got money with few strings attached. Would you rather see the money go to financial institutions only, or would you want Obama to focus on reducing home foreclosures?


Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
How about this, you lovely lady, when you show proof that conservatives only donate to benefit themselves, I'll show proof that libs love victims. Deal?
stephley stephley 8 years
Just the proof thanks.
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
Sorry steph, spent the night in the hospistal. I'll pm you before I go next time.
stephley stephley 8 years
And you rush to offer your proof...
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
I expect nothing less from you steph.
stephley stephley 8 years
"It is the liberal way to look for a victim and to not blame them for their misfortune" I would love to see some factual support for this. It is a silly, biased overgeneralisation that suggests you live in a bubble. Conservatives help through the private sector, as long as there are plenty of tax loopholes that make it worth their while. Neither side has a lock on sainthood.
True-Song True-Song 8 years
Plus that loan program wouldn't necessarily help people with foreclosures in the sense that the government isn't paying their loan, but it may help them indirectly by raising the value of their home so they can refi or get out or help someone else buy their home from them.
True-Song True-Song 8 years
"i dont want any of my money helping the foreclosures." I didn't want any of my money going towards the war in Iraq, towards Guantanamo...I could go on. Personally I am hoping for 4% fixed rate mortgages (fingers crossed!) from the bailout money. They will help housing prices rebound and in the long run the government makes its money back. Even I, patron saint of renting, would buy if they did that.
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
"Actually, it's the kind of thinking necessary to justify not helping the greedy. The truly poor we help." Amen. And there is also the old conservative stand-by of helping through the private sector instead of having the government do it, which is what conservatives do.
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
Jill, I am aware of all that. Dude and I alone got bitten by major things. 1. We signed up for an AR loan and it went up nearly 2K in just over a year and a half. But we paid it until we could refi. 2. I get a freakin' tumor with no insurance. Don't default on any loans. 3. Have a surprise pregnancy with no insurance. All of these things and we still made it. If it meant peanut butter and jelly or cereal for two weeks, that's what we did. No cable, no internet, etc. If you ask, most people won't do without those things. Hell, we didn't see a movie for about two years while we grew our businesses. It is the liberal way to look for a victim and to not blame them for their misfortune, but sometimes that is just what it is. Someone screwed up, they should face the consequences, not be, and I hate to even use this term, bailed out. And I agree, neither should the banks. What are we teaching anyone? What are we learning? Nothing. Well, I take that back, we are learning that someone else will always pay for our mistakes, not us.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
"Well, that's the kind of thinking necessary to justify not helping the poor." Actually, it's the kind of thinking necessary to justify not helping the greedy. The truly poor we help. :)
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
"I kind of think this plays into the idea that one conservative said the other day, that people are impoverished because of their lack of morality." Well, that's the kind of thinking necessary to justify not helping the poor. And well said, Jill!
Jillness Jillness 8 years
"what about those of us who scrimped, saved, and did everything in our power to not default on our home loans?" Keep in mind that many people have lost their jobs over the past 2 years. What is it, 2 million in 2008 alone? Don't forget how long gas prices were gutting people's budgets. I just don't think that you can assume that even "most" people that lost their homes didn't scrimp and save. It is just a big assumption to make based on very little. Yes, some people probably did make very foolish mistakes. But some people were also mislead and/or had their financial situations drastically change. Not to mention that when one foreclosure happens in a neighborhood, it affects everyone else in that community. I kind of think this plays into the idea that one conservative said the other day, that people are impoverished because of their lack of morality. It seems a lot of conservatives subscribe to that theory. Not me.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
A good friend of mine from elementary school who I hadn't seen in 15 years looked me up and we met up recently for breakfast. She shows up in a new Range Rover, decked out with Prada gear, dressed to the nines, freshly died hair etc. She's losing her million plus dollar house that she bought with her boyfriend 3 years ago with a ridiculous loan. If the bailout helps her keep her house, something is wrong with this country.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
Of course it was greedy idiots. I don't see any other possible explanation. The people at the banks were greedy. The people who wanted more home than they could afford were greedy. Sure, some home buyers were just plain taken advantage of. But in that equation there was still a greedy idiot on the side of the lender who wanted to make money on a shitty loan. Well when the shit hit the fan, people who had normal loans who needed to move and lost jobs etc, well that's just sad. Those aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about how this got started.
liliblu liliblu 8 years
If foreclosures and short sales are not stopped home values will continue to plummet. States are losing revenue and our roads, schools, and services will suffer for it. How many of you know of cities, counties, or states that are furloughing workers? I hope none of you have a home you need to sell in the near future. Try competing with a bank or a seller that's trying to sell before they lose the house. Those who made mistakes, those that were encouraged by lenders to buy, those that were granted loans by the very banks we bailed out are not the only people who will suffer if we continue on this course.
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
That's your opinion, and not suprisingly so as it alligns with all your views, and that is fine. In my opinion, you let people, like the ones who built in my neighborhood who never in a million years should have built a new home, pay for their mistakes as everyone else throughout history has had to. This new American system of everything is always someone elses fault and I shouldn't have to face the consequences has got to stop.
stephley stephley 8 years
As long as we keep thinking it's about random greedy idiots, things are never going to change.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
GS I totally agree. And I know of a couple who were told to stop trying to pay so they could qualify for help. So they took the money and went on vacation. It makes me want to puke. But I can't stomach helping the banks either. They took just as much risk. The idea of them taking 30,000 retreats on my money makes me want me puke too. I'm so furious about how many idiots out there caused this problem.
Jessiebanana Jessiebanana 8 years
If were going to have a bailout, I still can't believe we've been forced to this, it should be used to help as much and as many places as it can.
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
Once every two or so weeks would really throw off most people org! :wink:
organicsugr organicsugr 8 years
GS, your constant avatar switches make it hard for me to recognize you!
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
Amen org.
organicsugr organicsugr 8 years
A real, net tax break would be a good start.
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
This is going to be such a base question, and I apologize in advance, but what about those of us who scrimped, saved, and did everything in our power to not default on our home loans? We suffered, but we did what we signed on the line to do. This is just, in my opinion, saying all of that was worthless. Might as well have not paid it, or stop now. I know many of you will now say that that just isn't the case, that people just had zero money to pay their loans, but that isn't true. I know of several just here in my town who just refused to give up on extras, as is the American way.
Trump Tweet Called Obama a Moron Before Tillerson Report
Barack Obama Announces Obama Foundation Summit
Pete Souza Instagram on Trump's Hurricane Harvey Texas Visit
Where the Obamas Lived Before the White House
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds