It looks obvious

I wonder what is the social justice of saving Mr. Ramirez from loosing “his” house:

Despite making only $14,000 a year, strawberry picker Alberto Ramirez managed to buy his own slice of the American Dream. But his Hollister home came with a hefty price tag - $720,000.

And I would really wonder why making me, that earn more than Mr. Ramirez but didn’t dare buying such an expensive house need to pay for the bailout? The fact is that with the burden on the middle class increasing to save irresponsible borrowing, and borrowers, we are increasing the circle of people that might loose their homes, that doesn’t seems social justice to me - not at all.

Well I shouldn’t be surprise that someone that call paying more taxes patriotism invents new history, but yet I am. I have the feeling Biden knew that FDR was not the President in 1929, and that when he was a candidate he campaigned with pretty conservative agenda - and still he thought that it will be a good idea to say something like this:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,’” Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

And although he got the history completely wrong, and the conclusions are as wrong as the facts - I don’t think it will damage his campaign even a little bit. And that is the real shame!

Short, and right on the money:

That’s how much Paulson’s plan might cost. That’s a lot of zeros. But, hey, no one said socialism was cheap, did they?

It is sad to see how the promise of individual liberty and freedom being destroyed, not because it failed but because it was poorly represented.

Recently the voices that calling for tighter control of the government on the market are much louder than usual. The crashing of investment banks and the threat of spreading the credit crisis into a full recession, along with massive tax money given as bailout to failing business, are among the reasons for such calls. But while many rushing to blame the risks of the free market, and the unreasonable greedy private sector, as a main reason to more government oversight - they are forgetting that the government had a major role in creating the credit crisis:

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more “affordable” loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

[...]

The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.

[...]

In 1995, President Bill Clinton’s HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

So maybe instead of increasing government oversight we should do the opposite and simply reduce it?

Is the inflation, and the declining dollar, under control? The credit crisis is not a problem anymore? or the fact that the American taxpayers are going to bailout banks that waisted their investors money irresponsibly is such an achievement that the chairman of the Fed can expend to other areas?

Bolstering the performance of the U.S. health care system is one of the biggest challenges facing the country, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday.

[...]

Challenges, he said, fall into three major areas: improving access to health care for the 47 million Americans — or about 16 percent of the population — who lack health insurance; bolstering the quality of care; and controlling costs.

[...]

The Fed chief didn’t talk about the Fed’s next move on interest rates or the state of the U.S. economy in his speech or during a brief question and answer session afterward.

Or maybe, just maybe, the honorable chairman should stick to what he responsible too. It is damaging enough as it is, so any expansion will be unwelcome.

It was obvious from the beginning that the massive banks bailout, with the deceiving name American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, has very little to do with protecting the interests of the American taxpayers. Trying to hide the true purpose of the bill, bailing out banks that lost billions of dollars in idiotic investments, as trying to prevent poor people from loosing homes they should could not afford buying - all with tax money of those who otherwise might have been able to get better mortgage.

But even I didn’t realize the level of Chutzpa of “public servants” that lost all shame:

Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s “V.I.P.” program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents and emails and a former employee familiar with the loans.

Or in other words: Senator Dodd, the chairman of the banking committee that pushing the bailout act received preferred loans from one of the banks that will be most benefited from the proposed bailout. Sweet loans  indeed - It is a simple investment for the bank (with very promising return on investment), and the Senators will return the favor with my money.

Simply disgusting!