See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm, emjem24 said:

   Pres. Bush needs to not only come clean on his role in this but explain how both parties participated in this debacle. Explain the implications of this bailout and perhaps give us reasons for supporting it.

   Pres. Bush needs to set forth, in real terms, whether the taxpayer can actually afford such a bailout. Be a leader and connect the dots. Yeah, I know, it won’t happen.

2. #102
   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm, nlebou said:

   It would be nice if Sarah would hold a single press conference where she could take some questions. One month and zero press conferences… Come on!

   Questions like…why did you try to get your child abusing brother in law fired, or why would you leave your special needs child to run for VP??? I don’t blame her for ignoring those boobs.

3. #103
   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, jt3151 said:

   On September 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm, Paul-Cincy said:
   Michelle, what of the theory the govt may actually MAKE MONEY on buying up these mortgages, loans, real estate, whatever? If it averts the collapse of the financial system, why not? I along with 99.999999% of the US pop doesn’t have enough info to make a good decision. Where are the 3 guys who do?

   How is it possible that we would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to save banks by relieving them of profitable assets? Is it possible that the government might do a better job of collecting on the non-performing loans?

4. #104
   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm, bloodhound said:

   From Thomas Sowell’s column on Townhall:

   “We do not need a replay of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when the failure of thousands of banks meant a drastic reduction of credit– and therefore a drastic reduction of the demand needed to keep production going and millions of people employed.

   But bailing out people who made ill-advised mortgages makes no more sense that bailing out people who lost their life savings in Las Vegas casinos. It makes political sense only to people like Senator Dodd, who are among the reasons for the financial mess in the first place.

   People usually stop making ill-advised decisions when they are forced to face the consequences of those decisions, not when politicians come to their rescue and make the taxpayers pay for decisions that the taxpayers had nothing to do with.”

   Something should be done to stabilize the market and protect the credit industry, but let’s get to the bottom of the causes (read Democrats Dodd, Schumer, Frank) and take it slowly. Step by step.

5. #105
   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm, corkie said:

   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

   That’s a good question to those who have a mortgage. Personally, at this moment I am not overextended…

   Good to hear that you don’t have a mortgage. However, I’d hate to think that you are implying that anyone with a mortgage is overextended.

   And I think you realize that anyone who’s reasonably-extended can end up overextended if they lose their savings, etc.

6. #106
   On September 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm, corkie said:

   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, jt3151 said:

   How is it possible that we would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to save banks by relieving them of profitable assets? Is it possible that the government might do a better job of collecting on the non-performing loans?

   The problem isn’t necessarily that the loans are non-performing.

   The problem is that so many loans are EXPECTED to be non-performing.

   How bad you ask? Well, nobody knows for sure and few companies and banks want to own them. Therefore, the market values for these loans are declining every day as they’re being dumped into the market.

   So, the creditors of these companies and banks which own the declining assets demand their money back. When the creditors can’t get their money back immediately, then their creditors demand their money back….and an unstable, vicious cycle ensues.

   So, if a big buyer steps up and offers to buy the risky debts which caused the avalanche at steep discounts, then everyone can start having confidence in the system again.

7. #107
   On September 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, corkie said:

   On September 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

   Even if I did have a mortgage, it would be guaranteed by the VA.

   BTW, it good to know that the government would be there to bailout your VA mortgage – if you had one.

8. #108
   On September 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm, tarpon said:

   I would say “never mind” and let Newt speak.

9. #109
   On September 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

   On September 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, corkie said:

   BTW, it good to know that the government would be there to bailout your VA mortgage – if you had one.

   Which is why I have personal fiscal responsibility. I proved to the government (and the taxpayers) that I was not a credit risk. I successfully paid off one mortgage and I never allow myself to get in a bind as to where I would not be able to go months/years without income and not be able to meet my personal obligations.

   Any debt that I incur, I can usually cover my bills IF any loans are called due.

   When I related earlier that her lawyer shut off my accounts. At that time, I had $0 in debt and no housing obligations. She and her attorney were brillant – they moved all the “assets” into her name thinking they were hurting me. Then she “spilled” gasoline all over my half of my things that were in storage and let it all sit there for a few months while she “lost” the key to the storage unit.

   (In the meantime, I lived in a vehicle, a lot of floors, several couches and a high school football stadium LOL LOL. Which were a lot better than a lot of places I slept while overseas or with her )

   They thought tactical, I thought strategic and now her credit is destroyed.

   So to get back to your point that the govenment is there to cover me…. I served my country and that is one of the benefits I receive. If I didnt have that benefit, then I would apply for a commercial mortgage and have the same fiscal reponsibility.

10. #110
    On September 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm, corkie said:

    On September 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    So to get back to your point that the govenment is there to cover me…. I served my country and that is one of the benefits I receive. If I didnt have that benefit, then I would apply for a commercial mortgage and have the same fiscal reponsibility.

    The government isn’t covering you – they’re covering your creditor. (If you had a mortgage.) This is a very important distinction to make in this.

11. #111
    On September 24th, 2008 at 7:29 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    I agree, Michelle.

12. #112
    On September 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On September 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm, corkie said:

    The government isn’t covering you – they’re covering your creditor. (If you had a mortgage.) This is a very important distinction to make in this.

    True. I oversimplified.

    Here’s a rewrite: So to get back to your point that the govenment is there to cover my mortgage holder(s) if I were to be a deadbeat debtor.

13. #113
    On September 24th, 2008 at 8:42 pm, corkie said:

    On September 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Here’s a rewrite: So to get back to your point that the govenment is there to cover my mortgage holder(s) if I were to be a deadbeat debtor.

    After foreclosure/eviction.

14. #114
    On September 24th, 2008 at 8:47 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On September 24th, 2008 at 8:42 pm, corkie said:

    After foreclosure/eviction.

    ?Que? That doesnt compute. Hablo no ingles…

15. #115
    On September 24th, 2008 at 9:09 pm, corkie said:

    On September 24th, 2008 at 8:47 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    ?Que? That doesnt compute. Hablo no ingles…

    You would still be evicted from your home as the mortgage holder exercised foreclosure.

16. #116
    On September 24th, 2008 at 10:51 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    No, sorry, I was flippant in meaning that I would never get that far in the process.