Bush threatens veto of housing aid

Source: Associated Press

The White House on Tuesday threatened a veto of Democrats' broad housing rescue plan, calling it a burdensome bailout that would open taxpayers to too much risk.

The threat came as the House prepares to vote Wednesday on the package, which is aimed at preventing foreclosures and stabilizing the housing market. The veto threat signaled that despite growing GOP support for the measure, especially among Republicans from areas hardest hit by the housing crisis, the plan could become mired in a partisan spat over which party is doing more to help homeowners in need.

Democrats' housing plan, written by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure up to $300 billion in new mortgages for struggling homeowners currently too financially strapped to qualify for such loans.

To sweeten the deal for Republicans, most of whom regard the measure as an overly risky bailout of irresponsible borrowers, Democrats plan to include a grab bag of measures President Bush has called for.

... But in a statement released Tuesday evening, the White House said it was opposed to virtually the entire package.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/06/national/w171251D61.DTL&tsp=1

Bear Sterns. What an asshole, no wonder the GOP has members ready to jump out of 100 story buildings.

that think that this monkey turd is a good president, albeit fewer and fewer, but still, it blows my mind.

I hope it works out just as well for you, Bushbaby, as it did for Marie Antoinette. Pity we don't still have guillotines, these days, eh, buddy? No, you don't think so? I'm shocked, I tell you, the man who likes waterboarding doesn't like guillotines! Can't imagine why!!!!

Our pResident is a fucktard.

That is all.

the oil companies or airlines.

Heaven forbid we actually help people.

corporate welfare, good.
sick.

his party.

His mouth just loves to chew on shit and spray crumbs when he speaks.

The Bear Stearns bailout was taxpayer subsidized with funds from the Treasury as brokered through the Federal Reserve. This plan Bush supports as it aids his billionaire "base".

When others stand to lose substantially: you, me, the neighbor across the street are painted with an enormous brush the color of "irresponsible".

But then, once again, I am just stating something as obvious as daylight.

Only daylight for idiots!!

Every major financial institution in America would have had Billions of additional $$ of loan defaults if BS would have gone under. The total exposure was much greater than the $29bil reported. We are talking because of leverage in BS's part 150+ bil will US banks in addition to all the other problems. Go ahead and make your ignorant arguments.

It seems you have plenty of idiocy to spread around for everyone. What's the matter, run out of juvenile racial slurs, so now you want to impress everyone with your lack of economic knowledge?

Would you please get back to your trailer park and make out with your cousin or something? The adults are busy.

You seem to have misunderstood the intent of my post. Did I ever say "should not have"? Or did you just fail to understand the irony of these situations?

The point of this OP is to point out the irony that Bush is quite willing to let the taxpayers (that's you and me, not Bush, trust me on this one. He never uses his own money) bail out BS (love that nickname. Thanks!) but is uninclined to risk our money to save homeowners. How very Bush of him.

So did you graduate from University of Florida in 1993 or is that, heaven forbid, your age?

"irresponsible borrowers"!!!

Yes, there were a percentage, could be as much as 50%. But there are also the slimey, underhanded tactics used by the mortgage companies and these "borrowers" trusted someone to steer them in the right direction.

IMHO, these fixes by the Fed are only feeding into the pockets of those that screwed people over to begin with.

More like 80%

I think there are a bunch of currently fucked homeowners who should have been told no before they mortgaged their futures away but the lenders, ever the kind souls, wanted them to have a piece of the American Dream at only (fill in the blank) interest and well, heavier payments than they could afford. I blame the lenders for being loan sharks in suits.

GEEEZ ..... People went along with what they were sold, and this government CERTAINLY did NOT intervene when their friends on Wall Street were raking in oodles of cash from those 'responsible profits' from those irresponsible borrowers .... It was sure pretty fucking OK then ....

But then ? .. There friends got in trouble ... So what did Georgie Boy do then ? .... He paid their bill in full ....

But, hey, who said George Bush (either one) cared about regular citizens ? ... THEY dont have oodles of campaign contributions, or ranches in Paraguay ....

Fucking ASSHOLES ! ....

Many of those 'irresponsible borrowers' don't live in McMansions or toney New York Condos .... They are your neighbors ....

Not George's neighbors though ....

Where you could buy a $600k house when you only made 35k a year. Yea..blame the lenders..but only irresponsible borrowers even try to buy that house moron!!

Idiocy and malice abound when both writing and signing the note for these houses. To paint the borrowers with such a broad "one-size-fits-all" brush is malicious in itself.

Do your research. List all the reasons why interest rates can reset to a higher rate. Then you may understand that it wasn't just a ridiculous income-to-debt ratio that caused these defaults.

but when your next sockpuppet gets here, please have him show us an example since you obviously aren't talking out your ass. You aren't, are you?

Oh, and BTW, Disruptor, we spell that M-O-R-A-N here, so you can better blend in next time.

Ta ta, jackass. :eyes:

the issue isn't the sucker-punch mortgages, the issue is the hyperinflated housing prices that led people to them. Allowing somebody to refinance their mortgage at a fixed rate will still leave them with a massive debt over their head on what will be a rapidly depreciating asset. How exactly is a homeowner better off with a half-million dollar mortgage on a $200,000 house?

They own our ass but they can't foreclose on us because it would take the whole world down (though the machinations are already coming on line for that to no longer be the case and then, look out world, here comes the newest third world nation!) so it is with these borrowers, they borrowed beyond their means but if all of them bail, the floor goes out from under our economy even faster than it already is. We need some of these people to stay to make everyone's landing just a little bit easier.

I, myself, a few years ago, got into a mortgage that was beyond my means. I tried and I tried and then I walked. They foreclosed and sold my house to pay off my debt. My credit rating sucks but the economy didn't go belly up because I and a few other borrowers didn't meet our obligations. This is not a problem with a few borrowers. Would that it were. There are no great solutions here because this is huge.

I hope Barneys Bill isnt like Chris Dodds?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/16bailout.html?scp=1&sq=Big+Tax+Breaks+for+Businesses+in+Housing+Bill&st=nyt
NY Times April 16, 2008
The Senate proclaimed a fierce bipartisan resolve two weeks ago to help American homeowners in danger of foreclosure. But while a bill that senators approved last week would take modest steps toward that goal, it would also.......provide billions of dollars in tax breaks — for automakers, airlines, alternative energy producers and other struggling industries, as well as home builders????


I dont mind helping some folks out who got hood winked but I dont want to pay for another Neil Bush saving and loan scam. There seems to be some greedy vulchers lurking and looking to pad their pockets in the name of saving homes of the poor.

Jack http://nypostoplobotomy.com/

If you can't make you mortgage payments...then its you f'in fault. Let them go homeless. Start managing your money better!!

The downside of it though, is there wouldn't be anyway to find you so I could laugh at you.

Just saying..................

Don't you see what a fool you are? The homeless will cost you a hell of a lot more in social welfare costs.

Oh wait a minute. You must be a happy conservative. We have a thread about people like you today. You can justify your lack of caring. "Let them manage their money better!"

And that would mark "insufficient funds" to the Repukes in November. Hell, they might even override his ass themselves. What would they have to lose???

- McChimpy, you are almost totally irrelevant. And I only say "almost" because there are still buttons and you still have fingers....

K&R

Like on a pretty intern of either sex. Then we could finally impeach his ass!!!!

but if we bail out some of our own, it becomes burdensome. Yes, indeedy, that's compassionate conservatism at its finest. Can anyone say Gilded Age? I knew you could!

No wonder Congress keeps saying "yes"

I can't believe that there's a working person in this country who would vote for these assholes.