Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
2.7%  Q1 GDP    4.57%  avg. 30-year mortgage     9.5%  Unemployment

Senators Who Voted Against the Rescue Bill

The modified $700 billion Wall Street rescue bill just passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote. Now it heads to the House; if it passes there, onto President Bush who favors the rescue plan.

Here is a list of the senators who voted against the rescue bill:

- Waye Allard (R-Colo.)

- John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

- Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)

- Jim Bunning (R-Ky.)

- Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

- Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)

- Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

- Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

- Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)

- Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)

- Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)

- Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.)

- James Inhofe (R-Okla.)

- Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)

- Mary Landrieu (D-La.)

- Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

- Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)

- Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

- Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

- Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

- Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

- John Tester (D-Mont.)

- David Vitter (R-La.)

- Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

- Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Of note:

- The only senator not present at the vote was Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is being treated for cancer.



- By party, 15 Republicans, nine Democrats and one Independent voted against.

- Both senators from Alabama voted against, as did both from Wyoming, Kansas and Mississippi, all Republicans.

-- Frank Ahrens

By Frank Ahrens  |  October 1, 2008; 9:55 PM ET
Categories:  The Ticker  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Breaking: Senate Passes Rescue Bill
Next: Bush: Senate Deserves Kudos

Comments

Do you hear that clinking on Wall Street? Not pennies, but champagne glasses!

According to today's Wall Street Journal,
Bob Michaels and seven other executives at General Growth Properties have sold a collective $5.6 million of their shares - for roughly $112 million.

A company spokesman declined to comment.

The company's acquisition spree in recent years - particularly its $12 BILLION merger in 2004 with Rouse Co. - left it with $27 Billion debt, $19 BILLION of it due by the end of 2011.

Approximately, three years from now.

GOSH. . . it sure is good planning for the old boy's group to cash in their shares before the tax-payer's cash cow is dumped on them.

So . . . do you still think it makes any difference who you vote for?

Posted by: Cantabrigian | October 1, 1908 10:00 PM | Report abuse

The b@stards want to rape us more, and now they are. Ouch, stop, no.

Posted by: johng1 | October 1, 1908 10:00 PM | Report abuse

There were only 15 Republicans that voted against the bill. Bernie Sanders is an Independant (Socialist). He's to the left of the Democrats. Us Republicans wouldn't claim him.

Posted by: Matt | October 1, 1908 10:02 PM | Report abuse

they can kiss their selves goodbye after this one.

Posted by: disgusted | October 1, 1908 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Specter and Casey won't have to worry about counting on my vote in the future.

Posted by: Ryan | October 1, 1908 10:04 PM | Report abuse

I will not vote for Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland for supporting this bailout bill. They need to understand they work for the people not the other way around.

Posted by: Mike | October 1, 1908 10:05 PM | Report abuse

VOTE AGAINST every Senator who voted for this bill. I knew there was a damn good reason why I love Feingold!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 1908 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. My senator voted for it.

Posted by: Mackenzie | October 1, 1908 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Sad. 74 Senators voted for the destruction of America. Tools of Wall Street, all of them.

Posted by: John | October 1, 1908 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Hi, Matt: Fixed, thanks.

Posted by: Frank Ahrens | October 1, 1908 10:09 PM | Report abuse

It is important to pass this bill whether Repulican or Democrat because without it the middle class will have no money in the bank, because without the FDIC banks cannot function, and they are what make wall street run as well as credit and banks.

Posted by: Duncan A. Talley | October 1, 1908 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary caved again just like with Iraq. Now at least she has Obama for company.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 1908 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Feingold for prez in 2012 if we still have a country left.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 1908 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Every one of those jerks who voted for this, be sure to remember them come November.

Posted by: therebel | October 1, 1908 10:17 PM | Report abuse

The brave Senators who voted to defeat the bail-out deseve a lot of support. The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the bill, and it is nice to see some law-makers who realize that all these hard-working citizens can't be all wrong.

Only hope the House will stand up to the special interests and let the people speak.

Posted by: Harold | October 1, 1908 10:18 PM | Report abuse

We must vote these crooks out of office. They work for us not Wall Street! People wake up and vote for any independent.
THESE PIG'S NO HOW TO ADD THE PORK.
THEY FEED OFF OF THOSE CORPORATE HOG'S....
LET WALL STREET FEEL OUR PAIN.....

Posted by: POP-51 | October 1, 1908 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the naysayers are running for office this Nov 4th. I will also be interested in how many of them are re-elected.

Posted by: HarlowJ | October 1, 1908 10:24 PM | Report abuse

The misspellings in the pro-depression postings above are pretty indicative of the thought going into them. Take note of every Senator who voted against this and vote them out of office as traitors to this Country and to our future.

Posted by: Andy | October 1, 1908 10:26 PM | Report abuse

W@W, the 2 hacks from my state voted against it. I give them more credit for just that. Well, Vitter is still trying
to undo his hooker problems! This bill is a farce. This is nothing more then fear mongering. They tell us McDonalds is not extending credit to some of their franchises. Pure BS. If you have good credit where I live, money is readily available. You have good credit and want to buy a car, no problem. This is more WMD smoke and mirrors garbage. There are 10,000 foreclosures a day, and the gov't is buying $700 billion in old toxic paper. Wall Street couldn't sell it at 22 cents on the dollar, but we the people can hold it indefinitely until this toxic paper is more marketable. Just utter non sense! This garbage will be sold in bundles to the same cronies that got us in this mess. If we are truly a socialist nation (according to this bill), just cook the books and deed the properties back to the individual homeowners. Not speculators, or people flipping. If they live in it (e.g. homestead filed), then just give them the property and we can all move on. Between Iraq and Wall Street, we can't afford anything. The prices around NYC are still booming, while most places like where we are in the tank.

Posted by: Sean | October 1, 1908 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Is it possible that some of those Nay votes were cast tonite by those running in the upcoming November elections and did so to appear to be against the bill knowing full well their votes wouldn't affect the outcome?

Sen. Dole is in a close race in NC. Her coming out this evening to explain that the reason she voted against the bill was because "it was too expensive" sounds unbelievable. Where was she to be seen fighting against this bill up till now? I don't buy it. I'll be voting against her in the November election.

Those who voted against this bill better have been seen to have fought strongly against it.

Anyone else think those who voted against the bill did so for traction in the November election?

Posted by: Brian | October 1, 1908 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dodd, Schumer - way to go, you gave your buds a really good gift at the expense of the middle class American tax payers. I was watching this on CSpan and Sanders was spot on when he was talking.

Thank God I am moving to Alabama, and out of the tax and spend state of Maryland. At least down there they have the guts to stand up for whats right.

Posted by: zendrell | October 1, 1908 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I just don't trust Paulson.

It is frigteningly familiar: Paulson was ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, a company that will benefit enormously if he is able to scare Congress into spending hundreds of billions of US dollars on this bailout which he claims is essential to securing the future of our country.

Now go back to 2002 and let Paulson=Cheney, Goldman Sachs=Halliburton, and Bailout=Iraq War.

Just hope that not so many innocent civilians/taxpayers are killed this time around.

Posted by: poorhokie | October 1, 1908 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Great, we have two more fear mongers to vote for in November, this time I can't even pick the lesser of the two evils.

When will people wake up and realize we are being lied to over and over and over, from both parties?

I can't believe this passed with so wide a margin, I hope the House is ready to say take a hike again and protect us.

Posted by: Gerry | October 1, 1908 10:40 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me there are people (very few thankfully) that think its a good idea to rob the middle class and give it to the Wall street banks. Strange.
I made it clear when I called my Senators that I was against this handout. So did 90% of the people calling according the their offices. Yet both of them voted against the will of the people. I'd vote for Elmer Fudd before I voted for either one of them again.

Posted by: DWayne | October 1, 1908 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Eventually, we'll have to put portraits of all 25 Senators on postage stamps for having shown the courage to stand up, once again, to the Chicken Little policies of the Bush Administration. The Demos, for the most part, are complete fools. That Feingold voted against this bill is enough to make us all stop and think.

Posted by: Zen Man | October 1, 1908 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Bush II is truly the Herbert Hoover of our time.

It's absolutely eerie, the level at which economic events are paralleling the events of 1929 - 1931.

Like the stock market crash of 1929, the Treasury Secretary under Hoover was actively spreading the notion that "the economic policies governing the nation's economy were sound."

Like the events of today, the stock market underwent a roller coaster like activity after the 1929 crash. But of course, the nation's economic policies were not at all sound & the end result was the Great Depression which mired the nation in severe economic distress for over a decade.

Like Bush II, Hoover also pushed through Congress a huge government bailout of the banking industry in 1931, shortly before he left office. It didn't work & the Great Depression riddled the nation during the entire 1930's.

With Hoover, a huge banking bailout was doomed to failure because the policies which caused the economic distress remained in effect. The same must be true under Bush II.

Until the government policies, (record trade deficits, transference of US employment overseas, falling US wages, war/military largess, & record budget deficits,) are changed & corrected, the US will continue down the same path it followed during the 1930's.

FDR, (the greatest President of the 20th century,) implemented government policies to ensure that a Great Depression of the magnitude of the '30's could never again ravage the Republic. His implementation of Social Security & Federal Deposit Insurance, ensured that the nation could never suffer to that degree ever again.

However, with the implementation of GOP lasse faire economic policies of "Trickle-down Economics," it is still possible for a huge amount of great pain & suffering to be felt by the Republic yet again.

The Republic is in dire need of another great leader of the magnitude of FDR in order to reverse the destructive effects of Reagan's "Trickle-down Economics." We shall see what the next couple of years bring us.

Is Obama another FDR? It's doubtful, but time will tell.

Posted by: book134 | October 1, 1908 11:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments sound like Democrats in name only who likely voted for Reagan and Bush. Somebody must have voted for George, he got in twice.

Yes, this bill is not something you would wish for. But since we have had eight solid years of phony flag waving, two wars, two wars pending, and maybe resumption of the Cold War with Russia, plus corruption on scale not previously known. You then have to vote for crummy bills like this.

Before you get too critical, ask yourself who did you vote for in the past two elections.

Posted by: Tom | October 1, 1908 11:42 PM | Report abuse

The forgot to mention both LA senators voted against. Landrieu has my vote this november

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 1908 11:53 PM | Report abuse

The SH** LIST

These are the Senators that are up for re-election in 2008 and voted for the bailout bill. For those that would like to vote for someone else this year, here are their names:

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA)
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 3:12 AM | Report abuse

What a bunch of arrogant slime balls! The citizens of this great country said NO BAILOUT! All OF you voted for this high crime should be kicked out and thrown into prison along with their cronies Bush and Cheney! How pathetic to pat yourselves on the back! God bless the 25 who listened to their constituents! Let's pray the House has the BALLS to do what is right for their citizens and not Wall Street!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 1908 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Video worth watching!

=====================

Byron Dorgan on the 1999 Financial Modernization Act
Thursday, October 02, 2008

In 1999 Congress passed the Financial Modernization Act, which allowed banks, insurance companies and investment houses to merge. Many experts point to it as one of the causes of our current financial crisis. At the time, Byron Dorgan was one of the few senators to speak out strongly against the legislation. Looking back, his predictions in 1999 seem prophetic and, looking forward, his views raise more questions about the $700 billion bailout plan.

Link

Posted by: Jackjo | October 2, 1908 4:22 AM | Report abuse

Well the two Senators from California Boxer & Feinstein are a bunch of low life scum sucking BASTARDS. Figures they would screw the United States and put us in so much debt now we will never have a chance to have a life!

Vote them out!!!!

Posted by: ~Rob | October 2, 1908 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Please make note of who voted FOR and who voted AGAINST. Let all your friends and family know and REMEMBER who to VOTE out of office in NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Cmora | October 2, 1908 9:38 AM | Report abuse

No debate, no open committee hearings, complete disregard of constituents' opinions and interests. No taxation without (real) representation! Vote the stoneheads out in November!

Posted by: Mitch Nauffts | October 2, 1908 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Actually, it's the brave senators who voted to pass the bailout who deserve the credit. They made a very hard, clearly unpopular decision to do the right thing, abhorrent as it is, against the will of 90%+ of their constituents who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about when they say vote against bailout. Guess what this means? They actually put the welfare of their uneducated, ingrateful, constituents ahead of their jobs, knowing full well they would receive the type of ignorant response which is posted on this site. Those who mistakenly rant and protest against the bailout don't get it - how eager are you to return to the depression of 1929? It was real folks, not just a story for the history books. Educate yourself and then open your mouth!

Posted by: sjbelle | October 2, 1908 11:51 AM | Report abuse

sjbelle,

You just called over half of the House of Representives idiots. Not to mention Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and hundreds of expert economists. Nice job. It's not the people that don't understand, it's the people don't understand that they are being sold a bit of goods. Just like they sold the Iraq war. They are even trying to change the name of the bill, just to market it better. The country is going to go into recession with or without this bill. This just saves the rich, and does nothing for the average joe.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 3:01 PM | Report abuse

When this bill passes and it probably will. You will see what it's going to do. Foreclosures are going to skyrocket. Home values are going to drop like rock. Ordinary people are going to lose everything they've worked hard for their entire lives and Wall St. is going to be dancing the cha cha. How many times is the wool going to be have to be pulled over are eyes until we finally see the truth.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 3:07 PM | Report abuse

And why is it going to pass? Because they've succeeded in scaring everyone into submission.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 3:50 PM | Report abuse

And answer me this. Why did it take months to pass a $300 billion dollar housing bailout bill A bill that is voluntary for banks to participate in, and comes with all kinds of qualifications for the homeowner, and banks would have to agree to write down a loan's principle to like 85% of the homes appraised value. It took months, was only going to help out a small percentage of homeowners in the long run. Wasn't going go cost the governement much of anything when it's all said and done. The bill was supposed to go into effect yesterday, and what Countrywide is telling me HUD isn't ready to begin the plan yet. So Banks and Wall St, get to unload all their bad foreclosure mortgages on the Govt, without question, without any qualifications. After they've deystroyed the hopes and dreams of milliions of Americans and they get a sweet deal from the Govt. and taxpayers to take care of their their bad mortgages. What about the bad mortgages of the people? $700 billion to infinity for Wall St. $0 for Main Street.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Like it will really matter. Come this november, 3/4ths or more of these tars will get relected. The FACT is, we're going to be electing a president who voted for this.

Anyone still glad they didn't vote Paul?

Posted by: ImChad | October 2, 1908 6:22 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH!
According to Countrywide / Bank of America, the $300 billion dollar homeowner bailout bill (FHASecure refinanace program) has not yet been passed. It was supposed to go into effect yesterday. I called them about it, and they are saying the legislation has not yet been approved. They said someone still needs to pass it. I told them the President signed the bill, who else needs to pass it? They told me that they don’t know. I asked to speak to a supervisor to ask her who else needs to approve the bill and was given a voice mail. I was also told recently from a different person at Countrywide that they supposedly sent out letters to people that qualified and if you didn’t get a letter you don’t qualify. They also told me that if HUD qualifies someone for the program and send them their way, then Countrywide automatically approves them. I talked to HUD, HOPE Program, and the FHASecure Program and they do no such thing of approving people. They told me that I need to work with an FHA approved lender that participates in the program. Countrywide is FHA approved. So evidently according to Countrywide the homeowner bailout bill was not passed.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 6:37 PM | Report abuse

jw360 - your list of those coming up for re-election who voted FOR the bill included Tim Johnson (D-SD); however he is listed as being one of the 25 who voted AGAINST the bill.

Which is correct?

Posted by: docS | October 2, 1908 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I will remember my state senators who voted for this garbage bail out. When we the people fail we get back up with no bail out. this is outrageous. I WILL REMEMBER YOU!

Posted by: kyle | October 2, 1908 10:17 PM | Report abuse

docS,

Right take Tim Johnson off the list. My mistake. Here is the corrected list:

The SH** LIST

These are the Senators that are up for re-election in 2008 and voted for the bailout bill. For those that would like to vote for someone else this year, here are their names:

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA)
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 11:52 PM | Report abuse

You know this is a bad bill if Larry Craig is voting for it. You can bet these guys are some of the most corrupt politicians of the bunch. Just look at who's on it. Rockefeller, Durbin, Kerry, Hagel, Sununu. Vote these guys out. Send a strong message to Congress we're not putting up with this anymore.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I even said John Kerry. Did you know John Kerry supported the Bush Line Item veto bill? Pretty much give the President to modify any bill however he wants. Are you serious? I guess the Skull and Crossbones guys really do stick together.

Posted by: jw360 | October 2, 1908 11:58 PM | Report abuse


I don't see how people think this bill is going to write down the principles of 2 million at risk mortgages. That would be a much better bailout bill if that was the case, because it would be preventing more foreclosures and putting out the fire so to speak. This bill is going to absorb all the foreclosures the banks have on the books already. All home prices are coming down with or without this bill. That means Americans are going to be paying a big price for the banking systems relaxed rules. Home values are overinflated, because it was too easy to get the loans. That caused demand to skyrocket along with home prices. Smart and or lucky people have sold their homes prior to this bubble and getting out of the market and did alright. Everyone else? Prepare to lose a lot of money. Yeah some just in value and some don't care that have their homes almost paid off anyway or have a lot of equity. But for those that bought their first homes interest only, nothing down and lost up to 50% or more of value in the home after buying it maybe 3 or 4 years ago; have not missed any payments; didn't buy more than they could afford; now can't even sell their homes unless the principle is written down. Their only options are to live there for another 10 years and hope it goes back up, or foreclose. Those are the people that need bailed out, not Wall St.
The problem with this bill is that by taking over the bank's foreclosures, this will give them even less incentive to write down the principles of these homes that are in trouble. They will simply allow even more homes to go into foreclosure and then maybe 6 months or so down the road, we'll be seeing another request for an additional 700 billion dollars to take care of even more foreclosures. Then home values of course will continue to drop. People will continue to lose equity; the economy will get even worse because people will have even less money to spend and so on. Instead the banks should hold on to the foreclosures themselves and sell them, while the government prevents even more foreclosures from happening and keep the people in their homes. This is the big flaw of this bill and really makes no sense why it's passing in this form. It needs to be directed at homeowners that are underwater and that’s all. Then at least they can sell their homes, otherwise we're looking at letting more homes go into foreclosure just so people can move. In order to make up the loss to taxpayers, there should be some kind of penalty they should pay. Add an insurance policy like Republicans were saying or something. I don't know something. But yes I do agree the banks should somehow end up paying for it, not taxpayers. Maybe add some kind of tax in order to pay for the bailout over a period of time. Make them go bankrupt and put them on the 0% bankruptcy payback plan to make up for their losses.
And here's another thought. If the government buys all these foreclosed homes from the banks and they don't sell, who is paying for the upkeep? The banks? I don't think so. If they are destroyed and need fixed up in order to sell who's going to pay for it? The Taxpayers that's who. If these foreclosures don't sell right away the government will have lost more in upkeep of the homes than they are worth and will never recover taxpayer money. This is not the same situation the government is getting into like the Chrysler Bailout where they made money. In my neighborhood there are homes that are available for a significant discount and have not sold for over a year or even two years. No joke. It's not a bad neighborhood, and they are brand new decent homes. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep people in their homes? Maybe even put people back in their homes that were foreclosed on, because of being underwater. This plan stinks. There are better alternatives and they know it. That is why over half of Congress voted against it. And now they are going to be for it? Why? Because it has some pork and a little horderv added on the side? Come on. This bill stunk from the beginning and still is a stinking pile of cr**.

Posted by: jw360 | October 3, 1908 1:19 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7 states: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House..." How does the Senate get away with usurping this legislative power of the House of Representatives?

Posted by: tba | October 3, 1908 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Wow this explains alot:
"
In other words, with fewer foreclosures the value of mortgage-backed securities increase ? a big financial problem if you bet a few billion dollars that the value of mortgage-backed securities would fall.

We are now seeing complaints from hedge fund managers that their bets are being distorted by new foreclosure practices. One claim is that those who manage mortgage backed securities can manipulate outcomes by modifying mortgage agreements to avoid foreclosures and by taking other steps. In effect, hedge fund managers want lenders to return to the tougher and costlier practices of the past because saving the homes of people who have fallen on hard times is now reducing profits for billionaire hedge fund operators.
"

http://www.ourbroker.com/?p=2217

I think I'm finally understanding this now. Can anyone confirm this for me? Greedy billionaires on Wall St that are worried about their bets that MBS will go down in value, have been putting pressure on banks to not work out loans with people who got into sub-prime mortgages. The more mortgages that the banks let go into foreclosure the more these greedy Wall St guys are making, because they bet they would go down in value. If the bank works out these loans, these guys lose money. Alot of money. That's why so many banks are refusing to keep people in their homes. The FBI is involved now, as they should be. Because they are looking in to bribes or some kind of unethical profits being made by these billionaires and banks by manipulating the market. It's in the interest for banks to work out these loans with people, because they lose less money if they do, so it doesn't make sense why they are continuing to foreclose. That's why the bet down rule on Wall St is being talked about being abolished, because it's what's driving more foreclosures and therefore everyone's homes to drop in value. Thanks to corrupt, greedy billionaires on Wall St, everyone's home values are dropping and everyone is being kicked out of their homes.


So if the governement buys mortgage-backed securities then it would be in the taxpayer's interest to prevent foreclosures, because then they are worth more. So the government also buys at-risk mortgages and rewrites the loans and or writes down the principles and does what it takes to keep people in their homes. Then sells the new stable mortgage. This then increases the values of the MBSs and then they can be sold possibly at a profit? I hope this is what the plan is. Maybe this bill isn't so bad after all. I just wish the government would explain what exactly their plan is. The way it is now it sounds like the banks are underpressure to actually make a certain percentage of homes go into foreclosure for the sake of Wall St billionaires? Wow what a system we have.

What makes no sense to me is if it is in the lenders best interests to work out loans with people and keep them in their homes, then why aren't they doing this? They should know that foreclosures are killing their business, especially right now. They are sitting on the market and no one buys them. The more there are the worse it gets. The more money they lose. It would only make sense that somehow the lenders may actually be betting against MBSs too. The more foreclosures there are the more money they are making on their bets that the value of MBS will go down. If this is what has been going on then these people need to be sent to prison. This has to be illegal.

--------

Posted by: jw360 | October 3, 1908 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company