My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve ItDividend'.

I just received this thought provoking email from my CPA.

Subject: Fw: why not do it this way?????

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We
Deserve It Dividend'.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide
U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and
child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals
$425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It
Dividend'.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads Put away money
for college - it'll be there Save in a bank - create money to loan to
entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs Invest in the market - capital drives
growth Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else Remember this is for
every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at
Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of
course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that
is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every
adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you ***** Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
Washington DC.

And remember, The Family plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam. Talk about
a stimulus package!

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards, , A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic

PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for
a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85
Billion!!

---

› See More: My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve ItDividend'.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's your "CPA" who must be arithmetically challenged.
If this "CPA" is supposedly an accountant, then you need a new one,
PDQ!

At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:

> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
> Washington DC.


Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could afford
with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the balloon
or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can afford?

And _I'm_ the bleeding heart liberal here! Who'd have thunk it?

BTW-200 million adults dividing $85 billion is $425 each, not $425,000. I
suspect your math wizard CPA might be part of the problem, rather than the
solution...

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>
>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>> Washington DC.
>
>
> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could afford
> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the balloon
> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can afford?

The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance
(PMI) was required on the loans they granted.

Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted up,
and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is elected.

I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia tablet
and a bicycle.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>
>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>> Washington DC.
>>
>>
>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>> afford
>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the balloon
>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can afford?
>
> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance (PMI)
> was required on the loans they granted.
>
> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted up,
> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
> elected.
>
> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia tablet
> and a bicycle.

I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love how
you libs rewrite history

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:

>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>>
>>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>>> Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>>> afford
>>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the balloon
>>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can afford?
>>
>> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
>> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance (PMI)
>> was required on the loans they granted.
>>
>> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
>> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted up,
>> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
>> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
>> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
>> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
>> elected.
>>
>> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia tablet
>> and a bicycle.

>I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love how
>you libs rewrite history


I love how you right wingers constantly lie.

Please state chapter and verse the legislation that encouraged the
subprime loans.

Put up or shut up!

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>>>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>>>> Washington DC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>>>> afford
>>>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the
>>>> balloon
>>>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can afford?
>>>
>>> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
>>> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance
>>> (PMI)
>>> was required on the loans they granted.
>>>
>>> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
>>> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted up,
>>> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
>>> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
>>> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
>>> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
>>> elected.
>>>
>>> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia tablet
>>> and a bicycle.
>
>>I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>>couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
>>how
>>you libs rewrite history
>
>
> I love how you right wingers constantly lie.
>
> Please state chapter and verse the legislation that encouraged the
> subprime loans.
>
> Put up or shut up!

Here's a nice little youtube that sums it up pretty nicely, and you can
Google whatever you like for the particulars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

At 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400 RBM wrote
> I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
> couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
how
> you libs rewrite history


And I love when conservatives drop that whole "personal responsibility"
mantra whenever it suits them.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:13 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>>>>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>>>>> Washington DC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>>>>> afford
>>>>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the
>>>>> balloon
>>>>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can afford?
>>>>
>>>> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
>>>> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance
>>>> (PMI)
>>>> was required on the loans they granted.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
>>>> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted up,
>>>> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
>>>> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
>>>> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
>>>> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
>>>> elected.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia tablet
>>>> and a bicycle.
>>
>>>I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>>>couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
>>>how
>>>you libs rewrite history
>>
>>
>> I love how you right wingers constantly lie.
>>
>> Please state chapter and verse the legislation that encouraged the
>> subprime loans.
>>
>> Put up or shut up!

>Here's a nice little youtube that sums it up pretty nicely, and you can
>Google whatever you like for the particulars:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o


Try something outside your right wing sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Criticism

Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky
lending[11][12] and contributed to the development of the subprime
debacle.[citation needed] However, this is disputed, as Robert Gordon
has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by
independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In
the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime
loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major
subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA
involvement.[13][14] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening
of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[13]

Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has
partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to
legislation such as the CRA.[15] Economist Stan Liebowitz has also
expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit
worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little
consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down
payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the
nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to
approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a
bit", suggesting that Countrywide was responsible for relaxing its
standards rather than the other way around.[16]

Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift
Supervision,[1] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an
effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA
banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing
a speech by herself as an example.[2] She notes that if unregulated
independent mortgage companies do make subprime loans, affiliated CRA
banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes, although she
does not indicate whether this practice currently occurs. An analysis
by attorneys Traiger and Hinckley concluded that CRA banks were less
likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market, and likely
mitigated the effect of the subprime crisis.[17]

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:13 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>>>>>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>>>>>> Washington DC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>>>>>> afford
>>>>>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the
>>>>>> balloon
>>>>>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can
>>>>>> afford?
>>>>>
>>>>> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
>>>>> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance
>>>>> (PMI)
>>>>> was required on the loans they granted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
>>>>> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted
>>>>> up,
>>>>> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
>>>>> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
>>>>> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
>>>>> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
>>>>> elected.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia
>>>>> tablet
>>>>> and a bicycle.
>>>
>>>>I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>>>>couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
>>>>how
>>>>you libs rewrite history
>>>
>>>
>>> I love how you right wingers constantly lie.
>>>
>>> Please state chapter and verse the legislation that encouraged the
>>> subprime loans.
>>>
>>> Put up or shut up!
>
>>Here's a nice little youtube that sums it up pretty nicely, and you can
>>Google whatever you like for the particulars:
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
>
>
> Try something outside your right wing sources.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
>
> Criticism
>
> Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky
> lending[11][12] and contributed to the development of the subprime
> debacle.[citation needed] However, this is disputed, as Robert Gordon
> has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by
> independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
> thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In
> the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime
> loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major
> subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA
> involvement.[13][14] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening
> of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[13]
>
> Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has
> partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to
> legislation such as the CRA.[15] Economist Stan Liebowitz has also
> expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit
> worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little
> consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down
> payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the
> nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to
> approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a
> bit", suggesting that Countrywide was responsible for relaxing its
> standards rather than the other way around.[16]
>
> Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift
> Supervision,[1] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an
> effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA
> banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing
> a speech by herself as an example.[2] She notes that if unregulated
> independent mortgage companies do make subprime loans, affiliated CRA
> banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes, although she
> does not indicate whether this practice currently occurs. An analysis
> by attorneys Traiger and Hinckley concluded that CRA banks were less
> likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market, and likely
> mitigated the effect of the subprime crisis.[17]


FWIW, I get my info from a wealth of sources, but I'll admit, I wasn't aware
that youtube was "right wing"
>

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:15:23 -0600, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>At 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400 RBM wrote
>> I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>> couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
>how
>> you libs rewrite history


>And I love when conservatives drop that whole "personal responsibility"
>mantra whenever it suits them.


I didn't think the republicans would bring full trillion dollar
deficits for another ten years. We're going to see it this year.

Nice going. The federal govt. will be completely bankrupt in five
years if we get another republican administration.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:27:23 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:13 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>>>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>>>>>>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>>>>>>> Washington DC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>>>>>>> afford
>>>>>>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the
>>>>>>> balloon
>>>>>>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can
>>>>>>> afford?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
>>>>>> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance
>>>>>> (PMI)
>>>>>> was required on the loans they granted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the borrower
>>>>>> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted
>>>>>> up,
>>>>>> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
>>>>>> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
>>>>>> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to bail
>>>>>> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
>>>>>> elected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia
>>>>>> tablet
>>>>>> and a bicycle.
>>>>
>>>>>I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>>>>>couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
>>>>>how
>>>>>you libs rewrite history
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I love how you right wingers constantly lie.
>>>>
>>>> Please state chapter and verse the legislation that encouraged the
>>>> subprime loans.
>>>>
>>>> Put up or shut up!
>>
>>>Here's a nice little youtube that sums it up pretty nicely, and you can
>>>Google whatever you like for the particulars:
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
>>
>>
>> Try something outside your right wing sources.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
>>
>> Criticism
>>
>> Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky
>> lending[11][12] and contributed to the development of the subprime
>> debacle.[citation needed] However, this is disputed, as Robert Gordon
>> has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by
>> independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
>> thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In
>> the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime
>> loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major
>> subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA
>> involvement.[13][14] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening
>> of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[13]
>>
>> Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has
>> partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to
>> legislation such as the CRA.[15] Economist Stan Liebowitz has also
>> expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit
>> worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little
>> consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down
>> payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the
>> nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to
>> approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a
>> bit", suggesting that Countrywide was responsible for relaxing its
>> standards rather than the other way around.[16]
>>
>> Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift
>> Supervision,[1] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an
>> effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA
>> banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing
>> a speech by herself as an example.[2] She notes that if unregulated
>> independent mortgage companies do make subprime loans, affiliated CRA
>> banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes, although she
>> does not indicate whether this practice currently occurs. An analysis
>> by attorneys Traiger and Hinckley concluded that CRA banks were less
>> likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market, and likely
>> mitigated the effect of the subprime crisis.[17]


>FWIW, I get my info from a wealth of sources, but I'll admit, I wasn't aware
>that youtube was "right wing"
>>


You stupid ****. Youtube is only the information carrier. I was
refering the your idiot in front of the camera.

You can't possibly be this stupid.

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:27:23 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:13 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400, RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>>>>> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85
>>>>>>>>> Billion
>>>>>>>>> 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
>>>>>>>>> Washington DC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? Those same Americans who bought twice the house they could
>>>>>>>> afford
>>>>>>>> with an interest-only ARM and now don't have the money to pay the
>>>>>>>> balloon
>>>>>>>> or the ability to restructure the debt into something they can
>>>>>>>> afford?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bank can foreclose on the property, or it can get its money from
>>>>>>> whoever insured the load, since obviously private mortgage insurance
>>>>>>> (PMI)
>>>>>>> was required on the loans they granted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh wait, the bank _knew_ when they bought the loan, that the
>>>>>>> borrower
>>>>>>> would be unlikely to be able to pay once the interest rate adjusted
>>>>>>> up,
>>>>>>> and the bank _knew_ that the properties were way over-valued due to
>>>>>>> speculation, and the bank _knew_ that their Republican buddies that
>>>>>>> created the whole economic mess to begin with would find a way to
>>>>>>> bail
>>>>>>> them out, as long as the whole thing came to a head before Obama is
>>>>>>> elected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should take the bailout money and buy everyone a Nokia
>>>>>>> tablet
>>>>>>> and a bicycle.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>>>>>>couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I
>>>>>>love
>>>>>>how
>>>>>>you libs rewrite history
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I love how you right wingers constantly lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please state chapter and verse the legislation that encouraged the
>>>>> subprime loans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Put up or shut up!
>>>
>>>>Here's a nice little youtube that sums it up pretty nicely, and you can
>>>>Google whatever you like for the particulars:
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
>>>
>>>
>>> Try something outside your right wing sources.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
>>>
>>> Criticism
>>>
>>> Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky
>>> lending[11][12] and contributed to the development of the subprime
>>> debacle.[citation needed] However, this is disputed, as Robert Gordon
>>> has pointed out that approximately half of the loans were made by
>>> independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
>>> thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In
>>> the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime
>>> loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major
>>> subprime lenders were regulated, but had very little CRA
>>> involvement.[13][14] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening
>>> of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[13]
>>>
>>> Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has
>>> partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to
>>> legislation such as the CRA.[15] Economist Stan Liebowitz has also
>>> expressed his opinion that banks were forced to loan to un-credit
>>> worthy consumers with "no verification of income or assets; little
>>> consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down
>>> payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the
>>> nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to
>>> approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a
>>> bit", suggesting that Countrywide was responsible for relaxing its
>>> standards rather than the other way around.[16]
>>>
>>> Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift
>>> Supervision,[1] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an
>>> effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA
>>> banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing
>>> a speech by herself as an example.[2] She notes that if unregulated
>>> independent mortgage companies do make subprime loans, affiliated CRA
>>> banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes, although she
>>> does not indicate whether this practice currently occurs. An analysis
>>> by attorneys Traiger and Hinckley concluded that CRA banks were less
>>> likely to sell risky mortgages onto the secondary market, and likely
>>> mitigated the effect of the subprime crisis.[17]
>
>
>>FWIW, I get my info from a wealth of sources, but I'll admit, I wasn't
>>aware
>>that youtube was "right wing"
>>>
>
>
> You stupid ****. Youtube is only the information carrier. I was
> refering the your idiot in front of the camera.
>
> You can't possibly be this stupid.

The guy in front of the camera was also citing info from many sources. Why
is it that when you liberals have nothing intelligent to say, you swear and
call names?

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:15:23 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>At 26 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400 RBM wrote
>>> I believe the legislation that encouraged these loans for folks that
>>> couldn't afford them, occurred during the Clinton administration. I love
>>how
>>> you libs rewrite history
>
>
>>And I love when conservatives drop that whole "personal responsibility"
>>mantra whenever it suits them.
>
>
> I didn't think the republicans would bring full trillion dollar
> deficits for another ten years. We're going to see it this year.
>
> Nice going. The federal govt. will be completely bankrupt in five
> years if we get another republican administration.

True enough, however It won't matter which party is in power

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Todd Allcock posted:
> At 25 Sep 2008 21:59:11 -0700 iPhone 3Gold wrote:
> BTW-200 million adults dividing $85 billion is $425 each, not $425,000. I
> suspect your math wizard CPA might be part of the problem, rather than the
> solution...

The American definition of a billion is a thousand million.

As Todd correctly points out, $85 billion divided by 200 million is $425.
More than that was already paid out in the "economic stimulus package"
last spring, although my income was high enough that I did not get it.

The British definition of a billion is what Americans call a trillion;
that is, a million million. Is Vic British?

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.