Bail out passes :(

QuestionAuthority

PrlJmr10 wrote:

Yeah...and I'm so sure this woman (and many more like her) will be helped by the "bail out".

CNN) -- A 90-year-old Akron, Ohio, woman who shot herself as sheriff's deputies tried to evict her from her foreclosed home became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis Friday.
Addie Polk is being treated at Akron General Medical Center after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon, her city councilman said.
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, mentioned Polk on the House floor Friday during debate over the latest economic rescue proposal.
"This bill does nothing for the Addie Polks of the world," Kucinich said after telling her story. "This bill fails to address the fact that millions of homeowners are facing foreclosure, are facing the loss of their home. This bill will take care of Wall Street, and the market may go up for a few days, but democracy is going downhill."
Neighbor Robert Dillon used a ladder to enter a second-story window of Polk's home after he and the deputies heard bangs inside, Dillon told CNN affiliate WEWS-TV in Cleveland, Ohio.
"I just thought she may have fell or couldn't get up or something," he told WEWS. "I didn't know [she had shot herself] until I got in there. And even when I got there, she was breathing, but she wasn't saying anything to me. I knew she needed help then."
Dillon said he saw blood when he put his hand on Polk's shoulder.
"There's a lot of people like Miss Polk right now. That's the sad thing about it," said Akron City Council President Marco Sommerville, who had met Polk before and rushed to the scene when contacted by police. "They might not be as old as her, some could be as old as her. This is just a major problem."
In 2004, Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The same day, she also took out an $11,380 line of credit.
Over the next couple of years Polk missed payments on the 101-year-old home and in 2007 Fannie Mae assumed the mortgage and later filed for foreclosure.
Deputies had tried to serve Polk's eviction notice more than 30 times before Wednesday's incident, Sommerville said. She never came to the door, but the notes the deputies left would always disappear, so they knew she was inside and ambulatory, he said.
The city is creating programs to help people keep their homes, Sommerville said.
"But what do you do when there's just so many people out there and the economy is in the shape that it's in?"
Many businesses and individuals have called since Wednesday offering to help Polk, Sommerville said.
"We're going to do an evaluation to see what's best for her," he said. "If she's strong enough and can go home, I think we should work with her to where she goes back home. If not, we need to find another place for her to live where she won't have to worry about this ever again."
He said that by the time people call for help with an impending foreclosure, it's usually too late.
"I'm glad it's not too late for Miss Polk, because she could have taken her life," Sommerville said. "Miss Polk will probably end up on her feet. But I'm not sure if anybody else will."

That story broke my heart.. I am sorry, but there should be some kind of law that 90 year old people do not get foreclosed.. horrible!!

mammasan

Commy wrote:

This is just one of a thousand examples of the failure of capitalism. IT cannot exist without massive gov't intervention. Laissez-faire no longer applies.

That is also wrong. While the government was relaxing regulation it was also being extremely intrusive by manipulating interest rates. By swinging the pendulum the other way you will only suffocate the market and strangle our economy. You need a fine balance.

Commy

QuestionAuthority wrote:

That story broke my heart.. I am sorry, but there should be some kind of law that 90 year old people do not get foreclosed.. horrible!!

we are units to the elite not people. they care about one thing.

Jeanwah

T-Bone 82 wrote:

I do worry about the haste in which this was passed. I hope it wasn't fear-mongering like the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq. I don't think it was because I do believe there would be severe consequences in the short-term, but we'll see...

Did you not see the threat from Bush to the House that if they didn't sign that Martial Law would take place? Complete and total fear-mongering for Bush to get his own way, like a big cry baby. And martial law will probably take place anyway!

You'd better believe my rep will NOT be getting my vote when I find out if she voted Yay.

Commy

mammasan wrote:

That is also wrong. While the government was relaxing regulation it was also being extremely intrusive by manipulating interest rates. By swinging the pendulum the other way you will only suffocate the market and strangle our economy. You need a fine balance.

put the economy in the hands of the people and you wont hear these sad stories of 90 year old women losing their houses. Give us the power, or we will take it. the gov't obviously can't handle it. socialize everything, from taxes to authority to the military. If the people are in charge the ones that get shit on are the ones taking from us on a daily basis. luxury is objective.

mammasan

Commy wrote:

put the economy in the hands of the people and you wont hear these sad stories of 90 year old women losing their houses. Give us the power, or we will take it. the gov't obviously can't handle it. socialize everything, from taxes to authority to the military. If the people are in charge the ones that get shit on are the ones taking from us on a daily basis. luxury is objective.

The economy was in the hands of the people. The government deregulated to allow people and the market itself to regulate and look what happened. Either extreme will produce negative results. You need to find a nice balance that allows the markets to run freely but set rules so that the people are not taken advantage of by the few. Also in a socialist society the government plays a larger role, the same people you just said couldn't handle it.

Commy

depends on what kind of socialism we are talking about. ANd in the current system, the people have a meaningful say in the economic process inso far as the country is democratic, yeah? which is nill, considering the US is about as far from a democracy as China.

I"m talking about collectivism, anarcho syndicalism. If Idaho has a coal mine, a corporation from new york shouldn't be allowed to come in, extract all the coal, sell it to whoever, and make all the profit. The people of Idaho should benefit from that resource. the same should be true all over the world. The resources of any region benefit the people of that region. all of this lending and borrowing would cease. if you have actual resources to bhack up your venture, there is no problem. and its a community effort. what's good for community is good for the individual.

It will change the way we think.

SoonForgotten2

Goddamn it

Goddamn it

Goddamn it

Today has been teh suck.

mammasan

Commy wrote:

depends on what kind of socialism we are talking about. ANd in the current system, the people have a meaningful say in the economic process inso far as the country is democratic, yeah? which is nill, considering the US is about as far from a democracy as China.

I"m talking about collectivism, anarcho syndicalism. If Idaho has a coal mine, a corporation from new york shouldn't be allowed to come in, extract all the coal, sell it to whoever, and make all the profit. The people of Idaho should benefit from that resource. the same should be true all over the world. The resources of any region benefit the people of that region. all of this lending and borrowing would cease. if you have actual resources to bhack up your venture, there is no problem. and its a community effort. what's good for community is good for the individual.

It will change the way we think.

Well according to your example wouldn't the people of Idaho be making money from the salaries/wages they are paid from that NY based company. That money is spent in the community providing it with revenue and the community also collects revenue from the taxes paid by said company.

Commy

mammasan wrote:

Well according to your example wouldn't the people of Idaho be making money from the salaries/wages they are paid from that NY based company. That money is spent in the community providing it with revenue and the community also collects revenue from the taxes paid by said company.

but ultimately the profit from that coal goes to the NY based company. Its the trickle down bullshit. they get the steaks and we get a bone tossed our way every once in a while. and that's not good enough. IF the people of the community ran the operation they would get all the benefits, which they could then use for any number of reasons, trade, energy...and they would respect the environment a lot more, considering they have to live there. The NY execs could care less about that.


Its a community based ideology. AS oppposed to pitting individuals against eachother, ie capitalism, individuals would work together. the power of that is incalculable. People working together for a change, instead of competing.

mammasan

Commy wrote:

but ultimately the profit from that coal goes to the NY based company. Its the trickle down bullshit. they get the steaks and we get a bone tossed our way every once in a while. and that's not good enough. IF the people of the community ran the operation they would get all the benefits, which they could then use for any number of reasons, trade, energy...and they would respect the environment a lot more, considering they have to live there. The NY execs could care less about that.


Its a community based ideology. AS oppposed to pitting individuals against eachother, ie capitalism, individuals would work together. the power of that is incalculable. People working together for a change, instead of competing.

Actually there is a bill in Congress that would require an increase in royalties paid out to local communities by mine operators using public land. So the community does receive payment for the use of their land.

Also no one is stopping the community from organizing, establishing funding to incorporate and mine themselves.

Commy

mammasan wrote:

Actually there is a bill in Congress that would require an increase in royalties paid out to local communities by mine operators using public land. So the community does receive payment for the use of their land.

Also no one is stopping the community from organizing, establishing funding to incorporate and mine themselves.

bottom line. The resources of the region are benefiting outside investors. Silver, shale, coal, all of these resources are being extracted from Idaho and the only benefits we see are wages. that's not enough.throughout it all we have to complete with one another to get a bigger piece of the pay. Meanwhile the foriegn developers are getting the biggest pieces of the pie, and reaping the profit from OUR resources.

mammasan

Commy wrote:

bottom line. The resources of the region are benefiting outside investors. Silver, shale, coal, all of these resources are being extracted from Idaho and the only benefits we see are wages. that's not enough.throughout it all we have to complete with one another to get a bigger piece of the pay. Meanwhile the foriegn developers are getting the biggest pieces of the pie, and reaping the profit from OUR resources.

Like I said then the people of Idaho should work with their elected officials to do something about it. Get investors buy up the land, start their own mining co-op. They have options available to them. If they decide not to persue those other options and just let these outsider companies reap the rewards them that is there choice.

This would be like me getting mad because my employer makes more money than I do off of my creative concepts. If I really felt that strongly about it I shouldn't complain and set off on my own. Form my own agency, go out and get my own clients.

Commy

mammasan wrote:

Like I said then the people of Idaho should work with their elected officials to do something about it. Get investors buy up the land, start their own mining co-op. They have options available to them. If they decide not to persue those other options and just let these outsider companies reap the rewards them that is there choice.

This would be like me getting mad because my employer makes more money than I do off of my creative concepts. If I really felt that strongly about it I shouldn't complain and set off on my own. Form my own agency, go out and get my own clients.

asarco tried to build a mine of some kind near our lake, one of the deepest lakes in the US incidentally. It took every ounce of our resistance to prevent them from doing that. The entire community had to stand up and protest to prevent them from destroying some very pristine wilderness. If that's what it takes every time a company wants to come in and extract resources we are inevitably going to lose some of these fights. We are on the defensive, and that shouldn't be the case. they should have to petition us to drill for our resources. ITs backwards. We have to fight to keep them out, they should have to fight to get in.

mammasan

Commy wrote:

asarco tried to build a mine of some kind near our lake, one of the deepest lakes in the US incidentally. It took every ounce of our resistance to prevent them from doing that. The entire community had to stand up and protest to prevent them from destroying some very pristine wilderness. If that's what it takes every time a company wants to come in and extract resources we are inevitably going to lose some of these fights. We are on the defensive, and that shouldn't be the case. they should have to petition us to drill for our resources. ITs backwards. We have to fight to keep them out, they should have to fight to get in.

Well I would have to think about that. If it is public land for the public use so they community should be petitioned. I need to ponder this a bit and I'm tired and leaving work.

MattyJoe

mammasan wrote:

I couldn't agree more. Instead of fixing the root cause they decided to go with the short-term fix.

What would attacking the root cause entail?

unsung

Obama and McCain voted yes. Ron Paul voted no. And here I thought the people wanted change.

Thank you Dr. Paul.

eekamouse

unsung wrote:

Obama and McCain voted yes. Ron Paul voted no. And here I thought the people wanted change.

Thank you Dr. Paul.

This post wins the internet and the universe.

unsung

Why thank you.

mammasan

MattyJoe wrote:

What would attacking the root cause entail?

Our economy is based on debt. It needs to be based on something more tangible. It was once stated that if every single American stopped using credit cards and simply purchased everything with cash, houses, cars, etc… where not including in this, our economy would collapse. Now to me and many economists that is not a good way to support your economy. Eventually the bottom is going to give out because in order for the economy to grow we would need to go further in to debt. We need to create a new infrastructure to support our economy. As I have stated before, I do not support Obama for president but I do like his idea of creating a "green" industry. This may be the way to help prop up our economy and it will also help ween us of foreign oil dependency.