Aug
17
When it comes to bail out, are we now desensitized to the dollar amounts?
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
Wiser than Sotomayor asked:
When we first heard about the $700 BILLION bail out, everyone was outraged.
Then it grew to $850 Billion, and we were still upset, but we were glad to have it over with.
When we first heard about the $700 BILLION bail out, everyone was outraged.
Then it grew to $850 Billion, and we were still upset, but we were glad to have it over with.
AIG- $40 billion and lent Citigroup $20 billion (on top of the $25 billion it received from the first bailout batch).
Treasury dedicated another $20 billion to cover any losses that the Federal Reserve might suffer as a part of a new consumer loan bailout.
The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department said they will allocate $800 billion more to go to holders of loans backed by consumer debt in an attempt to jumpstart lending by the nation’s banks for mortgages, credit card purchases and cars.
And that may not be the last new bailout measure. There’s a growing chorus of voices outside of Treasury to spread bailout money around.
Are people still upset, or do we feel helpless with the situation?
Donna
May
27
Matthew D asked:
Conservatives blame the housing bubble and sub prime lending on racial minorities, claiming it all happened because lending institutions were *made* to give sub prime loans to low income minorities thus causing this massive recession. However for this theory to be true only minorities would have received sub prime loans based on what they say were the lending institutions motivation. This is absurd and patently false so where does the blame for the housing bubble and recession rightfully belong? Surely it must go to those who encouraged sub prime lending via deregulation, high rates of home ownership and heavy consumer spending to keep the economy ‘afloat’. Who were those people, anyway?
Gene
Conservatives blame the housing bubble and sub prime lending on racial minorities, claiming it all happened because lending institutions were *made* to give sub prime loans to low income minorities thus causing this massive recession. However for this theory to be true only minorities would have received sub prime loans based on what they say were the lending institutions motivation. This is absurd and patently false so where does the blame for the housing bubble and recession rightfully belong? Surely it must go to those who encouraged sub prime lending via deregulation, high rates of home ownership and heavy consumer spending to keep the economy ‘afloat’. Who were those people, anyway?
Gene