Submitted by agatha modugno, Sep 22, 2008 19:14

For once, I think the democrats are making some good points. Better than McCain's suggestion to put Cuomo in charge of the SEC! It might be cheaper to buy the at-risk houses than to pay off the banks. In fact, if the US bought the underlying mortgage, the homeowner would get his house, and the debt problem should be resolved, as the underlying value would be there. This should be a bailout of the mortgages, and no other assets. Amounts should go to US ownership of homes, the underlying asset. If banks have resold this obligation 5 times, guaranteeing the house repayment should be enough. Query: after the banks have surrendered their CDOs, can they still collect on the underlying mortgage, and dispossess the mortgage holders? Executives should not get bonuses based on their success in selling these CDOs. If there is a bailout, it should only be from FDIC regulated banks, and no more than 50 cents on the dollar. Since salable assets have gone for about 25 cents on the dollar, 30 cents seems a better number. I don't think the government should change the bankruptcy laws, but it should reinstitute usury laws. National banking means no regulation- a bank sets up business in N. Dakota, and writes loans in Pa. at rates (including fees) over 30%. If banks were limited in the interest that they could charge, they would make better loans. If borrowers can't do the math, and borrow more than they can repay, it shouldn't be from a federally insured bank. Pension plans, 401ks, colleges, anyone who gets a federal tax benefit, should be limited to investing in SAFE investments. They should be barred from investing in derivatives, hedge funds, short sales, or LOSE their tax exemption.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.