Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Rescue Plan
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="witzend" data-source="post: 200227" data-attributes="member: 99"><p>I walked a letter into my Congressman's office. I sent the e-mail too, but I feel that something in hand gets more attention.</p><p></p><p>The thing that I dislike about this the most is that there is no provision that we are repaid. If they need the money, ok. I can swallow my pride, hold my nose, and agree to it. But to have no provision for repayment, only a line that it will </p><p></p><p>"direct the president to propose a bill requiring the financial industry to reimburse taxpayers for any net losses from the program after five years."</p><p></p><p>All he has to do is ask sometime in the next five years. He doesn't have to make it happen.</p><p></p><p>Nobody gave me money for stuff I needed until I agreed to pay it back. This is preposterous! I am so angry over the lack of repayment that I am not even sleeping nights. </p><p></p><p>Why are we not saying that they can only have the money if they agree to pay it back first? Are they saying that these institutions are never going to recover? Then what good does it do to give them money? Are they suggesting that they will recover? Then why not make them agree to pay the money back before they take it. If they don't like the deal, they can shop around for a better one that meets their terms.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="witzend, post: 200227, member: 99"] I walked a letter into my Congressman's office. I sent the e-mail too, but I feel that something in hand gets more attention. The thing that I dislike about this the most is that there is no provision that we are repaid. If they need the money, ok. I can swallow my pride, hold my nose, and agree to it. But to have no provision for repayment, only a line that it will "direct the president to propose a bill requiring the financial industry to reimburse taxpayers for any net losses from the program after five years." All he has to do is ask sometime in the next five years. He doesn't have to make it happen. Nobody gave me money for stuff I needed until I agreed to pay it back. This is preposterous! I am so angry over the lack of repayment that I am not even sleeping nights. Why are we not saying that they can only have the money if they agree to pay it back first? Are they saying that these institutions are never going to recover? Then what good does it do to give them money? Are they suggesting that they will recover? Then why not make them agree to pay the money back before they take it. If they don't like the deal, they can shop around for a better one that meets their terms. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Rescue Plan
Top