Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alexamenos
that's hardly an improvement...
|
not sure if it's an improvement or not. as long as the mortgages are for domestic properties, it's not impotant in my book.
Quote:
|
you make a fair point by noting that our banking system is already a Government sponsored cartel, but if the language of the act is not necessary to expand the government's power, I wonder why it is included in the text.
|
"cartel"? too funny.
seems that the language is merely sop.
Quote:
|
well...if we read the actual text, it says "$700B at any one time," and if the "any one time" does not modify the meaning of "limited to $700 B", then why is it included?
|
it does allow for the use of that amount of money, and if the funds are returned why not use them again? why limit the program if the program is acheiving its original goal?
Quote:
|
and the reality as may be enacted are two different things. I'm more concerned with the reality, and to date this is the only draft of the text that I've seen.
|
work in progress...
the item that seems to be most disconcerting is the stated immunity from review by the courts. while I understand the idea to not let the process get bogged down by frivalous use of lawsuits, stated lack of review is not how our current 3 legged system works.