A majority of House members, including of all the Kansas delegation except Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, rejected the bipartisan financial bailout plan reached between the Bush administration and top lawmakers, sending stocks tumbling even more. Many lawmakers apparently were more worried about voting for an unpopular plan five weeks before an election than with the predictions of economic catastrophe.
“We’re all worried about losing our jobs,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “Most of us say, ‘I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.’”
293 Comments
Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is an incompetent clutz!
Why in the world should Republicans support this bill, after Pelosi pokes a stick in their eyes, prior to the vote?
This was STUPID!
And, you Dems out there that want to argue this point?
Do not doubt, for a moment. that Pelosi is not in trouble, right now, with her own caucus, for the way she has handled this.
What she did, trashing Members of Congress that she NEEDED, prior to this vote, will go down in history as one of the most inept political blunders in history.
Democrats showed the courage to put country first ahead of their partisan interests. Republics, as usual, put self first.
Paul – the only trouble Pelosi will be in with her caucus is because she gave Bush and the Republics too much. Maybe with version 2 of the Bill she should send a REAL Democratic version to Bush and let him stew about signing it.
Paul – it was YOUR bunch who blocked it.
“We’re all worried about losing our jobs,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “Most of us say, ‘I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.’”
Typical Republic – putting self first and expecting someone else to look out for the country.
How are they going to lose their job?
The bank signs their paychecks, right…?
Will McCain try to weasel out of the 2nd debate, if the bailout issue isn’t resolved by then?
Certainly speaks to Senator McCain’s abilities to bring about bi-partisan solutions. Good thing he stayed in DC over the weekend working this “agreement” out by using his skills at reachng across the aisle!
Ben come on. This is a demo debacle. Pelosi blew it bigtime. She has no leadership abilities as she has shown over and over again.
It is/was a bad bill no matter how you paint it. Of course Phillip will put his liberal spin on this topic. But it won’t work here. This is a buy out plan of massive proportions and the public isn’t buying it.
What caused the housing and financial crises, in the first place? :
http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace
Democrats, in Congress, demanded that banks and mortgage companies lend money to poor people, who could NOT pay back the loans.
ACORN, an organization that Obama worked for, threatened lawsuits and protests against lenders who would not lend to poor people, who could not pay back the loans.
Look up the Community Reinvestment Act!
Look at how Democrat Barney Frank, head of the House Finance Committee, has told Bush Adminstration officials, and regulators, for 8 years, that they were “over reacting” and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “financially sound”.
Listen to former President Bill Clinton, who said just last week that Democrats, in Congress, were wrong not to listen to regulators, and the Bush Administration, when warnings about the housing market first started!
Read John McCains statements, on the floor of the Senate, in 2005, when he said that Fannie and Freddie would fail, and hurt taxpayers.
Watch this video, where Dan Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae, calls the Congressional Black Caucus “The Conscience of Fannie Mae”!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
Forget about ‘courage of conviction’ these sorry excuses for Americans are interested in no ones job except their own.
The calamity will probably start to impact before the elections, so they’re going to get blamed for blocking action.
Most true Americans would have put the country over their careers.
Ben
The majority of Republicans voted against this bill.
The majority of Democrats voted in favor of this bill.
I’m also pissed at the dems. for not taking the bullet.
I still wonder where members of Congress have placed their investments.
Just a few thoughts…
Bush has cried wolf so many times he cant even get his own party to believe him. Of course, it’s the bushlicker DEMOCRATS who are STILL doing what bush tells them to do!
And, why bother to give congress oversight over any goddam thing? They completely abdicated their oversight of the middle east debacle, they ignored what little oversight they still had over the economy, the ignored oversight on FISA…
Jesus WEPT!
And that was just the DEMOCRATIC congress. The repuke controlled congress did even LESS oversight in their 12 years of controll.
So… no oversight is a deal breaker now?
HEHEHEHE> HAHAHAHAHAHA! HOHOHOHOH~ HEE HEE HEE HEEEEEE…
Are Letterman’s writers working for congress now?
NO INCUMBENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smores’ anyone?
HEE HEE HEE HEEEEEE.
Paulie, you make me laugh so hard I think I peed a little.
I said on another thread, and I borrowed from Crooks and Liars, this little gem.
“Libruals made us loan money to colored people”
And right on cue, you spin it again.
I tell ya whut. You just cant make paulie’s stuff UP!
From what little I have found, Pelosi should have kept her mouth shut. But, if anyone changed their votes because of her little speech, shame on them. Whatever your belief about this buyout, it shouldn;t be changed by a few ill timed, but nonetheless irrevelant remarks to the “what to do about the situaiton” they find themselves in.
Ben
You have been vocal against this bill, from the beginning.
That is your right, and I share many of your concerns.
However, you will not give Tiahrt credit for voting against the bill that you were against?
How does that work, in your brilliant liberal mind?
Heheheh. No smores for me Anti.
Even I enjoy a toasted weenie now and then….
And I think the weenies are a toastin’ right now on Capital Hill!
You are damn right they are scared. We the People told them not to support it. We are their power.
By the way, the Fed just pumped a bunch of funny money into foreign markets central banks. Expect a rise in prices in the next year. That money was created out of thin air.
Find out who supported this bill and make sure they don’t get re-elected in November.
11 votes, if they went the other way, would have made the difference for Pelosi.
Pelosi could not even control her own caucus, and the Pelosi did her best to piss off the Republicans.
Pelosi is a political incompetent.
THE MORTGAGE MELTDOWN TIMELINE
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3111993&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
LISTEN AND LEARN
Interesting to hear Schumer and Frank…then and now.
On TV right now, Barney Frank is commenting on Paulie’s assertion.
Saying something to the effect that just because someone hurt your feelings doesnt give you the right to vote against your country.
He’s outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell you!!!!!!!
He even offered to talk “uncharacteristically nice” to the republicans with the hurt feelings.
GO Barney!
Send the whole damn bunch home for good. Pelosi and Hoyer and Raaaaaaahm, and Boner and Cantor and the whole hee haw gang.
It’s clear, they’ve lost control of this wagon and it’s got two wheels in the ditch!
And I think the weenies are a toastin’ right now on Capital Hill!
=====
Keep em’ on the fire until they split!
“Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
Ben
The majority of Republicans voted against this bill.
The majority of Democrats voted in favor of this bill.”
Yes Paul – that was my point.
Big speeches. Little action. Lots of whining.
Yep, it’s congress all right!
Bipartisan to boot.
“Keep em’ on the fire until they split!”
Yum. In New York they call those Rippers.
Let ‘em rip!
ksfarmgrrl
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Big speeches. Little action. Lots of whining.
Yep, it’s congress all right!
=======
Sounds like the whole damned town!
“Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
Ben
You have been vocal against this bill, from the beginning.
That is your right, and I share many of your concerns.
However, you will not give Tiahrt credit for voting against the bill that you were against?
How does that work, in your brilliant liberal mind?”
Very simple Paul. I was against what Bush originally proposed – but we got at least some safeguards into it. So, I ‘hold my nose’ and accept the bipartisan compromise. And, even WITHOUT Bush kissing my butt I would support it for the good of the country.
Unfortunately, you and yours demand that Pelosi kiss yours or you will declare “to Hell with the country”
Let ‘em rip!
=======
Oh, you mean the…..sorry for stinkin’ up the blog.
I haven;t been able to get a vote breakdown yet, can anybody point me to a site? Thanks
You know who we are NOT hearing from on TV?
Wall Street. Probably the only folks NOT scared are on Wall Street.
They know, sooner or later, they will squeeze those taxpayers, er, cattle, down the chute and send them to the freezer.
Sigh.
Wall Street never goes hungry, and they dont care HOW many feet their food had.
Here ya go LJ, from Yahoo front page.
”
WASHINGTON – The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation’s financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive into recession without it. Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home. Despite pressure from supporters, not enough members were willing to take the political risk just five weeks before an election.
Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.
KFG
Barney Frank is the person MOST responsible for all of this mess.
Barney Frank has fought for regulatory exemptions, for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Barney Frank has fought every attempt to investigate Fannie and Freddie.
Barney Frank said that the the effort to fire Franklin Raines from Fannie Mae was “political”.
This, even though Raines looted Fannie for millions, and was forced to pay part of it back!
Barney is the villain, here.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
HEE HEE HEE HEEEEEE.
Paulie, you make me laugh so hard I think I peed a little.
I said on another thread, and I borrowed from Crooks and Liars, this little gem.
“Libruals made us loan money to colored people”
And right on cue, you spin it again.
I tell ya whut. You just cant make paulie’s stuff UP!
—————-
You are quite the little rascist now aren’t you KFG. Franklin said they were presured to: ‘ACORN, an organization that Obama worked for, threatened lawsuits and protests against lenders who would not lend to poor people, who could not pay back the loans.’
———————-
You made quiet a jump from there to this being a rascist statement didn’t you. Libs have this real problem with labeling people. ‘People who couldn’t pay them back were given loans.’
And if you want to hear the true unvarnished Barney listen to the Youtude Franklin posted.
Don’t be afraid of the truth.
I just love it last week all we heard was how bad this bill was buy the dims and now it is the repubs fault that it didn’t. You should be thanking them as well as the dems with good sense who didn’t vote for it.
Democrats voted 140 to 95 in favor of passing the bill.
Republicans voted 65 to 133 against passing the bill.
I haven’t yet found the roll call.
“Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.”
Looks like the dimos had a major problem within their own ranks.
Heh,heh,heh
Pelosi has lost what little control she had. Her own party voted saying this was bad legislation.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
Here’s a roll call breakdown.
ben
I translate what you say to this:
You want what is best for the Democrat Party!
I get it.
The truth is, part of what Republicans forced out of the original plan was a 20% kick back, of the value of any property sold, by the government, to go to the coffers of the corrupt voter-fraud supporting ACORN!
Yes, that was in the original bill, a slush fund for Obama’s “community organizer” groups!
Republican minority votes to sink the economy and risk a global melt-down an and someone has the audacity to blame one woman!
Talk about refusing to take responsibility!
I am calling Tiahrt’s office now to demand he changes his vote.
From the same post:
“”We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi’s words, the Ohio Republican said, “poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.”
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi’s speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., scoffed at the explanation.
“Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them,” he said. “If people’s feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don’t belong here. They’re not tough enough.”
More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans’ refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.
“The Republicans don’t trust the administration,” he said. “It’s a Republican revolt against George Bush and John McCain.”
In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.
“They claim to be free market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over,” Pelosi said.
“Democrats believe in a free market,” she said. “But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos.”
THanks KsFarmgrrl-
What I was looking for was individual and party breakdowns. The clearest I found was the 60% of republicans voted against, as did 40% of democrats.
THe only good thing (maybe) is that that can maybe took a good long look. Unfortunately, the campaign season is upon us, and no matter D or R, that is utmost in their minds. Period. The country be damned.
McCain LIES to voters about what he did.
‘McCain Pounds Obama Over Response to Financial Market Crisis’
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/29/mccain_pounds_obama_over_respo.html
“McCain also touted his personal involvement in resolving the crisis, saying: “I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis. I’ll never do that. I know that many of you have noticed it’s not my style to simply phone it in.”
In fact, McCain spent very little time in face-to-face negotiations on Capitol Hill, leaving his advisers to explain, as top aide Mark Salter did, that “He’s calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can…. He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.”
And during the final negotiations that proceeded late into the night on Saturday, McCain and his wife dined with Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his wife at Cafe Mozu at the posh Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington.”
Thank you avtolle
Strange bedfellows. Michael Moore is railing against this bill.
For those in Congress who voted against this bill, I would expect that you have brilliant alternatives that you will be setting out as alternatives.
I’m not seeing them.
I think grmie is so rattled she cant even make sense right now!
OH BUT REMEMBER – THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IN PALOSI’S HOUSE – THE CHILDREN GOT TO TOUCH THE GAVEL
DavidB
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
I am calling Tiahrt’s office now to demand he changes his vote.
————-
Go ahead you will be a minority of one.
So, if Republicans get “pissed off,” the thing to do is sink America into a recession or worse?
Yeah Cosmos, everybody’s a lying liar lying about lying.
Thank you for your help.
I still think the funny part is that DEMOCRATS were the last ones standing like sheep to carry bush’s water for Wall Street.
Six impossible things before breakfast. Even when the American people and the HOUSE REPUBLICANS wont support bush, he can always count on the Democrats!
I wonder how the repubs are enjoying bush going all triangulation on them?
hehehehe. Cant make it up….
Where is CF? I bet he has some good comments on this whole thing!
Democrats believe in a free market,”Pelosi said, “But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos.”
The truth hurts, now we all will hurt.
KFG
Try to get past your hatred and partisanship!
It was the Democrats who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulations that could have prevented all of this!
It was the Democrats that forced lenders to make high risk loans.
It was the Democrats who INVENTED “sub-prime mortgages” and the financial market to finance those risky loans.
okobserver posted September 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“I just love it last week all we heard was how bad this bill was buy the dims and now it is the repubs fault that it didn’t.”
—————
Todays bill was NOT the same bill as last weeks.
I am sure there is probably ample reason along idealogical grounds to vote for or against this. However, whomever changed their vote because of Pelosi’s little speech, should be horsewhipped. That is just plain stupid. However, Pelosi should have known better. WHom was she playing to? the fans back home, or her colleagues? Dumb is not the word.
outlander,
You’re welcome.
Farmie you show me in Franklin’s post where he mentioned race. You introduced that by implying that people who couldn’t afford the loans were ‘colored’.
Defend your own statement instead of attacking me. The dims are so confused they don’t know if they support this bill or not and whether the dims came out looking as bad as the repubs see them.
I think this should be the addy to send tiahrt a message.
http://tiahrt.house.gov/?sectionid=12
Hopefully we won’t all lose the last 10 or more years of deferred earnings before they get back to the table and figure something out.
Maybe they should BEGIN with something waaaaaaay better than what bush and Paulson gave them. They tried hard to make that miserable bill better, take away the power from the Treasury Secretary, put in some caps on golden umbrellas and protections for taxpayers.
Maybe they should begin by talking to the world’s best financial experts and start over with a better beginning that won’t require so many “fixes” to be a bit safer.
“The truth hurts, now we all will hurt.”
That was my thought too, David. They hurt because what she said was true!
I think I just heard that the T bill yield is at ZERO! And there was a stampeeeeeed to buy them. Investors dont care if they get a yield or not, they just want a safe place to park their money!
Yikes.
I wonder how long the Treasury will be able to back them?
Littlejohn unfortunately we are dealing in politics here. We do have elections coming up. Many constitutents have called saying ‘don’t vote for this’. Then Pelosi put the icing on the cake by letting them know that they were responsible for the mess in the first place which was a complete lie. See the youtube link Franklin posted. Our of their own mouths we see them shutting any attempts to regulate this industry.
By voting yes they would be agreeing with her. Political suicide.
She is the dumbest speaker we have ever had save none.
Sen. McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and…
Record Text
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”
Senator John McCain
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16
cosmos
Last weeks bill would have had FEWER votes.
As long as we stay separated along party lines we are giving them instructions to stay apart in the house.
What do we want? Pass the bill/not pass the bill? Stop the golden parachutes/not limit CEO pay. Give 20% of the package to ACORN or put 100% of the proceeds against the debt?
The spin here is making me dizzy. Gotta go for now.
Here’s sen. Roberts e-mail link.
http://roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailPat
They will listen to their ignorant constituents, that understand nothing more about the economic rescue plan beyond two words. Bail Out.
They are not fit to lead.
KsFarmgrrl-
Whether the remarks are correct or true or not, is I;m sure, open to debate. You may even be correct. However, to spit at people publicly before needing them to vote your way, after negotiating in private, is just plain stupid. True or not.
okobserver-
Yes, it is a political season. ALl the more reason to act responsibly. If voting for the bill was responsible, to change your vote because of a speech, in a poorly timed one, is just plain burning down the house to get rid of the termites. Fng stupid. And If they were in my district, I would do everything I could to see them get fired. Period.
Phantom
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
They will listen to their ignorant constituents, that understand nothing more about the economic rescue plan beyond two words. Bail Out.
They are not fit to lead.
Okay, so they should not listen to their “ignorant constituents” and represent them as the people want represented?”
It’s going to cost the govt. one way or another. Either through rescuing the economy through stabilization, or though takin over the failed companies/banks, loss of tax revenue from massive unemployment, unemployment benefits, etc.
Pay me now, or pay me much more later.
Not to mention the revenue they would have one day collected as taxes on peoples savings and 401k’s.
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Name
Office
Party/State
Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J
S
D-CT
$133,900
2. Kerry, John
S
D-MA
$111,000
3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary
S
D-NY
$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H
D-PA
$65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F
S
R-UT
$61,499
7. Johnson, Tim
S
D-SD
$61,000
8. Conrad, Kent
S
D-ND
$58,991
9. Davis, Tom
H
R-VA
$55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’
S
R-MO
$55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer
H
R-AL
$55,300
12. Shelby, Richard C
S
R-AL
$55,000
13. Emanuel, Rahm
H
D-IL
$51,750
14. Reed, Jack
S
D-RI
$50,750
15. Carper, Tom
S
D-DE
$44,389
16. Frank, Barney
H
D-MA
$40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn B
H
D-NY
$38,750
18. Bean, Melissa
H
D-IL
$37,249
19. Blunt, Roy
H
R-MO
$36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah
H
R-OH
$34,750
21. Miller, Gary
H
R-CA
$33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy
H
D-CA
$32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom
H
R-NY
$32,700
24. Hoyer, Steny H
H
D-MD
$30,500
25. Hooley, Darlene
H
D-OR
$28,750
That’s the dillema of a true democracy.
econ posted September 29, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“cosmos
Last weeks bill would have had FEWER votes.”
———–
Thank you for helping me make my point about okobserver’s stupid post.
Phantom-
true.Which is probably why we have a republican form of government. THere is no easy answer, I am afraid.
From Tiahrt’s website:
*Washington Mail Delayed
Due to the treatment of all incoming mail to the U.S. Capitol buildings, mail may be delayed for several weeks before being delivered to Washington. For quicker service, please send Todd an electronic message, fax or send mail to his Wichita office.
The phone lines are also clogged. I got busy signals for the last 20 minutes of sitting hitting redial.
Look you libs on your moral high horses —
This was a tough vote.
We are in a bind right now, and nobody has a crystal ball to tell them if we would be better off with THIS bill, no bill, or another bill down the road.
It was a tough vote.
As with all tough votes, involving 435 people in a public forum, some will be on edge, some members will not make up their minds until the last few seconds.
That a dozen people people might have voted differently, had Pelosi shown some true “bi-partisanship” is not something to insult those individual members over.
It IS something to lay at Pelosi’s feet!
When you want someone to do something, you don’t spit in their faces, first.
They heard earlier, before the vote from people against the bill, people with nothing to lose (or so they think).
The people having something to lose, and understanding the consequences, will speak after today, they expected their Reps. to do right by the public.
So I hope, if they do, then maybe the public is smarter than I give them credit for.
I just noticed the above mail delayed message was the exact message I was given when I tried to send an electronic message.
Think things aren’t screwed up?
When I can’t send an electronic message their solution is to tell me to send an electronic message.
they expected their Reps. to do right by the public.
=======
HA HA!!! What naive SOB believes they will do that?
Yes, I am bitter.
But I have a sweet center.
“Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
ben
I translate what you say to this:
You want what is best for the Democrat Party!
I get it.”
Paul – you are an idiot.
But I will now “traslate” everything YOU say:
“I don’t give a damn about America. I only care about Paul Rossell. Screw the country!”
It’s the Federal Reserve System folks.
They lower interest rates and allow all the capital to enter the sector. What happens with all that capital is an effect. The Federal Reserve System is the cause.
Once you make that connection, you will see that all of these crazy financial instruments would not have been possible. Derivatives would never even get the chance to be created.
Cut the beast off at its head. At least let the people have control over their money. Central banks are a bad idea.
“It IS something to lay at Pelosi’s feet!”
How about your boy Bush’s feet? Oh, I forgot, everything in the universe is ALWAYS the Democrats’ fault in Paul-world!
I think todd’s must have crashed, can’t get through on his either! I doubt he’s receiving that many congrats.
I contact Toddly often. I never have any confidence he pays any attention.
Single largest point drop in American history. DOW closes the day down 738.42
Members of the 110th Congress who have received campaign contributions from Lehman Brothers, 1989-2008
Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Clinton, Hillary S NY D $409,980 $3,000 $406,980
Obama, Barack S IL D $395,574 $0 $395,574
Schumer, Charles E S NY D $181,450 $25,500 $155,950
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,800 $25,400 $140,400
Lieberman, Joe S CT I $165,450 $10,000 $155,450
Kerry, John S MA D $151,664 $0 $151,664
McCain, John S AZ R $145,100 $1,000 $144,100
Rangel, Charles B H NY D $38,650 $24,750 $13,900
Castle, Michael N H DE R $38,500 $38,500 $0
Lugar, Richard G S IN R $37,250 $12,000 $25,250
Reed, Jack S RI D $37,100 $7,500 $29,600
Lowey, Nita M H NY D $35,225 $5,000 $30,225
Lautenberg, Frank R S NJ D $34,100 $1,000 $33,100
Biden, Joseph R Jr S DE D $33,700 $0 $33,700
Feinstein, Dianne S CA D $32,100 $24,000 $8,100
Bayh, Evan S IN D $31,309 $5,500 $25,809
Emanuel, Rahm H IL D $30,350 $0 $30,350
Specter, Arlen S PA R $26,100 $3,000 $23,100
Baucus, Max S MT D $21,400 $14,500 $6,900
Boucher, Rick H VA D $20,000 $20,000 $0
Terry, Lee H NE R $19,300 $1,000 $18,300
Nadler, Jerrold H NY D $19,100 $2,500 $16,600
Dingell, John D H MI D $17,000 $17,000 $0
Brown, Sherrod S OH D $16,000 $12,500 $3,500
Spratt, John M Jr H SC D $13,000 $0 $13,000
Alexander, Lamar S TN R $12,500 $0 $12,500
Crapo, Mike S ID R $12,300 $9,000 $3,300
Sessions, Jeff S AL R $12,250 $5,000 $7,250
Martinez, Mel S FL R $12,000 $0 $12,000
Klein, Ron H FL D $11,900 $0 $11,900
Fossella, Vito H NY R $11,750 $11,000 $750
Salazar, Ken S CO D $11,500 $0 $11,500
Hatch, Orrin G S UT R $11,500 $9,000 $2,500
Shays, Christopher H CT R $11,300 $6,000 $5,300
Hagel, Chuck S NE R $11,300 $7,500 $3,800
Bunning, Jim S KY R $11,250 $8,750 $2,500
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie H SD D $11,000 $0 $11,000
Shelby, Richard C S AL R $11,000 $9,000 $2,000
Maloney, Carolyn B H NY D $10,850 $6,100 $4,750
Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $10,550 $7,000 $3,550
Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’ S MO R $10,500 $9,250 $1,250
Markey, Edward J H MA D $10,250 $0 $10,250
Kennedy, Edward M S MA D $10,085 $0 $10,085
McConnell, Mitch S KY R $10,050 $5,000 $5,050
Israel, Steve H NY D $9,600 $500 $9,100
Kyl, Jon S AZ R $9,500 $5,000 $4,500
Menendez, Robert S NJ D $9,300 $5,000 $4,300
Murphy, Chris H CT D $9,250 $0 $9,250
Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $9,000 $8,000 $1,000
Frank, Barney H MA D $9,000 $8,000 $1,000
Pallone, Frank Jr H NJ D $8,800 $6,000 $2,800
Weller, Jerry H IL R $8,750 $8,500 $250
Hutchison, Kay Bailey S TX R $8,750 $2,000 $6,750
Harkin, Tom S IA D $8,600 $1,000 $7,600
Dole, Elizabeth S NC R $8,250 $0 $8,250
Lincoln, Blanche S AR D $8,125 $7,125 $1,000
Conrad, Kent S ND D $8,000 $5,000 $3,000
Leahy, Patrick S VT D $7,650 $0 $7,650
Harman, Jane H CA D $7,500 $1,000 $6,500
Nelson, Bill S FL D $7,300 $0 $7,300
Coleman, Norm S MN R $7,300 $1,000 $6,300
Gordon, Bart H TN D $7,000 $7,000 $0
Grassley, Chuck S IA R $7,000 $7,000 $0
Reid, Harry S NV D $7,000 $2,000 $5,000
Reynolds, Tom H NY R $6,950 $1,000 $5,950
Eshoo, Anna H CA D $6,500 $6,500 $0
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $6,500 $6,500 $0
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $6,450 $5,000 $1,450
Mahoney, Tim H FL D $6,400 $0 $6,400
Carper, Tom S DE D $6,270 $5,270 $1,000
Young, Don H AK R $6,000 $6,000 $0
McKeon, Howard P “Buck” H CA R $6,000 $0 $6,000
Schwartz, Allyson H PA D $6,000 $0 $6,000
Chambliss, Saxby S GA R $6,000 $0 $6,000
Ensign, John S NV R $6,000 $6,000 $0
Johnson, Tim S SD D $6,000 $4,000 $2,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $6,000 $6,000 $0
Enzi, Mike S WY R $6,000 $6,000 $0
Courtney, Joe H CT D $5,900 $0 $5,900
Rockefeller, Jay S WV D $5,800 $2,000 $3,800
McCarthy, Carolyn H NY D $5,750 $5,500 $250
Bishop, Sanford D Jr H GA D $5,500 $3,500 $2,000
Lynch, Stephen F H MA D $5,500 $0 $5,500
Towns, Edolphus H NY D $5,500 $5,500 $0
Gillibrand, Kirsten E H NY D $5,500 $0 $5,500
Landrieu, Mary L S LA D $5,500 $2,000 $3,500
Gregg, Judd S NH R $5,500 $2,000 $3,500
Wexler, Robert H FL D $5,000 $0 $5,000
Boehner, John H OH R $5,000 $3,000 $2,000
Durbin, Dick S IL D $5,000 $500 $4,500
Warner, John W S VA R $5,000 $4,000 $1,000
Cooper, Jim H TN D $4,999 $1,000 $3,999
Paul, Ron H TX R $4,701 $0 $4,701
Campbell, John H CA R $4,600 $0 $4,600
Whitfield, Ed H KY R $4,500 $4,500 $0
English, Phil H PA R $4,500 $4,500 $0
Cubin, Barbara H WY R $4,500 $4,500 $0
McCaskill, Claire S MO D $4,500 $0 $4,500
Sununu, John E S NH R $4,300 $0 $4,300
Lampson, Nick H TX D $4,200 $0 $4,200
Burr, Richard S NC R $4,200 $2,000 $2,200
DeGette, Diana H CO D $4,000 $0 $4,000
Abercrombie, Neil H HI D $4,000 $4,000 $0
Hulshof, Kenny H MO R $4,000 $4,000 $0
Dorgan, Byron L S ND D $4,000 $2,000 $2,000
Domenici, Pete V S NM R $4,000 $4,000 $0
Webb, James S VA D $4,000 $0 $4,000
Murray, Patty S WA D $4,000 $2,000 $2,000
Byrd, Robert C S WV D $4,000 $4,000 $0
Murphy, Patrick J H PA D $3,950 $0 $3,950
Whitehouse, Sheldon S RI D $3,600 $0 $3,600
Chandler, Ben H KY D $3,500 $0 $3,500
Neal, Richard E H MA D $3,500 $3,500 $0
Garrett, Scott H NJ R $3,500 $3,000 $500
Holt, Rush H NJ D $3,500 $0 $3,500
Hall, Ralph M H TX R $3,500 $3,500 $0
Barton, Joe H TX R $3,500 $1,000 $2,500
Tester, Jon S MT D $3,500 $0 $3,500
Bingaman, Jeff S NM D $3,500 $3,000 $500
Thune, John S SD R $3,500 $0 $3,500
Cornyn, John S TX R $3,500 $0 $3,500
Matheson, Jim H UT D $3,497 $3,000 $497
Smith, Gordon H S OR R $3,350 $2,000 $1,350
Wilson, Heather A H NM R $3,312 $1,000 $2,312
Ramstad, Jim H MN R $3,250 $2,000 $1,250
Weiner, Anthony D H NY D $3,250 $3,000 $250
Velazquez, Nydia M H NY D $3,250 $2,250 $1,000
Cardin, Ben S MD D $3,250 $1,500 $1,750
Tauscher, Ellen H CA D $3,000 $3,000 $0
Schultz, Debbie Wasserman H FL D $3,000 $0 $3,000
Akin, Todd H MO R $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
Blunt, Roy H MO R $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
Ferguson, Mike H NJ R $3,000 $0 $3,000
Moran, Jim H VA D $3,000 $1,000 $2,000
Vitter, David S LA R $3,000 $1,000 $2,000
Wyden, Ron S OR D $3,000 $0 $3,000
Feingold, Russ S WI D $3,000 $0 $3,000
Pearce, Steve H NM R $2,800 $0 $2,800
Boxer, Barbara S CA D $2,750 $0 $2,750
Allen, Tom H ME D $2,700 $0 $2,700
Crowley, Joseph H NY D $2,650 $2,000 $650
Boustany, Charles W Jr H LA R $2,624 $0 $2,624
Stearns, Cliff H FL R $2,500 $2,500 $0
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr H WI R $2,500 $2,500 $0
Levin, Carl S MI D $2,500 $500 $2,000
Udall, Mark H CO D $2,400 $0 $2,400
Engel, Eliot L H NY D $2,400 $2,000 $400
Hinchey, Maurice H NY D $2,300 $500 $1,800
Cohen, Stephen Ira H TN D $2,300 $0 $2,300
Baldwin, Tammy H WI D $2,300 $0 $2,300
Craig, Larry S ID R $2,250 $2,250 $0
Diaz-Balart, Mario H FL R $2,150 $0 $2,150
Corker, Bob S TN R $2,100 $0 $2,100
Dreier, David H CA R $2,000 $2,000 $0
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana H FL R $2,000 $0 $2,000
Lewis, John H GA D $2,000 $2,000 $0
Linder, John H GA R $2,000 $0 $2,000
Kirk, Mark H IL R $2,000 $0 $2,000
Levin, Sander H MI D $2,000 $1,500 $500
Conyers, John Jr H MI D $2,000 $2,000 $0
Hobson, Dave H OH R $2,000 $2,000 $0
Pryce, Deborah H OH R $2,000 $2,000 $0
Inhofe, James M S OK R $2,000 $2,000 $0
Pryor, Mark S AR D $1,990 $0 $1,990
Dent, Charlie H PA R $1,874 $0 $1,874
Sessions, Pete H TX R $1,812 $500 $1,312
Jackson, Jesse Jr H IL D $1,800 $0 $1,800
Hill, Baron H IN D $1,750 $1,500 $250
Davis, Geoff H KY R $1,624 $0 $1,624
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln H FL R $1,500 $0 $1,500
Moore, Dennis H KS D $1,500 $1,500 $0
Bishop, Timothy H H NY D $1,500 $0 $1,500
King, Pete H NY R $1,500 $0 $1,500
Ackerman, Gary H NY D $1,500 $500 $1,000
Walsh, James T H NY R $1,500 $1,000 $500
Mollohan, Alan B H WV D $1,500 $1,500 $0
Murkowski, Lisa S AK R $1,500 $1,500 $0
Allard, Wayne S CO R $1,500 $1,500 $0
Cantwell, Maria S WA D $1,500 $0 $1,500
Hooley, Darlene H OR D $1,499 $0 $1,499
Casey, Bob S PA D $1,250 $0 $1,250
Aderholt, Robert B H AL R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Snyder, Vic H AR D $1,000 $1,000 $0
Flake, Jeff H AZ R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Costa, Jim H CA D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Solis, Hilda L H CA D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Royce, Ed H CA R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Lewis, Jerry H CA R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Bilbray, Brian P H CA R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Bilirakis, Gus H FL R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Meek, Kendrick B H FL D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Bean, Melissa H IL D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Shimkus, John M H IL R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Burton, Dan H IN R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Moran, Jerry H KS R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Scalise, Stephen Joseph “Steve H LA R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Olver, John W H MA D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Upton, Fred H MI R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks H MI D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Coble, Howard H NC R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Pomeroy, Earl H ND D $1,000 $1,000 $0
Pascrell, Bill Jr H NJ D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Higgins, Brian M H NY D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Slaughter, Louise M H NY D $1,000 $1,000 $0
LaTourette, Steven C H OH R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Blumenauer, Earl H OR D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Fattah, Chaka H PA D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Sestak, Joe H PA D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Murphy, Tim H PA R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Tanner, John H TN D $1,000 $1,000 $0
Johnson, Sam H TX R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Hensarling, Jeb H TX R $1,000 $0 $1,000
Obey, David R H WI D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Rahall, Nick H WV D $1,000 $1,000 $0
Roberts, Pat S KS R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Snowe, Olympia J S ME R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Stabenow, Debbie S MI D $1,000 $1,000 $0
Klobuchar, Amy S MN D $1,000 $0 $1,000
Nelson, Ben S NE D $1,000 $1,000 $0
Coburn, Tom S OK R $1,000 $1,000 $0
Thompson, Bennie G H MS D $950 $0 $950
Renzi, Rick H AZ R $812 $0 $812
Porter, Jon H NV R $812 $0 $812
Neugebauer, Randy H TX R $812 $0 $812
Reichert, Dave H WA R $812 $0 $812
Manzullo, Don H IL R $800 $0 $800
Conaway, Mike H TX R $800 $0 $800
Poe, Ted H TX R $789 $0 $789
Knollenberg, Joe H MI R $750 $0 $750
Frelinghuysen, Rodney H NJ R $750 $0 $750
Marchant, Kenny Ewell H TX R $750 $0 $750
Burgess, Michael H TX R $750 $0 $750
Kind, Ron H WI D $750 $0 $750
McMorris, Cathy H WA R $735 $0 $735
Hastings, Alcee L H FL D $700 $0 $700
Fortuno, Luis D PR R $500 $500 $0
Miller, George H CA D $500 $0 $500
McNerney, Jerry H CA D $500 $0 $500
DeLauro, Rosa L H CT D $500 $500 $0
Davis, Danny K H IL D $500 $0 $500
Costello, Jerry F H IL D $500 $500 $0
McCrery, Jim H LA R $500 $500 $0
Capuano, Michael E H MA D $500 $500 $0
Cummings, Elijah E H MD D $500 $0 $500
Camp, Dave H MI R $500 $500 $0
Emerson, Jo Ann H MO R $500 $500 $0
Pickering, Charles “Chip” Jr H MS R $500 $0 $500
Price, David H NC D $500 $500 $0
Rothman, Steven R H NJ D $500 $0 $500
Arcuri, Michael H NY D $500 $0 $500
Lucas, Frank D H OK R $500 $500 $0
Granger, Kay H TX R $500 $0 $500
Green, Gene H TX D $500 $500 $0
Cannon, Chris H UT R $500 $0 $500
Ryan, Paul H WI R $500 $0 $500
Capito, Shelley Moore H WV R $500 $500 $0
Stevens, Ted S AK R $500 $500 $0
Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $500 $0 $500
Collins, Susan M S ME R $500 $0 $500
Udall, Tom H NM D $400 $0 $400
Tiberi, Patrick J H OH R $400 $0 $400
Jackson Lee, Sheila H TX D $400 $0 $400
Hastings, Doc H WA R $300 $0 $300
Schakowsky, Jan H IL D $250 $0 $250
Ellsworth, Brad H IN D $250 $0 $250
Edwards, Donna H MD D $250 $0 $250
Hall, John H NY D $250 $0 $250
Carney, Chris H PA D $250 $0 $250
Cantor, Eric H VA R $250 $0 $250
Graham, Lindsey S SC R $250 $0 $250
Walden, Greg H OR R $200 $0 $200
Total
$2,975,986 $634,145 $2,341,841
Includes contributions from PACs and individuals. 2008 cycle totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.
Franklin your temper tantrums do no more good than those the Republican members of the House threw today do. Americans should be more important. You and the members of your preferred political party think we aren’t. And have proven it!
And McCain’s temper tantrums of the last week were even worse.
That’s leadership?
Ignore that figure I posted of the DOW closing. They’re still adjusting for final trades and the DOW continues to fall further.
I find it strange that on this entire thread the word “credit” is used only in the sense of acknowledgment.
Are the credit markets frozen, or not? The argument, agree or not, is that when money-lending stops, transactions eventually stop, and any exchange that inherently relies on credit, however temporary, will eventually be affected, whether it’s supplies, capital, payrolls, whatever. Some of the financial analyst types even suggested, at the extreme, that ATM machines could stop dispensing money.
I realize a lot of this relies on behavior (and thus the standard amount of Wall Street voodoo), but is there not some fundamental truth to it? Do you pay back a debt to a friend if aren’t sure that your paycheck is coming this week?
And haven’t we been down more or less the same road in the 20s? I think I’m going to forgo the usual political BS and read up a bit. . . .
Ben
George W. Bush tried, repeatedly, to regulate the out of control mortgage industry, and the push by Fannie and Freddie to buy up “liar loans” and sub-prime loans.
Lenders were FORCED by the Community Reinvestment Act to make risky loans.
Fannie and Freddie told lenders not to worry, that Fannie and Freddie would buy up those risky loans.
Fannie and Freddie, predictably, ran out of money, as more and more defaults, on loans made to poor people, defaulted.
AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, WAMU and other companies then began to fail, as there was no market for their bad loans anymore, and they had to list their huge mortgage portfolios at very low values, since nobody wants to buy mortgage paper right now.
And the reason that Bush could not get any more regulations, on Fannie and Fredde?
Look at the political contributions that Fannie and Freddie and Lehman and Countrywide and all the other mortgage and finance companies gave to Obama and the Democrats!
it is NOT the single larges percentage drop.
Point drops and percentage drops are two different things.
We will get through this!
We should not make decisions with a gun to our heads.
Some thoughts:
1) It is indeed interesting to watch history being made.
2) The original administration proposal advanced by Sec. Paulson had, IMHO, no chance of passage in the form presented.
3) The bill defeated today was an improvement over that which was originally proposed, but left much to be desired regardless of which side one was on concerning it.
4) With the figures of $700 Billion much ballyhooed, the fact that the ultimate costs thereof might be less (assuming proper pricing for the assets to be purchased) due to gains on the sale thereof in the future.
5) The way the proposal, as presented, looked to a number of clients of mine was that it was designed solely for Wall Street; no one made a good case why it would be a good thing for the economy in general.
6) This is an election year; saving their hides was more important to many in the House than constructively working on a “rescue” plan that might or might not work.
7) If the crisis is indeed as portrayed by Sec. Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, the President, and others from both parties, it is time to start over with a clean sheet of paper. Some of the same clients I referenced above flatly don’t believe things are as they have been presented. Others believe things are worse, and don’t see why the Wall Street types should be rescued from their misjudgments.
8) The derivatives which underlie this mess, in great part (IMHO) are not capable of being understood by darned near all of us; those who even mention them see them as the product of greedy people.
I don’t have a plan that would be any better or worse than any others floated. I think most have read my thoughts on ideas to consider, and can likely find fault for a variety of reasons with them. All I know is that at the moment, there isn’t anything on the table that appears workable or effective, and if things are as portrayed by Sec. Paulson, et al, we’re heading into a real economic contraction that defies all traditional approaches to fixing.
econ posted September 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“That a dozen people people might have voted differently, had Pelosi shown some true “bi-partisanship” is not something to insult those individual members over.”
————
Actually, it is.
Definitel is.
Definitely is.
linda
You do not know what you are talking about.
Worse, you do not want to learn anything.
I am not having a temper tantrum at all, I am just giving you a history lesson.
John McCain PREDICTED this, on the floor of the Senate, in 2005.
George W. Bush warned about this, in his first year in office, in 2001.
Democrats have resisted any reform of the mortgage business, and Bill Clinton has been on the air, this last week, saying just that. Bill Clinton says that the Democrat Party was wrong not to listen to Bush, years ago, on this issue.
It is entirely possible that this bill would have made things worse, in the long run.
Frankly, I would have been better off, personally, if this bill had passed today, at least in the short run. However, we are in this mess because the Democrats in Congress ignored long term impacts of their “liar loan” programs, and I do not want to make this situation worse, down the road, with more bad legislation.
I’m given to the thought that the market reaction today is less about perceived problems with the credit markets and the adverse effects therefrom on the general economy and more about the cookie jar represented by the rescue/bailout plan not passing the House.
Today, was just the start, look for it to continue until a resolution is passed. By then it may be too late, for the impact to be felt on down the line.
I’m given to the thought that the market reaction today is less about perceived problems with the credit markets and the adverse effects therefrom on the general economy and more about the cookie jar represented by the rescue/bailout plan not passing the House.
Understood. But doesn’t that problem exist independent of trader psychology?
So, Vaughn, if that is the case when does the impact of the “perceived problems withe the credit markets and the adverse effects” hit?
Franklin will surely get it all fixed with history lessons and finding new ways to denigrate fellow posters.
McCain agrees it is Pelosi’s fault that Republicans got their feelings hurt and voted no. Pelosi has a greater affect on the House Republicans than McCain does? What an admission!
Imagine, a partisan comments being made on the floor of the House. Never before has this occurred!!!
Pelosi should get a strictly Democratic version passed and then let George decide whether to sign it or veto it.
VT
My son just got a signature loan, from the credit union, for a used car.
They did not even want collaterol, said they trusted him and didnt want the title headache.
I just got another credit card offer from WAMU.
I think the mortgage business is in for some real changes. I CERTAINLY HOPE SO!
I am not convinced that the sky is falling, however.
“Moral Hazard” has to do with the government encouraging bad behavior.
There has been a huge amount of moral hazard in the mortgage business. My biggest objection to the original bill was that it was nothing but moral hazard.
At first, I thought the original bill was a “necessary evil” — but the more I learned, the more I realized that the plan would make things worse.
If banks aren’t lending to each other, you can bet there are few others that they’re lending to. When liquidity freezes up, it’ll impact the corporations, which will impact their suppliers, which will impact on whole bunch of workers.
“lindainks55
Posted September 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
Franklin will surely get it all fixed with history lessons and finding new ways to denigrate fellow posters.”
But rememnber – Paul never ‘talks down to people’. He said so.
linda
Practice what you preach.
You said I was throwing a tantrum.
I believe, on this thread, that I have directed my insults at Democrats in Congress.
You directed your fire at me.
Boyda is on the radio now, calling this plan a “nutty idea” — Boyda is a Democrat, right?
Ben
If they go for a Democrats only plan, I doubt it will pass.
If it does, Dems will lose the House.
Smart Dems know this.
Yes, Rage, that problem exists independently of trader psychology. However, given what I perceive would have been the market reaction to passage by the House, there would be a certain spill-over effect to the populace as a whole. In other words, had there been a bit of a rally, there might be a feeling generated of “Good; now that’s behind us”.
If indeed the credit markets are frozen, or darned near frozen, the infusion of additional funds into the economy by the Fed (read somewhere some $400 Billion has been made available) should be thawing things a bit. It seems that it hasn’t.
No, I don’t believe that removal of the bad loans from the balance sheets would have cured the problem. It is, again IMHO, much deeper than that; a question of the effect of the estimated $1.4 quadrillion in derivatives in the world market in their current status would still negatively affect credit decisions. That is where the problem lies, and until someone or some entity can get a handle on this, credit markets will continue to be tight. Cash hoarding is the name of the game right now, and I suspect will continue to be the same for a while yet.
I can understand why Sec. Paulson feels that insuring the debt would not work; even if all $700 Billion was used in that fashion, if the estimate of $1.4 Quarillion in derivatives is close to accurate, the “insurance” would only amount to two percent of that.
I saw your temper tantrum in the same way I saw the one McCain threw. All your “history lessons” offered no one anything, neither did McCain suspending his campaign and working to get bipartisan agreement to protect Americans and stabilize out economy.
But after all, “linda
You do not know what you are talking about.
Worse, you do not want to learn anything.”
Why in the world would you read anything I post? Why would you waste your obviously superior intellect in responding to something of such inferior abilities would say?
You should hurry back to your version of history lessons so this economical mess can be solved!
waiting for the Dems on this Blog to attack Boyda ———??
HUMMMMMMM???
Taking a long time huh?
Nothing to say about Boyda?
BTW, Obama just said that “the long term fundamentals of the economy are strong”
Waiting for you Dems to pounce on that as well —-
Heh! There’s really nothing to worry about.
econ’s candidate, McCain, said only 2 weeks ago that the U.S. economy is “fundamentally strong”.
840 bil. wiped out of the markets today, Gee, that’s more than the 750 bil. already!
econ posted September 29, 2008 at 3:39 pm
BTW, Obama just said that “the long term fundamentals of the economy are strong”
Waiting for you Dems to pounce on that as well —-
————–
Poor econ does not seem to understand the difference between the present, and “long-term”.
Paulie is scroll over territory, even though sometimes it’s a long scroll!
Shame on Boyda! That said…
I am more shocked at this than I was at the 9/11 attacks. This will hurt more Americans and do more damage and it was done by our own representatives.
Linda, as pointed out above, it is already being felt by banks not lending to each other, which has the ripple effect described.
Franklin, yes, the mortgage market needs to be cleaned up. One area would be restricting the “shadow banks” from activities traditionally carried out by regulated banks. Another would be regulation of derivatives backed by mortgage loans and how much leverage would be permitted relative thereto. Another would be regulation of private hedge funds.
What I don’t think will work is reducing the federal funds rate by 50 basis points, which is being rumored. Given the nature of the credit squeeze, a cut in capital gains rates makes little to no sense. These are textbook solutions to slow economies, to be sure; I just don’t think this current situation would be amenable to those approaches.
Actually, the fundamentals of the economy ARE strong.
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself” —
We will work out of this.
VT
The derivatives are a problem, to be sure. However, if the default projection is calculated to be 5% of the outstanding paper issued over the last decade, ($700Bill) all we have to do is make sure that something stands behind that bad paper.
It does not matter who holds the paper, today, as long as the market knows that there is something to back up the paper, if it fails.
Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
had Pelosi shown some true “bi-partisanship” is not something to insult those individual members over.
It IS something to lay at Pelosi’s feet!
When you want someone to do something, you don’t spit in their faces, first.
__
This is funny coming from such a rabid Bush lover. George W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress for 6 years did nothing but push through their spending bills and spit in everyone American’s face!
Now you expect to pass judgement on Pelosi? Get real.
And while we are talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – what was McCain’s campaign adviser Rick Davis’ role in taking all that money from them to fight those nasty federal regulations?
McCain tried to stammer his way out of this question last week but the American people know it is not just Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that brought this Wall Street mess to a head.
I will have to admit I got a grim chunkle when I heard on NPR’s “Marketplace” this spring that banks were refusing to lend each other money–because they were bad credit risks. Not that I didn’t also see what a scary portend it was–but what could I do about it?
I should have pursued an answer to that question.
The credit system we have in this country is more scam than a credible system of determining financial risk, and this crisis proves it. But this crisis is of worldwide scope, and needs to be addressed in an intelligent manner. It’s my view that if we buy crap credit, we get a financial stake in its recoverly–none of this “at the Secretary’s discretion” crap.
But something has to be done, and soon. This is serious business, folks.
David
The “DAMAGE” was done by affirmative action lending.
The damage was done by the Community Reinvestment Act, which practically invented sub-prime mortgages in the first place.
The damage was done by Democrats who would not allow regulators to do their jobs.
Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
I just got another credit card offer from WAMU.
__
Big Whoop – my husband and I have been receiving those weekly for the past year! In case you haven’t heard Paulie – WAMU went bankrupt last week…
Franklin, if one assumes that the historic default rate holds, then I can see the argument. I’ve no more than a suspicion at present that the default rate is going to rise above the historic level.
That is my concern. With credit contractions forcing layoffs, etc., even some “good” loans will go into default. The housing bubble having burst, with a surplus of properties for sale driving values lower results in a larger problem with the derivatives. Which ever way it goes, you and I can agree that we’re in for some tough sailing, at least in the short term.
P.S. Thanks for your comments, VT. I’m taking your ideas seriously enough that they may find their way to Congressional offices, for what it’s worth.
Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
David
The “DAMAGE” was done by affirmative action lending.
The damage was done by the Community Reinvestment Act, which practically invented sub-prime mortgages in the first place.
The damage was done by Democrats who would not allow regulators to do their jobs.
_____
Again – why was McCain’s campaign adviser paid money to fight those regulators?
BTW – Does Affirmative Action also include those white, educated well-to-do people that were buying several houses in the same neighborhood at the same time? Not all those borrowers were minorities – as you so insinuated!
mom
I McCain’s advisor, Rick Davis, is not a registered lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie and never has been.
He is now seperated from a firm that had Fannie as a client. Big deal!
He is ALL you got. The vast majority of money from Fannie and Freddie and the mortgage industry went to Democrats.
Also, McCain has a record of attacking Fannie and Freddie, so it does not look like McCain has been “bought” — not true of the Democrats, who did what Fannie and Freddie told them to do.
Obama claims he complained about the mortgage industry. In fact, Obama simply wanted to make it harder to forclose on those who could not pay their mortgages. Mortgages that never should have been issued, in the first place. Most Republicans would support a “refinance” mandate, for existing mortgages, as long as STANDARDS for future mortgages were part of the deal.
Democrats REFUSE to make sure that future mortgage borrowers can pay their loans.
Show me a Republican EMPLOYEE of Fannie or Freddie or Countrywide or Lehman? You can’t can you?
Fannie and Freddie were revolving doors, patronage jobs for Democrats and Democrat staff members, in between other political jobs.
The House did the right thing by not giving in to the fear-mongering that has been so easily believed the last 8 years.
Look, you all are focusing on the wrong thing. Austrian’s got it right. It’s about the FED and the Treasury, creating money out of thin air by distorting the credit markets and devaluing the dollar.
The question to ask is this: If the credit crisis began with an overabundance of easy credit that a lot of folks eventually would default on, then how are we going to fix that problem by buying up all the bad debt and flooding the credit market with more easy credit???
It’s like a dog chasing it’s tail! It’ll get you no where.
The bailout wouldn’t have worked: It didn’t work before the Great Depression…it made it worse, to the tune of 12 years.
When will we learn from history that we, indeed, have not learned anything from history?
AV
I hate derivatives.
I am a “free market” guy, but I think the equity and debt markets should provide capital to the economy, not provide a crap shoot for gamblers.
One problem, though?
Equity Indexed Annuities can be a very safe long term investment, but they use lots of derivatives to back them up. The principal is guaranteed, the interest is based on the markets, by buying options.
Oh well, if derivatives have to go, they have to go. My guess is that they won’t, however.
VT, this is the best explanation of derivatives I have found. It’s on Correnewire.com, but old, so hard to link to. I’m doing a copy and paste. I know he’ll forgive me!
“The crisis explained
Submitted by lambert on Thu, 2008-09-25 23:40.
By one RDF:
Joe goes to the track and bets $2 on a horse.
Two guys standing nearby get into a discussion and Fred says to Sam, “I’ll bet you $5 that Joe wins his bet.”
Next to them are Bill and Bob. Bill says: “I’ll bet you $10 that Fred welshes on his bet if he loses.”
Next to them is Sally. Sally says: “For $3 I’ll guarantee to Bill that if Bob fails to pay off, I’ll make good on the bet.”
Sally then goes to Mary and borrows the $7 needed in case she has to ever pay off and promises to pay back $8. She doesn’t expect to every have to pay since she believes Bob will always make good. So she expects to net $2 no matter what happens to Joe.
A quick calculation indicates that there is now 2+5+10+3+7 = $27 riding on the outcome of the horse race.
Question how much has been “invested” in the horse race? ”
Indeed.
mom
The WAMU point WAS my point.
I know full well they were bought out, under Federal mandate.
My point is that, so far, this a an isolated mortgage issue and not spilling over to the general, Main Street economy, or even into non mortgage lending issues.
It might, in the future —
But the Senate was not going to meet on this until Wednesday, anyway. Why the rush?
What are the fundamentals?
Unemployment
Inflation
Productivity per worker, etc, etc.
Is everyone out there got their unemployment check yet? How did that guy in front of you smell in the soup line yesterday?
Point made. The economy is sound, but definitely could be better. Wall street is in a panic.
Paul wants to know if Boyda is a democrat?
Well, she has a “D” behind her name, but the debate rages on as to whether or not she is a democrat.
She rarely votes with the party.
Maybe if Pelosi hadn’t come out and delivered such a partisan speech before the vote the Republicans would not have backed out.
Typical liberals. Waste no opportunity to attack the Republicans.
You would think that in a time like this she would have just her mouth and not tried to blame Bush and the Republicans, especially when you are trying to get them to vote with you on this.
I cannot believe I am affliated with the democrat leadership in Congress.
This is the REAL DEAL nation at risk of collapse right?
So why on earth did PELOSI, the democratic leader and speaker of the house open today with a dressing down of republicans and instead of L.E.A.D.I.N.G. instead play POLITIC’S AS USUAL?
I cannot believe she dared to play the BLAME GAME, when our nation is at stake?
It’s like coming up to one of the regular liberal posters here and saying, “YOU IDIOT YOU SUCK!”
and then asking them to vote for you.
How ignorant. How stupid of PELOSI.
This was NOT the time for partisan politic’s. OUR INVESTMENTS ARE WASHED AWAY.
Instead, this BITCH PELOSI, decided not to lead, not to put America first, but to BLAME.
God help us all. The markets will crash before the month is out.
Franklin
I noticed on this thread that you state a number of facts, many of which are supported by links or search suggestions. Why are there so many that attack you with ad hominem abusives as apposed to counter discovery? I followed your links and did some searches based on your suggestions and learned more than a few things I did not know before.
Positional arguing rather than objective debate will be the ruin of us all if allowed to continue. So where is the contra objective data to Franklin’s?
“Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
mom
I McCain’s advisor, Rick Davis, is not a registered lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie and never has been.”
Note the key word there – REGISTERED. As noted before he is unregistered.
LOL!
‘Frank mocks GOP complaint on bailout’
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/frank_mocks_gop.html
“I’ll make an offer,” he added. “Give me those 12 people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/rick-davis-mccains-campai_n_102714.html
Rick Davis, McCain’s Campaign Manager, Benefited As Unregistered Lobbyist
But while Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort in 2006, the company has developed a specialty in recent years in a type of lobbying for which firms do not have to register — namely, representing the interests abroad of foreign politicians and businessmen.
Nathan
If Bush calls Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” he is a bad diplomat for not working with others. Even if those other people want us dead!
When Reagan called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire” liberals told Reagan that his words could cause a war, and wanted Reagan to “play nice” and roll over for the Soviets.
If Pelosi trashes Repubicans? It says nothing at all about Pelosi’s ability as a leader, or a negotiator, or a diplomat, even if Pelosi’s big mouth sinks an important vote!
Don’t you understand liberal logic yet? Actually, I don’t understand it either, even though it is predictable.
McCain’s Cronies: Rick Davis, Uber-Lobbyist, At The Helm
By: Christy Hardin Smith Thursday February 21, 2008 11:53 am
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/21/mccains-cronies-rick-davis-uber-lobbyist-at-the-helm/
Poltics First, Country Second for Dummies
by Nancy Pelosi
Chapter One: Blame a Republican when voting for a bill that is unpopular.
Homeownership Alliance
In 2000, Davis became the head of a group called the Homeownership Alliance, a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac advocacy group. Its website said that the organization was dedicated to “exposing and defeating trends that would harm consumer access to the lowest-cost mortgage option.”[4] He was head of the group for five years, being paid more than $30,000 per month. At the end of 2005, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided that Homeownership Alliance had outlived its usefulness, and it was closed.[5]
Payments from Freddie Mac
On September 24, 2008, the New York Times reported that Davis Manafort had been paid $15,000 per month by Freddie Mac, for “consulting”, from the end of 2005, when Davis stopped being head of the Homeownership Alliance, until August 2008; payments stopped when Freddie Mac was taken over by the federal government. The Times said that “Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort for the presidential campaign, but as an equity holder continues to benefit from its income.”[14]
The McCain campaign responded on September 24 with a statement that Davis had separated from Davis Manafort in 2006, and that “As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.”[15] On September 28, Newsweek reported that Davis had joined the campaign in January 2007, not in 2006, and that he specified that his $20,000-a-month salary be paid directly to Davis Manafort”.[12]
The Times reported that “No one at Davis Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.”[14] Newsweek reported that during the period of the payments, Freddie Mac had no contact with Davis Manafort other than receiving monthly invoices from the firm and paying them.[16]The only thing that Freddie Mac officials could recall Davis doing for the company, the Times said, was speaking at an October 2006 forum attended by midlevel and senior executives who contributed to Freddie PAC, the company’s political action committee. [14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics)
“Rick Davis, is not a registered lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie and never has been.”
“Payments from Freddie Mac
On September 24, 2008, the New York Times reported that Davis Manafort had been paid $15,000 per month by Freddie Mac, for “consulting”, from the end of 2005, when Davis stopped being head of the Homeownership Alliance, until August 2008; payments stopped when Freddie Mac was taken over by the federal government. The Times said that “Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort for the presidential campaign, but as an equity holder continues to benefit from its income.”[14]”
I guess they paid him because they are such nice guys.
ben
The Huffington Post quotes from the NYT, which has been debunked already.
McCain was the ENEMY of Fannie and Freddie.
McCain went to war with the mortgage industry, several times.
Obama has gotten HUGE sums of money from Fannie and Freddie.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have gotten large sums of campaign contributions, as well.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
You are mad at Wall Street and the mortgage industry.
Who was the mortgage industries best friends, in Washington?
On Davis’s Ties to Freddie Mac, McCain Gets ‘Boomeranged’
On Monday, I wrote about the “Boomerang Effect” currently bedeviling John McCain’s presidential bid: “First, McCain chastises Obama for committing a sin that he himself has committed. Then Obama points this out, distracting voters from his own foibles and refocusing the spotlight on McCain. For Obama, the impact of the attack is immediately negated. But for McCain it’s doubled: he ends up looking both a) guilty of whatever he accused Obama of and b) totally hypocritical.”
My major example was McCain’s attacks on Obama for associating with former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson. The problem? McCain’s own campaign is swarming with 26 advisers or fundraisers who have lobbied or are currently lobbying for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac–including campaign manager Rick Davis. When the New York Times reported Monday that Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis $30,000 a month until the end of 2005, the McCain campaign vehemently denied that Davis still had ties to the mortgage giant. In fact, Davis told reporters during a conference call that “it’s been over three years since there’s been any activity in this area and since I had any contact with those folks.”
Unfortunately, that’s not quite accurate. As NEWSWEEK’s tireless investigative ace Mike Isikoff reports this morning, Freddie Mac also paid Davis’s consulting and lobbying firm Davis Manafort a consulting fee of $15,000 a month starting in 2005–before Davis took a leave of absence to work on the McCain campaign–and ending only last month, when the U.S. government acquired the firm. (The New York Times has also posted a story on the payments.) Davis is still a partner and equity-holder in Davis Manafort, so he continues to benefit from its income. So far, Team McCain has attacked the messengers–as usual–but they haven’t disputed the allegations, except to say Davis isn’t profiting personally from Freddie Mac and therefore doesn’t have, according to the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, a “direct financial conflict of interest in helping McCain develop policy.” But that ignores the larger issue: whether Freddie put Davis’s firm on retainer–at Davis’s request–because of Davis’s relationship with McCain. “The story’s not about profit,” writes Ambinder. “It’s about influence buying.”
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx
t’s like coming up to one of the regular liberal posters here and saying, “YOU IDIOT YOU SUCK!”
. . .and those who deserve to be called “adults” might get a little miffed, but it will not have any affect on their vote. There’s been plenty of fiery talk from politicians, and the notion that a Democratic speaker might consider Republican policies to blame is not exactly an Earth-shaking revelation.
Unless, of course, they were just looking for an excuse to vote no in the first place.
To the extent that anyone voted against the package simply because of Pelosi’s comments (and I seriously doubt that moronic theory has any validity), such lawmakers should be put in “time out” and then voted out, in that order.
The media is really going to bring the markets down with posting threads such as these. Americans should be PROUD congress resisted acting today.
This bill is STILL a payout for Obama and his personal pals at ACORN:
ACORN Funding Still in Bailout Bill – UPDATE: ACORN Money Removed
House Minority Leader John Boehner has issued a press release spotlighting the presence of the money for election fraud specialists ACORN in the bailout bill:
Dems Want to Reward Scandal-Tarnished “Community Organizing” Group in Economic Rescue Bill
House GOP Fights to Remove ACORN Slush Fund from Economic Rescue Bill; Poison-Pill Proposal Would Ask Taxpayers to Bankroll Group Accused of Voter Fraud Nationwide
Washington, Sep 27 * House Republicans have made clear that they will fight for an economic rescue package that protects the interests of families, seniors, small businesses, and all taxpayers. And as discussions continue in order to forge an agreement that reflects these principles, the American people are taking note of a left-wing giveaway Democrats are pushing to force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party. At issue is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – better known as ACORN – an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Here are just some examples of ACORN’s most recent scandals and unlawful activities:
- “ACORN is a long-time advocacy group with whom Obama was once associated. Recently, though, ACORN workers in two states have pleaded guilty to election fraud, an unlikely recipient of federal largess.” (Fox News Report, 9/26/08)
- “Seven ACORN workers were charged with ‘committing the biggest voter-registration fraud in [Washington] state history.’’ (The Seattle Times, 7/26/07)
- ACORN workers submitted “just over 1,800 new voter registration forms, but there was a problem. The names were made up – all but six of the 1,800 submissions were fakes… The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms.” (Fox News Channel, 5/02/08)
- “Late last year, a handful of Acorn canvassers in Washington state admitted that they had falsified voter registrations by illegally filling out hundreds of forms with names such as Dennis Hastert, Leon Spinks and Fruito Boy Crispila.” (Wall Street Journal, 7/31/08)
- “Eight workers for a get-out-the-vote effort in St. Louis city and county have pleaded guilty to federal election fraud for submitting false registration cards for the 2006 election, authorities said today. The workers were employed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), gathering voter registrations.” (Associated Press, 4/02/08)
- “Acorn has had a number of missteps. This month its founder, Wade Rathke, resigned after news emerged that his brother Dale had embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated groups eight years ago — information the group kept from law-enforcement authorities and most members. Dale Rathke left the organization only last month.” (Wall Street Journal, 7/31/08)
So how exactly will ACORN be rewarded if the Democrats get their way? Very simple: behind closed doors, ACORN-friendly language was slipped into the Democratic economic rescue proposal by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). Take a look:
TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.
1. DEPOSITS. Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
2. USE OF DEPOSITS. Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
What does this mean? The Wall Street Journal breaks it down in an editorial published today:
“What we have here essentially are a pair of government slush funds created in July as part of the Economic Recovery Act that pump tax dollars into the coffers of low-income housing advocacy groups, such as Acorn.”
“Acorn, one of America’s most militant left-wing ‘community activist groups,’ is spending $16 million this year to register Democrats to vote in November. In the past several years, Acorn’s voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, while several of their employees have been convicted of voter fraud…”
That’s right. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their help – often illegal help – in getting Democrats elected to office. Families, seniors, small businesses, and all American taxpayers deserve better than what Democratic leaders are attempting to jam down their throats.
The rescue package should not become a “Christmas tree” for the Democratic Majority’s far-left wing political agenda that seeks to shower taxpayer dollars upon groups like ACORN. On behalf of beleaguered taxpayers across the nation, House Republicans will continue to fight to remove the ACORN payback and any other Democratic poison pills from the economic rescue package.
WAAAAAA . . . WAAAAAA . . . NANCY POLOSI SAID BAD THINGS ABOUT ME . . . WAAAAA . . . WAAAA . . . I’M GOING TO CHANGE MY VOTE BECAUSE MY FEELINGS WERE HURT . . . WAAAAA . . . WAAAA . . .
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
being paid more than $30,000 per month.
That’s a fair amount of money Paul.
MORE FOR ACORN:
Incredibly, the allotment for ACORN is still in the bailout deal under negotiation!
Topics: Political News and commentaries
Kathryn Jean Lopez writes that a leadership source tells her that the allotment for ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) – remains in the deal under negotiation. This is pure insanity, and amounts to a direct assault against capitalism juxtaposed to yet another step toward communism – already being pushed by the Democratic left.
As we have previously posted, this left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It’s the Chicago way.
Ben
Rick Davis has received NO money from Fannie Mae, or his former lobbying firm, for several years.
The NYT story is wrong.
You, of course, get mad at the NYT when you don’t like what they say, and then you post from the NYT when you like what they say.
Furthermore, to be a LOBBYIST for a mortgage company is a far, far different thing that being the CEO of a company that goes belly up.
Franklin Raines is an Obama advisor.
Franklin Raines was taken to court, by the SEC, under Bush, and had to repay millions of dollars in bonuses that Raines looted, from Fannie Mae.
Rick Davis NEVER had any managing control over any mortgage lender. Rick Davis never had any control over any Wall Street firm.
Franklin Raines ran Fannie into the ground. Franklin Raines gave huge amounts of money to himself, and to Democrats.
Franklin Raines is an Obama advisor.
There is NO moral equivalence here, at all.
It is like holding BTK’s attorney responsible for the acts of BTK!
A Lobbyist does not RUN the company.
Besides, Rick Davis was never a Fannie Mae lobbyist.
blogmonitor – as you know, the Republics have abdicated so the Democrats must now achieve nearly 100% vote in their caucus. Unfortunately this will require holding the ‘left flank’ of the Party.
Too bad the Republics don’t want to participate. Perhaps if they would a good bill coule be compromised.
Republican voter fraud:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html
COLUMBUS — A high-level Republican consultant has been subpoenaed in a case regarding alleged tampering with the 2004 election.
Michael L. Connell was served with a subpoena in Ohio on Sept. 22 in a case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations. Connell, president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications, is a website designer and IT professional who created a website for Ohio’s secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were tabulate.
===================================
* Alaska Fraud (Lt. Governor involved in ballot manipulation )
* Arizona Fraud (Sproul shows up as a top donor to Congressman Trent Franks )
* Arkansas Fraud (Allegation that Governor’s wife obstructed black votes)
* California Fraud (Observers shut out)
* Colorado Fraud (Republican Secretary of State limits provisional ballots )
* Florida Fraud (Early voting problems, Jeb’s gonna deliver )
* Kentucky Fraud (Possible money laundering)
* Illinois Fraud (Ballot errors)
* Iowa Fraud (Limited registration problems )
* Maine Fraud Alleged inappropriate conduct by Rockland’s registrar of voters.
* Massachusetts Fraud (GOP encouraging illegal absentee ballots)
* Maryland Fraud (More problems with felon purges)
* Michigan Fraud (Student voters targeted, etc)
* Missouri Fraud (Diminishing ballot access)
* Minnesota Fraud (Canvassers to only turn in GOP registrations)
* Nevada Fraud ( Dem. registrations shredded )
* New Hampshire Fraud (College students targeted)
* New Mexico Fraud (Pro-GOP voting machine behavior)
* North Carolina Fraud Slowdowns due to Challenges
* Ohio Fraud (Blackwell’s shenanigans, GOP voter fraud ops moving in, Challenges galore)
* Oregon Fraud (Dem. registrations shredded )
* Pennsylvania Fraud (Moving polling places at last minute)
* South Carolina Fraud (Play hide-the-polling-station)
* South Dakota Fraud (GOP members resign over absentee stink)
* Tennessee Fraud (Planted special Olympics fliers)
* Texas Fraud (Austin electronic vote problems, Gerrymander case not over)
* Virginia Fraud Nader Chief – recent Republican activist/campaign worker
* Washinton Fraud Missing Absentee Ballots
* Washington Fraud Missing Absentee Ballots
* West Virginia Fraud (Absentee phone scams/registrations destroyed?)
* Wisconsin Fraud (Milwaukee urban ballot shortages)
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Voter_Registration_Fraud_Clearinghouse#State-by-State_Breakdown_of_stories
=============================
Prior to linking Democrats, and ACORN in particular, to voter fraud, it would be wise for the Republicans to ensure their own house is clean. Glass houses and stones come to mind.
Paul – so $30K/month doesn’t count?
He ran a front company for BOTH Fannie and Freddie.
A pox on all of the coward’s houses!
I think if it goes unabated, the crisis will be felt within weeks, maybe months, definitely not years!
If it wasn’t a disaster bush admin. wouldn’t have brought it up, they would’ve punted it over to the next admin. most likely Obama, and deflected blame. So it’s got to be some serious crap!
ben
Get real.
There will be another bill.
Republicans will have a much greater say, in that new bill.
Pelosi will be warned, behind closed doors, to shut her mouth or her leadership will be in jeopardy.
Agreed Phantom. Unfortunately there are the extremists on both sides who refuse to work together for the best of the country. They only know how to claim that the ‘other side’ is 100% at fault.
Paul – I AM real. And I hope the Democrats craft a DEMOCRATIC bill to send to your boy Bush.
JM
Even if we are to belief your “list of horrors” that you bring against Republicans — did I miss something?
Is the bill before Congress asking the taxpayers to FUND any Republican leaning voter fraud group?
ACORN is a radical Democrat voter fraud promoting organization.
ACORN also helped create this mess, in the first place, by protesting for more “liar loans”.
“Is the bill before Congress asking the taxpayers to FUND any Republican leaning voter fraud group?”
YES – WALL STREET
“To the extent that anyone voted against the package simply because of Pelosi’s comments (and I seriously doubt that moronic theory has any validity), such lawmakers should be put in “time out” and then voted out, in that order.”
I prefer horsewhipping, but would accept the above. However, for Pelosi to use that moment to make the points she did was either stupid, or calculating. I choose stupid.
blogmonitor – as you know, the Republics have abdicated so the Democrats must now achieve nearly 100% vote in their caucus. Unfortunately this will require holding the ‘left flank’ of the Party.
Actually, Ben, the mom-and-pop outrage and the complexity of the issues pretty much guarantee this one won’t break down on clean left/right lines, even if the House Republicans were out of the picture. Sure, there were a few liberals like Kucinich opposing it but there were also plenty of Blue Dogs such as the deathly conservative John Barrow and, indeed, my own rep, Gabrielle Giffords.
If the Democrats bite the bullet they might have to please the “left flank” but you what? That might just result in a more responsible bill. One hopes, anyway.
Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb
A Partisan Paper of Record
Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.
In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.
Further, and missing from the Times’ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.
Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.
Again, let us be clear: The New York Times — in the absence of any supporting evidence — has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain’s long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.
To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.
Therefore this “report” from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.
We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions — to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama — under the cloak of objective journalism.
The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper’s reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.
Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376
Hey Walker! Nice list of nothing. Let’s post CONVICTIONS and by PARTY shall we?
You go first, it will take me awhile to gather all the ACORN convictions in a court of law.
Also, the frauds you list: you must prove they were committed and convicted republicans.
Since you are so good, I imagine you have the facts ready to post. You wouldn’t post trash, would you?
PS: ACORN and democrats/obama are happening NOW in the congress NOW. Trying to get BILLIONS in money from taxpayers. Fraud today!
Roll call vote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE1r_DuYH2j4rBy8JqBaVQ40MiOQD93GJ5H04
Oh WOW – the McCain campaign is now linked as an unbiased source.
Well, Paul and “blog monitor” obviously know who’s to blame, or at the very least who’s going to get the blame in November.
Guys, ever heard the Shakespearean phrase “Thou protestest too much?”
A sort of technical question: All this ACORN stuff – was that in the Bill that was voted down? Or is that being looked at now?
ben
You are being ridiculous, once again.
ACORN should NOT be funded by this bill.
Do you agree or disagree?
Also, you are calling Republicans names, for not supporting this bill, but then you say that this bill is partisan because it helps Wall Street?
HUH?
Where has Wall Street ever been involved in voter fraud?
Wall Street is, primarily, a Democrat piggy bank, not a Republican strong hold. Not hard to understand why. Republicans support true competition. Wall Street types seek to limit competition for the sake of their own profits, and to reduce risk, through government action.
You are very, very contradictory Ben.
By the way, you make the vague statements, above, that some democrats might be involved — care to name names?
What Democrats do you think “share” some blame here?
I was wrong about something.
I was told ACORN was in the original bill.
It was.
Then, I was told that ACORN was taken out of todays final version.
It was not.
More rediculousness from PaulTheShrillShill. No, ACORN should not be funded by the bill – I never said they should.
“I was told ACORN was in the original bill.
It was.”
The one Bush/Paulson sent down?
It appears not everyone wants to be the bag man in this Pelosi led bank heist.
While it’s true that 67 percent (65-133) of House Republicans voted against the Bill, 46 Percent (140-95) of House Democrats also voted against the bill.
The total represents a 52 percent of Congressional representatives were against the Pelosi heist of socialistic banking system.
It is reported that Pelosi’s plan would take twenty years to implement and might not even work because they have used financial nest eggs of the government to uphold the failed cash reptiles of Wall Street.
Any cracks in those shells and any failures by the predator lending institutions will send the bill back to the government, that’s “We the People” folks, not the one’s who caused it.
The ‘crack-snorting’, pot-smoking, money-grubbing greed mongers on Wall Street and in the banking industry are taking it in the shorts and deservedly so.
There is no ‘lock box’ here and there is no fail safe to this legislation. This legislation is the worst thought out plan in the history of the United States.
There has been more thought and careful planning put into an 9th grade science project than this plan has.
Walking around like ’shaved-heads’ the Pelosi gang are wailing and gnashing their teeth that their superficial beauty has been revealed as an ugly hag, once the wig of deception was lifted.
Let the cooler heads prevail and let’s put more thought into this than writing out a blank check.
sob, sniffle.
I really wanted to help Americans. I truly know it is important to stabilize the economy.
But, but, Pelosi picked on me and now I’ll just show her.
yeah, take that! Pelosi!
Oh, any everyone else, I’m sorry but I couldn’t let her treat me that way!
For heaven’s sake. Either the bill was a good one or not. Either it was the best thing to do now, quickly before more damage was done to the economy or it wasn’t.
We see the childish behavior, the blaming someone else, the “s/he did it first” right here on the blog and find it as silly and childish as the excuse that a representative to Congress might allow anything said by Pelosi to change a position on an important vote and still count themselves among responsible adults.
Regular
Posted September 29, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Permalink
It appears not everyone wants to be the bag man in this Pelosi led bank heist.
While it’s true that 67 percent (65-133) of House Republicans voted against the Bill, 46 Percent (140-95) of House Democrats also voted against the bill.
=================================================================
But the Republicans get blamed for not passing it. Go figure.
The Senate was bought and paid for, but a few in the House must not have taken bribes.
FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLKS.
Linda
Pelosi is getting an ass chewing, right now, from other Democrats.
You can stick up for her all you want, but what she did was stupid.
There will be Democrats running against these Republicans, who will use a vote FOR this bill as a campaign issue, against that Republican.
Pelosi, at least, should have given the Republicans some “political cover” to win their votes.
“Pelosi’s plan”?????
Wasn’t that mostly Bush/Paulson’s plan?
Well, lunch is over … back to work … it’s been fun.
This was a bush / Paulson bill! It was improved by two committees in the Senate and House to offer greater protections and accountability. If this was a poor bill, the original was poorer! To call this a Pelosi bill is nothing but disingenuous.
So, let’s get a better one, let’s have a solution.
Is there the possibility the Senate can behave better? Actually do something to help the economy and Americans?
One wag complained yesterday that “billions” of federal dollars have been given to ACORN. This story just grows and grows like Pinnochi’s nose….
lindainks55
Posted September 29, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
This was a bush / Paulson bill! It was improved by two committees in the Senate and House to offer greater protections and accountability. If this was a poor bill, the original was poorer! To call this a Pelosi bill is nothing but disingenuous.
—————–
It used to be a Paulson/Bush plan. Once the ‘Hag of Congress’ got her wrinkled hands on it, the bill ballooned up to over 400 pages of worthless garbage.
So, yes-precisely-exactly-unequivocally, Pelosi screwed this up.
So President Bush urged passage of a “Pelosi led bank heist”?
You guys are in over your heads……
Like I said, she did it first is an excuse used by a child. If what Pelosi did was stupid (and I did not make a judgment about that either way!), it wasn’t less stupid to allow what she said to have an effect on a position you would take on an important bill.
The bill had merit or didn’t.
And
Lets remember
The DEMOCRATS control Congress.
This was PELOSI’s Bill.
This was a DEMOCRAT proposal.
Pelosi could not get a majority of her own party.
Why did those other Democrats not vote with Pelosi?
Bush has been right, about the out of control mortgage business since 2001.
Bush was wrong about this, particular bill.
Democrats control Congress. Republicans understand that we can not have everything we want. However:
Democrats ignored or resisted EVERY attempt, by Republicans, to reform the mortgage business over the last 8 years.
This is a Democrat-caused problem. Democrats should be a bit more gracious, when asking for Republicans to help them fix their mess!
With the congress and w.h. under repub. control until 2006, they should have done something. Problem is their solution was to dismantle and privatize, so they would’ve been wholly unregulated.
Looks like I finally have my answer. America’s economy wasn’t strong enough to withstand 8 yrs. of bush.
Those raving about ACORN are nuts.
Bills come out of committee and the Speaker of the House introduces that bill for debate and voting in the House.
This bill was amended from the original bush / Paulson bill by the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee.
I wonder if Pelosi will be asking for a larger plane, so she can fly home to Hollyfornia on weekends?
“This was a DEMOCRAT proposal.
Pelosi could not get a majority of her own party.”
TWO Lies! It was a Bush/Paulson proposal.
A majority of Democrats voted FOR it!
Members of the House Financial Services Committee
Majority
* Barney Frank, Chairman, Massachusetts
* Paul E. Kanjorski, Pennsylvania
* Maxine Waters, California
* Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
* Luis Gutierrez, Illinois
* Nydia Velázquez, New York
* Mel Watt, North Carolina
* Gary Ackerman, New York
* Brad Sherman, California
* Gregory W. Meeks, New York
* Dennis Moore, Kansas
* Michael Capuano, Massachusetts
* Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
* William Clay, Jr., Missouri
* Carolyn McCarthy, New York
* Joe Baca, California
* Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
* Brad Miller, North Carolina
* David Scott, Georgia
* Al Green, Texas
* Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
* Melissa Bean, Illinois
* Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
* Lincoln Davis, Tennessee
* Paul Hodes, New Hampshire
* Keith Ellison, Minnesota
* Ron Klein, Florida
* Tim Mahoney, Florida
* Charlie Wilson, Ohio
* Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
* Chris Murphy, Connecticut
* Joe Donnelly, Indiana
* Bill Foster, Illinois
* André Carson, Indiana
* Jackie Speier, California
* Don Cazayoux, Louisiana
* Travis Childers, Mississippi
Minority
* Spencer Bachus, Ranking Member, Alabama
* Deborah D. Pryce, Ohio
* Michael N. Castle, Delaware
* Peter T. King, New York
* Edward R. Royce, California
* Frank Lucas, Oklahoma
* Ron Paul, Texas
* Steve LaTourette, Ohio
* Donald Manzullo, Illinois
* Walter B. Jones, North Carolina
* Judy Biggert, Illinois
* Christopher Shays, Connecticut
* Gary Miller, California
* Shelley Capito, West Virginia
* Tom Feeney, Florida
* Jeb Hensarling, Texas
* Scott Garrett, New Jersey
* Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
* James Barrett, South Carolina
* Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania
* Steve Pearce, New Mexico
* Randy Neugebauer, Texas
* Tom Price, Georgia
* Geoff Davis, Kentucky
* Patrick McHenry, North Carolina
* John Campbell, California
* Adam Putnam, Florida
* Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
* Peter Roskam, Illinois
* Kenny Marchant, Texas
* Thad McCotter, Michigan
* Kevin McCarthy, California
* Dean Heller, Nevada
40 percant is a majority in Paul-world:
“40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill”
http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/544706.html
“Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
Bush has been right, about the out of control mortgage business since 2001.
Bush was wrong about this, particular bill.
Democrats control Congress. Republicans understand that we can not have everything we want. However:
Democrats ignored or resisted EVERY attempt, by Republicans, to reform the mortgage business over the last 8 years.
This is a Democrat-caused problem. Democrats should be a bit more gracious, when asking for Republicans to help them fix their mess!”
LMAO!
I can’t believe people actually think this way (and I use the term ‘think’ loosely in this case)
Ben,
econ can’t help it, he’s just math-challenged.
Hey everyone. Did any of you actually read the entire bill? I know I didn’t. It’s 110 pages, and I’m still reading.
Pretty hard to vote on something if you haven’t had time to read it. Lord forbid our elected reps want time to UNDERSTAND and DISCUSS it.
Pretty hard to fault the 46% OF democrats voting against their Speaker.
SEC. 122. INCREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT. Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting
‘‘$11,315,000,000,000’’.
cosmos – must be the same math he uses when he sells those annuities.
“This is a Democrat-caused problem. Democrats should be a bit more gracious, when asking for Republicans to help them fix their mess!”
Sure Paul – the Democratic MAJORITY in Congress for the past decade? Oh yea – 40% is a majority in Paul-world!
AVTolle? You sure this is the right VOTE tally?
“BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes”
Still reading latest draft, and then to see if I can find the previous version to verify the ACORN information.
Want to confirm what I found on two links:
Update: The funding of the Housing Trust Fund, the slush fund that feeds ACORN and La Raza, is out. You can thank House Republicans for enough obstructionism to get that result. Other changes made to the final version of the bailout, according to a source on the Hill, were the removal of several provisions:
• Provision to provide unions and other activist groups with proxy access for corporate boards
• Provision to mandate shareholder votes on compensation issues (union priority)
• Diversion of funds into a housing fund to support left-wing activist groups like ACORN
• A provision to allow trial judges to arbitrarily adjust mortgages, creating bonanza for trial lawyers
• A provision to require the government to sell to state and local governments at a discount homes the government acquires as a result of foreclosure
It also suspends mark-to-market rules and requires a study on their effects on the collapse.
Update II: Just to clarify, the bullet points
ACORN outrage removes affordable housing provision
The ACORN issue is off the table.
After several days of rage from conservative activists regarding a provision in the bailout bill that would send some of the profits from the sale of distressed assets the goverment buys into an affordable housing trust fund, congressional negotiators have removed section 105(d) of the bailout proposal, according to aides on both side.
ACORN, a Democratic ally, was not specifically directed any funds in the previous proposal, but money that went to state and local governments could then have been divvied out to the organization, which the GOP said was a deal breaker. Fevered opposition to the provision had become a viral sensation.
It appears that, with the removal of the affordable housing trust fund, all of the proceeds from the sale of assets will now go to retire the debt.
Link to measure:
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr3997_amnd_samnd.pdf
‘Fact Check: McCain’s stance on deregulation’
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/29/fact-check-mccains-stance-on-deregulation/
“The Statement: At a campaign rally Monday, September 29, in Denver, Colorado, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama once again charged his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, with being a supporter of deregulating financial markets that have since collapsed.
“He’s fought against common-sense regulations for decades … and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy. Senator, what economy are you talking about?” Obama said.
…
The Verdict: True — although McCain has supported more government oversight of Wall Street as part of the bailout plan.”
Economic Stabilization Act
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
Read it BEFORE blogging on it? (Ahem) I mean read it before voting on it.
“Update II: Just to clarify, the bullet points
ACORN outrage removes affordable housing provision
The ACORN issue is off the table.”
So, if I understand you correctly, there were no goodies for ACORN in the bill?
According to the news, five Democratic Chairs in the House of Representatives voted against the Pelosi bill.
Heck, Pelosi can’t even get the support of here committee chair leaders. :)
On May 25, 2006 John McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He co-sponsored the S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced in January 2005.
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
here=her
So, if I understand you correctly, there were no goodies for ACORN in the bill?
BTH, if you read what I’ve posted, which includes a link to the latest bill, I’m trying to verify that the previous posts (about removal) are true.
It was in the earlier version and there were statements by politicians about that.
Please read the bill.
Five out of how many? I suspect she still got a majority of them. And how did Bush’s Party chairs vote?
WASHINGTON — Last March, a consultant to Freddie Mac arranged a meeting between the top economist in John McCain’s campaign and Hollis S. McLoughlin, a prominent Republican and top executive at the failing housing giant that is central to the nation’s credit crisis.
The meeting with economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin never took place because several Freddie Mac executives objected, said three people familiar with the episode.
The executives pointed out to McLoughlin that there was no such outreach to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, said the three people, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The consultant who arranged the meeting, Harry Clark, is the founder of a Washington lobbying firm.
Out of a special account that McLoughlin controls, the Freddie Mac executive has been paying Clark more than $10,000 a month. McLoughlin has been using the same account to pay $15,000 a month to the lobbying firm of Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, the three people said.
The payments have been made despite a scaling back of Freddie Mac’s government-relations budget. The budget-cutting began several years ago after serious accounting problems at Freddie Mac tarnished its public image.
“Hollis protected Harry Clark and Rick Davis by intentionally moving their contracts into an account that Hollis controlled and had to review and approve,” said one of the sources.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the other failing mortgage giant, paid Davis or his lobbying firm more than $2 million dating back to 2000.
Sunday, September 28, 2008 3:23 AM
By Pete Yost
ASSOCIATED PRESS
(Much needs to be investigated and researched before congress RAMS THROUGH this bill. Things are just now coming to the light of day.)
“Finished searching for:
ACORN
Total instances found:
0″
” The Community Reinvestment Act as a source of our current problems. CRA, originally passed in 1977, does not require banks or thrifts to make loans that are unsafe or unprofitable. In fact, federal law requires that CRA lending activities must be done consistent with safe and sound banking practices. In reality, most high-cost loans were originated by lenders that did not have a CRA obligation and lacked federal oversight.” ** – Barney Frank
From 1995 to 2007 the Republican-majority House passed no bills strengthening regulatory oversight of the lending practices. The House passed a regulation improvement within four months of gaining an Democratic majority, I heard him say today on the House floor. -db
** http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/29814069.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
This was and is a win for American’s. And I’m going to say that if you were for it, you are the enemy. “Democrats were putting America first”, my ass. Most Repugs voted for it too. You dumb asses that think this is in the least a Dem/Rep thing are complete RETARDS. SHEEP. IDIOTS. WASTES OF SPACE. ENEMIES. This was We The People against bankers wanting our freedoms. Laugh all you want idjits, you’ve laughed at everything else so far.
DavidB: Try posting facts. Not opinions. The ones you post don’t smell any better than the ones we all post here.
THanks
Here David. This is available at a number of sources:
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent “redlining” – denying mortgages to black borrowers – by pressuring banks to make home loans in “low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.” Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the “credit needs” of “predominantly minority neighborhoods.” The higher a bank’s rating, the more likely that regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger or acquisition.
1995: The Clinton Administration’s regulatory revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans.
2003: the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added “I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.”
‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’
How the Democrats Killed Regulatory Reform that could have prevented the current financial crisis
The Democrats killed it in committee to prevent it coming to a vote. Those responsible for the killing of the 2005 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act sponsored by John McCain.
Those responsible for killing the bill are:
Dodd – (D) Conn
Schumer – (D) NY
Menendez – (D) NJ
Reed (D) RI
Covered front to tail in Thomas Frank’s “The Wrecking Crew”.
Republicans break things, refuse to fix them, then blame someone else!
And SOME cons changed their vote because they got their widdle feewings hurt by Nancy Pelosi?
It’s about time the cons were called out for the greedy, self absorbed miscreants they are!
No matter what happens, it is the fault of bush and the Republicans in Congrees. PUNISH them!
Back to the bill, it says the amount of authority is limited to 700 billion (count them) dollars “OUTSTANDING AT ANY ONE TIME”.
Bill is not limited to 700 billion in new debt.
Looks like the media isn’t buying the ‘Pelosi hurt our feeling talking about our fearless leader’ excuse. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/fortune/nobailout_easton.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest
No more than they’ll buy mccain trying to turn it on Obama for not enough leadership. Is mccain really that ignorant to think people won’t think of his failed leadership when it was the repubs. that killed the deal? (I think he really is).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_10
People who post silly things like the below are not to be taken seriously. Scroll over:
“No matter what happens, it is the fault of.. “
Four dems in a repub. majority committee killed a repub. bill, yea, right.
So what took place in Congress before Freddie and Fannie fell apart? Check out this video with C-SPAN highlights of what took place when the house was asked to investigate the accounting practices of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac before the meltdown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
(This is biased but may want to look up the C-SPAN archives to confirm or deny it.)
I understand that one of the sticking points for the Republicans was Democrats wanting to limit executive salaries.
Republicans care about CEOs and their golden parachutes. Any other American gets the back of their hand!
“2003: the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” ”
Didn’t the Republican party have the majority vote in 2003?
The Office of Housing and Urban development has legal oversight of Fannie and Freddy. Why did this office which is run by Bush appointees not provide effective oversight?
If I recall there was something inserted in the bill if the mortgage bailout resulted in a profit some of the profit would go for low income housing. Nothing deal breaking about that.
Let’s recap.
President bush: “Help! Me and the Republicans broke the economy!”
Democrats: “Well it’s YOUR fault, but for the sake of America, we’ll try.”
Republicans: “NO! We worked too hard ruining government and we aint finished yet!”
Phantom
Posted September 29, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Four dems in a repub. majority committee killed a repub. bill, yea, right
————————-
Yep they did.
Try and learn how the government works. The minority can resist attempts where a committee majority is not reached and prevent the bill from getting to a vote in the Senate/House.
This is exactly what happened in this case of the defeat of the 2005 bill by John McCain that would have solved the current financial problems.
“Regular
Posted September 29, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
How the Democrats Killed Regulatory Reform that could have prevented the current financial crisis”
Amazing how the MINORITY party did all that.
Reading through this legislation (still up to page 40), this bill allows the government to purchase banks, credit uniones, S&L, brokers, residential or commercial mortgages, security broker, security dealer, and insurance company – not limited to.
This would complete the social transformation of America. Nationalization of the entire nations banking industry.
Is it any wonder 228 – the majority of the US House; 94 democrats and 132 republicans voted no?
God Bless them every one.
‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank in 2003.
Perhaps in 2003 this was true.
Bush did not get the oversight moved to the Treasury Department, then. but remember, there was a Republican majority when this Bush plan failed to get backing.
—
There was an amendment to put some profits from the sale into the “Affordable Housing Trust Fund”. That was not in the final, failed agreement. All profits (if any are any) are to go to retire the debt.
Here’s a good laugh from the bill:
“Maximize overall returns for the taxpayers of the United States”
Should I start watching my mailbox anytime soon?
(ha-ha. If I didn’t laugh I’d be crying after looking at my portfolio.)
Interesting video link to Obama’s advisors:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3118880&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
“Treasury Secretary Paulson ‘disappointed’ by House bailout vote, says he’ll work with Congress on a ‘comprehensive plan.’ More soon.”
http://money.cnn.com/
I wonder if he can get his own party on board this time.
Bush and Paulson – LOSERS:
“WASHINGTON (Fortune) — Barely containing his temper, Virginia’s Eric Cantor, deputy whip for the House Republicans, stepped to the microphone this afternoon to blame the bailout defeat on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “failure to listen” and her charged partisan rhetoric in condemning President George Bush’s “budgetary recklessness” and “anything-goes mentality.”
If only it were that simple. If only the failure of the White House to muster enough votes from its own party to avert what it calls looming financial disaster could be blamed on a few ill-chosen words uttered on the House floor by San Francisco’s hyper-partisan speaker.
In fact, Monday’s surprise defeat of the $700 billion rescue package – meant to blunt a burgeoning financial crisis – can be traced to a failure on the part of the president and his treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, to fully appreciate the ferocity of the popular revolt they touched off nine days ago.”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/fortune/nobailout_easton.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092918
dionysus
Posted September 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
American
Posted September 29, 2008 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
Interesting video link on Obama and his advisors:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3118880&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
That is a scathing report on Obama having deeper ties to the people responsible for and working for the mortgage meltdown. Millions went to Obama’s associates and supporters. 120,000 to Obama from Fanny and Freddy too.
This bailout needs to be investigated fully before knee jerk reaction voting.
(Obama looks pretty connected and dirty. Sorry yet you passed on Hillary? I did NOT see her name on the donation list.)
“This is exactly what happened in this case of the defeat of the 2005 bill by John McCain that would have solved the current financial problems.”
[Posted y Regular]
Ummm… WHO had the Majority in 2005?? WHO had the Committee Chair in that committee in 2005??
HOW could the MONORITY stop the bill from coming out of committee??
Care to explain that one genius???
Amen brother! Amen!
Regular said:
Try and learn how the government works. The minority can resist attempts where a committee majority is not reached and prevent the bill from getting to a vote in the Senate/House.
This is exactly what happened in this case of the defeat of the 2005 bill by John McCain
I am very much reminded of another time voters caste aside their differences and started writing letters to congress. Anyone remember the Immigration Bill? Congress tried to ram it down our throats.
I think they were a bit surprised by our outrage.
And this bill is just getting us warmed up.
In fact, Monday’s surprise defeat of the $700 billion rescue package –
They have more surprises coming. WRITE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL NOW! EMAIL EM. YOU CAN DO IT ON LINE EASILY. THE FORMS ARE MADE VERY SIMPLE FOR THOSE SUFFERING FROM PUBLIC EDUCATION.
“Democrats ought to be ashamed that 95 of their Members voted against; but it is the House Republicans who deserve the greatest blame — a significant majority of Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while conservative Republicans — defying the White House — voted against by over 2-1. I hear that some in the White House think the GOP vote was a disgrace; they are right.”
- David Gergen (presidential advisor during the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.)
“Try and learn how the government works. The minority can resist attempts where a committee majority is not reached and prevent the bill from getting to a vote in the Senate/House.”
Which is exactly how the Republicans manage to stall and be able to denounce this Democratically-weighted Congress as a do-nothing Congress.
I remember the Sunday interviews where McCain’s surrogates were bragging on McCain’s leadership skills brought the House together on this deal…..
I’ve been looking for the speech the cons objected to.
Here are excerpts. BRAVO Nancy! About time to tell it like it is and put the cons on notice!
“[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration’s failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”
“Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.”
“Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street. The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardise the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilisation bill.”
“Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership … We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future.”
WELL SAID!
Well, regardless of who it was, the sumb*tches who were supposed to be watching the hen house let us down. They still don’t have a clue as to what to do, do they?
This too will pass. The good thing is that I won’t waste time checking my IRA near as often for a while. It is good to remember though, that the important thing is what your account will have in it in 10, 15, 20 years, or whenever it is that you need will need it. Stay strong.
I prefer an optimistic attitude. If you are young enough that is a good plan. Difficult to be optimistic if you’re close to retirement, or already retired and depending on earnings for income.
Bush lied about his Misbegotten War. He borrowed 700 billion dollars from China to achieve “Misson Accomplished” and fund his occupation, all “off budget.”
When he then claims he needs a Bush Bailout, you can imagine how much credibility he has left.
He might be right, but who’s gonna believe him.
Krugman was right. The extreme GOP “deadenders” make us look like a “banana republic with nukes.”
“If a liberal posted it they are always right and to be defended even when they are wrong.”
Even if they are dumb.
Next up: How to pass judgement based upon proven factual information on those suffering from the “Greatest Blame”.
Followed immediately by the sentencing guidelines based upon degree of blame.
The fellowship of the liberal artists are seeking inspiration and guidance in the establishment of proper regulations pertaining to blame and it’s many degrees.
Feel free to post ideas for judging blame degree (blame to the 1st power, etc.,etc.,).
Additional, we would appreciate penalties and sentencing guidelines based upon BLAME power.
Of course a finding of guilt is not to be a consideration. It’s all based upon your own opinion.
Have at it, and most of all, have fun with it.
outlander posted September 29, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“This too will pass. The good thing is that I won’t waste time checking my IRA near as often for a while. It is good to remember though, that the important thing is what your account will have in it in 10, 15, 20 years, or whenever it is that you need will need it. Stay strong.”
———–
outlander seems to believe that EVERYBODY in the U.S. will NOT need money from their IRA account for at least 10 years?
No wonder his nic is “outlander”.
“cosmos_originally” –
I was taken aback by “outlander’s” smug little rationalization about his 401k without a thought of people who have seen their retirement nesteggs wither away in a matter of weeks.
Without a thought.
Thoughtless.
“I’ve got mine. Screw everyone else.”
So what are you gonna do? Ask your congressman to rush through the most expensive legislation and one of the most complex and far-reaching socialisation bills ever seen – so you can save your 401K?
Don’t hold yer breath. Even if passed, the markets are fear motivated. The fundamentals which caused the markets to drop, will not improve with passing this salvation of the rich bill.
Confidence will not be restored. Only rich CEO’s, bankers, and those who made the subprime loans will profit. Of course our politicians will ensure they get another contribution next election cycle too.
But the bears are here to stay.
Stocks lost 1.2 trillon dollars of value today. $500 billion more than the bailout’s price tag…
The article “available from numerous sources”:
“Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent “redlining” – denying mortgages to black borrowers…”
I googled the entire posting and I found 3 Google pages (51 references) all quoting each other, and they all seem to be right wing blogs…
Echo Chamber falsehoods… what BS! No wonder many posters here are confused about the facts…
“In fact, federal law requires that CRA lending activities must be done consistent with safe and sound banking practices”- Barney Frank
You can fact check that in the law books…
We’ve been hearing…
The votes for this bill were there. It was gonna pass.
Republicans were on board for the good of the country to save the economy!
But then Nancy Pelosi made a speech. Some cons were SO pissy about it that they then said “Screw the country AND the economy!” She can’t talk to ME like that!
Thanks AmWay for your updates on the actual legislation itself.
Nobody else here bothers to read the dam bill. Hell, most of Congress didn’t read the dam bill!
And the PRESS, oh my!
You think the PRESS read the dam bill?
The Eagle? The Eagle can’t even bother to read a 4 page Tiahrt Amendment before commenting on it!!!
Pelosi pissed them off with the talk of a new congress, and new administration. Well whoever wins, it’ll be a new congress and a new administration. Let’s just not make the same mistakes we have in the last 8 yrs.
I remember the Sunday interviews where McCain’s surrogates were bragging on McCain’s leadership skills brought the House together on this deal…..
Romney was bragging on mccain this morning, how when he gets onto something it gets done.
Nobody else here bothers to read the dam bill.
I actually tried numerous times to get the thing, but the servers were overloaded. Be assured I won’t rely on AW’s quickie “analysis” of it.
DavidB posted September 29, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“Stocks lost 1.2 trillon dollars of value today. $500 billion more than the bailout’s price tag…”
———
That’s a real big positive for outlander. He will just save time for the next 10 years.
outlander posted September 29, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“This too will pass. The good thing is that I won’t waste time checking my IRA near as often for a while.”
With Todd making a statement on the local news tonight, and his email being tied up after the vote came out, I’d say that people who his vote cost part of their small fortunes were definitely giving him a piece of their mind.
Well you certainly don’t disappoint me, CosmoMonkey, on the utter stupidity of your remarks. Or on your insufferable ignorance.
If you morons want to cry and wring your hands feel free to do so. I’m going to look on the optimistic side of things. And I will encourage others to think the same way. Of course as liberals, it is your duty to find someone to blame so that everyone can be victims.
Oh, and morons, I said absolutely nothing about not feeling sorry for folks, who like me, lost some money.
But since you mention it CosmoMonkey, if a person needed their IRA or 401k money soon and they were heavy in stocks, they have ignored everything that they had ever been told about financial planning. They gambled and lost. Sorry, but they knew better.
Finally, I would like to compliment you. You are both excellent examples of the moronic partisanship that threatens this country.
McCain’s “Mission Acomplished” Moment?
I used the Adobe search function and tries to find “ACORN” in the bill to see all that stuff Paul said was in there. The search found nothing.
It’s been 8 long yrs. of bush, and the markets are below when he took office. People would’ve been better off burying their money for the last 8 yrs.
Think of all the pension funds that took a beating today as well.
Acorn=nuts, might try that in the search engine.
Dennis Moore should be impeached for voting for this Trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout.
I called Tiahrt’s office today. I asked if I could offer an opinion,
The staffer said, and I quote, “As long as you don’t yell at me.”
A bad day for America today.
Cosmos, the price does not end with $700 billion. You should know that by now. We were told this would end with the Bear Stearns bailout.
I do believe the committees are weighted in favor of the controlling party, therefore if 4 dems voted against, they would not have a majority to kill anything. Had to be a repub. in there too.
Reading a post above.. five personal insults in five paragraphs… wow…
Did roach crawl out of regular’s butt, I mean head?
#
bth
Posted September 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
I used the Adobe search function and tries to find “ACORN” in the bill to see all that stuff Paul said was in there. The search found nothing.
Big surprise, that. Like a special subsidy to a controversial activist organization would make it in to bill to save the financial sector. Never mind it was endorsed by numerous pols of both parties and the White House.
Paul is more interested in making up utterly ludicrous lies, and apparenrly some here are so invested in his brand of politics that they take that crap seriously.
I quote Regular from earlier today:
“Try and learn how the government works. The minority can resist attempts where a committee majority is not reached and prevent the bill from getting to a vote in the Senate/House.”
Good point rage. Of course, we also have to note that Paul thinks 40% is a MAJORITY!
“Franklin
Posted September 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
Pelosi could not get a majority of her own party.”
According to Paul (our economics expert) 60% is not a majority. That explains a lot!
Must be bush math.
outlander,
You’re very confused. You’re making arguments in two opposite directions.
So we have all the financial experts telling us we need to get the bail out deal the admin proposes, then we have house republicans, out of their depth, thinking they may not have the answer, but they know when a proposal isn’t the answer, and kill it.
“The reckless negligence and mismanagement of the country’s financial markets by the White House, the Treasury and the Fed over the last several years has now produced a crisis that has wiped out all of the increase in the market value of America’s companies from five years of record corporate profits, strong productivity gains, and reasonable growth. Bush has now run the table on presidential failure.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/stock-dive-is-bookend-of_n_130398.html
I was curious as to Michael Moore’s specific objection (not that there isn’t plenty to hate about this, but I wanted to see his take).
Well, here it is. I agree with some of the points in his rant (I believe the collapse of health-care system has created uncharted mountains of debt), but his obvious total incomprehension of what it at least is supposed to be about is disturbing.
Monday, September 29th, 2008
The Rich Are Staging a Coup This Morning …a message from Michael Moore
Friends,
Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies — who must soon vacate the White House — are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.
No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday’s New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:
“Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.
“Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.
“At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.
“Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury’s proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions.”
Unbelievable. Wall Street and its backers created this mess and now they are going to clean up like bandits. Even Rudy Giuliani is lobbying for his firm to be hired (and paid) to “consult” in the bailout.
The problem is, nobody truly knows what this “collapse” is all about. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted he doesn’t know the exact amount that is needed (he just picked the $700 billion number out of his head!). The head of the congressional budget office said he can’t figure it out nor can he explain it to anyone.
And yet, they are screeching about how the end is near! Panic! Recession! The Great Depression! Y2K! Bird flu! Killer bees! We must pass the bailout bill today!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Falling for whom? NOTHING in this “bailout” package will lower the price of the gas you have to put in your car to get to work. NOTHING in this bill will protect you from losing your home. NOTHING in this bill will give you health insurance.
Health insurance? Mike, why are you bringing this up? What’s this got to do with the Wall Street collapse?
It has everything to do with it. This so-called “collapse” was triggered by the massive defaulting and foreclosures going on with people’s home mortgages. Do you know why so many Americans are losing their homes? To hear the Republicans describe it, it’s because too many working class idiots were given mortgages that they really couldn’t afford. Here’s the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage “crisis” may never have happened.
This bailout’s mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It’s to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It’s to make sure their yachts and mansions and “way of life” go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars!
I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something — NOW!
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=235
P.S. The take from Tucson’s congressfolks (both Democrats):
Southern Arizona’s two Democratic representatives voted against the proposed $700 billion bailout bill Monday, saying they thought the bill was rushed and did not do enough to protect taxpayers.
A spokeswoman for Democratic U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell of Phoenix said Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords joined the entire Arizona delegation in voting against the measure.
In a statement, Grijalva said he could not support the bill because it did not do enough for working families who may be in jeopardy of losing their homes and did not have enough oversight as to how the money would be spent.
“I am not in disagreement that there is a financial crisis in our country,” he said in a statement. “I am in disagreement of a proposal that is rushed and more importantly does not advocate equally for main street and strong protections for working families.”
Giffords had similar reservations, said her spokesman C.J. Karamargin.
“She believes action is needed to address the status of the financial markets but she wasn’t convinced that this bill was the right one and thinks it was rushed,” he said in an e-mail.
After the vote, Giffords was boarding a plane to come back to the district, but Karamargin said she would return to Washington D.C. if the bailout was re-introduced on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, Grijalva’s spokeswoman Natalie Luna said the congressman would stay in Washington D.C. in anticipation of a second vote later in the week.
In his statement, Grijalva said he wants a pay-as-you-go structure, a re-working of bankruptcy laws to help protect homeowners and the ability for Congress to halt payments.
“Pursuing this historic deal without strong oversight and ensuring strict regulations occurred for passage is a bad deal,” he said. “The language allows for an oversight Committee to only critique the proposal, not halt actions.”
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/259893
This is what happens when you play with monopoly money.
An eye-opening poll on the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093000450.html
Harvard economist (and apparently 166 others) disagrees with bailout. Maybe we should listen?
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) — Congress has balked at the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the “troubled assets” of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here’s why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
Don’t Miss
Bailout plan rejected
Financial rescue 101: the bill
Commentary: Financial crisis a disaster
In Depth: Commentaries
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This “moral hazard” generates enormous distortions in an economy’s allocation of its financial resources.
Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.
Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration’s claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.
The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.
Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.
How is Obama going to get his tax money now, and pay for all his hand-out programs?
Pension funds will keep losing money, becoming under funded in this crisis, the Pension benefit guarantte corp. is going to be paying pennies on the dollar for your pensions.
An interesting commentary. Now the part that lj inexeplicably left out, mainly who wrote the thing:
Editor’s note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/
Rage
Posted September 30, 2008 at 10:25 am | Permalink
An interesting commentary. Now the part that lj inexeplicably left out, mainly who wrote the thing:
Editor’s note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout
Wasn;t inentional. I thought I added it. Sorry.
I have no problem with atrributing what I cut and paste. I thought about just listing the link, but went and pasted it in.
As I said yesterday, I am not sure what the best answer is. I just wanted to show another side to the argument, by someone qualified. Now, if you want to say that since his is a libertarian, he is unqualified, I guess that’s your right.
Four economists in the Guardian (UK) offered worried but measures perspectives:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/30/wallstreet.useconomy
Some economist quotes in the AP suggest future problems:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRPsaPRWy72tFq6b-_sqzRXAAzqgD93H37H00
Some more economists remind us that–thanks to New Deal regulations–it’s impossible to have a full-blown repeat of the Great Depression:
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_10594229
University of Chicago economists (known long before this as fairly ‘conservative’ “free-market” advocates) weigh in:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tue-greisingsep30,0,140422.story
Now, if you want to say that since his is a libertarian, he is unqualified, I guess that’s your right.
Naah, but it’s instructive to know who he is, and where he’s coming from.
My post above was taken from going thru the results on Google News. I was a bit surprised by the U of Chicago economists.
P.S> My “meta-source”:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=economists+bailout&btnG=Search+News
Naah, but it’s instructive to know who he is, and where he’s coming from.
*************************
I buy that.
Libertarians are the ones we should be listening to. They seem to have the best grasp on the economy. They are not of the Corporate bought ilk, so they have a more clear perspective.
Just sayin. You know. Just sayin.