No deal YET, anyway...

Good thing McPOW had to get his photo taken at the table with Bush, but (according to news reports) not contribute much of anything.

*newsflash to McCain: you can jet to Mississippi in four hours then jet back after the debate.

....."and I was looking at their asses as they walked away", said Barney. "Potential clients for my roomate".

There, it's a bi-partison post now.

YEAH!

And the extortion/financial terrorism on the American people by the Republican Party Continues!

this deal needs to be a $700B loan with conditions, Gov. does not need to take them over

Dems got us into this, it will take the Repulicans to get us out

Look, I'm not an economist, and I know little to nothing about Wall St other than figuring it might as well be located in Vegas.

I DO know something has to be done in order to keep the country from sufferring a complete financial and economic melt-down and this bail-out might help.

That having been said, this deal had better not pass so long as it contains the "the secretrary can do whatever he bloody well wants and no one can even look into matters, so there!" clause in it. That's just common sense.

"Dems got us into this, it will take the Repulicans to get us out"??????

Is that a joke??? Must be.

geee shocking, the dems werent going to agree to anything that makes mcbush look like a hero.

"That's just common sense."

A very rare commodity in Washington.

A very rare commodity in Washington.

Sadly, not just Washington, Danni.

It's clear the Mcsame suckered Bush into the photo op and then screwed over the process.

Dems need to write a package assraping the CEOs, freezing dividends until the gov't is off the hook and getting equity and Board Seats equivalent to the % the Treasury is investing. Build in an exit strategy. Get that special mortgage court.

Then hand it to Bush and let him deal with his own Party. If he sells it, the Dems win, if he doesn't, the Reps lose.

GOOD

We must be witnessing some public outrage because the Democrats were wimping their way to the table.

It is clear the Conservative Republicans have split with Shrub and Paulson on this.

We want the RSC Plan! We want Wall Street to pay to have it junk hauled out or insured!!!

*note to ride_on:
making a non-sequitur post consisting of a junior high homosexual insult and the fabrication of a quote do not constitute "bi-partison" [sic].

The thing that really irks me is- who came up with the exact figure of 700 billion? who calculated this number and how? why is this number being sold to the pubic via the media?

why not 600 billion?

hell, let's make it 800 billion?

when you are dealing with such astronomical numbers you know there is going to be a ton of money or a significant portion that will eventually be...

UNACCOUNTED FOR! OOPSIE! this is all a fucking scam. and nothing we can do.

Is that a joke??? Must be.

#6 | Posted by danni

No, it ain't a joke.

The obvious:

Congressional republican leadership has realized the following

Bush is gone in 4 months
McCain is going to lose
House and senate seats are going to be lost

This is a sad example of people just being pissy

I'd bring Mitt Romney in to mediate.

Good thing McPOW had to get his photo taken at the table with Bush, but (according to news reports) not contribute much of anything.

*newsflash to McCain: you can jet to Mississippi in four hours then jet back after the debate.

#1 | Posted by SamBarber

You can't stand it when he does something Presidential! LOL!!!!

I really don't want McCain to win, nor do I want Obama. But, I am having the time of my life watching you idiots bicker over the most trivial shit. Especially how you've made Obama look like an imbecile while attacking Palin!!! That was just too much like the 3 stooges. LOL...

no bailout without provisions to pay it back!

YOU BREAK IT . . .
"POTTERY BARN" RULE BITES McCAIN . . .

Sen. John McCain may or may not have broken the bailout bill -- and surely he didn't do so all by himself.

But he owns it now.

A Minority of republicans are playing politca with this nation's financial security, the financial security of the citizens of this country, and our global security all because they cannot let dems win. When are these politicians going to quit playing partisan politics and do what is best for us as a nation? If our markets crash we are doomed financially and our global security is greatly diminished.

"Dems need to write a package assraping the CEOs, .......... "

Let me repeat, Dems do not want to do anything until they can be assured that a majority of Republicans will go with them. If this is so important, why are they playing politics? Don't they have enough support in their caucus to pass this on their own?

they're probably all scrambling around to see who'll fall the hardest when all the goods are made transparent.

oh what a wicked web they weave...

When are these politicians going to quit playing partisan politics and do what is best for us as a nation?
Posted by taxman

Paid for by taxpayers or Wall Street?

"The thing that really irks me is- who came up with the exact figure of 700 billion?"

They pulled it out of their ass. They think this number will be enough, but no one knows for sure, it could be more.

yea member

you forget yer leader in shining armor bush is the veto KING

too much to ask for a line item excel spreadsheet of where every nickel will be going?

"A Minority of republicans are playing politca with this nation's"

The RSC plan is BETTER, don't you people understand? Why not insure those illiguid assets, rather than buying them?

YEAH!

And the extortion/financial terrorism on the American people by the Republican Party Continues!

#3 | Posted by Redneckville

This is not just the Republican Party you incredible moron. You are playing right into the hands of the Democratic Party who are going to take the legislation passed in under this administration and build on it making it even better for the uber rich! Remember, much of this was building up during the Clinton years. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party but everything to do with consolidating the all the banks of the world into a single entity.

Now, if you would of said neocons instead of Republicans, then you are much closer to the truth.

thankx, auntiesocial!

"you forget yer leader in shining armor bush is the veto KING"

Well, Bush claims that without a deal the world comes to an end. How can he veto a solution to the problem then?

Can anyone explain why buying all the loans for $700,000,000,000.00 is better than simply guaranteeing the loans and only paying off the ones that default?

you cant call a time out with al queda

Don't they have enough support in their caucus to pass this on their own?

#22 | Posted by member2586

Because preservation of their party (and their Party) is more important than preserving the nation.

We can't have a deal on the bailout yet! If that were to go forward today McBush would not have a valid excuse to advoid the debate. And we ALL know what the result of THAT debate will be...

Maybe Sarah Palin could solve this problem?

What is Obama's position on this? Or is the Messiah still straddling the fence?

Dems got us into this, it will take the Repulicans to get us out

#4 | Posted by Maverick

Ignorance in its purest form. Why don't you check on the 1999 bill which deregulated the banking industry? And maybe take a peek at the repubs' record of deregulation.

I bet you think Sarah is really smart, huh?

Look, I'm not an economist, and I know little to nothing about Wall St other than figuring it might as well be located in Vegas.

I DO know something has to be done in order to keep the country from sufferring a complete financial and economic melt-down and this bail-out might help.

#5 | Posted by RevDarko

So, you know nothing about economics, but you are convinced if something is not done it will ruin the economy.

You should do some research, not all economists agree with this. Especially the ones that don't have a dog in this hunt.

Wis

Obama is pissing off some Dems who want bankruptcy protection and a stimulus package in this Bill, in an effort to keep them from looking like gridlocked House Republicans.

When the Clinton economic team, now the Obama economic team, and the Bush appointees and the Federal Reserve and probably 90 percent of economists say soemthing like what Paulson and the Dem's worked out before McCain fucked it up, should be done, it likely should be done.

In 1932 Roosevelt was confronted with a foreclosure problem and they started an agency that allowed mortgagees to refinance their mortgages at much more favorable terms. The banks were paid and the homeowners stayed in their homes and the taxpayers were paid back by homeowners who paid off their new mortgages. I don't know if that is feasible today but I do wonder why we only look at the problem from the perspective of the banks and not the homeowners. Seems to me there is less opportunity for theft and abuse by refinancing mortgages than with the government buying so called "assets" which are probably worthless paper. The more I learn about this deal the more I suspect that it is a scam to reward rich bankers for their support of Bush during his presidency.

The news this morning and on tv all predicted between another 112 - 144 banks scheduled to fail.

I'm going to a credit union and getting out of banks. Credit unions are solid.

Bush LIED, Paulson LIED, Bernake LIED so who is going to believe anything they tell us.

Two months ago when INDY bank failed those three liars told us the American public shouldn't worry because Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mac "were just fine."

Two months later Freddie and Ginnie went belly up and Bush and Paulson and Bernanke knew at the time they told the American public that Freddy and Ginnie were okay that they were lying. They want us to believe anything they say now? I don't.

Talk radio out here is talking about nothing but this stuff and bringing on a lot of financial saavy guests with good info that's not canned media sound bites. Don't listen to Rush and the corporate shills like Rush/Hannity on the radio. If you want solid info turn on your local talk radio guys and listen to what they have to say.

Such as this bit of info I got this morning ...

DID YOU KNOW that this bailout will only cover banks about to fail who carried the bundled subprime mortgage securities? If a bank was honest and is carrying only regular solid loans -- not those subprime crap loans -- then those banks will NOT be eligible for the bailout package.

So, you now ask -- if a bank has nothing but good mortgages then why would they even fail? Answer -- because so many people are going to be losing their jobs they will not be able to make their mortgage payments and those honest banks will be holding a lot of foreclosures -- not in mortgage securities but in regular loans which ended up defaulted on.

Every man and woman for themselves.
I believe NOTHING the fed and the White House tells me nor those sleezy politicians. Nothing. Look how they lied to us about Ginnie and Fannie being "just fine" when they knew all along they were going belly up.

And WHY are the Democrats now in an unholy alliance with Bush and Wall Street to get this $700 billion swindle passed right away but the House Republicans are the ones who don't like this bailout bill (along with the majority of Americans)?

Heard this morning that billions and billions have gone out of the U.S. this year by the moneymen and well-connected who put their own assests and funds overseas.

Down is up, up is down, backwards is forwards...and on and on it goes.

Danni

I think this is the program to which you refer.

"Now, if you would of said neocons instead of Republicans, then you are much closer to the truth.
#29 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-09-26 10:48 AM

YEAH!

Except I can't distinguish one from another anymore!

I bet you think Sarah is really smart, huh?

#38 | Posted by midiman

And, you think Obama is really smart! LOL

Except I can't distinguish one from another anymore!

#45 | Posted by Redneckville

Now, you're getting it! The Dems and Repubs are thinking the same way, aren't they.

It is not as easy as House repubs have led some of you to believe. These are bundled securities and it isn't as simple as covering bad loans and letting the so called good loans go. Again republicans want to play games with our security, shows where their real interest lie.

Corky, yeah that's it, so why aren't we hearing anyone pushing that idea??? Seems to me that even if we have to bail out banks short term that a program like that would increase stability.

but I do wonder why we only look at the problem from the perspective of the banks and not the homeowners. #42 | Posted by danni

You're smart enough to know why Danni, but your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to acknowledge it and still allow you to vote for a major party candidate.

I have heard Republicans especially object to allowing bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages for single home owners while those who own multiple properties can do it. Why do Republicans hate American homeowners??? What's in it for them?

*note to ride_on:
making a non-sequitur post consisting of a junior high homosexual insult and the fabrication of a quote do not constitute "bi-partison" [sic].

#13 | Posted by SamBarber at 2008-09-26 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hi Sammy, at least from your post you must have understood that "bi-partison" was an intentional [sic]. Buts I uns' can't of course keep up with the great Sammy. I uns' is so uneducated---
comparably....ROFLMAO. Plus, excuse me for posting the "first junior high insult" in the history of the DR. But, I wonder why you have taken so much offense to a clearly bi-partison equal bash? Hmmm? Get over yourself Sammy.

So, you know nothing about economics, but you are convinced if something is not done it will ruin the economy.

You should do some research, not all economists agree with this. Especially the ones that don't have a dog in this hunt.

I said what I said because even an economically blind idiot, such as myself, can see the writing on the wall, mate.

You don't see a boat take on water unless there's a leak and you don't see MAJOR financial institutions go under (especially at the rate we're seeing today) unless there's a BIG problem.

are y'all taking into account that ALL the failed housing loans were made for and by republicans?

once again, the left as a whole takes no responsibility whatsoever - reid is on t.v. right now talking about everything they've tried to do in the last few months - so they were on working vacations?

"You're smart enough to know why Danni, but your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to acknowledge it and still allow you to vote for a major party candidate."

Did you check out Corky's link....that was a proposal by Hilary Clinton....last time I checked she's a Democrat.

Now, you're getting it! The Dems and Repubs are thinking the same way, aren't they.

#47 | Posted by Eddie

You misunderstood red's post, eddie. re-read his post and the post he was replying to and think about it for an extra moment.

danni - are you wearing your "help i'm babbling and cannot shut up" tee?

I have heard Republicans especially object to allowing bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages for single home owners while those who own multiple properties can do it. Why do Republicans hate American homeowners??? What's in it for them?

#51 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-26 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Are you lying again.....you've heard Republicans (and Republicans only) say that....uh huh. ROFLMAO. Are they the same friends that tricked you into "wage fixing discussions" at the Chamber of Commerce. Oh yeah, you said it was Chamber business, but it really wasn't.....was it now Danni.

You guys think that this problem is only related to mortgages... it is not. This problem is actually bigger than the entire global economy. You may have heard of the term "credit default swaps". These are the big problem.

If too many things fail or unwind, a domino effect will occur that could crash the entire world economy.

To get a better understanding, this link explains credit default swaps.

Yep. Repubs will fight to the death (of America) for the right of someone who has a dozen houses to re-negotiate the mortgage on all of them but the first, when the person with one house gets no such favor.

"danni - are you wearing your "help i'm babbling and cannot shut up" tee?"

Let's see Nanc, I at least suggested an idea that worked before when it was done by FDR and now proposed by Hilary Clinton....now what have you suggested???

Oh, right. Nothing.

Yep. Repubs will fight to the death (of America) for the right of someone who has a dozen houses to re-negotiate the mortgage on all of them but the first, when the person with one house gets no such favor.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2008-09-26 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Link please, showing they fight for the dozen house owner and not the first one.

"Are you lying again.....you've heard Republicans (and Republicans only) say that....uh huh. ROFLMAO."

Do you even read the paper moron????

You don't seem to be up to speed on this.

Throw around all the insults you want but it won't substitute for having a clue. It is a fact that REpublicans have objected to that exact point in negotiations.

Link Danni.

P.S. If you never lied about that other thing, just say so. Or are you just upset that you lied, so by me pointing it out....you take it as an insult? Just tell the truth Danni and you won't have that dilemma to face.

i.e. the republifuckers wanted a bigger payoff...

Corky, yeah that's it, so why aren't we hearing anyone pushing that idea??? Seems to me that even if we have to bail out banks short term that a program like that would increase stability.

#49 | Posted by danni

I like this idea over preventing a bunch of rich guys losing their shirt. And, on top of that, it would take around $100,000,000.00. But, I would only give them a good, fixed interest rate and getting rid of balloon payments and any other money rip off techniques. If the mortgage company lost money in the first 5 years of the loan, screw em! They deserve it. I would not refinance those who really couldn't afford a the new payments. They would have to move to something more affordable. The really cool thing about this is that Tresury would be making money after a few years.

this number is 70 times lower than the Bush's proposed number. And his number is only the first payment!!! AAAAHHHHHHHH

nanc doesnt matter

Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance.

If too many things fail or unwind, a domino effect will occur that could crash the entire world economy.

It's already started. It won't take much longer for the majority of Americans to figure out we're being stalled and lied to big time -- at least until the elections are over and Congress are back safe in their seats for few years.

INDY, Freddie, Fannie, AIG, and now WAMU (which is the biggest bank failure in history) -- how many more do you need not to know we are in serious trouble.

Meanwhile and rich and well-connected are all funneling their money overseas.

"It is not as easy as House repubs have led some of you to believe. These are bundled securities and it isn't as simple as covering bad loans and letting the so called good loans go."

Then figure out a way to "un-bundle" them. Or figure out a way only pay for those "bundles" that go bad. Just because they are bundled securities does not mean that Americans should just throw their hands up and say, "well, I guess that means we just have to buy them all." Fuck that. I think it's lazy not to go the extra mile to save taxpayers money on this absurdly expensive idea.

McSame thinks he can resolve the situation? Ha! McThuselah doesn't know a blackberry from a laptop, he doesn't know the difference between a CD and a money market, or a 401k from an IRA. He and McBush are still trying to learn that their is just one Internet. So how does this Phil Gramm trained economic guru plan to resolve the problem of a $70 Trillion credit derivatives meltdown?

Maybe he'll pass out moose and salmon jerky to his fellow senators, yell and curse at them to come up with a better idea, and then take all the credit?

Geez! How is it that the GOP has so many old fat-cat rich candidates who know absoultely so little about the rest of the world?? Who have time to play golf and tennis and then to opine that everyone is inferior to them?

Can anyone explain why buying all the loans for $700,000,000,000.00 is better than simply guaranteeing the loans and only paying off the ones that default?

#32 | Posted by JOE

i.e. the republifuckers wanted a bigger payoff...

#65 | Posted by Shawn

It's neocons. There are some Republicans who are trying to save the party. I really don't think it will work, but they can try, can't they?

"once again, the left as a whole takes no responsibility whatsoever"

I must have missed it: Where has 'the party of responsibility' taken any responsibility, despite being the party in power for most of the last decade?

Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance.

#67 | Posted by truthhurts

LOL. It's funny you say that...

Did you check out Corky's link....that was a proposal by Hilary Clinton....last time I checked she's a Democrat.

#55 | Posted by danni

It's a Democrat's proposal, but it's not the Democrat proposal.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson begged Democratic participants not to disclose how badly the meeting had gone, dropping to one knee in a teasing way before U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to make his point according to witnesses.
"I didn't know you were Catholic," Ms. Pelosi said, according to a report in the New York Times, making a wry reference to Mr. Paulson's kneeling, adding that "it's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans."

WHY WOULD PAULSON HAVE TO BEG TO KEEP PELOSI QUIET???

When Paulson hastily tried to revive talks in a nighttime meeting near the Senate chamber, the House's top Republican refused to send a negotiator.

REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO SEND A NEGOTIATOR? SOUNDS LIKE POLITICS OVER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

At one point, several minutes into the session, Obama said it was time to hear from McCain. According to a Republican who was there, "all he said was, 'I support the principles that House Republicans are fighting for."'

DOES HE EVEN KNOW WHAT THE GOP'S STANCE IS???

A few hours later, Paulson and the handful of negotiators wearily headed for home. Frank told The Associated Press: "I did tell Secretary Paulson that this whole thing is at risk if the president can't get members of his own party to participate."

BUSH CAN'T DO IT AND NEITHER CAN MCCAIN...YEAH WHAT A GREAT PRESIDENT HE WOULD MAKE WHEN HE CAN'T EVEN GET HIS OWN PARTY TO COOPERATE!!!!!

"While investors who own multiple homes and people with vacation homes can renegotiate those mortgages in bankruptcy, current Chapter 13 law requires ordinary families to stick with the original terms of their home loansregardless of whether the loan was predatory or unfair."

yes, by all means rush something through, anything.

please do.

that is the way to economic stability.

"At one point, several minutes into the session, Obama said it was time to hear from McCain. According to a Republican who was there,"

Great show of leadership. But without a teleprompter, I guess it's best to pass the buck.

McCain said only a few days ago he "hadn't read the bailout proposal" yet. This at the time everything was crashing.

The Bush/Paul bailout proposal is 2-1/2 pages long.

2-1/2 pages long and he "didn't have time"?

And Obama is all for this $700 billion bailout swindle.
He rolled over fast for Bush and Wall Street, didn't he? This bailout bill needs to be debate and gone over thorougly -- not rubber stamped and almost a blank check given to ONE MAN (Paul) for $700 billion of dollar yet Obama seems to be more than okay with it. Why?

Both of these candidates suck.

oops

Paul = Paulson

WHY WOULD PAULSON HAVE TO BEG TO KEEP PELOSI QUIET???
#76 | Posted by Silence

Because Pelosi has a Party-first attitude and not a People-first attitude!

WHY WOULD PAULSON HAVE TO BEG TO KEEP PELOSI QUIET???
#76 | Posted by Silence

Because Pelosi has a Party-first attitude and not a People-first attitude!

#82 | Posted by Eddie

hahahahahahaha, you owe me a new keyboard.

You don't see a boat take on water unless there's a leak and you don't see MAJOR financial institutions go under (especially at the rate we're seeing today) unless there's a BIG problem.

#53 | Posted by RevDarko

Easy friend. What i am saying is that the leak in the boat may not be a hole in the boat. It may be that greedy idiot that is bailing water into the boat that is the problem. In which case patching a non-existent hole may not be the answer.

Sometimes the best thing to do is let it sink (and take the greedy bastards with it).

"You owe me for 2 minutes of Google time to locate that for you."

RideOn is just a troll.

Both of these candidates suck.

#80 | Posted by CalifChris

my eyes are welling up. Someone gets it!

It's not too late folks. Let's show them at the next election.

Vote 3rd-party. (even if it's the Communist Party)

Can anyone explain why buying all the loans for $700,000,000,000.00 is better than simply guaranteeing the loans and only paying off the ones that default?

#32 | Posted by JOE

"It's better because it is socialism and that is what we want, a socialist takeover of the economy a la New Deal." -- Democrats and Faux Republicans like Bush and Paulson

Did anyone hear about the statement from a treasury official to Forbes Magazine that the 700 billion figure wasn't based on any particular data, just that they wanted a really large figure to work with?

How can we fucking trust these people?

" It may be that greedy idiot that is bailing water into the boat that is the problem."

Or it could be that the captain of the boat is telling you the boat is leaking when really he is just trying to install his choice for new captain.
No discussion of Rick Davis's lobbying Freddie Mac, Sarah Palin's incompetence, McCain's failing health, etc.

This bailout bill needs to be debate and gone over thorougly -- not rubber stamped and almost a blank check given to ONE MAN (Paul) for $700 billion of dollar yet Obama seems to be more than okay with it. Why?

Because he understands how perilous this situation actually is. This thing cannot go on for months on end... by that time, things can go really really wrong.

"Vote 3rd-party. (even if it's the Communist Party)"

Posted by Eddie

Screw that.

Paris for president!

"How can we fucking trust these people?"

You'd have to be crazy to trust these people.

How soon we forget....are they still looking for those WMDs???

Lip,

You are correct that the leak may not be that large a hole (or some idiotic bastard bailing water into the boat), however, the idea of letting it sink with the greedy bastard only works if you can get the innocent people off first, and I don't think that's going to happen without at least getting SOME stability back into the economy first.

Rev, you and I have been pleasant with one another as long as we've known each other. That said, I'm probably going to catch some heat with your #5. Frankly, I disagree. What this country needs right now is precisely the meltdown that you seem to wish to avoid.

Meltdown occurs, crooks get hung. Unfortunately, some who are not crooks also get hung, though there may be a method to avoid that.

We need this to go full course, and flush the crap out of the system. Just an opinion.

Joe you want them to be unbundled (which isn't as easy as you try to make it sound) and then have the government pay off any bad loan? Is this your position? Do you understand the financial aspects behind this? This propsal could be more costly in the long run than the current proposal. I am off to a meeting with a client, but will be back later to discuss.

hahahahahahaha, you owe me a new keyboard.

#83 | Posted by truthhurts

????. Don't understand what that means.

Truth,

you think Pelosi does not all about bashing Bush just to get her Party into the White-house? She has just that much credibility!

You don't agree? Your reaction puts you at the same level of maturity as Pelosi.

Where's that money, you silly stupid old fool? Where's that money? Do you realize what this means? It means bankruptcy and scandal and prison. That's what it means. One of us is going to jail - well, it's not gonna be me. -George Baily

But the meltdown will be the economic collapse of our nation.

it seems catastrophic.

retirement savings WIPED OUT

jobs lost in the millions

millions losing homes, etc.

isnt that the downside? How can we just allow this to happen?

Eddie, I laugh cause republicans have that down to an artform (party over country).

I'd bring Mitt Romney in to mediate.

#17 | Posted by wisgod

First, as the GOP has clearly stated Sarah is way more experienced in government financial stuff. Second, he charges 15%, so we'd have to pay him 100 billion to ship the banks to China.

Member-so, if we insure the bad loans, does that mean the CEOs can sell off the good stuff, get humongus bonuses pluse extra tax breaks from the GOPpers,then put on their golden parachutes and leave the taxpayers with the defaults?

""It's better because it is socialism and that is what we want, a socialist takeover of the economy a la New Deal." -- Democrats and Faux Republicans like Bush and Paulson"

How convenient: suddenly, colossal Republican failure GWB isn't a real Republican. And out-of-power Democrats have seemingly been conspiring to convert our society from capitalism to socialism, right under the noses of innocent and unsuspecting Republicans.

Either this author is delusional, or Republicans can't even govern when they hold all the reigns of power.

Or both.

I have heard Republicans especially object to allowing bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages for single home owners while those who own multiple properties can do it. Why do Republicans hate American homeowners??? What's in it for them?

#51 | Posted by danni

I am a free market kind of person and have no problem with bankruptcy court modifying mortgage terms. It already happens with cars and other assets, so why not homes?

I finally figured it out. Obama reminds me of a puppy that sits and stares at you wanting to go out. You keep saying, 'Okay hang on I have something important to do". But he keeps yelping and whining until you open the door, or in Obama's case Debate him.

I don't want any bailout and neither does 61 percent of America, If McCain and the GOP can come up with something different, even better. I say Let Obama sit ant the door and yelp for a few more hours

"It's better because it is socialism and that is what we want, a socialist takeover of the economy a la New Deal." -- Democrats and Faux Republicans like Bush and Paulson

#87 | Posted by member2586

That's why Obama is all over this! He's thinking Presidential already!!! He's in bed with the Neocons.

Repub Tax Giveaway

"One, that of the House Republican Study Committee, seems to be a joke. It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn't be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?"

Per the Repube "Insurance Plan"

[T]he problem is the price, in this case the premium. If it is vastly less than the probability of default, the House Republicans have found a way to throw money at bankers and financial arsonists instead of just bankers. If it is actuarily fair, it will force liquidity constrained firms to unload the securities -- they could wait and hope for no default, but they can't pay actuarily fair premiums. When you are insolvent, risk, variance, double or nothing is your only hope of survival. Thus aside from the contribution to financial arson (which I guess will be huge) the plan would also force distressed banks etc to unload mortgage backed securities at fire-sale prices. Now I don't think the current problem is mainly due to systemic margin calls due to mark to market and capital requirements, but making that problem vastly worse would hasten the collapse of the US financial system even without financial arson."

Taxman,

I'd be glad to hear any explanation as to how "un-bundling" and only paying for loans that default would cost more than buying all of them. The fact that unbundling might be difficult shouldn't dissuade our government, they have plenty of employees and do difficult things all the time.

finally figured it out. Obama reminds me of a puppy that sits and stares at you wanting to go out. You keep saying, 'Okay hang on I have something important to do". But he keeps yelping and whining until you open the door, or in Obama's case Debate him.

I don't want any bailout and neither does 61 percent of America, If McCain and the GOP can come up with something different, even better. I say Let Obama sit ant the door and yelp for a few more hours

#103 | Posted by HillBillyJihad at 2008-09-26 11:33 AM

so what's mcgramps afaid of?

Member, do you understand the consequences of a complete colapar of our financial markets?

While I wish we weren't in this position, republican deregulation and cronyism have led to this, and this proposal is the best method to get is out of the mess.

The fact that unbundling might be difficult shouldn't dissuade our government, they have plenty of employees and do difficult things all the time.

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2008-09-26 11:34 AM |

college boy. right?

""It's better because it is socialism and that is what we want, a socialist takeover of the economy a la New Deal." -- Democrats and Faux Republicans like Bush and Paulson"

How convenient: suddenly, colossal Republican failure GWB isn't a real Republican. And out-of-power Democrats have seemingly been conspiring to convert our society from capitalism to socialism, right under the noses of innocent and unsuspecting Republicans.

Either this author is delusional, or Republicans can't even govern when they hold all the reigns of power.

Or both.

#101 | Posted by Danforth

Danforth,

I could not have said it better myself.

This will be a great way to socialize the Government making it easier to take over all Medical next.

This is not just the Democrats, it both parties. Both have the same objective. Get rid of the Constitution.

So Bush says we need a deal immediately. McCain canceled his campaign because we need a deal immediately. And House Republicans say the deal isn't needed immediately becuase they're revolting against it.

Someone's lying. Is it Bush/McCain/Paulson, or the House Repubs?

Oh, and McCain just announced he'll be at the debate tonight after all.

Obama has been solid as a rock while McCain ran around flailing his arms.

" Get rid of the Constitution. "

Posted by Eddie

It's just a goddam piece of paper.
Nobody reads it anyway.

"be difficult shouldn't dissuade our government, they have plenty of employees and do difficult things all the time"

And you hit the nail right on the head...TOO MANY EMPLOYESS THAT DO NOTHING, I Worked in DC for 8 years unitl I finally got sickened by watching the the colossal, daily struggle to achieve mediocrity and quit and moved out west

a revolution is on the horizon.

Taxman,

I'd be glad to hear any explanation as to how "un-bundling" and only paying for loans that default would cost more than buying all of them. The fact that unbundling might be difficult shouldn't dissuade our government, they have plenty of employees and do difficult things all the time.

#106 | Posted by JOE

And how can it cost more if the companies will pay a premiun to buy this govt insurance? This isn't free insurance.

At press time Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said attaching the economic stimulus bill to the bailout package would be a mistake because it would slow down the financial rescue bill.

Well, he saved $56B. Maybe I judged him too quickly.

The Debate is on for tonight!

Joe, real quickly, although a full answer will be more detailed, but think about our nation's balance sheet under this propsal with nothing but bad assets - what government is going to want to lend money? Secondly, what are you going to do to offset the losses the govenment is going to pay off? OK really running late.

So Barney Frank, who shamed everyone into agreeing that banks should be forced into providing loans to people who could not afford them By saying they are "bigots" bears no responsibility. By using the race card on this issue back in the 90's Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have caused the largest financial catastrophe in the last century

And even though McCain and Bush quietly (which was the problem) warned, they still refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

"Member, do you understand the consequences of a complete colapar of our financial markets?"

The Fed has been pumping billions into the markets with no effect. What maks you think $700B will work? Not even Paulson can garantee it will work.

Insuring bad assets will be a better way of restoring market confidence. And yes, put the bankruptcy provision in, force these assholes to negotiate these bad loans so this shit can start unwinding once and for all.

I think the question boils down to whether or not we believe the economy is really getting ready to collapse. Of course if we do believe it then we are ready to support this bailout, hopefully with some oversight and other provisions from both sides of the aisle.
If we don't then we don't support it and are willing to take the risk that everything will be fine without the bailout.

I think I am not that brave, I do suspect that there is some truth to the idea of collapse and thus I would have to support the bailout even though I hate the idea of it. I think that is the position of most Dems right now.
I really wonder if the Republicans really don't believe that collapse is imminent and are really just playing a dangerous game of politics right now.

"a revolution is on the horizon."

Posted by truthhurts

And it won't be televised.

It's just a goddam piece of paper.
Nobody reads it anyway.

#112 | Posted by Zatoichi

I read it to my 11 month old for story time.

She understands it about as well as most.

The question and answer period is killer.

No Deal on Bailout

"The question and answer period is killer."

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Keep it up for the next decade.
It's worth it.

You can add the Treaty of Tripoli for variety.

I Worked in DC for 8 years unitl I finally got sickened by watching the the colossal, daily struggle to achieve mediocrity and quit and moved out west

So hillbilly-you failed to achive mediocrity?
Go to Alaska, get a boob job and run for Governor.

Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

Now, you're getting it! The Dems and Repubs are thinking the same way, aren't they.

YEAH!

But your just a Bush Hater(TM) therefore I can just ignore you.

Sincerely

Butch_blt2_the_cookfish_vern_r
idin'on a goatman

If the government bought up these toxic securitites, they could be unbundled and the non-performing mortgages identified and isolated. The performing mortgages could then be repackaged, resold and insured. By doing this on a piecemeal basis, there wouldn't be to much of the taxpayers money at risk.

Terms on the non-performing mortgages could be renogiated and, after a period of time, if the mortgage moves from non-performing to perfor