House GOP leaders similarly voiced support for the $700 billion bailout and vowed to try to get fellow Republicans to back it.

"Nobody wants to have to support this bill," said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader. But, he added, "I'm encouraging every member whose conscience will allow them to support this."

It was opposition from within their ranks that nearly derailed the package late last week. Many GOP lawmakers believe the government shouldn't interfere in financial markets.

If they don't interfere any more we won't have any financial markets left to not interfere in.

Corky, do you really want to defend this? It looks like the Dems completely sold us out. There is NO help for troubled homeowners. According to one AP report, Obama was the weak link:

More from another article:

The Dems had originally demanded the banks at least be willing to take a look at renegotiating with the borrowers of these subprime loans some of the details to at least see if something could be worked out with the borrowers and perhaps new finance terms could reached on some of those loans so they could stay in their homes.

The Republicans refused. They only wanted Wall Street bailed out. Screw helping any of the homeowners taken in by the moneyboys subprimes scams.

Nice, huh?

Anyone who thinks we taxpayers will ever see one thin dime of this money returned to us is a fool.

We have just witnessed the biggest scam and out right theft and plundering of our U.S. Treasury that any of us will ever see again in our lifetime.

Someone has got to help me with this. How does the guy whose mismanagement of the mortgage crisis led to the biggest financial crisis since the great depression walk into a room and ask for a $700B blank check to fix his screwup, and count very limited oversight as a concession on his part?

~Phoenix

Ummm... that'd prolly have sommat to do with the serious disconnect between public opinion and public policy.

In short, the will of the people must not be listened to and obeyed but only given lip sevice while industries the government are supposed to keep an eye on and regulate literally write their own policy.

See: Cheney's behind closed doors energy policy sessions as a recent example.

How do they think they can get away with it?

Because the corporate media are powerful enuff to shape public opinion under the guise of reflecting it.

Spud calls it the 51/49% solution and it's been aborning fer well over six decades now by Spud's reckoning.

The only possible counter to this is if more people start thinking critically about all aspects of government and BigBiz from both the MSM and alternate media sources like blog-world.

Theoretically a tipping point of conciousness can be reached at which time enuff people will be informed enuff and galvinised enuff to effect positive change.

Is one of the reasons Spud hangs out in blogworld, doncha know.

Well that and RCade's excellent ham sandwiches.

/Very obscure joke.

Be Well.

The Republicans refused. They only wanted Wall Street bailed out...

#5 | Posted by CalifChris

Right, the Republicans want Wall Street bailed out. Can't happen without the Dems. This "deal" is highway robbery of ordinary Americans, and if the Dems accept it, they're as corrupt as the Republicans.

...and if the Dems accept it, they're as corrupt as the Republicans.

I agree with you there, Phoenix.

They are ALL crooks and this November we should throw all the bums out!

Phoenix

Pussy Pelosi is a disgrace.

She rolled over on not funding Bush's war.
She keeps giving him carte blanche checks for his war with no accountability for how the money is spent.

She was too scared to bring up impeachment hearings on Bush.

She rolled over on off-shore drilling.

And now she's rolled over on giving Bush and his henchment $700,000,000 of our taxpayer dollars never to be seen again.

Pussy Pelosi, the first woman to ever be leader of the House, has disgraced the office.

henchment = henchmen

oops --

left off three zeros!

should have been $700,000,000,000 not $700,000,000

Hey didn't Pelosi lose money on this whole mess?? Wouldn't You think it would be a conflict of interest for Pelosi to vote on the bailout measure??

Larry

Pussy Pelosi is a disgrace

~CChris

Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi?

She's part of the problem not the solution.

She needs to be let go.

She's one of the bums that seriously need throwing out.

Be Well.

Tater

Didn't you read my post?

Did you think my post was favorable towards Pelosi???

It was the exact opposite. Why do you think I called her "Pussy Pelosi" anyway.

She hasn't the guts to do anything. Her head should roll with the rest of them.

LARRY

You want to see the "conflicts of interest" in letting these politicians vote for a bailout that will make your hair stand on end?

Read this link and look at the mulit-millions all these politicians (or their spouses) had personally invested in these all companies that went down but are now being bailed out by those same politicians.

Didn't you read my post?

Did you think my post was favorable towards Pelosi???

Wot part of Spud agreeing with you are you not getting?

Prolly should have sed "Agreed" in there somewhere.

Spud's been calling her Nancy peLOUSY fer a while now.

She's just a Dem war profiteer to Spud.

I find this line from the article I linke above VERY suspicious --

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, avoided potential losses. Because of the Arizona senator's run for the White House, his wife, Cindy, last year liquidated a blind trust that had contained stock in AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman. The amounts of stock she had owned weren't disclosed.

Could the REAL reason McCain's wife liquidated her blind trust with those holdings be because John "I a deregulator guy" McCain knew these institutions were all to fail months ago? Hmmm?

CHRIS

Of course he knew. In fact, I think it was planned.

I keep thinking back to McCain's son, Andrew, on the board of Silver State Bank in Nevada, who cashed in his chips and resigned two months before that bank collapsed.

Crushing debt and a demorialized middle class are much easier to control as the neocons march toward a two class system ~ the very poor and the very rich.

It's a terrible price for the middle class to pay but the one silver lining to this $700,000,000,000 price tag is that Bush/Cheney can't afford to start World War III.

Corky, do you really want to defend this? It looks like the Dems completely sold us out. There is NO help for troubled homeowners. According to one AP report, Obama was the weak link:

It was Obama who first signaled Democrats were willing to give up some of their favorite proposals. He told reporters Wednesday that the bankruptcy measure was a priority, but that it "probably something that we shouldn't try to do in this piece of legislation."

Of course Barack Goldman Sachs Obama is the weak link. He is a whore for the banking elite. Anyone who cannot see that is willfully ignoring it.

I don't think it's going to work.

I just knew John McCain would save us !!

$700,000,000,000 price tag is that Bush/Cheney can't afford to start World War III.

#21 | Posted by Twinpac

What makes you think that? They can't afford this bailout and couldn't afford the current war yet that didn't stop them.

IN THE FUTURE:

There will be a revolution. It is unstoppable.

The form of that revolution is yet to be determined.

Our financial system is untenable.

We cannot continue these policies.

$700 B is a bandage on a gaping wound.

(What if the world says no to giving us money?).

Cause sooner or later it will have to happen, it is inevitable.

What happens when the chips are called in. DC and Wall St. cant find dealers to supply them with their junk?

Collapse.

The Banks will fail.

The Govt will be bankrupt.

Jobs will be lost. There will be turmoil.

Only then, when the system is broken, when there are food riots, riots for fuel, when the utilities dont work.

Only then will the system be changed.

You read it here first.

Invest in a gun, in bullets and a really really nasty dog.

Are we seeing yet another step towards what amounts to Fascism?

Fourteen characteristics of Fascism as defined by Dr. Lawrence Britt:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections

Source and definitions of above here:

"Invest in a gun, in bullets..."

#26 | Posted by truthhurts

Though I don't disagree, what will that really get you and what will you become in the process?

I think I already had this conversation yesterday....

-Rush job

I guess we could wait for several more bank failures, no credit, and a 30 trillion dollar run on money market funds, but why?

And I must say, it is bad enough to have to listen to fringe Libertarian looney toons and hypocritical House Republicans whine about something that no one likes, but that has to be done, without also having to listen the usual suspect pants-pissers go on about how they didn't get all the things this country needs in this one Bill.

If it's good enough for Obama, it ought to be good enough for you.

Posted by Corky at 2008-09-28 03:53 PM

Deal Reached on Bailout

-Refuse to sign

Then the inevitable happens and one loses one's nose to spite one's face.

It isn't an answer. Obama got as much as he could, and knows he can get most of the rest latter.

Have a little faith in your candidate. There was nothing else to do.

And America isn't dying because everyone didn't selfishly get everything they wanted in this one Bill.

The far right and the far left sound more alike each day.

Posted by Corky at 2008-09-28 05:43 PM | Reply

Deal Reached on Bailout

Sounds like fun.

Tell Obama and the Clinton economic team and the rest of us exactly how that would work, and how you would get it passed and veto-proofed before the inevitable happens?

Posted by Corky at 2008-09-28 05:23 PM | Reply

Deal Reached on Bailout

-Today ...the music died.

What was your solution?

No credit? More banks down? A 30 trillion dollar run on money markets? Lost jobs, closed businesses?

Obama thought this way the best of bad choices in a bad situation, but I don't see him presiding over the death of America.

Cinch thy girdle.

Posted by Corky at 2008-09-28 04:58 PM

On the cause of the crisis

Though I don't disagree, what will that really get you and what will you become in the process?

#28 | Posted by ZOT

Well you must take into consideration 2 facts.

The incredible glut of guns in our society.

The incredible rise of crime that is sure to follow in the wake of an economic collapse.

It may very well become dog eat dog.

The public is against this bullshit by a margin of 300:1. This ratio applies to those who will get off their butts and write Congress.

This Bill is obviously a reward for white collar crime. Those who play along will see their campaign coffers filled, only to be quickly recycled into Corporate Media Bank Accounts.

The underlying problem is that Real Estate prices are too high, relative to wages. This bill does not address that problem. All it does is delay the drop dead date until another administration is in power. It does that by temporarily proping up values on toxic paper held by the perpetrators of this fraud. That and keeping those $100K donors happy is the only real purpose. Rethuglicans will then blame the Demoflats.

Unlike the Immigration Reform Bullshit, Congress is not being reposnsive to the public's legitimate concerns. Proof that the majority are owned by Wall Street, including Obama who has opted in and McCain who continues to try to have it both ways.

Though I don't disagree, what will that really get you and what will you become in the process?

It isn't about what you get. It's about what will you get to keep?

It isn't about what you get. It's about what will you get to keep?

#32 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Yeah... the bill.

"It may very well become dog eat dog."

#30 | Posted by truthhurts

It may very well become eat your dog, then eat your neighbor's dog.

The 3 A.M. Call

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 28, 2008

It's 3 a.m., a few months into 2009, and the phone in the White House rings. Several big hedge funds are about to fail, says the voice on the line, and there's likely to be chaos when the market opens. Whom do you trust to take that call?

I'm not being melodramatic. The bailout plan released yesterday is a lot better than the proposal Henry Paulson first put out sufficiently so to be worth passing. But it's not what you'd actually call a good plan, and it won't end the crisis. The odds are that the next president will have to deal with some major financial emergencies.

"The underlying problem is that Real Estate prices are too high, relative to wages. "

#31 | Posted by nutcase

Another aspect: though real estate prices may be dropping, the cost of materials to build new structures or upgrade current structures continues to rise.

So while the value of my home may be decreasing (thus one positive being that the property taxes may decrease a bit), the insurance I carry on the home will not also decrease: in fact, it will continue to rise.

But then if the property taxes decrease on the home, then revenues subsequently drop for those public institutions that derive the majority of their support from property taxes, such as public schools.

Another argument for why schools should never be funded with property taxes.

Don't interfere in the markets. Let the invisible hand do it's magic.

And stop being so fucking greedy. Take the loses the same as you took the gains. Don't interfere in the markets.

The bailout plan released yesterday is a lot better than the proposal Henry Paulson first put out sufficiently so to be worth passing. But it's not what you'd actually call a good plan, and it won't end the crisis.

Ha ha ha ha ha...this is what I've been saying all along.

Democrats: We're still gonna fuck you, but we brought the Crisco!

Let the invisible hand do it's magic.
#38 | Posted by Lipzoidial

John Stuart Mill said that nationalism was the invisible hand that would keep markets in check. Now that money knows no national boundaries, the invisible hand has been amputated.

Have a little faith in your candidate. There was nothing else to do. -- Corky

They just led us into the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and "Trust us" is the best you've got?

Tell Obama and the Clinton economic team and the rest of us exactly how that would work, and how you would get it passed and veto-proofed before the inevitable happens? -- Corky

Taxpayers have been clear. We want the money to go to the ordinary Americans who have been hurt by Wall Street's mismanagement, not to the people who mismanaged it.

Congress and the administration are being paid to figure out how to get that done. If they can't do it, fire 'em.

And you can paint impending disaster scenes all day. Right now I'll take my chances with the 200 or so economists who have opposed the bailout.

You could find thousands of economists who support it.

The crisis has gone far beyond the criminal actions of a few, including politicians.

No action and the country as we know it would not be the same for a decade.

It would mean lost jobs and bankrupt businesses and retirement funds for millions of people who had nothing to do with creating the problem.

I wouldn't want that on my conscious in exchange for a little revenge.

VOTE at @ 1:00 Eastern

With three hours of debate beginning just before 9:30 a.m., lawmakers expect a vote to be wrapped up before 1 p.m. Eastern time. Leaders of both parties are supporting the measure, but neither side has given a public estimate of how much support they have.

As hard as it is to imagine, I think this bailout bill is necessary to keep the economy from total meltdown. Too many credible people, like Warren Buffett and Paul Krugman, are saying that it has to be done.

Although McCain and Obama are both on board, if a large number of House Republicans are big and vocal defectors, and the right-wing noise machine makes a party issue out of this, I'm wondering if this will prompt voters to give Dems the boot in November -- even though this mess is Bush's baby through and through.

No action and the country as we know it would not be the same for a decade.

It would mean lost jobs and bankrupt businesses and retirement funds for millions of people who had nothing to do with creating the problem.

I wouldn't want that on my conscious in exchange for a little revenge. -- Corky

This isn't about revenge. It's about a broken system that WILL NOT BE FIXED by this bailout. We write a check, and they go back to business as usual -- which means we'll be writing a lot more checks down the road.

If there really is an impending disaster, the Republicans need a deal as badly as the rest of us. This is the time for the Dems to play the same hardball -- refuse this deal.

So, we have a choice here. Suffer a little inconvenience, death and destruction or destroy american free enterprise, american rule of law, american justice and the whole american philosophy in favor of socialism.

Let it crumble I say.

A new life awaits all those that makes it through the ensuing depression.

The new america might stop rationalizing classism and illegal activities.

VOTE "CHALLENGER."

Anybody now in office should lose their jobs in November.

They are trying to rig it so that only the people who are not up for re-election or those in safe races vote for this bill.

So much for voting "Right". Now it is vote "Safe".

KICK ALL THE BASTARDS OUT....Show them there is no such thing as a 'Bad Safe Vote".

We want get any better representives, they are all polititions after all. But we will get a little pay back. And, maybe, make them a little nervious.

-It's about a broken system that WILL NOT BE FIXED by this bailout

That's true. Expecting this one Bill to "fix the system" is unrealistic. Which is why Obama said we would have to do a lot more work in other Bills to fix the system.

Which is why he still needs your vote.

Horse Shit.

Business goes under. Bail out the rich.

Lose you house? FUCK YOU!!!

As hard as it is to imagine, I think this bailout bill is necessary to keep the economy from total meltdown. Too many credible people, like Warren Buffett and Paul Krugman, are saying that it has to be done.

These are also people who have a tremendous amount of money invested in the stock market. What else are they going to say? Why in the world would Buffett put 5 Billion into Goldman and say anything other than its a great idea?

When the cost of goods in this country skyrockets due to inflation, it won't affect "the credible people", but damage to the stock market certainly will.

Although McCain and Obama are both on board, if a large number of House Republicans are big and vocal defectors, and the right-wing noise machine makes a party issue out of this, I'm wondering if this will prompt voters to give Dems the boot in November -- even though this mess is Bush's baby through and through.

Not once ounce of culpability for the Democrats? Are you serious?

-and the right-wing noise machine makes a party issue out of this, I'm wondering if this will prompt voters to give Dems the boot in November -- even though this mess is Bush's baby through and through.

Which is why the House Rethugs are holding out.

Dems are the ones putting "Country First". We can only hope that that will be clear to the voters by November.

Pheonix, if Dems win a super majority in the Senate and win the WH you will not see BAU. They won't say it now, but Dems will repeal the bankruptcy law that was passed in favor of a bankruptcy law that favors the debtor. Moreover, you will see tax increases on hedge funds and Wall Street in general. We bailed them out and it will be time to pay the piper.

I personally think that these investors are a drag on our economy and we need to get back to a production based society. I think Dems will pass legislation which will promote a green economy and the creation of green jobs which will get us away from having to rely on these Wall Street scumbags. The notion that we are a service economy is BS. We need to regulate Wall Street and make it more transparent, and I think Dems are better suited to pull it off.

Very interesting article about how banks and mortgage companies were threatened by politicians and communitiy activists if they did not make loans to minorities and the poor even if their credit was bad.

Politicians and the left wanted to stop 'red-lining" and put a lot of pressure on these financial institutions to give people who normally wouldn't qualify for loans -- or else their banks would suffer. Sure corporate greed and fraud had a lot to do with it but left wing pressure to make these bad loans also came into play.

Looks like both sides of the aisle made this mess we're in.

Puts a new light on part of the reason we are in this financial boondoggle.

Which is why Obama said we would have to do a lot more work in other Bills to fix the system.

Which is why he still needs your vote. -- Corky

Again, if there really is an impending disaster, the Republicans need a deal as badly as the rest of us.

If Obama can't stand up for us NOW, he's not going to stand up for us as president.

"If Obama can't stand up for us NOW"

what does that mean???
what do you ideally want obama to do?
coup the govt?

-the Republicans need a deal as badly as the rest of us

The House Rethugs would let the country go down the tubes rather than sacrifice their own jobs and vote for a "fix the system" Bill, if one could even be had.

We are talking about real world action that has to be immediate, not pipe dreams.

"If Obama can't stand up for us NOW"

what does that mean???
what do you ideally want obama to do? -- Kliff

Play the same hardball the Republicans are. Walk away from an unacceptable deal.

Right now the Dems are rolling over, and saying "Trust us. We'll fix this if you give us the presidency and both houses of congress in November."

Why should anyone believe this?

is the Bailout the October surprise?

Everyone, including Bush and the Republicans, have tried to convince the American public that we need to do this to survive. It doesn't make sense to me. There are "haves" that can buy out the "have nots" out there who were irresponsible enough to loan money to risky clients. Why shouldn't they go down?

And the mortgage holders that can't pay a house payment should lose their homes. They can go back to what they had before they went after the "pipe dream". Their chickens, too have come home to roost. As they should.

These are also people who have a tremendous amount of money invested in the stock market. What else are they going to say?

Buffett has never struck me as a person who would say falsehoods to pad his wallet. He's also no friend of idiots who make dumb decisions on Wall Street, except to take advantage of them.

I think he said the bailout's necessary because he believes it.

Not once ounce of culpability for the Democrats? Are you serious?

How much do you think the Dems could have done about this in their two years controlling Congress? They don't control the executive branch's appointment of regulators who look the other way and take care of their buddies.

There is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle. I'm getting a little sick of Barney Frank putting all the responsibility on the other side of the aisle. He didn't think Congress needed to put better oversight over FMae and FMac when bills were submitted to do just that. He threw out the guilt trip that "poor people need a break" the same way he is doing right now.

Buffett has never struck me as a person who would say falsehoods to pad his wallet. He's also no friend of idiots who make dumb decisions on Wall Street, except to take advantage of them.

I think he said the bailout's necessary because he believes it. -- RCade

I agree, but there are any number of possible bailout plans, and this one is crap.

I have not seen him endorse this particular bailout plan.

I have further news for Barney Frank. If we hadn't saddled those "poor folks" with mortgages they ultimately couldn't afford, they would have been a lot better off in the long run.

How much do you think the Dems could have done about this in their two years controlling Congress? They don't control the executive branch's appointment of regulators who look the other way and take care of their buddies.

The seeds of this problem were planted long before the last two years.

I love listening to representatives talk about affordable housing in one sentence and artificially propping up housing values in another.

"mortgages they ultimately couldn't afford"

Weren't there TWO sets of signatures on those loans? And didn't at least ONE of them go to business school, and learned the difference between good lending risk and bad lending risk?

And why is it, in that equation, we say to the borrower 'tough shit' and the lender 'poor baby'...?

"The seeds of this problem were planted long before the last two years."

And one party has controlled the reigns of power for most of the last decade.

All of the financial issues that we seem to be discussing are just symptoms of a larger problem: lack of well paying jobs.

The policies of globalization, free trade, tolerance of illegal immigration, outsourcing, offshoring, etc. have not only led to fewer jobs but fewer well paying jobs. Until these policies are finally killed off once and for all, the economy will not recover.

Consumer spending is approximately 70% of the GDP. If consumers don't have the jobs to support their consumption, the GDP is going to tank. The policies of the last several administrations have cooked the golden goose.

#46 gets a +1 tally.

How much do you think the Dems could have done about this in their two years controlling Congress? --RCade

Ask Newt Gingrich. He made life miserable for Clinton.

By late 2002 I was sick to death of hearing Dem leaders explain that they were doing nothing because they didn't have a majority. You still FIGHT and make sure your opponent gets bloody as hell.

These Dems don't do that. They look at the numbers (minority, or now veto-able majority), shrug their shoulders, and then go out for tea.

You know how much I hate this language, but Chris is right -- these Dems are a bunch of pussies. Pretty sad day when the women are calling them that.

This detail could allow JPMorgan Chase & Co. to sell toxic mortgages and other assets it gained control of last week when it purchased Washington Mutual Inc. for a higher price than the failed thrift paid for them.

hahahahahahahahahaha

those toxic assets were certainly valuable to JPMorgan chase.

think about it.

JPM sees the writing on the wall, buys these assets and a week later is selling them for a profit.

FUCK REPUBLICANS AND FUCK DEMOCRATS

JPM sees the writing on the wall, buys these assets and a week later is selling them for a profit.

JPM sees the writing on the wall, buys these assets and a week later is selling them for a profit.

JPM sees the writing on the wall, buys these assets and a week later is selling them for a profit.

Watch the House vote live

"The policies of the last several administrations have cooked the golden goose."

Clinton took deficits and delivered true surplus budgets to his successor. Dubya did the exact opposite. Conflating Clinton's economic policies, which ended with the Dow rising 225%, and Bush's economic policies, which have seen the Dow rise about 6%, is a fool's errand. Seven and a half years are more than enough for a business cycle, and credit or blame.

You know where that very important $700-billion figure came from?

Here's a quote from that Forbes story:

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

They made it up to be sufficiently ginormous to frighten everyone into rapid action.

And it worked.

#46 gets a +1 tally.

#69 | Posted by LetUsReason

Bears repeating:

So, we have a choice here. Suffer a little inconvenience, death and destruction or destroy american free enterprise, american rule of law, american justice and the whole american philosophy in favor of socialism.

Let it crumble I say.

A new life awaits all those that makes it through the ensuing depression.

The new america might stop rationalizing classism and illegal activities.

#46 | Posted by Lipzoidial

"They look at the numbers (minority, or now veto-able majority), shrug their shoulders, and then go out for tea. "

Don't leave out the fact the Rs have refused cloture at more than double the all-time record pace. Give me 41 Senators and a President with a veto pen, and watch what doesn't happen. Pass legislation? Hell, you won't even close a debate.

Danforth, Clinton enjoyed the stock market goodies of the dotcom boon of the nineties that ultimately deflated.

"dotcom boon(sic) of the nineties that ultimately deflated"

Bought DELL 1991 sold 2000

"Clinton enjoyed the stock market goodies of the dotcom boon of the nineties that ultimately deflated."

Nice try, but wrong.

Even if you pin the post 9/11 lows on Clinton (not really fair, but...) the DJIA rise under Clinton is still 150%.

"Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you -- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed." Ayn Rand -- circa 1959

"We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Try Avogadro's then.

6.02x10^23

What the hell?

Weren't there TWO sets of signatures on those loans? And didn't at least ONE of them go to business school, and learned the difference between good lending risk and bad lending risk?

And why is it, in that equation, we say to the borrower 'tough shit' and the lender 'poor baby'...?

Danforth

I think the lender deserves to fail, too. If I, as an individual, loan money to someone to buy a car and they don't pay for it, its my fault too. I repossess the car and try to find a buyer.

Obama claims stake in new Wall St dealAgence

DETROIT, Michigan (AFP) Democrat Barack Obama complained Sunday it was an "outrage" that taxpayers had to bail out Wall Street but said a newly minted deal in Congress took stock of his demands and was essential to rescue the economy.

In prepared remarks for a rally here in the nation's automaking capital, the White House contender said the deal struck in marathon talks in Washington was no longer a "blank check" for the government.

Senator Obama mocked the activist role claimed by John McCain, his Republican opponent in the November 4 election, towards brokering the agreement in Congress on the government's 700-billion-dollar bailout request.

"You see, I think Senator McCain just doesn't get it -- he doesn't get that this crisis on Wall Street hit Main Street a long time ago," he said, noting McCain's initial remark that the economy was fundamentally "strong."

"That's why he's been shifting positions these last two weeks, looking for a photo-op, and trying to figure out what to say and what to do," Obama said at the Detroit rally, joined by his running mate Joseph Biden and their wives.

In the early hours, leaders in Congress said they had struck a tentative accord on a bailout package designed to shore up Wall Street after a raft of failures that officials said threatened a system-wide financial meltdown.

The agreement, which has to be adopted by the full Congress, would give taxpayers a stake in an eventual return to banking profits, empower lawmakers with strong oversight, and offer new relief for struggling homeowners.

Obama noted that those were among his core demands, and blamed the crisis on "the speculators on Wall Street who gamed the system and the regulators in Washington who looked the other way."

"It is an outrage -- an outrage -- that we are now being forced to clean up their mess," he said.

"But we have no choice. We must act now. Because now that we're in this situation, your jobs, your life savings, and the stability of our entire economy are at risk."

gasoline is down to $3.39 here...'zup widdat?

i'm sensing some manipulation of our senses.

"I think the lender deserves to fail, too. "

I also believe, if the government is about to sell mortgages for 30 cents on the dollar, they should offer mine to me at 40. Or 60...whatever.

"i'm sensing some manipulation of our senses."

Posted by nanc

How can you be sure?

"But we have no choice."

We're going to hear alot of that from President Obama as he goes along with the GOP day after day, month after bloody month. And not just on the economy.

"But we have no choice. We must act now. Because now that we're in this situation, your jobs, your life savings, and the stability of our entire economy are at risk."

They are trying to scare us, folks! The banks have been making money off of us for years. They took a risk they shouldn't have and its time they have the same thing happen to them that would happen to us if we default a loan. Lose our collatoral.

I would sincerely like to see every voter refuse to vote for the members of Congress and candidates running for president if they vote for this bail out. I do not believe the hype coming from either side of the aisle.

Kwame's mommy is voting no!

Thank god she has the intestinal fortitude to support her constituency. I wish I could say the same for my Rep.

Rep. Lee from Texas just made several good points. While it looks like there's oversight in this bill, there are actually NO enforcement mechanisms. "Oversight" essentially means Paulson has to give a report to a bipartisan panel, not that the bipartisan panel can overturn his decisions.

Rep. Lee from Texas

....is voting FOR the Bill, knowing they can come back to help homeowners.

I also believe, if the government is about to sell mortgages for 30 cents on the dollar, they should offer mine to me at 40. Or 60...whatever.

What is going to be worse? The Note holders inflating the worth of their Securities when the Government buys them and bails them out? Or the discounted price the buyers will hold firm to until the Government sells the Mortgage Pools?

We're going to hear alot of that from President Obama as he goes along with the GOP day after day, month after bloody month. And not just on the economy.

The same President who claimed this bailout was above his paygrade? Who had to be invited to the meeting in Washington? The leader of the Democratic Party didn't think he needed to attend? That was a real Presidential moment.

What about the people over the last 50 years or more who have done without the luxuries in life and worked extra jobs so they could keep a home? It's like a slap in the face!

Rep. Lee from Texas just made several good points. While it looks like there's oversight in this bill, there are actually NO enforcement mechanisms. "Oversight" essentially means Paulson has to give a report to a bipartisan panel, not that the bipartisan panel can overturn his decisions.

Another Democrat with principles. God bless her.

The same President who claimed this bailout was above his paygrade? Who had to be invited to the meeting in Washington? The leader of the Democratic Party didn't think he needed to attend? That was a real Presidential moment.

Yes, but at least he told folks to call him if they needed him!

"I would sincerely like to see every voter refuse to vote for the members of Congress and candidates running for president if they vote for this bail out. I do not believe the hype coming from either side of the aisle."

Can you honestly claim to understand the situation clearly enough to be sure that this bailout isn't absolutely necessary??? I know I wouldn't claim to know if it is or if it isn't necessary, I don't have enough information or knowledge about the financial industry.
I think though that on an issue which is so unpopular, in an election year, for Congress to be supporting this bailout it indicates to me that those Congressmen are legitimately more frightened of the potential disaster from not bailing out the banks than they are of losing reelection. To me, that says much, I can't remember the last time I saw so many politicians choosing to ignore their constituents because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing for the country.

Rep. Lee from Texas

....is voting FOR the Bill, knowing they can come back to help homeowners. -- Corky

After explicitly opposing it on the floor?

So much for "Democrat with principles."

She explicitly bitched about the lack of enforcement, not that she was willing to cut off America's nose to spite it's face.

"What is going to be worse? The Note holders inflating the worth of their Securities when the Government buys them and bails them out? Or the discounted price the buyers will hold firm to until the Government sells the Mortgage Pools?"

My point is when the government finally settles on X percentage (cents on the dollar) as the sale price for these mortgages, the taxpayers should be allowed to buy them for a little more. That way the gov't loses less, and I get a little for having to pay for problems I neither created nor participated in.

DANFORTH

DANFORTH

Clinton took deficits and delivered true surplus budgets to his successor

It is my belief that the lack of well paying jobs is the underlying cause of our present day problems. If people had well paying jobs, they wouldn't be defaulting on their mortgages and the problems we have today would not exist.

With NAFTA, Clinton did his share to facilitate free trade policies which have cost us jobs. NAFTA was the blue print that led to the creation of other free trade agreements.

Those 12 - 20 million illegal immigrants that are in the country today did not all come on GWB's watch. Many of them came on Clinton's watch. Maybe I am wrong but I don't remember him taking any steps to deal with illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants have cost us jobs and have driven down the wages of many of the jobs that Americans with mortgages hold.

My post keeps dropping off!!!

DANFORTH

I put your name in bold 'cause I didn't want you to miss my question. lol

You just wrote --

I also believe, if the government is about to sell mortgages for 30 cents on the dollar, they should offer mine to me at 40. Or 60...whatever.

That's the same question I had put out there on a couple of threads a few days ago too. Our moneyguy on on here -- RightisRight-- became interested in knowing too when he saw my question and was going to check into it.

If you and I both have mortgages but they weren't the sleezy subprimes but regular fixed rate mortgages do you think we could make an offer to buy back our OWN loans from the Treasury? I know it sounds nuts but the Treasury must be going to want to get some of these loans they now own in bulk off their hands. Sure would like to just be able to make them an offer for my own loan at 1/2 of the value.

Dreaming, huh?

I wonder where one could go to even find out. Why should everyone else -- the crooks on Wall Street, the borrowers who made these subprime loans when they didn't have the money and everyone else get bailed out but we honest people who made valid loans get nothing!

Can you honestly claim to understand the situation clearly enough to be sure that this bailout isn't absolutely necessary??? --Danni

No, I'm not at all sure. But three Nobel Laureates in Economics have opposed it, so there's certainly room for doubt.

I think though that on an issue which is so unpopular, in an election year, for Congress to be supporting this bailout it indicates to me that those Congressmen are legitimately more frightened of the potential disaster from not bailing out the banks than they are of losing reelection. -- Danni

Yes, but as Rep. Kaptur is saying right now, "America needs the right deal, not a bad deal."

Oops -- I misquoted. Kaptur just reiterated "America needs the right deal, not a fast deal."

It is my belief that the lack of well paying jobs is the underlying cause of our present day problems. If people had well paying jobs, they wouldn't be defaulting on their mortgages and the problems we have today would not exist.

You can thank the greedy Republicans who worship at the altar of free trade and globalism for sending 4 million of our jobs overseas and bringing in millions of illegal aliens to work here in our own country for cheap labor which helped drive down wages and/or keep wages stagnant. Also the destruction of our unions didn't help either.

Free trade -- Bush style -- has to be gotten rid of.

"Yes, but as Rep. Kaptur is saying right now, "America needs the right deal, not a bad deal."

Can't disagree with that but I believe there is also an element of urgency which some say is not important while others say it is of the utmost importance. I think it is only prudent to act as if the urgency is real because if it is and we don't deal with it that way, the bailout may be too little, too late.

"...do you think we could make an offer to buy back our OWN loans from the Treasury? I know it sounds nuts but the Treasury must be going to want to get some of these loans they now own in bulk off their hands."

Unfortunately, (fortunately?) our loans are the "good" ones, so we'll merely see our fees go up. And our taxes.

"If you and I both have mortgages but they weren't the sleezy subprimes but regular fixed rate mortgages do you think we could make an offer to buy back our OWN loans from the Treasury?"

I don't think the Treasury will have those mortgages. Those will be either in FAnnie or Freddie and will be profitable to whichever agency has them so it is unlikely that they would sell them for less.

Danni

Good point but a lot of good mortgages were put together in with the bad subprime ones and bundled together into "mortgage securities" if I understand it correctly. Many banks who are buying other banks actually don't even know just how much 'bad paper' they actually have on there hands now. But you're probably right. The honest folks never catch a break.

Anyone else find this suspicious??????

Many politicians took heavy losses in their own portfolios when AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and the other financial stocks all plummeted. But not John McCain!

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, avoided potential losses. Because of the Arizona senator's run for the White House, his wife, Cindy, last year liquidated a blind trust that had contained stock in AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman. The amounts of stock she had owned weren't disclosed.

A "blind trust" does NOT need to be liquidated to run for office. John Kerry's wife did not liquidate her blind trust when he ran for President in 2004. The entire purpose of having a blind trust is so that you don't know which stocks you hold and can't be accused of a conflict of interest.

Could the REAL reason McCain's wife liquidated her blind trust with those holdings be because John "I'm a deregulator guy" McCain knew these institutions were all to fail months ago? Hmmm?

I think it is only prudent to act as if the urgency is real because if it is and we don't deal with it that way, the bailout may be too little, too late. -- Danni

Look, Danni, I've always gotten the impression that you're a good parent. I'm sure you wouldn't have a kid like this, but think about this hypothetical.

You've got a kid with a history of lying and stealing, and the kid comes up to you and says "Mom, I'm in big trouble. I've gotten in trouble with loan sharks, and they've threatened to kill me if you don't give me $700B tomorrow."

As much as you want to save your kid, the fact is (A) you can't trust him, and (B) giving him the money does nothing to get rid of the loan shark. Same extortionist can come back a month later and make the same threat.

That's what this bill is. It includes no regulatory reform -- it just gives the people who created this mess money so they can continue business as usual. Everything that looks like an improvement over Paulson's original request is a fig leaf -- "oversight" without enforcement and "taxpayer protection" that consists of a commitment to "write a proposal" in the event that taxpayers' money has not been recouped after 5 years. CEO salaries are not actually limited -- they just can't be included as corporate tax writeoffs anymore.

They keep saying "Well, we won't actually be spending all the money right now. There will have to be another vote next year."

Right -- in the very beginning of the election cycle. If the Dems don't have the balls to oppose this bill now, they're not gonna oppose spending your money in another few months.

This will cost taxpayers AT LEAST $700B, and it does nothing to fix the problems. No Way.

I really have a problem trusting the Dems on this bail out plan. In 2004, they were adament that FMae and FMac were not in trouble.

Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines.

Gregory Meeks: I'm just pissed off at OFHEO [the regulators trying to warn Congress of insolvency at the GSEs], because if it wasn't for you, I don't think we'd be here in the first place. There's been nothing that indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own The question that then comes up is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.

Lacy Clay: This