It's only a number...

only the WORST EVER DJIA drop in one day.

whether you're upper, middle, or lower middle class -- invested or not -- it's gonna get tough all over.

If you don't owe anybody any money, have no stocks, and have plenty of canned goods and toilet paper, you should be okay! Otherwise, pucker up your asshole, it's gonna be a wild ride!

Wachovia was very bad news for the markets...BUT it was a problem which the market knew about and was awaiting.......IT (WB) has now corrected (with citi's take under)

Well someone got their feelers hurt... the GOP must be avenged.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken

OOOGAH BOOOGAH BOOOGAH BOOOOOGAH!!!!

Big fish eat little fish. EXTORTION is always the Oligarchies weapon of choice.

Long live organized crime.

That's over $1 trillion in value.

The dems are refusing to get on board.....

I will be the happiest person on earth if everything in the whole financial world TANKS! We need to start new. We need to usher in something different. Take a wrecking ball to the Wall Street building and do us all a favor. We will be fine without any of them or their greed, corruption lies and thievery. We will survive and maybe even better off without people bidding on our everyday life. PISS OFF Paulson and Bernacke, don't let the door hit you in the ass and let them take the Bush Administration with them. May you people ROT!

i'm blaming it on gravity.

The market now stands below the point at which it stood on January 20, 2001! Didn't it use to be the conservatives that claimed that they wanted to get the government off of our backs? Their only use for government is to fund the illegal invasion of sovereign nations and provide corporate welfare handouts for the "haves and have mores".

Helluva job conservatives!

Socialism is for the corporate nobility. Lose your house? FUCK YOU.

The miracle of Bushonomics continues.

The blue-chip average closed down 7%, a 778 points drop which exceeds its biggest ever previous one-day points fall of 684 in September 2001.

"Biggest ever" is misleading -- the correct metric is percentage, not actual number.

Anyone know where 7% ranks? CNN's market people were saying earlier in the day that a 5% drop wouldn't even make the top 10 worst days.

Yeah, yeah, it's surely not going to make the top 10 best days, either, but it would be interesting to get a better sense of how it measures up historically.

Ahh nema Bernake as a Goldman sachs boy was and is in the tank for the dem's. Most all of wall street's deep pockets are too.....

Something better be done soon or this country as we have known it is over. In a world of global capitalism, if we are weak economically we are vulnerable to attack.

Anyone who is happy about today has no concern for the well being and safety of this country and its citizens.

A lot of us knew that Bush was useless in 2000. That's why we didn't vote for him. I suppose there were a few who changed their mind and voted for him in 2004 but there were many, many more who finally knew he was useless in 2004 but voted for him again anyway because that's what they do. Thanks, guys. At least most of you are suffering along with the rest of us but I don't suppose it will stop you voting for McSame and the bimbo this time around because that's what you do.

thanks for the shot of perspective Phoenix. still sucks though.

RE: TAXMAN

This country and other countries have survived before wall street existed and we will survive long after they are gone. If you think everybody is waiting to attack us because are economy is weak you don't have a lot of faith in the resilient american people. If we have to we will grow our own food, trade and barter, we will do whatever we have to....we will not be attacked...we will survive. Stop buying into the fear mongering that is constantly crammed down our throats. Capitalism is what has brought us to our knees in taxes, interest rates, oil corruption, corporate greed, etc. Now that is an attack.

www.youtube.com

Some leader there,she really wanted to get even instead of getting things done

#5 | Posted by DavetheWave

Pelosi is walking around in circles right now with her fists tightened and saying the same word, over and over... Fuck! ... Fuck! ... FUCK! ...

A lot of us knew that Bush was useless in 2000. That's why we didn't vote for him. I suppose there were a few who changed their mind and voted for him in 2004 but there were many, many more who finally knew he was useless in 2004 but voted for him again anyway because that's what they do. Thanks, guys. At least most of you are suffering along with the rest of us but I don't suppose it will stop you voting for McSame and the bimbo this time around because that's what you do.

#18 | Posted by BlueInBushland

I agree with you 100%, there Blue, but Bushie ain't that only one...

So let me be the first to thank you and the rest of the Libs for this Financial Crisis:

A little historical context. On inaguration day 2001 the Dow stood at 10,500 and change, gas was about $1.50 a gallon.

"In a brief speech peppered with Biblical allusions and references to God, Bush laid out a few familiar, general goals: lower taxes, continued economic growth, a stronger military, better schools."

""I'm thrilled to see George W. Bush inaugurated," said Betty Jo Tompkins, of Tampa Bay, Florida, trying to keep her hairdo dry and her dainty heeled shoes out of the mud. "It's truly a gift by God to live in this country.""

""I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping for the best," said Dayna Lane, a Gore supporter from Arlington, Va.""

""Unfortunately there are a lot of people in this country who don't think Bush deserves to be president," said Kevin O'Connor of Washington, D.C."

Keep bitching and panicking!

Some of us with cooler heads know the true meaning of a 7% correction: a buying opportunity.

Every word you say that's either negative or fearful only puts more of your money in my pocket.

www.pbs.org

#25 | Posted by BlueInBushland

LOL!!! Consider the source!!

How can you trust anything coming from an organization that is dependent on the government for its very existence and is frieghtened any time a Republican wins anything!

Some of us with cooler heads know the true meaning of a 7% correction: a buying opportunity.

Every word you say that's either negative or fearful only puts more of your money in my pocket.

#26 | Posted by vernon

This ain't over, yet Vernon. Wait till next week... Cash is King!

Some of us with cooler heads know the true meaning of a 7% correction: a buying opportunity.

Every word you say that's either negative or fearful only puts more of your money in my pocket.

#26 | Posted by vernon at 2008-09-29 07:09 PM

I AGEE..........

The sky is falling..............

.......... by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken

#7 | Posted by Shawn at 2008-09-29 06:07 PM | Reply |

Golly! Shawn posted a Mencken quote, thinking he could look both clever and smart on someone else's words. But he doesn't even know the true meaning of the quote or its context.

This is one of those quotes that gets regurgitated endlessly on the crackpot forums like Kos and Huffington. A lot of little minds trying to look big on someone else's dime.

You can always tell a psuedo-intellectual, but you can't tell them much.

This ain't over, yet Vernon. Wait till next week... Cash is King!

#28 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-09-29 07:13 PM | Reply |

It takes a balanced approach. It's possible to earn good returns on both the downside and the upside. Cash is king because people right now are willing to surrender their assets for a little lucre -- under the illusion that it gives them security.

Eddie,

A competent and useful president would not have let things degenerate the way Bush has but we both agree that he is useless so....

That video was from 2004 when the Republicans had healthy majorities in the House and the Senate. I agree that the Democrats should not have opposed the regulation but why the hell didn't the Republican Congress pass it anyway and send it up to Bush. Did he threaten to veto it or were some Republicans also against it because they were in the pockets of the banking industry? Remember that His Uselessness was forever blathering on about the Home Ownership Society too even as he did nothing useful to implement any such thing. Were these House and Senate hearings before or after His Uselessness's re-election? Probably before, seeing it was November. Context matters.

A lot of Democrat House members and Senators are as useless and blindly partisan as any Republican and there's little doubt that a lot of them turn a blind eye to problems in programs like Fannie and Freddie when they conflict with their social agendas and the benefit of their their friends just as corrupt Republicans like DeLay, Stevens and Cunningham will turn a blind eye when they see a chance to benefit themselves and their friends.

To paraphrase Churchill, democracy sucks but the alternatives are far worse.

George HOOVER Walker Bush presidency - Almost over

You're right about cash being King, Eddie. I've had nearly all of my 401(K) in the money market since March of last year. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.

"Pelosi is walking around in circles right now with her fists tightened and saying the same word, over and over... Fuck! ... Fuck! ... FUCK!" ...#22 | Posted by Eddie

Very funny!

BlueInBushland, keep it up and you will have a heart attack. I see the veins in your neck and forehead pulsating.

The number of points the DOW dropped may have been one of the biggest drops in history but percentage wise it's no big deal. It was about a 7% drop while the 500 plus point drop in 1987 actually equaled about a 25% drop overall.

George HOOVER Walker Bush presidency - Almost over.

When it comes to Bush and the destruction he has done to our country,
"almost" isn't soon enough.

1st. Like I posted before - it was the liberal policy of loaning money to people who could not pay it back that is the root of this - and it was enacted by ex-Clintonites at Freddie and Fanny. Look it up. Gorlick, Raines, Johnson, Freeh. This is what happens when you try to use government to force social change in spite of economics. This is typical DEM move - they do not look beyond the feel good headlines to see what the ramifications of the policy will be.

2nd. Notice that BEFORE the DEMS took over Congress the DOW was at 12500...so you can say what you like and try to pin it on Bush - but fact is fact. The war was going on at that time, Oil was going up, and the only difference was that Rep. had control of Congress.

3rd. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were both asleep at the wheel and BOTH should resign. Hey it is your money too...if they were Republicans you would be all over them.

4th. Raines and Johnson both cooked the books at Freddy and Fannie and made off with a bundle...before you go after the Repub. for allowing CEO to take too much money...why don't you look in your own bed. Who are they supporting? Obama!

5th. If the bailout is such a good idea - then the Dems. can pass the bill on their own..they control both houses. But it was Obama shooting his mouth off in the first meeting that killed it...and Pelosi in this last one.

So you can all do a nice circle jerk and pat each other on the back and say it was the bad ole Republicans...but if you decide to look at the truth you will see what a mess your side has created.

Califchris, this problem started way before Bush. Open your eyes.

Vern. You have proven a complete waste of time. Useless in every way except for pumping out excrement...

I find it very funny that people want to exonerate Dubya for this mess. If there were problems before Dubya then why didn't He straighten them out when He took over?? Nah this is totally on Him. He is SUPPOSEDLY the CEO of America during the crisis after all.

Larry

Shawn,

You have just discovered the usefullness of Vern. Congratulations, now you can begin to ignore his posts like the rest of us.

Eddie,

The report from PBS was factual not an opinion. If you want your news filtered through commercial considerations that's your right but does it ever cross your mind though that the news product you consume is just as prejudiced as you think PBS is. Use a cell phone much, do you?

BlueInBushland, keep it up and you will have a heart attack. I see the veins in your neck and forehead pulsating.

KBM in the Twilight Zone again. Woohoohoohoo Woohoohoohoo. He can see through his computer, you know.

A heart attack. I don't think so. I resigned myself to Bush and his uselessness some time ago in the happy knowledge that all things must pass. I started switching the TV and radio whenever his vacuous face and grating speech assaulted my senses several years ago. I only use eloquent and silent photos of him. My favorites are him walking hand in hand through the bluebonnets with the Saudi bigwig, shitting himself in the schoolroom on 9/11 and trying to exit through the locked door in Beijing.

George HOOVER Walker Bush presidency - Almost over.

When it comes to Bush and the destruction he has done to our country,
"almost" isn't soon enough.

#37 | Posted by CalifChris

I'm curious what my "Bush Countdown Clock" keychain will do at 12 pm January 20, 2009. Maybe it'll say "CONGRATULATIONS !!" with LCD fireworks.

On another note, the right's spinning this as Bill Clinton's doing is laughable! Reaganomics is dead.

This country and other countries have survived before wall street existed and we will survive long after they are gone. If you think everybody is waiting to attack us because are economy is weak you don't have a lot of faith in the resilient american people. If we have to we will grow our own food, trade and barter, we will do whatever we have to....we will not be attacked...we will survive. Stop buying into the fear mongering that is constantly crammed down our throats. Capitalism is what has brought us to our knees in taxes, interest rates, oil corruption, corporate greed, etc. Now that is an attack.

Spoken like a true communist. Very reminiscent of the propaganda used by communist during the depression.

puts more of your money in my pocket.

#26 | Posted by vernon

normally i agree with you that vern is as full of shit as a christmas turkey, but i agree with him today.

buy buy buy. the economy is not gonna tank with or without the bailout. whoever buys now has high risk and ultra extra extra high return potential.

i'm loosing my ass but i'm still buying shares or common stocks. if my whole 401 k has 30000 cents and 30000 shares of the dow jones 500, i'm gonna make a killing because statistics show that stocks in good companies increase when the economy isn't constipated. in this case, any increase over one cent per share makes me money.

the economy was overheating for a long long time. the reason for that and the problem that forced the government to implement the (don't know the name - but it's the act that encouraged the banks to make sub-prime loans) was that the productivity of the whole american job force increased dramatically during the dotcom days.

I'm not an economist but it had something to do with the government having 'too much cash'. They had to dispose of it so they made that act.

maybe one of you guys can explain to me why it's bad to have too much cash in a business or government.

Question for the kool aid drinking repubs on this board. Do you feel richer in the last 8 years? Or are you all too smart or too prideful for you're own good?

"Grover Norquist's Bathtub

For years we have been hearing conservative critics of American government deride the civil service; portray government itself as a force for bad; and promise a world with less government. This message has been accompanied by pledges to reduce taxes whenever possible, and a persistent reckless unwillingness to level with the American people about what 'less government' looks like. Instead we have been treated to absurdities like 'it's not the government's money, it's your money.' Although it should be noted that this absurdity was true with the tax cuts: most of the money given as a gift to the ultra-rich was money that working Americans had been paying in to Social Security to ensure income after retirement. This may indeed match the Conservative vision, but this reverse Robin Hood behavior seems to be all that government would be capable of if it were indeed, as Grover Norquist desires. "small enough to drown in a bathtub." Well Grover, we've found your bathtub. It's what we got when we poured a whole lot of Lake Pontchartrain water through a broken levee and into the City of New Orleans. And, Grover, bad news. It appears that what is getting drowned is your radical, mean-spirited vision of a return to the Hobbesian uncertainty of the 18th, or perhaps 17th, century.

It turns out that, when push comes to shove, Americans actually want, nay expect, their government to be around to help out. We expect it to be efficient, swift, and effective. Actually, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Polls have been showing for years that most Americans, given the choice between better schools and lower taxes, choose better schools. Given the choice between accessible medical care and lower taxes, choose medical care. Given the choice between safety and lower taxes, choose safety. The conservatives have been very effective at not only selling people on lower taxes, even though the benefit has gone primarily to the wealthy, but they have also obscured the reality of how much we were giving up to make up for those taxes. They have gambled that people wouldn't ever figure out that when they were saying less government, it wasn't just less government for 'them.' it was less government for 'us.' They have been pushing the idea that we can have lower taxes, less government, and still remain true to our country's core values. Then Katrina happened.

When the American people started seeing the shocking scenes of people being left to die; of a city descending into chaos, an American city decaying into Chaos, they were outraged. These images exploded the cognitive dissonance which the conservatives have relied on to push their agenda. These images were too close to what we associate with third-world government. With poverty. With corruption. With incompetence. All of a sudden it wasn't them, somewhere on the far side of the world. It was us, staring into a mirror. And we did not like what we saw. Now is the time to question how we have allowed ourselves as a people to be so horribly gulled for so many years. To ask how we have let ourselves go so far astray. We have gone from a society that values the individual to a society that values only the flow of capital. We have seen what they mean by 'less government' and we are not amused. Mr. Norquist, your bath is ready."

Bush proposed an agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie in 2003 because they are government sponsored.

Barney Frank (D), the chair of the Financial Service Committee, said "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."

Democrats said no oversight and stalled the bill in committee.

Then in 2004, the regulators of FMae and FMac were blasted by Frank and other Dems for trying to "fix something (in their minds) that wasn't broken." They didn't want to hear that FMae and FMac were ticking time bombs.

Frank is the same man that you see up front with the Democrats blaming the Republicans and Bush for this mess.

He should be ashamed to even get up in front of the American people and blame everyone but himself.

Anamerican-
Who controlled both houses of Congress, all the committees, and the Presidency in 2003 and 2004?

On another note, the right's spinning this as Bill Clinton's doing is laughable! Reaganomics is dead.

#45 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-09-29 08:21 PM

Grover Norquist's Bathtub

What the American people are learning is that we can all drown in the Grover's bathtub.

Betelg, a simple majority does not mean that every bill supported by that majority will pass. It would take every vote of the majority to make it fly.

There was a great example of this in today's vote in the House.

Anamerican-
The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, chaired every committee, and held the Presidency in 2003 and 2004.

As for today's vote, Republican's got their feelings hurt, and so decided to let the Dow plummet by hundreds of points, with only 33% of them voting for the bill.

We can play the blame game back and forth all night. But the reality of this situation is it needs to be fixed. I will not support any bill that doesn't REQUIRE a specific loan agreement with scheduled payments to be made for any money given to banks and corporations. Furthermore, I will not support any bill that provides reduced mortgage principles to any homeowner who was foolish enough to buy a house they couldn't afford.

The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, chaired every committee, and held the Presidency in 2003 and 2004.

January 2001 to January 2007

Be prepared for the Gold Confiscation Act of 2008

As for today's vote, Republican's got their feelings hurt, and so decided to let the Dow plummet by hundreds of points, with only 33% of them voting for the bill.

#55 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-29 09:13 PM

I believe there were 3 Republicans who voiced a concern of Pelosi's "campaign speech" before the vote. First of all, how dumb was it of her to deliver a speech like that before asking for a non-partisan vote from the group?

And how does your charge explain the nays from the Democrat side of the aisle? I doubt their feelings got hurt.

a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

John McSame criticized by Congress in '91 for having exercised "poor judgment".

Anamerican-
What about shares in the entities we bail out?

anamerican-
Boner said there were twelve. What does it say about Republicans that they are so petty that a perceived insult would change their vote on a matter so dire?

As to the Democrats, 60% voted for it. Only 33% of Republicans did.

Those 67% of Republicans (and McCain) OWN the tumbling DOW/Nasdaq, etc.

I have mixed feelings about the share holders, Betelg. On one hand, they know they take a risk when they buy shares. Everybody does.

On the other hand, the companies they invested in were probably not up front about the risks they were taking with their money.

ZAP-
I was just wondering: When will the Obama campaign play the Keating Five card? (The McCain campaign would have played it already if the situation were reversed)

AnAmerican-
So, no sympathy for people in foreclosure, but mixed feelings about shareholders?

(BTW, what I asked was how you felt about the gov't acquiring shares in entities they bail out, in lieu of your repayment plan)

Betelg, the Democrats could have passed this bill without the Republican vote if they had wanted it so badly. The question is why didn't they?

Heard a stupid statement.

The person who bought the house with no money down can just walk away and allow foreclosure and all they'll have is mark on their credit report.

Must not have heard of Cancellation of Debt income.

Anamerican-
It had to be bipartisan. One party can't be expected to be on the hook for a very unpopular and distasteful (though apparently urgently needed) $700 billion dollar bailout. The Dems came through on their part, and the Republicans now own whatever disaster occurs from their balking.

Isn't playing the stock market like playing in Las Vegas?? If this is so why should anyone feel sorry for them when they lose??

Larry

I was just wondering: When will the Obama campaign play the Keating Five card?

Hell of a question.

Bush proposed an agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie in 2003 because they are government sponsored.

Barney Frank (D), the chair of the Financial Service Committee, said "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."

Democrats said no oversight and stalled the bill in committee.

Then in 2004, the regulators of FMae and FMac were blasted by Frank and other Dems for trying to "fix something (in their minds) that wasn't broken." They didn't want to hear that FMae and FMac were ticking time bombs.

"Bush proposed an agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie in 2003 because they are government sponsored.

Barney Frank (D), the chair of the Financial Service Committee, said..."

The GOP was in the majority in the House in 2003 (the name Tom DeLay ring a bell? You know, the "hammer"?). How could Barney Frank be "the chair of the Financial Service Committee" in 2003? He wasn't, of course, but you wouldn't know that from that post.

"Democrats said no oversight and stalled the bill in committee."

You might be able to pass this off as fact to an unenlightened audience, but anyone with any familiarity with how the House works (as opposed to the Senate) knows that the majority rules. There's no filibuster to fall back on, and members of the minority cannot stall a bill in committee... unless the majority allows it.

"Then in 2004, the regulators of FMae and FMac were blasted by Frank and other Dems... "

Of course the majority GOP did something about this... right?

As Larry say, do try again.

TAXMAN
You are as ignorant as they come. Sorry not everyone fits into a little box. Im not a communist, but I am however a realist and confident that people will be fine without everything that has controlled them for so long.
People are hurting out there and that is the bottom line. Get some education sir and try thinking outside of the box now and again. Not everyone is looking through Marxist glasses.

Again, Betelg, people who bought shares of stock in these companies knew they were taking a risk.

Homeowners who signed an agreement to a variable interest rate loan also knew they were taking a risk. The difference is that many of those homeowners probably knew without a doubt that they couldn't afford the payment when the interest rate went up. That's why I have a bit more sympathy for the share holders.

I have gotten calls throughout the last several years from mortgage companies wanting me to borrow against the equity in my home. I said "no way" because I didn't want the money bad enough to risk my home.

TruthSetYouFree-
It must have sounded good wherever Anamerican pasted it from.

"Betelg, the Democrats could have passed this bill without the Republican vote if they had wanted it so badly. The question is why didn't they?"

The question is, why didn't the GOP support the bill their president presented to Congress?

Anamerican-
It had to be bipartisan. One party can't be expected to be on the hook for a very unpopular and distasteful (though apparently urgently needed) $700 billion dollar bailout. The Dems came through on their part, and the Republicans now own whatever disaster occurs from their balking.

#69 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-29 09:34 PM |

Please spare me the bipartisan argument. Wasn't there a period after the vote that Democrats who had voted "nay" could have changed their vote to tilt it in favor of the bill?

I have gotten calls throughout the last several years from mortgage companies wanting me to borrow against the equity in my home.

I heard that most of the "at risks" were refinance jobs. I'm sure the refinance folks were scrupulously honest with the old folks they bilked.

Anamerican-
A majority of Dems voted for it. Two-thirds of Republicans voted against it. Republicans own the fallout.

"Betelg, the Democrats could have passed this bill without the Republican vote if they had wanted it so badly. The question is why didn't they?"

The question is, why didn't the GOP support the bill their president presented to Congress?

#76 | Posted by truthsetyoufree at 2008-09-29 09:37 PM

I believe that most of those who voted against the bill did so because of calls from their constituants. I'm glad there are some in Congress who have the fortitude to listen to the people they represent regardless of their party.

"It must have sounded good wherever Anamerican pasted it from."

LOL!

Anamerican-
A majority of Dems voted for it. Two-thirds of Republicans voted against it. Republicans own the fallout.

#79 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-29 09:40 PM

See my response above to why the Republicans voted against it.

Well, then that explains how the Dems were able to stall bills presented in earlier years to regulate FMae and FMac. Thanks for making my point.

I believe that most of those who voted against the bill did so because of calls from their constituants. I'm glad there are some in Congress who have the fortitude to listen to the people they represent regardless of their party.

#80 | Posted by anamerican at 2008-09-29 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The "fortitude"? They pussed out under pressure. If they thought this was necessary, but didn't want to stick their necks out due to the popular whim in their districts then they haven't the balls required for the job.

"I'm glad there are some in Congress who have the fortitude to listen to the people they represent regardless of their party."

As "anamerican" you should know that we're a democratic republic, not a democracy. People in Congress should have the fortitude to do what's right for their country regardless of what's "popular." Otherwise, what's their purpose? And if they have no purpose then a Nielson box in every home would substitute just fine.

TruthSetYouFree-
It must have sounded good wherever Anamerican pasted it from.

#75 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-29 09:37 PM |

Are you talking about my post from this source?

Forget arguing which side did or didn't have the most votes.

This bailout bill was a DISASTER!

The details I'm hearing now on tv from the different economists and financial experts -- who were never consulted by Congress about this bailout bill like they should have been -- are telling the details of what was in/not in this bill and it was a joke.

It would have given Wall Street everything, there were no safeguards or demands they not pull this crap again, and the taxpayers would be on the hook for all of it. Don't get fooled. The best thing that happened today was this bill not passing.

What has me worried the most was both McCain and Obama were FOR this bailout swindle. Neither one of them had the cajones to demand the bill be reviewed and studied -- all they wanted was for it to pass. I know now that whichever one of them we get in November will be a continuation of Bush and both of them will be controlled by special interests.

AnAmerican-
I'm glad you've finally come around to the fact that we need tighter regulation and enforcement of the market, lest capitalism get out of hand.

But, there is a difference between a bill in a committee and a bill on the floor of the full House.

"Are you talking about my post from this source?"

Nope. This post:

Bush proposed an agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie in 2003 because they are government sponsored.

Barney Frank (D), the chair of the Financial Service Committee, said "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."

Democrats said no oversight and stalled the bill in committee.

Then in 2004, the regulators of FMae and FMac were blasted by Frank and other Dems for trying to "fix something (in their minds) that wasn't broken." They didn't want to hear that FMae and FMac were ticking time bombs.

Frank is the same man that you see up front with the Democrats blaming the Republicans and Bush for this mess.

He should be ashamed to even get up in front of the American people and blame everyone but himself.

#50 | Posted by anamerican at 2008-09-29 09:02 PM

Anamerican-
No. It was this:

Barney Frank (D), the chair of the Financial Service Committee, said "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."

Democrats said no oversight and stalled the bill in committee.

Then in 2004, the regulators of FMae and FMac were blasted by Frank and other Dems for trying to "fix something (in their minds) that wasn't broken." They didn't want to hear that FMae and FMac were ticking time bombs.

Where did that come from?

I'm surprised at you guys. All of a sudden you don't believe your representatives should listen to their constituants and should instead trust Congress to do what is right for the country.

What makes you think they are trustworthy and know what is right all of a sudden?

Just listening to that 2004 video from the same clowns who said there wasn't a problem back then is reason enough for me to buy into it.

I've been surfing the web for this stuff and obviously forgot to provide the link. Let me see if I can find it again.

Correction to post #90. "Not" buy into it.

All of a sudden you don't believe your representatives should listen to their constituants and should instead trust Congress to do what is right for the country.

It's called not holding your finger in the wind, but making the tough choices in spite of the political cost. When faced with such a situation today, Republicans "blinked".
I thought you Republicans were anti-blinking?

See you guys around. It's really too late to buy gold, so I think I'll just stroll around the blog a bit and then turn in.

BETELG

Not only to the rethugs not understand the difference between a bill in committee and a bill up for a vote by the House.

Neither do they realize that the thugs who were running the House prior to January 2007 didn't let legislation by Democrats see a vote by the House.

Anamerican:
re "Some of the other words in that post were my own. The Dems did kill it."

So, you only plagiarized parts of it, but added some parts to make it better?

Well, how 'bout you tell us how the "Dems did kill it". Specifically, since Republicans chaired the committee at the time, controlled its agenda, had the Presidency, etc.

A lot of us knew that Bush was useless in 2000. That's why we didn't vote for him. I suppose there were a few who changed their mind and voted for him in 2004 but there were many, many more who finally knew he was useless in 2004 but voted for him again anyway because that's what they do. Thanks, guys

----

Question: If somebody offered to give you 30% more than you knew your house was really worth, would you turn them down?

Anamerican-
Who controlled both houses of Congress, all the committees, and the Presidency in 2003 and 2004?

Obama.

$ 1.5 trillion in value gone bye bye.

Here's what I don't understand.
According to the Right, this deal was a Bad Thing.
Defeating it was a Good Thing.
It's defeat was caused by Obama and Pelosi.
So they're the Bad Guys.
McCain tried to rescue the Bad Deal which makes him the Good Guy.

?????

Well, how 'bout you tell us how the "Dems did kill it". Specifically, since Republicans chaired the committee at the time, controlled its agenda, had the Presidency, etc.

#97 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-29 10:33 PM

It's hard to say. FMae and FMac didn't want regulation to be but so tight. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that FMae and FMac lobbied to convince some Republicans to join in with the Dems to override it. As you can read from the article, opposition was presented by the Dem side. Surprisingly (or not) there are no articles that cover how the bill specificially failed. We just know it did.

Now I am probably going to be hit with much criticism for saying the following, but I'm going to make one further observation.

Without saying it specifically, I believe many in Congress were hit with the "you don't care about poor people getting homes" guilt trip. And since many of those poor people were minorities (I read somewhere that 90% of the bad loans were to minorities - blacks and hispanics), there was probably a veiled accusation of "racism" in the mix. And we all know that when someone plays the race card, you get a lot of "white guilt" voting.

Here's what I don't understand.
According to the Right, this deal was a Bad Thing.
Defeating it was a Good Thing.
It's defeat was caused by Obama and Pelosi.
So they're the Bad Guys.
McCain tried to rescue the Bad Deal which makes him the Good Guy.

?????

#99 | Posted by northguy3 at 2008-09-29 11:15 PM

I could care less who supported it. As it now reads, it is not the best solution. Period.

I will now leave you all to retire for the evening. But I will be back tomorrow.

Gosh, if only it had stopped at 777. That's a lucky number and would have augured well.

The market is inconsistent. Even though gold increased in price, silver, platinum, and palladium decreased in price.

If the market is just allowed to function, it'll shake itself out without the government showing preferences for certain groups. Maybe they should take a page from the book of FDR and Henry Agard Wallace, and as the New Deal killed pigs, raze these "surplus" houses.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."

Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

So who is telling the truth! Can we trust these two? I say no, but hell no. President Bush tried several years ago to get Congress to do something, but Congress did nothing.

And now they are saying it was the Administration failt. Well there is plently to blame on both side of the street.

only the WORST EVER DJIA drop in one day

Point wise yes, biggest drop ever, but not percentage wise, in 1987 it was a 25 percent drop when the market dropped 502 points. Not as big percentage this time even with a bigger drop in points...

There is a positive side to this, Wallstreet's plunder has taken some of the thunder out of oil prices!

So what will Obama do now as president?

All of Obama's new wonderful programs are to be paid for with taxes on the rich (most of which comes from their investments) and corporate taxes.

However, with the current meltdown companies will be reporting losses for years and there will be a lot less capital gains to tax also.

So now how does Obama pay for the health insurance program and others?

The deficit is already $400B and will increase. Where is several hundred billion in new spending going to come from?

Obama needs to level and tell people that most of his ideas will have to be put on hold for 10 to 20 years.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."
Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.
So who is telling the truth! Can we trust these two? I say no, but hell no. President Bush tried several years ago to get Congress to do something, but Congress did nothing.
And now they are saying it was the Administration failt. Well there is plently to blame on both side of the street.

--------------------

Pigs at the trough. All of them.

Thank the decades long "Freedom" PR blitz of Milton Friedman's Chicago School of Economics.

Another way to put a positive spin on the ugly larger truth "Big Fish Eat Little Fish".

No matter how hard you work, no matter how clever you are, you cannot beat the big boys. All you can hope for is to join them, if you're hard working, clever and VERY LUCKY. This is not to say that those who work hard and smart won't be better off than those who don't, only that the game is rigged at the top, to give every advantage (handout) to the top.

Who in their right mind really wants to live in a completely privatized society? With every road a toll road including access to an education and health care, an insurance industry which denies coverage just to see if you'll do anything about it, which you can't when you die. Who hasn't felt the high cost of gasoline, water, electricity, and food that a "free market" was supposed to bring us. Natural monopolies do not fit the "free market" model, so the results of privitization and deregulation should not be a surprise anyone.

Yet the community of pHD economists babble on with the same old bullshit. Pathetic.

"So who is telling the truth! Can we trust these two? I say no, but hell no. President Bush tried several years ago to get Congress to do something, but Congress did nothing.
And now they are saying it was the Administration failt. Well there is plently to blame on both side of the street."

Our little leftist-socialist friends will never buy that. They will defy anything that impugns any democrat in any way. For instance, here is a New York Times article from September 30, 1999. They love the NYT, right? BUT...not THIS article:

Move over Wall Street, and let's welcome the next president of the USA, B.Hussein Obama.

Hello fascism, our savior! Indeed, it's already here!

Oh shit, DOW up 230 already. Looks like Corky and Nullifidian may have to sell the barrels they were going to move into after all...

Bush made the market go up over 300 points today!!!!!!!!!!

I bought some...it was bargain time.

The Senate was in Democratic control from mid-2001 through 2003, because Jim Jeffords switched parties to Independent, and caucused with the Dems. Jeffords and Bernie Sanders were both Independents, and both vote Democrat. In 2004, the Republicans won control back.

That explains why Barney Frank was committee chairman in 2003, and why TruthSetYouFree and BetelG owe AnAmerican an apology.

Happy to help.

I really get the Fannie/Freddie causing this bubble and accounting for soooooooooo many bad loans. BUT
Why didn't Bush and the repubs just raise holy hell to get things under contol? Noboby was stopping them from hammering for reform.

Why did a R- congressman threaten the funds for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight when they went after Fan/Fred ?

for the sake of all the FUBAR going around I will repeat:

"Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking October 1, 2011' and inserting October 1, 2008.'"

What would this effectively do? It was intended to speed up the enactment of this section of the law from 2011 to this week.

And what is the impact of the change in this law? (Take a moment to let this sink in.) This wonderful bipartisan bailout proposal, negotiated into the wee hours of the morning by sleep-deprived members of Congress was designed to come with a furtive Trojan Horse embedded by Wall Street lawyers. Banks already in trouble for lack of capital would get to hold as little as "ZERO" capital for transactions.

But it does solve one giant mystery. All of Wall Street has been attempting to understand why firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who have concentrated on mergers, acquisitions, stock and bond underwriting for more a cumulative 212 years, decided in a heartbeat to enter the world of retail banking and transform into bank holding companies. (That's like asking General Motors to retool overnight for washing machines.) Now we know. Effective this week, if this bailout proposal would have passed in its current form, these firms would have had a new best friend at the Fed that was going to let them hold zero reserves for transactions. No wonder the stock of both firms sold off yesterday when Congress rejected the plan: Goldman closed down 12 per cent; Morgan down 15 per cent.

The Trojan Horse in the bailout plan also solves the mystery of how loss-riddled, serially corrupt Citigroup, now run by the former head of a hedge fund, was allowed by the FDIC yesterday to buy $400 Billion in deposits from Wachovia, giving this crippled global tyrant 30 per cent of insured bank deposits in America.

For once, we can be proud of at least 228 members of our Congress. Yes, we do need swift, reasoned action to stave off a financial collapse. But a plan that allows one man to have unfettered access to $700 billion of taxpayer money, decide which firms survive, to potentially concentrate power in a few crony hands, while pushing off even a discussion of vital regulation until next year, is not a plan. It's organized crime thinly disguised as legislation.

excerpted from Pam Martens @ Counterpunch

It's worse FreddyK, he made it go up by 485 points. Must be some sort of economic false flag operation or October surprise that evil Bush is planning!