Some House 'no' votes turning to 'yes' on bailout
Associated Press
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Preston Gannaway © The Rocky
Tina Braxton writes "No Bailout for Wall Street" on a sign during a rally outside the Federal Reserve Bank in Denver to protest a $700 billion financial industry bailout. The rally was organized by Jobs with Justice.
Photo by Mark Wilson © Getty
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, center, is flanked by other senators as he discusses the 74-25 vote Wednesday night.
If Congress passes a bailout plan, will it stabilize the economy?
WASHINGTON — A wave of House converts jumped aboard the $700 billion financial industry bailout Thursday on the eve of a make-or-break second vote, as lawmakers responded to an awakening among voters to the pain ahead of them if stability isn't restored to the tottering economy.
Black lawmakers said personal calls from Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama helped switch them from "no" to "yes." Republicans and Democrats alike said appeals from credit-starved small businessmen and the Senate's addition of $110 billion in tax breaks had persuaded them to drop their opposition.
"I hate it," but "inaction to me is a greater danger to our country than this bill," said GOP Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, one of the 133 House Republicans who joined 95 Democrats in rejecting the measure Monday, sending the stock market plummeting.
Still, the outcome was far from assured. Vote-counters in both parties planned to huddle first thing Friday morning to compare notes on coming up with the dozen or so supporters needed to reverse the stunning defeat.
Lawmakers were agonizing as they decided whether to change course and back the largest government intervention in markets since the Great Depression. "I'm trying desperately to get to 'yes,'" said Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H.
Fears about an economic downturn sent the Dow Jones industrials down nearly 350 points Thursday, three days after Monday's historic 778-point drop. The Federal Reserve reported record emergency lending to banks and investment firms, fresh evidence of the credit troubles squeezing the country
Obama and his Republican rival, John McCain, phoned reluctant lawmakers for their help. McCain, in Denver, predicted the bill would pass the House.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., told a closed-door meeting of House Democrats that he will support the bill after speaking with Obama about it. Other wavering lawmakers said Obama's entreaties had swayed them as well.
Congressional leaders worked over wayward colleagues wherever they could find them.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, said there was a "good prospect" of approving the measure but stopped short of predicting passage — or even promising a vote. Nonetheless, a vote was expected on Friday.
"I'm going to be pretty confident that we have sufficient votes to pass this before we put it on the floor," Hoyer said.
The top Republican vote-counter, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, did predict the measure would be approved.
"A lot of people are watching," Bush pointed out — as if lawmakers needed reminding — and he argued from the White House that the huge rescue measure was the best chance to calm unnerved financial markets and ease the credit crunch. He was calling dozens of lawmakers, a spokesman said.
Minds were changing in both parties in favor of the much-maligned measure, which would let the government spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets from troubled financial institutions. If the plan works, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and prevent a serious recession.
GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, said she was switching her "no" vote to a "yes" after the Senate added some $110 million in tax breaks and other sweeteners before approving the measure Wednesday night.
"Monday what we had was a bailout for Wall Street firms and not much relief for taxpayers and hard-hit families. Now we have an economic rescue package," Ros-Lehtinen told The Associated Press.
Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota also switched to "yes," partly because the Senate attached the bailout to legislation he spearheaded to give people with mental illnesses better health insurance coverage.
Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., also said he'd back it.
Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri was switching, too, said spokesman Danny Rotert, declaring, "America feels differently today than it did on Monday about this bill."
And Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada said she would back the bill after business leaders in her Las Vegas-area district made it clear how much it was needed. She said, "There isn't a segment of the population that hasn't been slammed and is not asking for some relief."
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he was on the verge of voting "yes," based on conversations with Obama. "I've got a man who I'm hoping will be president who's saying that's he's going to do the very things that I want done," he said. "It makes me feel a lot better."
Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., also said Obama was asking him to reconsider his vote. "I'm seriously listening," Rush said.
Emboldened by the feverish bidding for votes, other members of both parties were demanding substantial changes to the legislation before they would vote for it. A group of Republican opponents indicated they'd back it if the price tag were slashed to $250 billion and several special tax breaks added by the Senate — including for children's archery bow makers, imported rum producers and racetrack owners — were removed. Democrats wanted to add a way to pay for the bailout and more help for homeowners staring at foreclosure.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said no, such revisions were impossible because they would slow the measure's enactment and further shake markets.
"I don't think that any changes here will do what we need to do, which is right now to send a message of confidence to the markets that Congress will act," she said.
The Senate breathed new life into the measure Wednesday after the stinging House defeat, voting 74-25 to approve the bailout, with additions designed to appeal to key constituencies. Business lobbyists were also inundating Capitol Hill in a rush to win over wavering lawmakers in both parties.
The changes helped satisfy some Republican critics, but they angered conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats who are concerned about swelling the deficit. Still, Hoyer predicted the number of Democratic defectors "is going to be minimal."
In efforts to appease GOP opponents, the Senate added a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the limit on federal deposit insurance.
House Republicans also cheered a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission this week to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market.
The developments Wednesday prompted one Republican, Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, to say he would support the new bill.
Bush, meeting with business executives at the White House, said increasingly tight credit markets are not just hitting big banks in New York City but threatening the existence of small businesses across the country.
The modified Senate bill extends several tax breaks popular with businesses, provisions that are favorites for most Republicans. It would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans, which appeals to lawmakers in both parties. And it would provide $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana.
Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West.
Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others. Ros-Lehtinen singled it out as one reason she changed her mind.
Democratic leaders circulated data showing which states benefit most from an extension of a tax break for homeowners who do not itemize their tax returns. Texas, Florida, California and Pennsylvania ranked among the highest. The leaders hope the measure will bring support from black lawmakers, many of whom voted "no" earlier this week, among others.
September 28, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
colorado2thecore writes:
We taxpayers will soon be (okay, we already are) big-time investors in devalued assets. Here's hoping we can turn the economy around and make some $$ on these investments, and help everyone in the process.
September 28, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brix57 writes:
Somehow, this farce reminds me of how the government wants us to privatize Social Security by allowing monies to be put into the stock market. Odd, also, how many people are totally against bailing out this fiasco and the elected officials ignore them. The Democratic and Republican presidential nominees are both in agreement that this should pass, two sides of the same coin. Perhaps, it is time to bring other people in and vote these out of office.
September 28, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brittanicus writes:
THEY GAVE MILLIONS OF MORTGAGE LOANS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS
GREED! BOTH PARTIES ARE EQUALLY TO BLAME FOR THIS ECONOMIC CRISIS!
With the bailout of mega investment business and banks on the front burner. Nobody dare mention, that illegal immigration is implicated in this financial catastrophe? HOW THE BAILOUT WAS CAUSED. www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1258/pub_detail.asp
Rep. Tancredo Demands Safeguards in any Economic Bailout
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has demanded that any bailout of the finance industry should include safeguards that prevent the bank or lender from recouping funds spawning from their own fraudulent or dishonest activities.
Tancredo also wants to ensure that taxpayers do not provide assistance to illegal aliens who have lost their homes and do not absorb any bad debts owed to financial institutions. He maintains that these protections are a "must" for any bailout package.
Rep. Tancredo also wants legislation passed that would require banks to verify the legality of potential home buyers to ensure that illegal aliens do not benefit from federally backed home loans.
JOIN 756.000 other American patriots at www.numbersusa.com , to stop the travesty of our immigration laws. Learn about Immigration governmental corruption at www.judicialwatch.org
September 28, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Bend over foks, the politicians you see pictured are going to shove their greed and finacial mismanagement up our tailpipe. In a few years they'll be back to do it again. Did you see how much of the bailout we are sending to the overseas banks that we broke? If you don't dry out this junkie now, his habit will only get worse, and you'll be 700 billion lighter for supporting his habit today. Watch, 700 billion won't even touch the addiction. They'll be back for more.
September 28, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
The rich get richer.
And the poor get welfare.
Ain't we got fun.
The guys who ran the banks and firms into the ground deserve to go to jail for fraud.
They deserve no golden parachute and certainly deserve to be fired and no bail out.
The small business guy blows it and he is out of business.
What seems fair about blowing our hard earned taxes on a bunch of rich college educated pampered people.
They deserve to fail and learn from life's mistakes.
The end of america due to the overly spoiled and rich upper class people.
Maybe they hould have to scrub a toilet and find out how hard life is.
September 28, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
dorfs writes:
I don't think it will pass because of morons like Harry Reid. There is no reason for this kind of action.
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/25/h...
September 28, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
ConcernedConsumers writes:
So far this year, our government has approved the spending of over $1 trillion dollars ($1,014,000,000,000) of our hard earned money to bailout corporations and banks that screwed you over in the first place.
Earlier this year, our government guaranteed $29 billion dollars ($29,000,000,000) to support the bailout of Bear Stearns. Our government then spent $200 billion dollars ($200,000,000,000) to sort out financial problems with mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Recently, our government spent/lent $85,000,000,000 to American International Group.
Now, our politicians want to spend $700 billion dollars ($700,000,000,000) of our tax money to bailout American and non-American financial institutions or businesses, that did not complain when they were making huge profits off of high-risk mortgage loans. This bailout is another method for wealthy Republicans and Democrats to bailout their wealthy friends.
We need to watch those pushing for the $700 billion dollar bailout like Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. When Paulson was Goldman Sachs’ chief, Paulson himself received an $18.7 million cash bonus for the first half of 2006, and in 2005 he was the highest paid chief executive officer on Wall Street, reaping $38.3 million in salary, stock and options. Paulson also accumulated 3.23 million shares of Goldman's common stock worth $492 million, plus restricted shares worth $75.2 million and options to purchase 680,474 shares, according to a Goldman regulatory filing on July 2, 2006. Paulson wasn't required to pay a 20 percent tax penalty on some of his compensation from Goldman under an Internal Revenue Service rule that waived the tax on executives forced to sell stock to comply with government ethics rules.
If you think your presidential candidate is immune from the graft and will make a change, think again. Obama and McCain’s list of financial contributors should make you think twice, see http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch. Regardless of who you vote for, let us strive to hold our elected officials accountable for their promises, accountable for their actions and accountable for our hard earned money.
September 28, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem...It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment."
That statement, in Ronald Reagan's inaugural address on January 20, 1981, was the opening shot in what became known as the Reagan Revolution: small government, low taxes, de-regulation, a belief that the markets know best. The revolution's spirit shone through the 2008 platform of the Republican Party, presented at its convention early in September.
"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions," it said. "Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all."
http://www.reuters.com/article/reuter...
September 28, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
watcher1 writes:
Yeah! I love it when you can print money at will!
I'n going to celebrate and start my Christmas shopping tomorrow!
September 28, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
desertwind writes:
and our government has $700b??? sounds like a bounced check about to happen
September 28, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
gatengreen writes:
It's pathetic to see our leaders, on both sides, play politics with this mess. A mess caused by poor business on the part of the mortgage industry and our leaders, again on both sides, looking the other way, full well knowing what was happening.
September 28, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
dragonfly writes:
Blaming Wall Street? Are they changing any of the government rules and regulations that got into this mess?......Anyone?......Anyone?
September 28, 2008
5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
anya writes:
Just what we need, Pelosi playing word games: Buyout vs Buy-in, indeed. What with a complete dope in the Whitehouse, and a congress that is completely lost, all we need now is for mccain and Caribou Barbie to pitch in with how it was all thier idea. Not one of the players in this little drama have made a single correct decision in eight long years.
Worst. President. Ever!
September 28, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
ifyem writes:
A buy-in??? Give me a break!!
September 28, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/09/pro...
September 28, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
shesgotthejack writes:
Why can't I default on all of my bills and just ask the government to bail me out. What a joke!! These Wall Street pampered rich Harvard grads need to face reality. The rich get richer of course and let me tell you America. . .there is no more "middle class'. Not to mention all the wasteful spending on both parties, just chalk up the 700B to the 500B we owe China. We need real leadership, real people in Congress that knows what the typical hard working American is all about. Unfortunately there are bad politicians and greedy dishonest CEO's that have to soak in their filthy money!!
September 28, 2008
6:31 p.m.
ssquared writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 28, 2008
6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Democrats blocked all reform on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the last 10 years.
In 2001 President Bush urged reform.
In 2004 Democrats refused to reform Fannie and Freddie.
In 2008 President Bush warned Congress 17 times about the crisis that the Democrats created and ignored.
Bill Clinton even said the democrats were at fault.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/200...
September 28, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
RG2008 writes:
Vote them all out if they vote for this bailout! Now they are trying to sell us some bull different name for a Buy In.
If they pass this bail out then we should remove every dime we have from our bank accounts and close out our IRA/401Ks! vote with your money bring Washington to it's knees. Screw the penalties you're going to pay more in taxes then the 10% penalty!
R
September 28, 2008
7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
rage_against_the_stupid writes:
Demcrats have again proven that they can not govern. Pelosi and Reid are incompetent beyond compare. They would have let Wall Street thugs walk away with a trillion dollars of taxpayer money in exchange for a few billion given to Acorn as a favor to Nobama. Nobama may be smarter then the democrat leaders, but he brings to us a level of corruption to American politics unseen since we had some guy from Hope. And notice nobody even talks about Biden, why would we, he's irrelevant!
Thank goodness there are a few politicians willing to think of the American majority. Without the house conservatives, the middle class would be gone sooner then the democrats have planned.
September 28, 2008
7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
RoyalPayne writes:
Buy out? Bailout ? Let's call it what it really is...SELLOUT of the American people ! Many of our elected officals have sold their soul , their country and their people for money, power and votes. If any who vote FOR this illegal scam are elected again the nation deserves whatever it gets. I see a tax revolt in our future, citizens have finally been pushed over the edge !
September 28, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
FCZ -
Are you really so naive to believe this is all on the backs of the Democrats? Are you really so naive to believe that Democrats AND Republicans alike didn't create and share in the mess? None care about you, me or this country.
There's not a leader, patriot or statesman among them. Both parties are the epitome of hypocrisy ... they each blame and point fingers at the opposite side for the very same thing(s) they do themselves. Whores, one and all.
Again, not a single one, Democrat or Republican, wouldn't sell out for a vote or a buck.
September 28, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
Why do Pelosi, Frank, Reid and Dodd (feature photo) all look as if someone just died?
September 28, 2008
8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
It's called (or used to be called) The American Republic... And yes it's officially dead.
September 28, 2008
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
Dear Senator/Representative:
You MUST reject the Paulson/Bernanke plan for bailing out and propping up reckless banks at taxpayer expense. This is madness to ask us, the taxpayers, to cover the liabilities of Wall Street. We are tired of being fleeced. If you vote to support this plan, I will do everything in my power to remove you from office before you can give away any more of our money to failed businessmen.
Thank you, [Your name]
----------------------------------------
Senator Wayne Allard (R- CO) (970) 461-3530
Senator Ken Salazar (D- CO) (970) 224-2200
Marilyn Musgrave (R - 04) (970) 663-3536
-----------------
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blo...
September 28, 2008
9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
100+ ECONOMISTS ARE OPPOSED TO THE BAILOUT!
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.co...
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function.
We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation.
We ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
September 28, 2008
9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Who knows if this is really going to work, but other than rage - understandable though it may be - what are our alternatives? Let banks fail? Well, that's what happened in the 90s, and it didn't kill our economy, though it did cause a recession. No, the really unnerving this was the run on money markets and what that represented. This plan may stink, but I guarantee you it wouldn't stink nearly as much as if every single lending source in the country - from store credit cards to gas credit cards to any kind of business loan you thought you needed to expand your store or business suddenly ceases to be available. The mechanism may be arcane, but letting it seize up would be making the worst of a bad situation. I expect to hear an earful from mytwosenses come morning for saying this, but we have to hold our nose and do this. And it it makes any of my fellow liberals feel even a little better, W will still wind up taking the blame when it's all said and done.
September 28, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Democrats in their own words : Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cS...
September 28, 2008
10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
FCZ - A word of advice, bro. Stop pointing fingers and start finding out where they're putting the feeding troughs. It's going to be a buying bonanza, que no?
September 28, 2008
11:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
watcher1 writes:
"The United Socialists States of America"
By god its finally here. (Can I get my excellent national healthcare like the citizens of the rest of the industrialized nations?)
Oh, I forgot. What WE have is Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us.
In the end, the USA became the USSR.
Beautiful.
September 28, 2008
11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
GeorgeLillyforCongress writes:
Looks like Congress will be bailing out Wall Street with tax payer money. The bail out bill will be voted on first thing Monday, September 29th. What will this lead to? What are the implications? Why and how has our economy been brought to its knees? Well, lets give credit to where credit is due.
Yes, risky loans where made and accepted. Lenders and borrowers are certainly to blame. But what is the larger, root cause of all this? The Federal Reserve should share some of the blame, should it not?
The Federal Reserve, in all their wisdom, has been lowering interest rates for as long as this author has been alive. The Federal Reserve (FED) has made borrowing money so attractive, so much so that the housing bubble was given birth, not to mention the tech and Internet bubble before that. Had the FED not made credit so accessible, leading consumers to believe that they could not possibly lose out, we would not be in this mess. Folks, this is analogous to kids in a candy shop:
Shopkeeper FED: Ok kids, you can eat as much as you want, and we’ll work out the payment later.
Kids: We love candy!
Shopkeeper FED: Oh, don’t forget about these chocolate houses. I know they’re a lot to handle but I’ve made them even easier to take a bite out of!
Kids: Oooohhhh, this adjustable rate is giving me a stomach ache…
Shopkeeper FED: Well I don’t want you to stop eating candy, just keep eating and I’ll just keep lowering the interest rates…
And now the FED wants to swoop in and take up the role of Savior of the economy, fixing the problem that they created? There seems to be a disconnect here…. I liked what one Congressmen said of this government buyout of Wall Street firms: “if its too big to fail, it is too big to exist.”
---Sean Doherty
campaign manager for George "Lilly for Liberty"
www.GeorgeLillyforCongress.com
September 29, 2008
12:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Both parties can take blame. Pelosi can say buy in all she wants, her 100 days promise tells me all I need to know about her. when I look honestly at all the candidates for office, I cannot say that I feel good about voting for any of them. I hope Musgrave gets booted, she is a Bush follower. maybe she can move to texas when he gets out. Ritter did the hiring freeze for a scare tactic, figures it may help pass some of the BS amendments he wants, get more money out of the taxpayers. when will it end?
September 29, 2008
3:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Greenspan lowers intrest rates to stimulate the economy, much like Reagan did, he leaves them low creating a loose money policy. One party (republican) notices Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were headed for problems 2 years ago, but the other party (democrat) shoots down legistlation to address the impending problem. Americans get on the ride upgrading their homes, buying assets that encumber every dollar they earn. The poor jump into the pie with poor credit using sub-prime and ARMs as a means to own what they can't afford. Now those of us who live far below our means, who instead of encumbering themselves with debt, put our money to work, have to pay to bailout these irresposible people. Conservatives say no to the bailout of the irresponsible, liberals dress it up and call it a buy in, makes it sound like socialized take over. I think there's enough blame for everyone to get a share of it. Were just one big welfare society; we don't need sound economic policies, we can just print more money, and give it away to everybody, forget about intrest we're stimulating the economy and giving it away free to whoever asks. I think it's time to dump these professional politicians. Maybe before the liberals build this socialized society they should make sure their are enough conservatives to pay for it. Any idea how much of this bailout is leaving the United States for foriegn banks? People, if you're buried in debt, whose fault is it really? We all know how irresponsible the politician is, but I think many people are equally irresponsible and encumber themselves beyond their means. You can have all the credit you desire, I like being clean to the house with my money working for me. If I want to see people in debt, I'll just find a nice big home with brand new expensive cars, and inquire how much they owe. When they lose their job and can't service their debt, and they're paying more than the house is worth today, I'll be more than happy to come to the rummage sale. Wise man builds his house on the rock, foolish man builds his on the sand; either way both knew the water was going to rise one day. I love when people tell me what they're worth, it gives me an idea what they owe.
September 29, 2008
3:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
One thing I learned both in the joint as well as from the mob; if you can't pay you're debts, it bloody nose time. I learned at a very early age, debt was a bad thing. Worse words I ever heard came from some real degenerates who would start crying when the beating was in progress. "Please take me to my mother, she'll pay you!". What kind of bum says this while getting braced? I hated hearing that. Then you end up meeting this nice little old lady, who qualifies for sainthood, paying us the money for her degenerate son. I am glad I left that life behind, I hated it.
September 29, 2008
4:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I said the same thing 2 years ago on the RMN, George Lilly. When Europe was dumping metric tons of Au on the market and keeping Au in the 300 dollar ranges I bought in, I picked up Ag in the the 4 dollar range. Today America has deleted most of her reserves just like the Europeans. The mint buys Ag on the open market for it's bullion mintage. Federal Reserve is private, the president other than selction of the chairman off a list supplied by the reserve, has little control over this private organization of member banks. Today we have virtually no reserves, just boatloads of paper. If we were on a Au standard today, we'd be deeper in a depression than we were in the 1930's. I believe the American people have been ripped off bigtime, with the blessing of the politicians. Yes, the Feds keeping the intrest rates so low for so long proved to be the downfall. I expect to see inflation rise now, can't keep printing money before it loses value. I still see those old german marks with the flying horse and rider; you could have a wheelbarrow full of those worthless notes. I used to give them as gifts because the artwork was unique. I think it won't be long and we'll be in the same shoe. Eventually they'll have to make laws again concerning hoarding, ah but it's only human nature. Neither of these candidates are good choices at this juncture in our history, both are extremely poor choices. But watch the people argue who is best for America. Well at least there's one up side to this economic mess were in, the hookers will be looking better as the economy goes down hill!
September 29, 2008
5:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Last time things got nasty, Jimmy Carter was president. A New York Family of gangsters, the Gambino's, opened up a morgage business out of St, Pete, with Denny McLain the famous pitcher running the show. You needed a loan, they had intrest rates all the way to 150% for those who couldn't go elsewhere. Bad economy opens up the door, for some very bad people. Sad thing is the Feds need more resourses to police it all, because today the criminal world is a mixed bag of ethnic backgrounds, from all over the world, reaching into America.
September 29, 2008
5:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
smidgen writes:
A treasonous thief by any other name is still a treasonous thief.
September 29, 2008
6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
"Bush confident bailout bill will stabilize economy"
The same guy who was "confident" Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
September 29, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"rage_against_the_stupid writes:
...
Thank goodness there are a few politicians willing to think of the American majority. Without the house conservatives, the middle class would be gone sooner then the democrats have planned"
Hey rage, is your party faithfulness so blind that you can't see that YOUR party is selling out the Middle Class to China as fast as the Dems are selling it out to their special interests. Get with the program, your party is 50% to blame for every bad thing that happens in this country, all the while wrapping themselves in the flag and calling themselves Patriots. I guess the checks coming in from Beijing as they ship jobs overseas to keep Wall St. happy are enough to assuage their consciences (assuming that they have consciences to assuage!)
September 29, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Why would anything George Bush says be listened to. He has shown us time and time again that what comes out of his mouth is a front for something deeper and darker. Once again our polititions have not listened to the people; Democrat or Republican. If this fails we will all be out of money, because it is us taxpayers bailing out Robber Barons on Wall Street. Why don't the Robber Barons have to suffer the same consequences that a regular Joe small business owner would? This is unbeleivable. These people should have their accounts and assets seized and auctioned. They are crooks. Nothing more nothing less. When will the American people revolt, is the big question. The wealthiest of the wealthy have just pulled off the biggest heist of taxpayer money in world history. I don't mind paying taxes, but taxes to bail out wealthy crooks goes way to far. Are we now endentured servants?
September 29, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
One big gamble, and I doubt it will work. Too many crooks in business and Congress.
September 29, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
Big_D rants:
"The social conservatives have destroyed the Grand Old Party."
How so? Please cite examples.
"They think the world is in its last days and try to make it come true."
Who is trying to do this? Please provide names and circumstances.
September 29, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
Sign these Petitions to Congress -- STOP THE BAILOUT TODAY!!!
We are signing this petition in opposition of a taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. Banks and their millionaire CEO's should take losses for risky lending, not taxpayers.
www.NoWallStreetBailout.com
www.VoteNoBailout.org
www.FinancialPetition.org
"We are witnessing a bankers' coup d'etat. In the name of saving the economy from a crisis created by their own greed and immense profits, the biggest bankers have taken a country and a people hostage."
Other economists draw unnerving parallels to the Great Depression, warning that it was caused precisely by this kind of government intervention in the economy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's OpenMarket.org says the proposed $700 billion intervention will prove to be either "excessively costly or unnecessary." Peter Schiff, a well-known stock market bear and president of Euro Pacific Capital, warned: "We're going to have a tremendous recession if the government does nothing but we're going to have a worse one" if it does. Also see the Huffington Post's reasons to oppose the bailout, and Congressman Ron Paul's warning that "it's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs."
CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AND TELL THEM NO BAILOUT!
Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
September 29, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
Marshdale writes:
"Are we now endentured [sic] servants?"
Umm...yes. Unfortunately, the truly simple minded and naive believe this is something that transpired within only the last 8 years, and that despite the 535 members of Congress, and the almost countless government agencies, Bush single-handedly caused this collapse. The idea of a central banking system making money off the backs of the taxpayers is nothing new. The Federalists launched this scheme as far back as 1790 with Alexander Hamilton at the helm. The imposition of the income tax, the removal of the gold backing of our currency, and the forming of the Federal Reserve were all successful attempts by the financiers to increase their wealth at our expense. The 401k plan is another part of their scheme. This plan ensures that money is continually put into the stock market to artificially prop it up.
September 29, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
What's everybody so pissed off about? It's not a bailout, it's a buy-in. Now We the People have a share in all these wonderful investments.
September 29, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Americans4Liberty writes:
Bailouts Costing taxpayers $1.8 TRILLION (Source: Reuters)
Proposed Treasury Department legislation $700 billion+
Bear Stearns financing $29 billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization $200 billion
AIG loan and nationalization $85 billion
Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill $300 billion
JPMorgan Chase repayments $87 billion
Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility $200 billion+
Loans from Exchange Stabilization Fund $50 billion
Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $144 billion
TOTAL $1.8 trillion+
COST PER HOUSEHOLD $17,064+
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-100...
September 29, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Who here voted for Bush? Anyone? I Know I didn't. In fact, from the beginning of this stupid war I said "there are no weapons of mass destruction". I worked for a felonious mortgage broker for a while who wanted to get Anyone into a mortgage, no matter how bad the deal - his great desire was to own his own jet - quit when I learned enough to know he was rotten and greedy. I own no car, I do not have a credit card, never have, and I struggled to support my 3 sons as as single mom. I do not feel any compassion for the Folks on Wallstreet, or any one who bought into the Greed Culture of the past two decades. Let them eat cake.
September 29, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Seriously, doesn't this remind anyone of the days right before the French Revolution? Louis the 14th or something trying to pay for the parties and wars of his forebearers on the backs of the populace....look what happend to him - Where is Robes Pierre when you need him? We are, after all, one of the most heavily armed populations in the world. Lets take our country back.
September 29, 2008
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
Do we need anything further to know that this bailout is a bad idea then that our "president" thinks it is a good idea?
September 29, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
I voted for Bush. Be reminded that given a choice between Bush and the best that the Democrats had to offer in 2004, more people chose Bush. I will admit that he has failed as a fiscal conservative. But he had a war to run, with battles in two different countries half way around the globe. He had a lot of battles with Congress each year in order to get the funding he believed was needed for the war. How do you get votes for such funding from reluctant congressmen and women? You add a little lard to the old budget with something for their district or their state, in exchange for their vote. So let's not put all the blame on Bush. Congress passes the budget, before Bush signs it.
September 29, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
...and their regal manners gave them away, the innkeeper recocognize them. DenverTea, King Louis watched from the tower of his captivity as the gaurds played with his child below. After Louis's execution, they gave the child to a cobbler, who brutally beat the child for a number of years until his death. The physcians who came to view the body found it unrecognizable. Robes Pierre you ask, I believe he met his death also after the reign of terror. Question is where's tthe Duke of Orleans, Louis Phillippe? I always saw Mc Cain more like Cromwell who stepped in for the king upon his demise. English love to boast there was no break in the succession to the throne; I beg to differ. Cromwell unlike Robes Pierre is still respected in English history. Even the Duke of Orleans had to step down.
September 29, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
But people the problem still hasn't been fixed. There is still a hole in the bottom of the coffee cup. They just poured 700 billion of fresh coffee in it.
September 29, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Yeah Dilligaf, I ain't dancin', it's burnin' my feet!
September 29, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Ok Loiue I know you are right....but, still. I am not well educated on many matters of politics, but even I can see corruption and decadence and stupidity. I mean how many of the current administrations members and personal friends are going to benefit from this bailout? It can't be that hard to see it. I have a great Idea though - lets take the houses that have been defaulted on and give them to the homeless, or Something. We could do it better, we could. Alternative fuel resources, organic local farming by community members, barter system in some instances. It has to be better than footing the bill for these greedy ^ss H*les. Just saying.
September 29, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
666 writes:
Some people don't seem to be aware of a few things...
(1) This is a buyout, not a bail out. The government is buying the failed financial institutions, not giving them money.
(2) Many of the executives that caused this are either in jail or under investigation. They're not all getting away with it.
(3) Simply not doing it is not an option. Unless, of course, you want to keep seeing your 401(k) bleed to death, and paying 2x as much as last year for groceries, etc.
(4) Robespierre is one word.
(5) This isn't "Bush's Plan". He's going along with it because he has no better options.
(6) Nothing is being hidden from you. You can go read the text of the proposal any time you want. I assume you can operate a computer, and know what Google is?
(7) Using your favorite political partisan site as proof or as a reference is no better than saying "because I said so".
(8) The vast majority of sites ending in ".org" exist only to mislead voters that are too lazy to actually research issues. The ones containing the words "freedom" "liberty" and "family" are among the most deceptive and underhanded.
September 29, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
I would never condone beating any child, or any human being for that matter. I wish we could all play nicely though. I am going to live in the woods, as soon as I finish I long sought BA. I wonder if having it will be worth anything financially after everything plays out? We will see, in the meantime the woods are lovely, dark and deep...
September 29, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
ssqured writes:
FCZ -
Are you really so naive to believe this is all on the backs of the Democrats? Are you really so naive to believe that Democrats AND Republicans alike didn't create and share in the mess? None care about you, me or this country.
There's not a leader, patriot or statesman among them. Both parties are the epitome of hypocrisy ... they each blame and point fingers at the opposite side for the very same thing(s) they do themselves. Whores, one and all.
Again, not a single one, Democrat or Republican, wouldn't sell out for a vote or a buck.
Very true and I am positive there is pork hidden in this bill for both sides.
September 29, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
What would happen if a Majority of the taxpayers simply refused to pay taxes to support this? Like, almost all of them - getting 100% to do anything is impossible, so how about 95%.....what could be done about that? Instead of paying taxes to the IRS, give the equal amount of money to hospitals, or schools, or roads, or whatever your need and interest is....that would make a difference, wouldn't it?
September 29, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
This would have been the perfect year for a strong independent candidate to make a run. A Bloomberg/Powell ticket or the like would have been a certain winner. Hell, I bet a ticket of Kinky Friedman and Willy Nelson could have won.
September 29, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
MBR693; Unfortunately, I think you are correct. The wealthy conservatives have been pulling this stunt since Rothchild pulled it on the English market 200 years ago. Conservatives, that is the wealthiest of the wealthy preach competition but it is not what they practice among themselves. They are a select few who seek to control financial power by manipulating the people and the market to bennefit them. That was the whole idea behind creating the Federal Reserve was so the wealthiest banks could control all of the currency. They are not stupid, but they are deviant.
September 29, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
Amen to that, Willy.
September 29, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
We could get more bang for our buck, if we cut out the middle man (government) and choose what was truly inportant - our safety, health, and well-being.
September 29, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
ok,, maybe this isnt so much like the beginning of the French Revolution as it is the fall of the Roman Empire - anyone?
September 29, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Dan, I love books, I have a library of 1st edition and 2nd edition books from the early 1800's. I love books since my education suffered greatly at the hands of the state. Dan, I believe both party's have sold America out; a chioce of evils still leave us with evil. This is the worst election choices I've ever seen in my lifetime, at a time when we seem to face the greatest peril. I am still quite undecided; I quit answering my phone to unknown callers as they poll me constantly. I am more than willing to put many of my personal beliefs on abortion, gay marriage, even gun control aside, for the sake of a leader to hold the highest office in the free world. Yet I fail to see a great leader in either choice. Seems we are either stong on foriegn policies and weak economically, or we change the economy and are weak on foriegn affairs. One thing that haunts me since Kennedy, if we elect a young president who is percieved as inexperenced, the enemies of America will try him at a time when America can least afford it because of our current economic position. If I were an enemy of America, what greater opportunity could exist but America in economic crisis, and a young inexperenced president at the helm. Kennedy was a failure in the Bay of Pigs, Cuba has meddled in our affairs worldwide as well as Latin America ever since. A young man will be tried and perhaps his achievements overshadowed if our enemies start making moves on him and force him to act contrary to his campaign promises. No president controls world events. Just a thought...
September 29, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
I purchased a home 3 years ago. I took a second mortgage to cash out part of the equity in that home to start a business.
I worked with 7 different mortgage companies because I had to fire the first 6 because they were pressuring me to take out more money than I wanted to take out, to go with a longer term (50 years, if you can believe that), to go with an interest only loan, to get a reverse mortgage, yadda, yadda, yadda.
If I had listened to them or given in to the extreme pressure, I would now owe 125% on my home and would have a mortgage that I could not possibly pay.
Many of my neighbors gave in to the temptation and are now struggling to keep their homes.
I say "tough". You made your choices, now deal with the consequences. My family made smart decisions, left more than half of our equity alone, INSISTED on a 20 year, fixed rate, and actually made PLANS that included having a mortgage that we could comfortably pay for the next 20 years.
And, in spite of our good decisions and careful, frugal planning, my family is being asked to bail out Banks that PROMOTED lending money to naive, gullible people that the Banks knew perfectly well would not be able to repay the loans.
I am so p*ssed off I can barely speak.
I say "You made your bed.... now lie in it"
September 29, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Where's Reagan when you need him?? This is nothing that couldn't be "paid for" out of "waste, fraud, and abuse."
September 29, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Reagan was a monster. He really hurt the elderly and financially disadvantaged with his policies. Women, children and senior citizens all suffered under Reagan.
September 29, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
Americans4Liberty -
You forgot the Economic Stimulus Package ... there's another 153B we pissed away with no appreciable benefit to the economy.
Hey, at least that money 'passed' through our hands.
Anyone have any data/statistics on the 'net' benefit(s) of the Economic Stimulus Package?
September 29, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
Obama claiming credit for the plan which Bush is pushing, isn't that delicious.
McCain going along with it; what a maverick . . . . NOT!
The federal government literally taking over Wall Street, after taking over the mortgage industry.
This whole thing stinks so bad, tastes so bad, and looks so bad, it is beyond description.
America, land of the free? Those days are gone.
September 29, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
National debt = $54 trillion (includes unfunded Social Security and Medicare commitments).
September 29, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
LOUIE
You haven't seen nothing yet. You think the choices are bad know just wait. See it is a double edge sword. When executives around the country are making million dollar salaries you think anybody with half a brain would spend millions to get a $400,000 job.
September 29, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
BigSky182: I feel your pain. I got divorced last year and had to refinance the house to pay the settlement. The lender's appraiser overvalued the house substantially, but I only had to refinance about 67% of the appraised value to make all the ends meet, so that's what I did.
Only problem was, with such a generous appraisal by the lender, I ended up making a last minute concession to pay several more thousand to my ex, to keep her from contesting the value of the home as being greater than what we had previously agreed upon. And now like you, I'll help pay for all those other folks who borrowed more than they could afford.
LOUIE writes: "...I ain't dancin', it's burnin' my feet!" - Good line, too funny.
September 29, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I thought someone would catch it; Robespierre is one word as the man's last name. I can't let that go:>)
September 29, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
coarizona writes:
Anyone here know the validity of Fact Check . Org?
September 29, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Hey does anyone know how to get rid of these damn pollsters; I've had 3 calls this morning alone? I don't want to change my number, or be rude to them. You ought to hear how they word their questions as well; it's like they are leading you to answer a particular way. Somehow they got my cell number and won't let it go, I ask them to no avail. Anyone have an idea, damn another just rang. This is nuts...
September 29, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
They keep saying that there could even be a "profit" or a return on the bail out, and at worst we (the US gov/Taxpayers) should expect to break even- BS!
IF that was the case then why are there not investors and other banks buying up these "bad debts" at a fraction of their face value?
Whythen is a bailout even needed?
WE the SHEEP are about to get sheared - for the benefit of those who would come out of this O.K. only LESS rich!
Welfare for Wall Street has to come to a hard end!
This and the next two elections - VOTE OUT every sitting congressman and Senator- ALL of em - and lets sent the message we are tired of this and are not going to take it anymore!
September 29, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
We dont need a pres with a bucket list..
Obama 08
September 29, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
hakj -
I agree.
If we're going to bail them out (I don't think this "buy-in" is going to fly in the House) then the government has every right to expect that salaries and bonuses (if any) are in line with those of CEO's and upper level managers in similar businesses/industries.
Absolutely no bonuses until the economy recovers or until the taxpayers liability is deminished by at least 50%. I receive bonuses ... ONLY when I meet or exceed specific performance levels. We need uniform regulation and control over "golden parachutes", severance packages and salaries. Simple ... you make money, you get money.
How the fugg does Alan Fishman (WaMu) receive $19 million for the three weeks he was with WaMu before they failed last week? Three freakin' weeks! Even if the worked 80 hours @ week, thats over $79,000 per hour.
September 29, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
DenverTea, I stood behind Bush's dad once, Clinton as well, and I'll admit given the choices Bush's kid both times. Why do you ask us? I have no shame, I felt I should always select the best man to lead our nation.
September 29, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
surferon writes:
"With this strong and decisive legislation," he said, "we will help restart the flow of credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods and meet their payrolls."
Isn't credit and living beyond our means such as purchasing homes we can't afford what got us in the mess to begin with??? Is Bush saying we need to have credit to meet our daily needs??? What message does this send?
September 29, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
"Time has Run out"
"We have no other choice"
"We must act now"
" The US is at risk"
Just those type of statements makes me more afraid of just what they are doing...
Sounds at least a little like the things being said when we went in to Iraq, and passed the Patriot Act...More Bush White House Fear Tactics.
Bend over America! Here it comes!
September 29, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Correction, I voted for Bush Sr. twice, Clinton once on his 2nd term. Bush's kid twice.
September 29, 2008
12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Diff, I am still wondering how much of this bailout is going to foreign banks? Secondly, I don't think it even begins to touch the principle owed. Lastly, I believe this economy is so bad, they'll be back for more. I think the bailout is a band-aid, and the worse is yet to come. I bet they give the foreign banks the dough, and turn around and try to borrow it back.
September 29, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
watcher1 writes:
Chinaman is knocking at the White House door and he wants his money.
September 29, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I love Au, it's breaking 900 an ounce on KITCO live market quotes. I bought in years ago when Europe was dumping hundreds of metric tons a month on the markets, and pushing the price below 400. Nailed Ag just above 4 an ounce. I even picked up some old gold eagles and double eagles at the time from a private seller for spot.
September 29, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Stop the Bailouts!
September 29, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
"it's like they are leading you to answer a particular way."
Of course they are - that makes spinning the data easier.
September 29, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
BAILOUT REJECTED.
It was just reported that the bailout failed in congress. The stock marget is crashing. Boy this could get ugly.
September 29, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Market
Sorry about the misspell.
September 29, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
watcher1 writes:
Great. Thanks to those who did the right thing.
Now its time to see who voted FOR this stinking robbery and clean the House of them. It couldn't be a clearer message who's side they were on: The Banksters.
Vote those people out starting this election.
(And don't forget those in the media who sided with these criminals and tried to scare the hell out of us)
September 29, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Macita183 writes:
Why don't these mortgage/bank execs that made milllions off of doing the wrong thing have to pay to clean up their own mess? Maybe sell one of your multi million dollar houses? And how is it our bills keep going up and up and up? Perhaps is my Xcel bill wasn't so high I could contribue something to the economy. I hate all these rich bastards that got us into this mess.
September 29, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
LuckySkunk writes:
This 700 billion (bailout/buy-in) fiasco follows a pattern where the shareholders are wiped out while the debt holders (filthy rich) are protected. Now Investors have caught on and are betting on future bailouts by selling stock and buying bonds in the struggling firms. Which exacerbate these Institutions troubles. But again this only screws the taxpayer while the rich, including Congress, get richer.
The issue of executive compensation compromise is a JOKE. It places a tax on executive salaries and bonuses of $500,000 or more at companies in which the Treasury has bought more than $300 million in assets at auction. For companies in which the Treasury intervenes directly, a 20% surcharge on golden parachutes is instituted. This is NOT change that penalizes mismanagement, it only more B*11SH!!T for the American mushrooms. I would gladly sign up for a CEO at these Institutions for a mere 3 million sign-on bonus plus a $20 million golden parachute including the 90% surcharge. Wake up Congress there should be NO golden parachutes, NO sign-on bonuses and a salary of $1/year for the top 10% of these companies, and NO political donations to Congress and their elite money-mongers until the money is paid back to the American Taxpayers.
Prepare yourselves for the CRASH as these Institutions will fail regardless of the bailout. The only ones who will see a profit are the bondholder; individuals (aka working stiffs) with stocks (retirement funds) in these companies will suffer the losses.
September 29, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
watcher1
I wasn't happy about this bill but if they are right about needing this god help us all. But I suppose your an economic expert so you can maybe enlighten us on how this is good.
September 29, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
daddyblt writes:
Marcita183, I could not agree with you more!
September 29, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Expecting the Dow to drop 10% which would then put in motion selling programs, taking it down 30%, has not occurred. The Dow, as I write this, 12:30 is down only 5%.
The vote rejects the leadership of Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Bernanke and Paulson. Pelosi introduced partisanship and should step down.
Some point to Wall Street. Some point to DC. Lending to those who can't afford to pay for mortgages is a factor. But without an expanding industrial base, there's no expanding revenue to make all these payments.
September 29, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
chill134 writes:
RE: Americans4liberty-- you claim 100 economists reject the bailout. This may be true, but how many are for it? What action do you suggest we take? It seems you're only saying NO NO NO. I'm fine with you rejecting this measure, but how about some suggestions on how to fix it instead of simply complaining?
September 29, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
Great; the money I would have spent on local businesses for home improvements will now be used to bail out failed banks!
September 29, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
666 writes:
What I've read, from quotes in DC, is that many Republicans wanted the thing to pass, but voted against it because Pelosi blamed them for the problems that created it. So, because of Republican spite, we are heading into an new depression.
All y'all that are against it, who misguidedly think it's a bail-out for the firms, do you have any better ideas...besides locking ourselves in bunkers and bomb shelters and waiting for everything to blow over? Any fictional, happily-ever-after conservative magic that can miraculously make this country more than just a series of loans in default?
September 29, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reardon_Steel writes:
I am a bottom line thinker, and forgive me if I tend to simplfy the issue here.
I believe 100% that each individual is resposible for their own actions. That has bitten me in the butt numerous times, and I didn't have anyone to bail me out, but somehow I have been able to pull through everytime and prevail, with many lessons learned along the way.
Let's all focus on the bottom line here. Thousands of people bit off more than they could chew, and the bottom feeders in Washington and Wall Street knew it and temporarily cashed in on it.
I DONT BLAME THE BOTTOM FEEDERS. Vultures are vulters, there is no getting around that. They have their place in our society just like the rest of the components do.
Remember, that each person is resposible for their own decisions, and if they choose to enter into a risky situation where they may or may not be able to survive and pay their mortgage, then they have the vultures to contend with when they get into the deal AND when they get out of it.
Those of us that choose to live responsibly and minimize our risk of being "picked apart" will probably be impacted in some way that may eventually bring us down to their level (i.e. job losses and investment vaporization).
What is the solution?
Hang tight to your $$ right now. Play it safe, play it clean, and most of all BE RESPONSIBLE.
My vote, were I able to, would be NO BAIL OUT.
Let it crash, and when it rises again, which it will, remember the lessons of today.
September 29, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
stella writes:
Um....95 DEMOCRATS voted against it. If Pelosi and company have a MAJORITY in the House and can't keep their own people in the fold, what does that say about the bill?
September 29, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Stop the Bailout
September 29, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
hikingartist writes:
I like the way the Bush "legacy" is shaping up. Bush=Fail. haha!
September 29, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
BenchBoss writes:
Finally - something we can agree on!
We may not see eye-to-eye on who caused it or how to solve it but many Republicans and Democrats alike think this is a BAD idea. We can do it!
Gotta admit some of the scare tactics are pretty powerful: end-of-world doomsday scenarios with 'Main Street' crumbling into the abyss. I realize something needs to be done but hesitate - getting that WMD flashback given the haste this has been pushed around.
Or - we could always take a nod from Brittanicus and blame illegal aliens. How bizarre and conveniently small-minded is that!?!??!? Or - better yet, let's just blame aliens! "Wall Street closes early, Financial Execs convene at Area 51".
September 29, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Louie. Have you noticed that the amount of interest and the life insurance on credit cards, rolled over onto the entire interest earning amount, is starting to look like the vig?
And these are legitimate companies?
September 29, 2008
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
ssquared writes:
Perhaps the American public is finally becoming immune to the proverbial wolf shouting f