Third Party & Independents Archives

David:
i couldn’t agree more.
As much as i loathe the notion of this bailout and the dems part in it, something has to be done.

When the republicans came out yesterday to announce that the reason why the bailout bill didn’t pass was because 12 congresspeople were, supposedly, offended by Pelosi’s comments, they essentially cemented their fate for next decade.

They will be cast as the party that has put party and personal feelings above the nation. They will be cast as the party that behaved like a 2nd-grader who was upset because someone said ‘bad things’. Wah Wah Wah…

Firstly, i DON’T believe that Republicans voted against it because of Pelosi; that kind of behavior is incomprehensible. i believe that the Republicans that voted against it had serious concerns with the bill, period.

But since IT’S leadership used as the excuse for the bill failing, a speech; the republican party will be cast as the party who put feelings and party above the country.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 30, 2008 08:28 AM

All I can say is a pox on all their houses. Pelosi for her political ineptitude, the Republicans for letting it influence their vote, Obama for criticizing the bill’s failure while calling for a similar deal for everyday Americans in the same sentence (now is not the time to make this an “us” or “them” proposition), McCain for, well, being McCain and not seeming to really say anything of any importance.

Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, must shoulder a significant portion of the blame. Her attempt to pin the blame solely on Republicans, when the 1999 law that gutted Glass-Steagal was championed and signed by Bill Clinton, when House Democrats, led by Barney Frank, blocked reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, was just plain poor politics and even poorer leadership. The Republicans who let it affect their vote are no better, but tender-ego’d politicians are nothing new, which is why political skill is such an essential trait in congressional leadership positions. Pelosi demonstrated a jaw-dropping lack of both skill and leadership.

If I were concerned only with partisan politics, I’d probably be hoping my party would lose in November. Voter’s memories are short and they are going to blame those in power when the real stuff hits the fan. It may hit in a week, a month or maybe just after the election. There will be demands to fix it, but that ain’t going to be so easy. Whoever gets stuck with the mess is going to get stuck with much of the blame. Best of luck to whoever that might be.

Posted by: Paul Szydlowski at September 30, 2008 08:51 AM

Paul:
Honestly…. do you REALLY believe that the 12 Republicans that voted against the bill, did so because of the Pelosi speech?

Come on…

If so, i’ve got a bridge to nowhere that i’m selling…

Posted by: john trevisani at September 30, 2008 08:53 AM

While I distrust the “government” in spending 700 billion (It’ll be more than that, The “bailout” isn’t for banks or investors, it’s for the average joe. Millionaires do not need to really worry about an economic depression. They’ll just hunker down and be fine. It’s us average joe’s who will suffer.

It may not be something some people want, but there really ARE no safe alternatives.

Posted by: googlumpugus at September 30, 2008 08:56 AM

I for one will be watching closely for the rats. Adding to my persona non grata list will be a priority to me. If we repeat the stupidity of the thirties and the “bootstraps” Hooverites, I’ll be for trial and execution of the traitors
Failing that, mobs and lynching seem like a good idea, and I hear that guy Guillotin has a new invention.

Posted by: googlumpugus at September 30, 2008 09:02 AM

I couldn’t disagree more re the fate of the GOP. They have their own media so the worst they can do on any issue is a ‘he said’ ‘she said’ stalemate.
McCain knows he only needs one thing to break his way and he’s in a coil flip. So far it hasn’t happened.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 30, 2008 09:20 AM

Good Article David , And i agree with Goog Can’t they see their consequences already the whole word economy has tanked and I’m as fiscally conservative as it gets, this is a fine case for trickling down right to the middle class and lower I’m ashamed of our congress.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 30, 2008 09:26 AM

More good news. NEW YORK (AP) — A closely watched index shows home prices tumbling by the sharpest annual rate ever in July, but the rate of decline is slowing.

The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-city housing index, released Tuesday, fell a record 16.3% in July from the year-ago period, the largest drop since its inception in 2000.

“”The 10-city index plunged 17.5%, its biggest decline in its 21-year history.”“

Home values in all 20 cities fell year-over-year, with Las Vegas prices plunging the most, at nearly 30%. is this Wall Street…….

Although the pace of declines has slowed over the last three months, there is still no sign of a bottom, one of the index creators said.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 30, 2008 09:54 AM

David -

No, the Republicans did not give up power. As much as I loathe the concept, I strongly believe that McCain will ‘win’ the next election, thanks to Diebold et al.

I am furious that the MSM is NOT covering the ongoing election fraud, that what few investigations being held by the government are too low-key to be seen on the MSM’s radar, at the Republicans’ and evangelicals’ apparent collusion in this process that spits on the most basic tenets of Democracy…and most of all, I’m ticked at the Democratic party for NOT raising hell about it every single day till something’s done about it.

But no, McCain will ‘win’…and America and the world will lose. I hope, I hope I’m wrong, stupidly wrong.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 30, 2008 09:54 AM

I don’t believe republicans voted against the bill because of Pelosi’s attack, although that did not help. I believe they voted against the bill for the same reason 90+ democrats voted against it. They were in fear of loosing their seats in Nov.

Now, we can say they were cowardly for not voting what was right for the country, but when the calls are as high as 100 to 1 against the bill, what can you do? Of course Pelosi continued the blame game by saying it was the president’s bill and she was doing her part by trying to pass the bill. Why would she try to help pass a bill for an administration she hates and had spoken against just moments before the vote was taken? This excuse is stupid and she must think we are stupid enough to believe it. She said there was a bipartisan effort by the leadership to put the bill together, and yet a majority of Pelosi’s leadership that worked on the bill, voted against it. I do not understand why Pelosi’s leadership would work on the bill and then vote against it. After the bill failed Pelosi and her people began the politicizing of the results.

She is either incompetent or not able to control her own party, or there was a greater plan involved, a deception.

How can the American people believe the government (both parties) can take care of this problem, involving $700 billion, when they botch everything that involves money? They have absolutely destroyed SS and you can understand why people are skeptical about handing 17% of the countries finances, to the government, for a national health care plan.

IMO, Pelosi and her party do not care about the American people, she doesn’t care about our finances or our lives. It is all about “Power”. What’s bad for America is good for the Democratic Party. The worse the economy, the more Americans killed, the better the argument for democratic control.

If BHO and Pelosi’s group end up in control of this country, all those things that BHO now supports will be thrown out the window. We will be taxed to death to pay for social handouts, the second amendment with be thrown out, and free speech (in the form of radio, TV, and internet) will be abolished.

BHO is a product of the corrupt Chicago Political Machine and I use for an example the events taking place in St. Louis. Prosecutors and police are threatening anyone who speaks against BHO. In Chicago, anyone who speaks against BHO is drummed of the radio and TV, by threats. Of course he is a product of his mentors.

I guess the end result is that McCain is too nice and tries, with honor, to do the right thing. He needs to attack BHO. He missed a good chance at the debate. And a lot of you have had a lot of terrible things to say about Palin, but I believe the McCain campaign have stifled her ability to get the message out. They should have cut her loose.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 10:05 AM

David

I think you are correct in your bottom up scenario. One of the nay vote dems was on CNN early this morning explaining her stance on the vote. She very clearly stated that for those dems who voted against there were simply not enough protections for the voters of this country. She mentioned the bankruptcy law, help with default mortgages, and apparently some of the oversight and accountability issues were dropped in the new draft. She appeared very calm and assertive in her belief that they will pursue these issues. She more or less indicated that if they can get what they want in the bill it would easily pass by virtue of dems alone.

Personally I say lets go for it. Republicans apparently are too chicken sh-t to approach the matter with any conviction. Bush’s lack of influence combined with a group of legislators who are running from the party to save their careers means there is no credible accountable republican entity with enough largess to reach a general consensus on this issue. They have succeeded in making McCain look the fool. Or maybe that is of his own doing. At any rate they are at this moment an unorganized party with individual agendas of personal importance. It is no wonder they called them the do nothing congress. It apparently is what they do best.

Posted by: RickIL at September 30, 2008 10:27 AM

oldguy

Of course Pelosi continued the blame game by saying it was the president’s bill and she was doing her part by trying to pass the bill. Why would she try to help pass a bill for an administration she hates and had spoken against just moments before the vote was taken?

I know that compromise is a concept that republicans don’t understand. It is called reaching across the aisles to work on creating legislation that everyone, not just one party can live with. This very concept about hate getting in the way of production is exactly what has been wrong with republican strategy for so long now. Republicans in their petty views apparently voted against this bill out of spite. I think that says it all. Just because republicans are so shallow and narrow minded as to think their way is the only way does not mean that everyone else is to.

As for what she said, it may not have been the best time, but never the less it needed to be said. It sure as hell should not have been enough to stop supposedly responsible adults from putting childish behavior behind them and doing what is right first.

Posted by: RickIL at September 30, 2008 10:40 AM

>I guess the end result is that McCain is too nice and tries, with honor, to do the right thing. He needs to attack BHO. He missed a good chance at the debate. And a lot of you have had a lot of terrible things to say about Palin, but I believe the McCain campaign have stifled her ability to get the message out. They should have cut her loose.
Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 10:05 AM

Old,

An honorable man does not advance himself through lies. An honorable man rises and/or falls according to the ethics he professes…McCain is NOT an honorable man.

A REAL man does not shift his course in policy or opinion just because he feels a wind at his back that indicates he might lose a vote or two if he doesn’t flip-flop…McCain is not a REAL man.

Give it up. Even if he should somehow win this election, it will not deter his dishonor or lack of ethics…and, we will have four more years to sink farther and farther into a third-world quagmire.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 30, 2008 10:43 AM

An honorable man does not advance himself through lies. An honorable man rises and/or falls according to the ethics he professes…McCain is NOT an honorable man.

Oh dear, I guess that makes Obama not an honorable man either. :(

I guess were screwed either way.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2008 10:44 AM

RickIL

“I know that compromise is a concept that republicans don’t understand. It is called reaching across the aisles to work on creating legislation that everyone, not just one party can live with.”

I understand the consept of reaching across the isle to create legislation. But, can you explain why a majority of her leadership that worked on the bill, voted against the bill? And, can you explain why she did not use the majority whip to gather votes on her side?

The Republican leadership, that worked on the bill, encouraged their side to vote for the bill.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 10:50 AM

oldguy

I guess the end result is that McCain is too nice and tries, with honor, to do the right thing. He needs to attack BHO. He missed a good chance at the debate. And a lot of you have had a lot of terrible things to say about Palin, but I believe the McCain campaign have stifled her ability to get the message out. They should have cut her loose

Are you kidding me? Too nice? Honor? Hell the man no longer knows which way his campaign is going. His campaign strategies and philosophies have spun around so many times it should be called the Maytag ticket. He seems to be having a real problem trying to figure out just which McCain he should be. Each day brings a new face and a new excuse. What’s next?

Posted by: RickIL at September 30, 2008 10:50 AM

I disagree, McCain has always been opposed to by-partisan attacks.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 10:53 AM

“I believe they voted against the bill for the same reason 90+ democrats voted against it. They were in fear of loosing their seats in Nov.”

Oldguy we agree on an issue.

“Of course Pelosi continued the blame game by saying it was the president’s bill and she was doing her part by trying to pass the bill. Why would she try to help pass a bill for an administration she hates and had spoken against just moments before the vote was taken?”

Lets address this Oldguy
1. This “speech” she gave was on the floor of the house not in front of cameras in the halls of Congress. Nothing to do with blame just facts the voters need to know in order to justify the need for a $700b bailout bill that was needed to save the economy.
2. Her job was to get enough dems to vote for the bill as was agreed upon between the 2 parties early on. Her speech was addressed to her troops and it appears she did her job unlike her counterpart on the right side of the aisle. To call it a partisan attack is just a smokescreen.
3. I’m sure you have heard of the Country first concept ballied about by repubs as if they knew what it meant? Well dems do and the dem leadership in Congress at the request of the administration took a 3.5 page fascist republican bill and worked to get a bill out that was palatable to the American people. Thats just the facts.She did her job despite the fact the bill came from the repub administration.

The repubs knew upfront they were also responsible for the repub caused problem. They chose instead to play politics in an attempt to disassociate themselves from the republican administration that has ruined the country. McCain came and screwed things up even more while playing the partisan hero.

The rest of your writings spewing the standard talk radio conservative garbage is not worty of comment at this crucial time in our nations history.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 30, 2008 11:07 AM

I understand the consept of reaching across the isle to create legislation. But, can you explain why a majority of her leadership that worked on the bill, voted against the bill?

Yes, please see my post to David above. To make it simple they apparently were not happy with the content of the bill and see no value in rushing into the possibility of getting it wrong.

As David said if republicans are unable to get on board the dems most likely will present a bill that represents what they think is most important and pass it, giving Bush the opportunity to veto it. At any rate the dems will be seen as having attempted compromise and when that did not work they at least had the balls to approach the situation on their own. It is pretty much understood that there will be no recovery anytime soon regardless of the bailout vote. All this money will do is delay the process long enough to maybe make recovery manageable to some degree. The downturn is proceeding at a steady pace and people are going to suffer. Given that realization, and the nearness of the election, this bill regardless of it’s effectiveness will have no real effect on the outcome in November.

Posted by: RickIL at September 30, 2008 11:15 AM

What I don’t understand is our whole attitude here in this country. Worldwide, other countries are rising to the occasion without all of the ballyhoo and yoohaha that is going on here. Makes us look pretty pitiful to the rest of the world. Just makes our position worse than it already was.

Even though we aren’t those other countries as has been posted in response to suggestions that we follow another country’s successful process in these circumstances, are we so arrogant that we can’t learn and attempt to use what worked elsewhere and apply it to our own situation?

I guess, since it’s an election year, that’s all we can think about. What a bunch of crap, on both sides.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 30, 2008 11:21 AM

RickIL,

Well spoken…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 30, 2008 11:21 AM

“I disagree, McCain has always been opposed to by-partisan attacks.”

Of course McCain has been opposed to bi-partisan attacks Oldguy but he is very good at partisan attacks and judging from his “economic roundtable” (what a joke) veiled partisan attacks while denouncing partisan attacks.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 30, 2008 11:32 AM

Only one problem David. The Democrats control both houses of Congress so just how the hell can the Republicans defeat any bill without help from the Democrats? It looks to me like there were Democrats voting against it too or it would have passed. And if this bill fails again on Thursday it’ll take Democrats voting against it again. And if the Democrats do draft their own bailout just how are the Republicans gonna be able to ‘defeat’ it without help from the Democrats?
But your right though, the Republicans didn’t do themselves any favors yesterday with their little temper tantrum. In fact I’d say they’re showing their true colors. 100% partisan.

Glenn Contrarian said: I strongly believe that McCain will ‘win’ the next election, thanks to Diebold et al.

Gee! Let’s get the elections over with before ya go crying fowl because your guy didn’t win. But then I reckon it’ll also be Diebold’s et al fault if Obama wins. Right? Ya do want to be fair don’t ya?

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 30, 2008 01:11 PM

Ron Brown, Bush’s veto. Last I checked, Bush was still a Republican, is he not?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 01:19 PM

Ron Brown,

It can be defeated by veto, as David says, or by filibuster/threatened filibuster as as almost every demo proposal since day one. Obstructionists don’t need a majority, they just need numbers. If we are luck those numbers won’t be there after January…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 30, 2008 01:54 PM

And Ron Brown watch Public Opinion will change faster than A runway Model the Conservatives messed up in my opinion.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 30, 2008 02:17 PM

David,

I agree that the Democrats just need to say screw the Republicans and craft and pass a party line bottom up rescue bill of their own. However, I have to laugh when you say:

“It is a Republican fool who thinks Democrats don’t know how to play hardball politics.”

Have you been paying attention the last couple of years? As a lifelong Democrat, I have to say that the current bunch of Dems running Congress are a bunch of wusses afraid of their own shadows. I hope you are right and they finally grow a set and show tough leadership on this issue, but I won’t be holding my breath.

Posted by: JayJay at September 30, 2008 02:35 PM

David
Who knows. I don’t think Bush even knows.
Bush can veto the bill. But we’re talking about the Republicans in Congress here. Aint we?
But I doubt they will join the Democrats in an override vote.
Bush would be stupid to veto a bailout bill. But then ………

Marysdude
Are the Republicans threatening a filibuster on a Democrat bill?
I with ya, I hope there are a whole heap fewer obstructionist in DC after Jan. Like 537 fewer.

Rodney
Public opinion is a fickle thing and does change faster than a runway model. Something both parties need to keep in mind.
The Conservatives DID NOT screw up. The Republicans did. There aint any such animal as a conservative in the Republican Party. At least not up there in DC.

JayJay
I won’t be holding mine either.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 30, 2008 02:56 PM

JayJay, I can’t argue with your assessment since Dem
s 2006 elevation to majority party status.

That said, the political status of majority party has been ‘in name only’. Republicans have played hard ball with the filibuster in the Senate, preempting Democrats from moving very much ahead, especially with a Bush veto awaiting at the other end of the process.

Polls show there is a very real prospect that this situation can change in Dems favor in January. We shall see.

If the GOP impediment is removed however, the Dems will own 100% responsibility for everything that happens as a result of their legislation and decision making thereafter. It is debatable whether they are up to that onus of ‘ability to respond appropriately’ consistently, or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 02:59 PM

It is going to pass, so a great deal of the drama is moot.

The reason it is going to pass is that mis perceptions from the voters are going away. Get this from Rasmussen:

Those who understand that taxpayers will eventually get much of the money back support the bailout by a 2-to-1 margin. Those who incorrectly believe the government will not be getting money back oppose the bailout by a 62% to 18% margin.

Now that the 62% of people who think the taxpayer will not get any monty back have been informed, the emails congress are getting should be more balanced.

If people work from a “lets cut some people some slack” mode, election day is 5 weeks away and this has been done in a hurry. American taxpayers did not understand much of the plan. As they come to understand it, they are more supportive.

So changing in the polling numbers should give many in congress democratic and repubican enough cover to vote for it during an election year.

whether it should pass or not is another question. But it is going to pass. And it can probably now pass in it’s current form.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 03:18 PM

Craig, I don’t think it will pass in it’s last form. Democrats have a bit more power of negotiation this time around, despite a few Republicans making the same claim. Some of those 95 Nay voting Dems are now going to get provisions whose absence caused them to vote no. Very likely the same will be true on the GOP side, as both sides continue to have a vested interest in preventing the credit crisis from permeating Main Street before the election.

I do think however, that your analysis is sound otherwise. A rescue bill will pass, Pelosi will abstain from partisan barbs until after it passes, and more Republican ideologues will come on board for the sake of the Party and in light of shifting more informed pollees.

In anticipation, I went 80% in stocks this morning, and am reaping a nice return on today’s rally built in large part on the same anticipation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 04:02 PM

David:

I have heard that as well. I think intrade has odds at about 80% or so for it passing.

I don’t market time my investments, nor do I worry about them. I don’t need the money for 10 years if then. Living simply has it’s advantages!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 04:15 PM

Who was it that said “A house divided cannot stand?” I can’t remember who it was, but I believe we have now reached that point.

I always knew that the great political divide in this country would destroy us and it certainly appears that it is happening. NO politician cares about anyone but him(her)self and that is the way it will always be. You can’t escape human nature.

A plague on both their houses.

God help us all. We’re gonna need it!!

Posted by: Lisa at September 30, 2008 04:17 PM

Lisa, there is much value in what you say. The long term challenges our nation faces with the rising costs of entitlement obligations and reaping the rewards of increased capitalist competition overseas which we promoted as the salvation of the future, even as our own economy reaches near limits of resource capacity such as labor, oil, and health care and education delivery resources, not to mention failing infrastructure, there is much to fear about our political ability to meet those challenges successfully.

One thing is certain: reelecting incumbent politicians for disastrous actions and inaction in government, is not going to improve our odds of success going forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 04:35 PM

Lisa, my experience with God is that if I hit a person in the face who is holding a gun on me, while I pray God doesn’t let him shoot me, my prayer will go unanswered. God has made it clear to me that my actions will reap their own rewards and consequences, and (s)he prefers I learn those lessons rather than rely on him to rescue me from my foolishness.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 04:39 PM

Is saying Nancy Pelosi made us do it, the same as saying God made me do it?

Remer’s Chuckle of the Day!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 04:45 PM

I Like Flip wilson’s Quote “”The Devil made me do it”

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 30, 2008 04:55 PM

Rodney Brown, The Devil Made Me Do It, doesn’t hold up in American courts of law. God made me do it, often does. :-)

(See: Texas elected judges.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 05:04 PM

“God has made it clear to me that my actions will reap their own rewards and consequences, and (s)he prefers I learn those lessons rather than rely on him to rescue me from my foolishness”

Too bad govt doesn’t feel the same way.

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2008 05:25 PM

Lisa:

I agree with your sentiments. I am more concerned personally about our political situation than about the financial. In an atmosphere where the prime objective seems to be to assign blame, we cannot get our best people in position or our best ideas.

I wish you dems would fire Pelosi and get a Tom Foley or Tip O’neal back.

I think we have a gang of three, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Get rid of the three of them and we might be able to get some things accomplished.

I’m starting the puff on that VOID cigar after this week. not inhaling but puffing!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 05:35 PM

David:

In anticipation, I went 80% in stocks this morning, and am reaping a nice return on today’s rally built in large part on the same anticipation.

No mutual funds huh?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 05:39 PM

Nah! Don’t believe in them. They weren’t insured until last week.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 05:45 PM

Mutual funds aren’t insured. You are thinking of Money market mutual funds.

I read a guy recently (changing to after thoughts on this week) who believed not totally tongue and cheek that we would be better served if the House of Representatives were chosen by lottery. Like Jury duty.

This week, that doesn’t sound all that bad.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 05:55 PM

David:

If the GOP impediment is removed however, the Dems will own 100% responsibility for everything that happens as a result of their legislation and decision making thereafter. It is debatable whether they are up to that onus of ‘ability to respond appropriately’ consistently, or not.

Back to my governing principle that generally things revert to the mean, I would expect either Democrats to move to the center (unlikely) or republican pick ups in both houses like 2004.

Did you see by the way that according to Rasmussen not a majority of Americans believe that Iraq over time will be viewed as a success?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 06:00 PM

Ooops! Yes, Craig, I read Mutual instead of Money Market. Money Market funds I understand are a pretty easy to way to make money if one understands the dynamics. It is over my head though, as I have never taken the time to learn them.

Currency transactions baffle me as well. You take yellow paper printed by Japan and weigh against green printed paper by the U.S., and on Monday the Yellow paper is worth more compared to the Green paper, and on Tuesday its the other way around. Must be something in the ink value I am not getting the drift of through osmosis :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 06:02 PM

What all you guys are missing is that the $700 Bills is not going to do the job. Have you heard how they came up with that number? It just sounded like a big number! Can you believe that? The fact is that that number is a drop in the bucket. It’s only a down payment, and it will never be paid back. This is a payoff from Paulson to his good buddies on Wall St, and to hell with Main St. As the decided in chief says, this sucker is going down. except what he didn’t say is it’s going down, bailout on no bailout.

The Banksters are having another bite at the cherry, and everone else will pick up the tab. Meanwhile, they’ll be in Bermuda, or Monaco, or Switzerland or wherever, quaffing the champers and caviar, and toasting the gullible unwashed. The fact is, in Washington they’re all bought and paid for. Someone once said that the definition of an honest politician is one who, when he’s bought, stays bought! Well there’s lots of honest pols in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. One thing you can put your money on is that whatever decision they make, will not be for the benefit of joe sixpack, but for their paymasters and their own. As the Romans used to say, Justitia fiat, ruat coelum. Round up the scum and hang eh high.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2008 06:29 PM

For me, the most disturbing thing that happened recently was Citi taking over Wachovia. It seems like exactly the wrong thing to allow, the wrong direction for the future, postponing problems instead of solving them. We need a Bank of the United States instead of the Federal Reserve, and local banks should be controlled locally instead of these large international entities closely tied to stock exchanges and other markets which make small problems into big problems.

On yesterday’s proceedings in the USHOR, I thought Boehner looked drunk. Pelosi made a mistake, Frank made a good joke, and Ron Paul made some sense.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 30, 2008 06:41 PM

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

I invite those of you with a strong stomach to watch and listen as your valued Democrat leaders deny any problems with Mac and Mae at these congressional hearings in late 2004. Now we find liberals on this site defending all these crooks and liars. It will be interesting to watch the liberals on this blog squirm as they attempt to spin the words of these outlaws and thieves! Why would we trust any of these folks with $700 billion of our dollars?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Posted by: Jim M at September 30, 2008 07:37 PM

Fiat justitia ruat caelum ..

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 30, 2008 08:03 PM

looks like there are some adults in the US Senate!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 30, 2008 09:13 PM

Jim m: Thanks for the video. The sad part is that many of the people that the politicians wanted to help have already been forclosed. They have lost their homes, what credit they had and many may never get another opportunity to own a home.

Posted by: jlw at September 30, 2008 09:15 PM

Craig: If there were any adults in the Senate, we wouldn’t be talking about a 700 billion bailout.

CSPAN coverage of the senate vote: Tap your cup once on your cell bars if you vote yea, twice for no.

Posted by: jlw at September 30, 2008 09:26 PM

Jim M, Fannie and Freddie were as much symptoms of the cause as causal. Don’t forget the corporate failures preceding Freddie and Fannie.

If you think Freddie and Fannie are too big, you have to oppose McCain’s Adviser Phil Gramm’s 1999 bill which opened the door for these financial cross lines of business behemoths to be created like AIG and Bear Stearns, WaMu, and Lehman Bros.

Would it be a bit too much to ask you to be consistent?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 09:41 PM

Paul Euro said: “What all you guys are missing is that the $700 Bills is not going to do the job.”

What job is that, Paul? Putting the economy and government’s fiscal house in order, or freeing up credit and lending between financial institutions so that life in the world can continue for another few years without credit locking up tighter than a drum?

How are you tax payers in Europe fairing with the Central Bank buying up so many banks and mortgages over there? Not a problem?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 09:44 PM

Mr. Remer’s analysis is incorrect and that is because the Democrats don’t want “the keys to the kingdom.” They’ve made it clear that they’re not gonna pass anything without a majority of republicans, and here’s why.

What if the dems pass a huge taxpayer funded bail-out bill on a party-line and it doesn’t work? Nobody can guarantee that it will. And what if it only works for a while?

Mr. Remer dwells only on what will happen if the Republicans oppose the bill. But look. If they oppose it and the democrats pass it and it works, then it’s not such a huge campaign issue in the future. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. And even if it DOES work, it’s not gonna be exactly a proud moment to campaign on that you put 700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line.

But if it fails, the Democrats are left holding the bag all by themselves and they’ll get positively swept in future elections. The Republicans hold more cards here because they’re the minority and more risk goes to the majority. And to Bush, but he’s gone anyway, and the republicans would be going against Bush’s wishes on this one.

And tonight, we’re already hearing about a more conservative verison of the bill coming out of the senate.

Posted by: Liam at September 30, 2008 10:43 PM

Jim M

These things have been brought out many times and the left just ignores the facts and keeps spouting the talking points of the left. It’s like they have a playbook and each day they all quote from the book. Whether it is the left on this blog or dems on TV, they all say the same things.

The dems in the congress, the media, and the public all know the things on this video, but on these pages the left sounds like Alan Combs, (deny, deny, deny). This is the reason the public is so unhappy with this bailout, they know who is responsible.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 11:02 PM

Liam you would be right except for one logical flaw. The Dem’s bill would appeal to and protect the American people who are victims of the Wall Street corruption and greedy real estate brokers and mortgagors and escrow companies who conspired to profit from consumer ignorance of sophisticated finance mechanisms. Hence, even if their version failed to liquify the lending and credit markets, Main Street would have observed the effort to protect the people instead of the corporate elite and in large part, would not fault Dem’s for having tried.

The Dem’s version would not look anything like the White House’s version, which was in fact, a bail out of Wall Street with little directly for Main Street.

You seem to have not comprehended, or overlooked the part of the article that said:

That is a game Democrats can now play by crafting their own bill, to replace the Bush Administration’s approach.

Such a bill will provide their own bottom side up approach, with lots of regulation, inspections, prosecutions, and confiscations from CEO exec’s and boards of directors and tax payer buy in to shares of the corporations, while providing resident homeowners foreclosed upon, or about to be, with direct assistance to insure they remain in their homes, which will put a floor under the falling housing value market and win enormous popular support for Democrats.

As you can see, you are missing the part where Dem’s come up with a bill very different from the Republican sponsored one by Bush/Paulson/Bernanke. The premise to your argument is that Dem’s would pass some version of the White House’s bill if Republicans won’t go along. I clearly state in the article, that is not how the keys to the kingdom will be employed by Democrats.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 11:04 PM

Here is a plan that was put together by Dave Ramsey (daveramsey.com)with the help of many economists.

“Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:

Common Sense Plan.

I. INSURANCE

A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.

B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:

1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.

2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.

C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.

II. MARK TO MARKET

A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.

B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.

III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.”

Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 11:15 PM

OldGuy, this guys proposal is contradictory right out of the chute. He says: “Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.”

Do you not realize what this means? It means, the tax payer is still on the hook if those insured and backed loans default. He is prepping the next asset backed failure to fall right into the laps of tax payers.

1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.

This obviously includes speculators and wealth real estate brokers who got caught flipping homes for a profit during the bubble bursting. Are you for bailing out those speculators who got caught with their 8 or 20 real estate holding values dropping?

This guy, Dave Ramsey, obviously does not know what he doesn’t know, and therefore suckers people into believing that he does know what he doesn’t. Even though what he doesn’t know is glaringly obvious in his own thoughts on the matter. Back to the drawing board for Dave Ramsey.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 11:24 PM

I have heard Dave Ramsey talk of this plan on several cable business shows; he has a national radio broadcast, and a Fox Business News show.

Now, what exactly are your qualifications besides posting on watchblog?

“This guy, Dave Ramsey, obviously does not know what he doesn’t know, and therefore suckers people into believing that he does know what he doesn’t. Even though what he doesn’t know is glaringly obvious in his own thoughts on the matter.”

IMO, this statement is more confusing than Dave Ramsey’s plan.

The question is, will this plan work and will it cost the tax payers less than $700+ billion?

Posted by: Oldguy at September 30, 2008 11:38 PM

Pelosi is an embarrassment, not just to Democrats, but the nation as a whole.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 1, 2008 01:41 AM

It’s interesting, the ‘far right’ and the ‘far left’ are both rejoicing at the rejection of the bailout. The ‘far right’ because of it’s socialistic nature, and the ‘far left’ because it’s bailing out the ultimate symbols of capitalism. A socialist solution to save the capitalists. And both agree it did virtually nothing for the little guy. A top down approach instead of a bottom up one to solve a credit liquidity problem that was seen to help Wall Street instead of Main Street. Big government bailing out Big Business. Fun to watch the Malkin’s and the Buchanan’s agreeing with Code Pink and the Kucinich types on this one.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 1, 2008 01:43 AM

Oldguy said: “I have heard Dave Ramsey talk of this plan on several cable business shows; he has a national radio broadcast, and a Fox Business News show. “

That’s hilarious! You believe everyone who has a talk show, a radio broadcast, or appears on Fox News, do you! Let’s see, would that include Air America? How about the Dianne Reem Show on NPR? Or, I know, how about Hillary Clinton who was interviewed on Fox News by Bill O’Reilly, or Barack Obama who was interviewed on Fox News by Chris Wallace.

Oldguy, you make me laugh. Thanks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 01:45 AM

David H, more embarrassing than New Gingrich facing questions about marital infidelity and his sex life, brought on by his own actions? More embarrassing than Speaker Denny Hastert attempting to defend Congress’ separate powers?

More embarassing than the letter signed by Speaker Newt Gingrich, Representatives Dick Armey, the majority leader, and Tom DeLay, the majority whip, both of Texas, and other Republicans to the FBI demanding investigation of those digging into high profile GOP histories regarding sexual affairs and marital infidelity by the likes of Mr. Hyde for example, IN 1998?

Too funny, David H.

Pelosi screwed up to be sure. You don’t ask for people’s cooperation while criticizing them simultaneously. But, it’s hardly the most embarrassing moment of any House Speaker in history.

One of my favorites is the Oklahoma Republican State House speaker resigning his post after a series of embarrassing revelations, including not filing state personal income-tax returns and being involved in questionable fundraising. Lance Cargill was his name.

Now that’s embarrassing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 02:08 AM

David H. pretty derned strange bedfellows, eh? Dennis Kucinich and Roy Blunt? Ought to go down in Guinness somewhere.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 02:10 AM

I’m actually surprised that any of them are able to keep up with everything and still speak at all. You can tell both the physical and mental demands are taking their toll.
One thing, though, most of them seem to understand this isn’t a time to sneak away and go home. Guess we should give them credit for that. At least they’re making an effort to earn their keep this week….( well, maybe ). Guess the effort to work against an agreement is as hard as to work towards one.

Posted by: janedoe at October 1, 2008 02:21 AM

janedoe, I agree, they absolutely deserve credit for their 10% approval rating. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 02:27 AM

Paul Euro said: “What all you guys are missing is that the $700 Bills is not going to do the job.”

What job is that, Paul? Putting the economy and government’s fiscal house in order, or freeing up credit and lending between financial institutions so that life in the world can continue for another few years without credit locking up tighter than a drum?

How are you tax payers in Europe fairing with the Central Bank buying up so many banks and mortgages over there? Not a problem?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 09:44 PM

Well David, my country’s Govt yesterday extended the govt guarantee on all deposits in Irish banks for a total of €400,billion. That’s $563.65 trillion of your dollars. This from a country with a population of 4 million. We’re all in this together, whether we like it or not.

The governments fiscal house is certainly not going to be put in order by this as it will put in grave jeopardy the saleability of of US treasuries abroad, probably tank the dollar with all that means for inflation over there and still not deal with the problem, which is lack of faith in gangsters.

Paulson’s proposal is an attempt to reflate the balloon, the same way that Greenspan created new stock and property bubbles after the .com crash. Only this time borrowers are in over their heads already. 70% of your economy, and something similar in my country, is domestic spending. That’s dropping like a stone as unemployment and the fear of unemployment is rising dramatically. The system needs to clear, and that means letting these insolvent institutions fail, never mind the imperative of the moral risk. There’s enough responsibility to go around, but primarily it falls onto venal financial institutions and their puppets in government. Will it be painful? You bet it will, but the alternative would be to make the situation even worse.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 1, 2008 03:18 AM

Apologies for the dollar amount above. Of course it should have read $563.65 billion, not trillion, of your dollars.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 1, 2008 05:06 AM

David,
Before you start jumping for koy over the events of the last few weeks, with America facing over 11 Trillion National Debt and a Foriegn Fuel Bill of $700 bilion I want to see Obama and McCain to prove that they can “Change” the World. For why I will not hold my breathe and wait for the #2500.00 Check to “Trickle Down” to the Individual so “We the People” can insure that the Bail out is payed for. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic and Republican Leaders found out that all this problem could be paid off in about 5 years.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 1, 2008 05:45 AM

David,
Before you start jumping for koy over the events of the last few weeks, with America facing over 11 Trillion National Debt and a Foriegn Fuel Bill of $700 bilion I want to see Obama and McCain to prove that they can “Change” the World. For why I will not hold my breathe and wait for the #2500.00 Check to “Trickle Down” to the Individual so “We the People” can insure that the Bail out is payed for. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic and Republican Leaders found out that all this problem could be paid off in about 5 years.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 1, 2008 05:47 AM

DR

“That’s hilarious! You believe everyone who has a talk show, a radio broadcast, or appears on Fox News, do you! Let’s see, would that include Air America? How about the Dianne Reem Show on NPR? Or, I know, how about Hillary Clinton who was interviewed on Fox News by Bill O’Reilly, or Barack Obama who was interviewed on Fox News by Chris Wallace”

Well, let’s see, since I was not privy to be involved in the meetings and votes that caused our financial problems, I must get my information from TV, radio, news papers, internet, or you. I have to make a judgment as to who is telling the truth. When TV news news shows activly campaign for one candidate, I mark them off the list. I feel the same about the news papers. The radio talk shows have to be taken with a grain of salt, and I use the internet to do my own research. That leaves only you, while I am sure you are proud of your knowledge and communication skills, I know nothing about you or your beliefs.

Let me ask you a straight out question, is there any way to correct our financial problems without spending a trillion taxpayers dollars?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 1, 2008 09:39 AM

AMERICA’S MONEY CRISIS
Mortgage applications plunge
Credit still crunched; Treasurys bounce
More job cuts loom as economy slows
Stocks drop ahead of Senate vote
Oil prices steady around $100
R.I.P. American dream

More Videos
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — In yet another sign of the economic crisis, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday that mortgage applications plunged 23% last week.

The MBA said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage application activity dropped to 455.4 in the week ended Sept. 26, down from 591.4 the prior week.

Turmoil in the banking and finance industries has resulted in a credit freeze, making it difficult for prospective homeowners to take out loans. The market is also experiencing a glut of foreclosures.

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. government in September took over the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with a rescue plan that could inject $100 billion into each of them just to keep them afloat.

The association also reported steep declines in other weekly indexes tracking housing finance.

The refinance index plummeted 34.7% to 1333.9 from the prior week. The seasonally adjusted purchase index fell 10.9% to 304.8.

The average interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages slipped to 6.07% from 6.08%, the association said
.OLD GUY CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 1, 2008 09:57 AM

“Apologies for the dollar amount above. Of course it should have read $563.65 billion, not trillion, of your dollars.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 1, 2008 05:06 AM “

Well at least for this week but after the dollar tanks who knows Paul maybe that wasnt a typo. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at October 1, 2008 10:37 AM

OldGuy, if a perfect stranger looks up at the sky and says it is blue, do you need to be drinking buddies with him in order to determine whether he is giving a verifiable fact, or not?

Just stick your head out the window and look up at the same sky, and verify for yourself. That’s what I do. That’s what all voters with a sense of responsibility should do. I hear all manner of things from all kinds of people, but, there is no substitute for verification and logic testing against a known fact base.

Still, you have raised a very fundamental philosophical issue very relevant for our times. Who does one trust for information and how do we select those we trust.

I will have to do an article on that topic. It is a fascinating topic with some rather surprising research on how that selection process takes place. It’s not so rational a process as we would all like to think.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 01:18 PM

“Would it be a bit too much to ask you to be consistent?”
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 09:41 PM

Sorry David, the film speaks for itself and your attempt to confuse is what is consistent.

I wonder why Barry, the great compromiser, couldn’t persuade even the congressional black caucus to vote for this horrendous bill. And David, I do know that Barry is a senator and not a house member so save your twirling commentary on that.

Posted by: Jim M at October 1, 2008 01:36 PM

Paul, I just have a philosophical and ethical problem with letting an injured individual lie on the side of the road because they did something stupid causing their injury.

Greed and corruption and lack of due diligence caused the problem. But to say, just let people having nothing to do with that greed and corruption suffer as the most efficient way of getting the losses out of the system, demonstrates a corruption of human values of empathy and compassion.

It is interesting how folks will justify foreign aid out of compassion for the Iraqi people but be so willing to let their own neighbors and fellow citizens suffer the losses caused by others, to include losing homes, jobs, and dreams they worked hard and saved to make come true.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 01:44 PM

Jim M. Obama is not the whip. There is a limit to even what Barrack can do.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 01:46 PM

David Remer wrote; “OldGuy, if a perfect stranger looks up at the sky and says it is blue, do you need to be drinking buddies with him in order to determine whether he is giving a verifiable fact, or not?”

If that perfect stranger is a liberal you bet David, I would definitely be wary.

As you just demonstrated in reference to the link I provided, liberals are truth tellers only when it fits their political philosophy and interests. Did you not hear Maxine, Barney and others totally lie in their support of Mae and Mac?

Posted by: Jim M at October 1, 2008 01:56 PM

David, bailing out the scamsters who caused the problem will not solve it. Better to use the money to protect those losing their homes if it comes to that. But you can be sure that Wall Street will suck up this money and continue on its way, plundering and laying waste. In any case, when a system is rotten to the core, when citizens continually vote against their own economic interest, sometimes a harsh lesson in is order to restore reality and a sense of responsibility. People need to realise that actions have consequences. This is what marks the threshold from being a child to being an adult. Time to be grown up and take the medicine. Maybe then they will value their precious votes more highly.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 1, 2008 01:58 PM

David writes; “Jim M. Obama is not the whip. There is a limit to even what Barrack can do.”

I agree David, Barry is indeed very limited. He talks about being able to bring the congress and people together as president and can’t even persuade the black caucus to vote for a bill he favors. Wow, what a display of his obviously lacking talents…all talk, no experience and worse, no influence. I wonder if the removal of funds for ACORN played a part in the nay votes.

Posted by: Jim M at October 1, 2008 02:04 PM

Paul in Eruoland wrote; “David, bailing out the scamsters who caused the problem will not solve it.”

Thank you Paul, I agree 100%. How strange is it to have liberals working to support a republican president, the wealthy, and corporate America? The only reason that makes sense to me is that they want to protect the wealthy and corporate America by increasing taxes on middle class (taxpaying) Americans to pay for the $700B give-away and maintain the wealth so it can be stolen later by virtue of “fairness”. Evidence abounds from Barry’s own lips that he wants to raise taxes on both long-term capital gains and dividends, wants to punish profitable companies by levying “windfall profits” taxes, and wants to send more money from Washington, in the form of tax cuts, to those who don’t even pay taxes through the earned income tax credit.

Recently, Barry announced that his scheme, when presented with evidence of the failure of such plans in the past, could only respond by saying it was “fair”. When faced with historical facts that higher taxes do not produce greater tax revenues the man of renown, this great learned man of the law, this great man of the people could only muster up an answer that it was “fair”.

Childish talk from a supposed adult.

Posted by: Jim M at October 1, 2008 02:27 PM

When the price of gas hit $4.00 a gal and there was a great cry to drill for more domestic oil, the dems came out with a talking point. “You can’t drill your way out of this problem” and if I heard this once, I heard 200 times by every left wing liberal democrat politician, spokesman, and blogger.

The left is now using the term “we can find out who is responsible for these problems on another day, today we must save the American people”.

I am not so hard hearted to say we shouldn’t do anything to help retirement funds, business owners, and the country in general. But if we dump $700+ billion into a program without removing the original problem, we are merely giving unlimited money to the same people who corrupted the system in the beginning.

Every democrat politician who has spoken before a microphone has praised the leadership of Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and others. This is hypocrisy, these men are the ones who blocked regulation to begin with and used these financial institutions as a slush fund to buy votes.

But the most disgusting thing of all, is to hear republican senators and candidates say the same thing about those who caused the problem. Unless McCain goes on the offence, he will loose the election. He must attack, and he must allow Palin to attack. McCain must understand he is campaigning against an unscrupulous opponent, who will use any means to discredit him and his VP.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 1, 2008 05:18 PM

Hey Oldguy how about the workers? the folks? I’m no left winger, but I Just talked to some folks who work for a small company up here my great grandfather helped get it off the ground almost 115 years ago the company offered them a kind of a buyout to 60 senior employees, they will pay their insurance in full and some other perks till they turn 65 many are taking the offer to my knowledge this company has never seen it so bad in 115 years .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 1, 2008 06:12 PM

Oldguy -

The bailout is something that can happen within two weeks. Drilling in ANWAR (isn’t it something like 3% of the U.S. reserves? OOOOH!) would NOT result in a single drop of oil for at least SEVEN years.

In other words, your comparison is faulty and accusation of hypocrisy is unwarranted. If you want hypocrisy, though, there’s plenty on both sides to go around…but I say there’s LOTS more to be had on the Republican side (like, say, ‘pro-life’, but also ‘pro-war’ and ‘pro-death penalty’, hm?).

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 1, 2008 06:17 PM

Sounds like a problem with the company, Rodney Brown. The company I work for is expanding and growing right now. They are doing it with profit and private money, not staying afloat with loans…

That was the disturbing thing I heard today, someone mentioned that it is hard for businesses to get the daily loans they need to stay running.

Daily Loans? That’s not a business. I don’t know *WHAT* that is. Anyone running a business like that deserves to be out of business yesterday…

Paper does not make Prosperity. The government can’t figure that out and it appears that ignorance is spreading to ‘smart’ businessmen.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 06:18 PM

would NOT result in a single drop of oil for at least SEVEN years.

10, 7, 3, all numbers pulled out of the air.

But, I guess you’re going to tell me in 7 years time that since we didn’t do anything 7 years ago we shouldn’t do it now either?

‘Logic’ like that never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 06:20 PM

Pardon me, they were down for almost 6 years during the depression.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 1, 2008 06:20 PM

Rodney Brown

Where is “up here”? What state?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 1, 2008 06:20 PM

ny.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 1, 2008 06:35 PM

a metal fabrication and foundry and special filters company that use to service the railroads and industry when we had them, much of their business is overseas if you hadn’t noticed we are in a world wide slow down.. so let them eat cake Right.they will weather it out.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 1, 2008 06:39 PM

Rhinehold you insist in ignoring the long published facts now that the oil industry is sitting on vast leases it couldn’t possible begin to drill all of for years and years to come. In fact given the limits of their drilling infrastructure, they are drilling at near capacity when not shut down by weather.

Granting vastly greater areas for drilling does nothing to increase the number of their rigs or other capital equipment to ACTUALLY increase drilling capacity by even 20%.

Inconvenient facts, I know. But, they are there. And thankfully, the States will have the decision, not the OIL companies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 07:07 PM

OldGuy said: ““You can’t drill your way out of this problem” “

That phrase was coined by one of the biggest Republican philanthropists alive, T. Boone Pickens.

Oldguy, I simply can’t impress upon enough the importance of verifying your sources. To attribute that phrase to Democrats is just about wrong as one can get in attribution. Yes, Dem’s borrowed it from this famous Republican, but, it was T. Boone Pickens who spent millions popularizing the phrase in his commercials.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 07:11 PM

Paul, again, don’t throw the citizenry out of work to spite the scamsters. You obviously don’t get it. No wonder Jim M. agrees with you :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 07:12 PM

Paul said also, “Better to use the money to protect those losing their homes if it comes to that.”

That is precisely what the modified bill did. Keep up. If the government owns the mortgages, it won’t foreclose but, help home owner dwellers remain in their homes, while letting the multiple property owner investor speculators file bankruptcy if they have no other recourse. As it should be.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 07:15 PM

Rhinehold -

In addition to the FACTS David posted about the NON-drilling that Big Oil’s doing on millions of acres of land they’ve already leased, how much good would ANWAR really do?

There’s 10 billion barrels or so in ANWAR…and American oil consumption is 20.7 million barrels per day.

So ANWAR would give America less than 500 days worth of oil. Whoopeeee!

You complain that if we’d begun drilling there seven years ago, we’d be getting the oil now. HERE’S THE FAULT IN YOUR LOGIC. If the Republicans had supported RENEWABLE energy twenty, thirty years ago, we would have HAD that renewable energy for the past two decades…and for the future LONG after ANWAR’s all dried up (if we would have needed ANWAR’s oil at all).

You backed the wrong horse, Rhinehold.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 1, 2008 07:25 PM

So ANWAR would give America less than 500 days worth of oil. Whoopeeee!

You find nearly 2 years of our entire use of oil not much of a big deal?

Interesting…

If the Republicans had supported RENEWABLE energy twenty, thirty years ago, we would have HAD that renewable energy for the past two decades…

Oh, I see, just wish it hard enough and technology just invents itself out of thin air! I think I’m starting to understand the progressive energy plan.

And yes, I do support renewable energy (I am building a new home that will be, with any luck, 100% off of the grid with some sell back) and I am a former nuclear reactor operator, I have no ‘love loss’ for oil. But I also understand the reality of it.

And the most hilarious part, when McCain suggested that we fund research into a new battery that will allow us to move to electric cars, he was laughed at by the left. When that is the main issue with why we aren’t using electric cars today, it would seem to me to be something that should be supported by those looking to get off of oil.

But oh well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 08:19 PM

Rhinehold you insist in ignoring the long published facts now that the oil industry is sitting on vast leases it couldn’t possible begin to drill all of for years and years to come. In fact given the limits of their drilling infrastructure, they are drilling at near capacity when not shut down by weather.

And you insist on ignoring the possibility that opening up new areas to NEW oil companies that could be created if they had somewhere to drill, areas that weren’t being locked up by current companies willing to pay the money for the leases for a solid future, would help increase domestic oil production AND lower price.

Oh, and we would have to not demonize oil companies, that sort of thing puts off investors and startup individuals…

Inconvenient facts, I know. But, they are there. And thankfully, the States will have the decision, not the OIL companies.

Except they don’t, Alaska has been trying to get drilling in ANWAR for decades but the FEDERAL government says no.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 08:24 PM

DR

I heard the dems using the phrase before the commercials ever came out. But that’s not the point. The talking heads get a phrase and either take it out or put it in the play book and everyone says the same thing over and over.

Rodney Brown:

“Hey Oldguy how about the workers? the folks? I’m no left winger, but I Just talked to some folks who work for a small company up here my great grandfather helped get it off the ground almost 115 years ago the company offered them a kind of a buyout to 60 senior employees, they will pay their insurance in full and some other perks till they turn 65 many are taking the offer to my knowledge this company has never seen it so bad in 115 years .”

Since you asked me I will give some advice. It is a simple problem to fix. Simply vote out the dems that control NY. Before you start screaming out loud, name me one industrial state, that is controlled by the dems, that is not facing industrial or employment problems. Have you ever heard of Michigan? Can we say Pennsylvania?

If the democrats demonize big business, how can the expect industrialized states to be successful?

I know that NY is one of the states that has the highest taxes. I used to drive through NY to cross over to Canada. I would fill my fuel tank before I got to NY because their fuel was so expensive. In fact, I could buy fuel in Canada at the same price as NY and Canada is very expensive.

Look at it logically, dems hate big business, because big business is evil, dems tax big business, because big business is evil and rich. Then big business says, I’m going to another state or country. The nearest city to me hates big business and taxed the crap out of them. Guess what, all the business left and went to the next city.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 1, 2008 10:14 PM

The house of representatives showed the world the worst of American government, tonight the US Senate showed the world the very best of American government. My hats off to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their leadership in this time of national crisis.

I hope that this event tonight in the US Senate will be a role model for future conduct going forward.

I also hope that the House of Representatives will take the lead of the US Senate and conduct themselves in a dignified manner as they deal with this important issue later this week.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 1, 2008 10:29 PM

Craig, ditto. Well said.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2008 10:51 PM

Oldguy’s right.

If I were a business executive reading these posts and I thought the folks making these comments had any power to make what they want a reality, I’d start laying off workers and looking for a nice spot to set up shop in China.

Lots of people talk about how terrible it is to reward companies and give tax breaks to companies that have moved jobs overseas. But what about when the executives stop caring if you reward them or not? What about when they just give you the middle finger and say they’re sick of dealing with you? When they just set up shop someplace else?

Posted by: Liam at October 1, 2008 11:27 PM

OldGuy said: “I heard the dems using the phrase before the commercials ever came out. But that’s not the point. The talking heads get a phrase and either take it out or put it in the play book and everyone says the same thing over and over.”

Yep. That’s politics in every Party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2008 12:06 AM

Oldguy ,the property taxes are the second highest in the country and property values are low and the area is depressed and the state is hard on business and the state is broke and Elmira looks like a ghost town, it use to be quite the place way back when, things are a little better their trying to improve the area I’m a little north in Horseheads i bought a place by a creek with a little land It’s beautiful country and I’m only 7 miles from lake Seneca and my family goes way back in new york ,one family member fought up here in the Sullivan campaign and came back to live , Mark twain lived here about a mile from my great grandfathers place he was a friend of Twain’s sentimental fool i am. i was watching Cspan the senate passed the bill.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 2, 2008 12:14 AM

Liam, our domestic markets are full of competitors ready to fill a void left by some CEO’s or Board of Directors sticking their middle finger at America and moving to China. Let them GO! We might even bring real competition back to America in their absence.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2008 12:17 AM

I never fished in lake Seneca, but we have fished a lot about 100 miles north of Toronto. It is pretty country up there.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 2, 2008 12:50 AM

oldguy thanks ,The best lake trout fishing in the world is in Seneca, also in the spring the rainbows run from Seneca down Catharine creek right past the old chemung canal and go right by my place the fly fishermen and women are lined up for miles i hope you can make it by someday .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 2, 2008 01:24 AM

Craig Holmes wrote, and David Remer agreed, “The house of representatives showed the world the worst of American government, tonight the US Senate showed the world the very best of American government. My hats off to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their leadership in this time of national crisis.”

Craig and David, now that your hats are off perhaps your brains will get a little fresh air. The administration and many in congress have been warning that we are facing a crisis of enormous proportions driven by the collapse of the housing market.

Yet, the focus of the senate bill is to rescue the financiers. To quote the NY Times, “Leaving these Americans out of the bailout bill is unwise and unfair, but neither Congress nor the Bush administration has ever shown anywhere near the sense of urgency to rescue homeowners at the bottom of the collapse as they have for the financiers at the top of it.”

Read the full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/opinion/02thu1.html?th&emc=th

By many accounts the senate bill contains about $150 Billion in pork including tax breaks for bike riders. If true, 21% of the “crisis money” to save America is pork to attract support for the bill. Friends, if more pork is crucial to our economy’s survival, and considering the untold billions in pork spending over the years, why do we even find ourselves in this crisis?

Why in the hell should I believe we have any crisis at all if our senators have to offer bribes to attract votes? Is a nation in peril incapable of attracting votes for a bill designed for its survival without resorting to payola? Have we sunk that low? Yes, apparently we have. I can only hope that house members, much closer and more in tune with voters, will reject this hideous bill and design a bill that will address the real problems of real people and not bail out those primarily responsible for the crisis in the first place.

Both Obama and McCain voted for this travesty along with both of my Texas senators. Our last chance for meaningful legislation remains with the house. I know where my representative stands on this issue, and it certainly isn’t with the four weasels just listed.

No bill is better than a bad bill.

Posted by: Jim M at October 2, 2008 01:44 PM

Jim M:

By many accounts the senate bill contains about $150 Billion in pork including tax breaks for bike riders. If true, 21% of the “crisis money” to save America is pork to attract support for the bill. Friends, if more pork is crucial to our economy’s survival, and considering the untold billions in pork spending over the years, why do we even find ourselves in this crisis?

Jim M & I agreeing is rather like Kucinich and Blunt agreeing, but sometimes the truth is just too obvious. Jim - see my new post in the blue column. I agreed actually with David’s post above, but the Senate’s version of the bill totally failed to take the advantage which David so rightly pointed out that they had. Like you Jim, I hope the House crafts something more fundamentally altered. We probably wouldn’t agree on a lot of the specifics, but ironically we might agree on some.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 2, 2008 02:49 PM

Walker wrote; “Jim M & I agreeing is rather like Kucinich and Blunt agreeing, but sometimes the truth is just too obvious.”

I agree Walker, politics and crisis do make for strange bedfellows. I just can’t fathom David’s reasoning and the most astounding thing is that David is taking this administration’s figure of $700 billion as accurate. I am a supporter of President Bush in some things and bemoan his stand on others. I am a conservative first and will support any candidate that, at least, doesn’t attempt to destroy my beliefs. I can compromise if needed, but I will not capitulate.

Posted by: Jim M at October 2, 2008 03:17 PM

I was watching BHO give a speech today and he made the statement, “this bill is only the beginning of what I have planned for our ecomony, if I am elected”.

Now this is scary. Also, much of the extra $150 billion, is to fight global warming and I also heard it was bribes to get senators on board.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 2, 2008 05:06 PM

OldGuy, finally you got some good information. Some of the tax cuts and subsidies were bribes, but NOT to get Senators on board, but to get House Republicans on board. Roy Blunt, 2nd Head Honcho of Republicans in the House just went on TV 30 minutes ago, and said these provisions will help the House Republicans pass the Bill.

Seems you are arguing against your own Party preference here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2008 07:48 PM

Jim M, as usual your lack of command of facts is showing again. In my latest article I updated the figure to reflect that in the Stabilization Act. So, your 700 Trillion quote ascribed to me is patently and demonstrably FALSE, as is much of your comments content.

As for the total cost, including provisions NOT included in the Economic Stabilization Act, it has gone up to over 800 billion. But, as Roy Blunt just said on TV, that additional cost will help get House Republicans to sign onto the Bill. So, it is your OWN Party that is being bribed by these additions in tax cuts and subsidies.

Ignoring the facts can be so embarrassing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2008 07:52 PM

“gnoring the facts can be so embarrassing.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2008 07:52 PM

David, I know exactly what you’re saying. It is embarrassing I am certain for you to be supporting a plan put forth by the same administration you regularly oppose. And, I am sure it is embarrassing for you to say I support pork from whatever side when anyone who has read my writings knows that is not my position.

My congressman, Louie Gohmert, a conservative from the 1st district in Texas, announced today that he and like-minded conservatives of both parties will continue to vote nay for a package containing pork. David, you have me confused with Republican’s…I am a conservative.

Obviously you have abandoned your long-held principles and executed a 180 degree turn to protect your recent investments in the equity market. My principles are not for sale.

Your fantasy regarding my political philosophy must have been from the same dream that produced your now famous…”Mr. Jack”.

Posted by: Jim M at October 3, 2008 01:33 PM

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Governments across Europe scrambled to save failing banks on Sunday, working largely on their own a day after leaders of the continent’s four biggest economies called for tighter regulation and coordinated response to the global meltdown.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would let a bank collapse disrupt the economy.

In Berlin, the German government held crisis talks after the collapse of a $48.4 billion bailout of Hypo Real Estate AG, the country’s second biggest property lender.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Europe’s biggest economy would “not allow the distress of one financial institution to distress the entire system.”

The country’s Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck later said it would guarantee all private savings accounts.

Merkel said no citizen should fear for the safety of their savings.

In Iceland — particularly hard-hit by the credit crunch — government officials and banking chiefs were discussing a possible rescue plan for the country’s overstretched commercial banks.

Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said he aimed to find a new owner for troubled bank Fortis NV to restore confidence in the company before the opening of markets on Monday. Will the U.S. bailout work?

The bank’s Dutch operations were nationalized amid fears they could go insolvent.

British treasury chief Alistair Darling said that he was ready to take “pretty big steps that we wouldn’t take in ordinary times” to help the country in weather the credit crunch.

Darling told the BBC that the government, which has provided billions of pounds (dollars) in support to the banking sector, that it was “important to take generalized action as well as being ready to take particular action if you get a particular problem with an individual bank.”

Don’t Miss
Europe stops short of huge financial bailout
Judge blocks Wells Fargo-Wachovia deal
In the past year the British government has acted to nationalize struggling mortgage lenders Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

On Saturday, the leaders of Germany, France, Britain and Italy met to discuss the growing meltdown which has leapfrogged across the Atlantic from the U.S. to Europe, but shied away from the massive $700 billion bailout passed by the U.S. Congress a day earlier that President Bush signed into law. Watch more on the U.S. financial bailout »

While Europe’s four largest economies pledged to coordinate national responses to help banks in distress, their failure to agree an EU-wide plan showcased the divisions in Europe on how to deal with the crisis.

France had suggested a multibillion-dollar EU-wide government bailout plan, but backed off after Germany said banks must find their own way out.

That was telling, given crisis talks aimed at keeping Hypo Real Estate afloat. The firm said Saturday that the rescue plan had fallen apart after private lenders withdrew support, a key element to the proposal that had already been approved by the EU earlier this week.

It was not known if the government, which planned to inject nearly $37.35 billion would raise its stake in the bailout package.

In Iceland — one of the countries most heavily exposed to the credit squeeze — government officials and banking chiefs were discussing a possible rescue plan for the country’s overstretched commercial banks.

Icelandic banks expanded rapidly after deregulation of the domestic financial market in the 1990s and now have combined foreign liabilities in excess of $138.34 billion — dwarfing the tiny country’s gross domestic product of $19.37 billion. Watch the U.S. debt clock fail to keep up »

The government last week took over Iceland’s third-largest bank, Glitnir, a decision that prompted major credit ratings agencies to downgrade both Iceland’s four major banks and its government credit rating.

Looming large was a growing sense that the Federal Reserve and Europe’s major central banks were ready to institute emergency cuts to their benchmark interest rates this week.

None of the banks, including the European Central Bank and Bank of England, have commented on potential rate hikes or cuts. But analysts believe the Bank of England, which meets this Thursday, will likely lower its rate from 5 percent. The ECB left its rate unchanged at 4.25 percent on Thursday, but opened the door to a rate cut.

Robert Brusca, chief economist at the New York-based Fact and Opinion Economics, said that if the ECB does issue such a cut it would a be a sign “that they’re really, really scared.”
E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 5, 2008 01:43 PM

Jim M said: “David, I know exactly what you’re saying. It is embarrassing I am certain for you to be supporting a plan put forth by the same administration you regularly oppose.”

That’s your projection, Jim M, of how you would feel if in my shoes. I, on the other hand, am not partisan, and free to agree with or disagree with any administration or party on any particular policy or proposal. So, no, it is not embarrassing for me at all to agree with the Bush administration, IF THEY ARE RIGHT.

And they weren’t. I absolutely disagree with the proposal put forth by the Bush administration. You must have missed that, not surprising.

As modified by the Congress, it is much improved over the Bush admninistration’s proposal. Far from perfect given the earmarks, and additional costs, and lack of specificity regarding individual homeowner/dwellers in a foreclosure posture.

The economy is going to be salvaged toward the end of this year or early next, by this Stabilization Act and other measures taken by the Fed and international banking community. By saved, I don’t mean we can avoid a deep recession. That was in the cards. But, we can avoid and will a complete international banking meltdown, and 1920-1930 style run on the banks that creates a depression.

Not that you care, apparently.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2008 05:50 AM