Bail out doesn't pass!

["Got Disney"]

[quote="Got Disney";27885575]they are ALL a bunch of boneheads....

I can only imagine what my house is worth today and all my other investments.

I will not sell my stocks and do have 10-20 years to recoup....AGAIN,

....It is the people that are of retirement age and are in there 60's and 70's that have been using it for retirement that just lost all there living moneys....that is sad....

it will take a good 6-10 years to get it all back....for those of us that are in our early 50's and younger are okay....as long as you don't sell.

2 things that need to be taken care of before adding anymore moneys into our retirement is pay off debt ASAP and save at least 6 months of Emergency moneys. Hard for many that live from pay check to paycheck but it has to be done.

DH and I started paying off our debt a couple years back because we knew things would not get better but worse. So we decided to pay everything off. WE saw it coming.....we took fiscal responsibility and are better off today for it.[/quote]


I forgot to add....if buying anything at this time or over the next few years...all the financial gurews(sp) on TV including my financial adviser says to ...BUY BONDS.....safest way to go.

gee looks like Disney will have short lines.....

 

[Chicago526]

The Republicans were told to vote their conscience on this.

As for Pelosi's nasty speech being "so what" - have you worked on a committee before? If you have, have you then worked for a solution to something, worked for hours on it, and then have someone hog all the glory for it - and berate you for the work you "didn't" do?

Put yourself in Congressman John Smith's position. He doesn't believe in the bailout. In fact, he feels it is being forced down his throat by the President and the Democrats in the House. He doesn't believe it will work. The people he works for, by a 10 to 1 margin also don't believe it will work. To even consider voting for it places his job in jeopardy. A very well paid job. But he listens to his leadership. They tell him that he is allowed to vote his conscience, but they would like him to vote for this bill if he can. One of the people asking him is the Presidential candidate from his party. He is ready to vote for the bill against his better judgement.

Now comes the time to vote. On the way in to the House, he hears on NPR the Democratic National Chairman saying how the vote to pass the bailout will be used against all republicans come November. It's all their fault. He gets in the House and hears Speaker Pelosi voicing the same thing. He is being talked down to as a 2nd class citizen accused of causing the problem adn being the problem. And it will be used against all Republicans come November. He then sees, on a party line vote, Democrats who normally vote however they are told voting against the bill - because their districts are close in polling. He then sees Committee Chairs (all Democrats - only the majority holds Committee Chair seats) voting against the bill - other party leaders.

Realistically, if you were him, what would you do?

That sounds like spite to me.

If it was against his better judgement, why vote for it to begin with? If it was because he felt it was best for the country (given the alternative of nothing passing and the economy tanking), then why would what Pelosi says matter? It's either for the good of the country or it isn't. If he truely felt it was a bad bill, then he was right to vote against it. But then SAY it was a bad bill, not "that mean old lady talked down to me." I'm not saying he should be happy with what she said, in his shoes I'd be mad as hell. But if you're doing it for the good of the country then for God's sake, suck it up!

I didn't come out and say this in my previous post, so perhaps my meaning got lost, and that's my fault. So let me try again. It's not that the majority of Republicans voted agains the bill. That's fine, if that's how they truely felt, as it's been pointed out, a fair number Dems didn't support it either. It's that the Republicans then turned around and blamed it on Pelosi saying mean things. THAT is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, and given what's been going on lately, that's saying something! If it's a bad bill, say so. If it has bad provisions in it, say so. If you've got a better idea, say so.

ETA: It's late and I'm going to bed. See you all tomorrow!

 

["Got Disney"]

lost today....1 trillion that turns out to be 1 billion dollars a minute..wow

so gee lets just leave till Thursday as the market has tanked and is tanking

so why not just order pizza and sit down and work it out. If this was a murder trial they could not leave until they have reached a verdict...even if it took weeks......so this to also pissed me off.

How dare they...big stupid boneheads=EGO

 

[LuvDuke]

That sounds like spite to me.

If it was against his better judgement, why vote for it to begin with? If it was because he felt it was best for the country (given the alternative of nothing passing and the economy tanking), then why would what Pelosi says matter? It's either for the good of the country or it isn't. If he truely felt it was a bad bill, then he was right to vote against it. But then SAY it was a bad bill, not "that mean old lady talked down to me." I'm not saying he should be happy with what she said, in his shoes I'd be mad as hell. But if you're doing it for the good of the country then for God's sake, suck it up!

I didn't come out and say this in my previous post, so perhaps my meaning got lost, and that's my fault. So let me try again. It's not that the majority of Republicans voted agains the bill. That's fine, if that's how they truely felt, as it's been pointed out, a fair number Dems didn't support it either. It's that the Republicans then turned around and blamed it on Pelosi saying mean things. THAT is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, and given what's been going on lately, that's saying something! If it's a bad bill, say so. If it has bad provisions in it, say so. If you've got a better idea, say so.

ETA: It's late and I'm going to bed. See you all tomorrow!

Exactly! The Republicans who voted their conscience are using Pelosi to cover their *** so they had something to take to their constituents in the event the stock market tanked. Oops.

This idea of "Nancy made me do it" is a crock and really doesn't do justice to the enormity of the financial meltdown this country faces.

If those Republicans indeed did vote against what they thought was in the best interests of the country because "Nancy was mean", they ought to be tossed out on their sorry butts.

If they didn't think it was in the best interests of the county, vote accordingly, but don't whine "Nancy was mean so I showed her".

How pathetic is this. And this pathetic whining will not help in November.

 

[Charade]

A Dem and Rep on GMA this morning also agrees with Dave Ramsey. Change the mark to market rule which Bush could do by getting the SEC chairman to change that rule.

They also said help for the foreclosures needs to be there. They say it wasn't there.

 

[LuvDuke]

Realistically, if you were him, what would you do?

Vote my conscience and stand up for what I believed in. And I sure as hell wouldn't whine "But Mommy, she was so mean".

That's just plain pathetic.

 

[Charade]

Vote my conscience and stand up for what I believed in. And I sure as hell wouldn't whine "But Mommy, she was so mean".

That's just plain pathetic.

They did. Obviously many Dems and Reps didn't like the bill as it was.

 

[LuvDuke]

That you have no examples? That you don't understand the residential housing market, or that the government's role (as a policy maker) is unique compared to other real estate markets? Or that you are covering for the failures of your party's prominent role in this disaster?

That's a lot of hints. Maybe it's all of the above?

Put your money where mouth is and show me and the good people here how deregulation was a good thing when it comes to the financial meltdows we're having now.

You said it caused the crisis and tried to prove it with your sources.
I asked you to prove it by other means because blogs don't count.

Prove that the intent of the Gramm bill caused the crisis and back it up with legitimate sources, not opinions.

I said it contributed. Show me and the good people here how deregulation didn't contribute to the financial meltdown.

It really is a joke.

I was using the same criteria you dared me to use earlier. The difference is I was able to back up my post by finding the bill. It's here in the thread if you care to look.
Now, let's see if the LuvDuke can find similar criteria to back up their assertion.

You've got all you're going to get. I don't get on the neverending treadmill of "show me, show me, show me" because it is a waste of time. Nothing will ever "show you".

Btw, show me and the good people here how deregulation did NOT contribute the financial meltdown.

They did. Obviously many Dems and Reps didn't like the bill as it was.

Good. So why then use the pathetic excuse "Nancy made me do it"? If it's a bad bill, it's a bad bill.

Btw, I don't think it was a good bill either. Not enough safeguards and it didn't contain anything about the discretion for bankruptcy judges.

Maybe I would've voted against it. But I sure as hell wouldn't whine about it.

 

[bsnyder]

Put your money where mouth is and show me and the good people here how deregulation was a good thing when it comes to the financial meltdows we're having now.



I said it contributed. Show me and the good people here how deregulation didn't contribute to the financial meltdown.



It really is a joke.




You've got all you're going to get. I don't get on the neverending treadmill of "show me, show me, show me" because it is a waste of time. Nothing will ever "show you".

Btw, show me and the good people here how deregulation did NOT contribute the financial meltdown.

Hilarious! You hopped on that treadmill three times in one post, while at the same time stating it's a waste of time. Consistency isn't your strong point, is it?

What deregulation are you talking about, specifically? Still stuck on Gramm-Leach?

Or maybe you mean the no new regulation of the GSE's, that the Republicans and the Bush Administration wanted, and the Democrats blocked?

 

[rie'smom]

Hilarious! You hopped on that treadmill three times in one post, while at the same time stating it's a waste of time. Consistency isn't your strong point, is it?

What deregulation are you talking about, specifically? Still stuck on Gramm-Leach?

Or maybe you mean the no new regulation of the GSE's, that the Republicans and the Bush Administration wanted, and the Democrats blocked?

Funny how the OS can say, show me ,show me, then turn it around and say that's all you're going to get.

Isn't that sad?

 

[bsnyder]

Funny how the OS can say, show me ,show me, then turn it around and say that'sall you're going to get.

Isn't that sad?

That's pretty much all one can say, when the facts and logic are not on your side.

If the cause of this crisis was some sort of hazy "financial deregulation" on the part of the Bush Administration, critics should be able to point to the specific deregulation and explain how it contributed, and they should be able to explain why the commercial real estate market somehow withstood this financial deregulation when the residential market didn't.

 

[Galahad]

critics should be able to point to the specific deregulation and explain how it contributed.

Well, in the case of the old "Phil Gramm caused this" tripe, President Clinton weighs in:

Bill v. Barack on Banks
Clinton instructs Obama on finance and Phil Gramm.

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress's 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day. Bill Clinton signed that "deregulation" bill into law, and he knows better.

APIn BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.
"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."
One of the writers of that legislation was then-Senator Phil Gramm, who is now advising John McCain, and who Mr. Obama described last week as "the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess." Ms. Bartiromo asked Mr. Clinton if he felt Mr. Gramm had sold him "a bill of goods"?
Mr. Clinton: "Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence.
"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."
We agree that Mr. Clinton isn't wrong about everything. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle -- oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.
As for the sins of "deregulation" more broadly, this is a political fairy tale. The least regulated of our financial institutions -- hedge funds -- have posed the least systemic risks in the current panic. The big investment banks that got into the most trouble could have made the same mortgage investments before 1999 as they did afterwards. One of their problems was that Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns weren't diversified enough. They prospered for years through direct lending and high leverage via the likes of asset-backed securities without accepting commercial deposits. But when the panic hit, this meant they lacked an adequate capital cushion to absorb losses.
Meanwhile, commercial banks that had heavier capital requirements were struggling to compete with the Wall Street giants throughout the 1990s. Some of the deposit-taking banks that were allowed to diversify after 1999, such as J.P. Morgan and Bank of America, are now in a stronger position to withstand the current turmoil. They have been able to help stabilize the financial system through acquisitions of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.
Mr. Obama's "deregulation" trope may be good politics, but it's bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it. The U.S. is going to need a stable, innovative financial system after this panic ends, and we won't get that if Mr. Obama and his media chorus think the answer is to return to Depression-era rules amid global financial competition. Perhaps the Senator should ask the former President for a briefing.

 

[Geoff_M]

More populist "folk economics" from Obama, that's for sure... Here's the link to the story Galahad posted: WSJ.

 

[Charade]

More populist "folk economics" from Obama, that's for sure... Here's the link to the story Galahad posted: WSJ.

This would make for an interesting thread for a "con" to start.

"Clinton did NOT cause the bailout crisis!!"

 

[bsnyder]

One of the writers of that legislation was then-Senator Phil Gramm, who is now advising John McCain, and who Mr. Obama described last week as "the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess."

At least we have one credible business reporter, Maria Bartiromo, questioning the "folk economics". But where are all the MSM pundits, opinion-makers and reporters? Those same people parse every single sentence uttered by McCain and Palin, regardless of whether they are even relevent to the big issues of the campaign.

And yet Obama can spew this nonsense, showing that he is completely ignorant on the cause of the biggest financial crisis we've faced in decades without any challenge from our supposed "watchdogs" in the press.

 

[Geoff_M]

But where are all the MSM pundits, opinion-makers and reporters? Those same people parse every single sentence uttered by McCain and Palin, regardless of whether they are even relevent to the big issues of the campaign.

Are you telling me you didn't hear the MSM jump all over Obama and ridicule him on Monday when he said that our country has "the long term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows"????

 

[bsnyder]

Are you telling me you didn't hear the MSM jump all over Obama and ridicule him on Monday when he said that our country has "the long term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows"????

No, but I'd love some of whatever you were smoking when you heard that, Geoff.