Bank bailout and US economic woes

[Jae Onasi]

The Senate just passed a major bailout bill with votes almost 2 to 1 in favor. I think they've started to make a better case to Americans explaining what's going to happen with all the bad assets the gov't is going to buy, and they took great pains to show bipartisanship, I noticed. Pelosi was smart and didn't say anything negative in her press release tonight.

[mimartin]

I believe the case was made Monday afternoon when people’s retirement fund suddenly shrunk.

[Web Rider]

Ah, yes I love it, "don't bail them out, let them suck eggs!"

*401k implodes*

SAVE THEM SAVE THEM!

Ah, the American populace, always trust them to make the right decisions....as soon as their ass is on the fire.

[GarfieldJL]

I wonder what goodies the Senate Democrats added to the bill though, remember the first bill was going to funnel millions if not billions of dollars to pet projects and Democrat activist groups.

I listened to a congressional representative from my state on Tuesday talk about this, even got to ask him some questions.

This may be an opinion piece but it's sources check out:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...consisted.html

It talks about Obama's ties to Acorn as well as his direct involvement in events leading to the current financial disaster.

[Web Rider]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

It talks about Obama's ties to Acorn as well as his direct involvement in events leading to the current financial disaster.

you know, you can shout that from the hills till your throat is dry, but you still havn't provided any proof for it.

[Jae Onasi]

There was no legislation in that bill that involved Acorn--various news agencies have taken great pains today to point that out.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

There was no legislation in that bill that involved Acorn--various news agencies have taken great pains today to point that out.

Referring to the previous bill that the Democrats tried to jam through the House of Representatives, and I'd have to see the bill in order to believe what they say.

As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value.

I’m sure that sentiment is mutual.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

I’m sure that sentiment is mutual.

I really don't care what the AP thinks, especially when the National Enquirer these days has higher standards than the New York Times.

And Obama got his 10,000 press secretaries.

What still hasn't been addressed is the fact that Obama sued banks to force them to issue Sub-Prime Mortgages which is what led to this fiasco.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

What still hasn't been addressed is the fact that Obama sued banks to force them to issue Sub-Prime Mortgages which is what led to this fiasco.

You think Obama representing a group that sued banks to force them into issuing Sub-Prime Mortgages led to this fiasco! 700 billion is extreme amount for such a minor problem.

Did Obama also sue the banks into issuing variable rate loans? Did Obama sue them into make this sub-prime loans into investment securities? Did Obama sue the banks into giving multiple loans to those wishing to profit from the housing market? Etc, etc…

There is no one thing that led to this mess, so there is no one person to blame.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

You think Obama representing a group that sued banks to force them into issuing Sub-Prime Mortgages led to this fiasco! 700 billion is extreme amount for such a minor problem.

No but but where was he when McCain tried to get this problem fixed back in 2007? He was taking kickbacks from Fanne/Freddie.

Did Obama also sue the banks into issuing variable rate loans? Did Obama sue them into make this sub-prime loans into investment securities? Did Obama sue the banks into giving multiple loans to those wishing to profit from the housing market? Etc, etc…

Point is he was involved in it, also he had a chance to stand up and support McCain's call for it to be fixed.

There is no one thing that led to this mess, so there is no one person to blame.

Actually, you can place blame on the Democrat Party, though the media is taking great pains to avoid mentioning it.

President George W. Bush tried to get more regulations in that would have prevented this mess. (Least the one involving Freddie/Fanny)
Result: Democrats fillabustered the bill.

John McCain and some other Republicans tried to get this fixed TWICE! Once in 2005-2006, and then tried again in 2007.
Results:
2005-2006 Dem's fillabustered it
2007 Democrats shot the bill down saying there wasn't a problem.

Even Former President Clinton has blamed Democrats for this.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Even Former President Clinton has blamed Democrats for this.

But not the Republican Congress that passed the deregulation for Clinton to sign in the first place? Was McCain a member of that Congress?

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

But not the Republican Congress that passed the deregulation for Clinton to sign in the first place? Was McCain a member of that Congress?

I believe he voted against that part of the deregulation. Not sure, but even if he voted for it he moved to add the regulations back in twice.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I believe he voted against that part of the deregulation.

Right, that figures McCain isn't a true conservative he believes in big government.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Right, that figures McCain isn't a true conservative he believe in big government.

No he's for small government, but he's also for common sense, seeing as Freddie/Fanny already had Government ties.

[Jae Onasi]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Referring to the previous bill that the Democrats tried to jam through the House of Representatives, and I'd have to see the bill in order to believe what they say.

As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value.

Well, I heard it from both Fox News and AP sources, if that makes you feel any better.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Well, I heard it from both Fox News and AP sources, if that makes you feel any better.

Yeah, but the bill still might be voted down, the last one according to the congressman I met on Tuesday September 30th even without the earmarks was still trash.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

No he's for small government, but he's also for common sense, seeing as Freddie/Fanny already had Government ties.

Then why did Senator McCain vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? You know the bill that deregulated the Banking Industry.

Let’s also not forget Mr. McCain voted for the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. What makes that vote disturbing is it was the deregulation of the Saving and Loans Industry. Mr. McCain learned nothing from that vote and again voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Then why did Senator McCain vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? You know the bill that deregulated the Banking Industry.

Let’s also not forget Mr. McCain voted for the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. What makes that vote disturbing is it was the deregulation of the Saving and Loans Industry. Mr. McCain learned nothing from that vote and again voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

Maybe however if that's the case he moved to fix his mistake in 2005-2006 and 2007 as he watched it being abused he moved to fix it.

The Dems were too busy getting money from it.

[Yar-El]

Article: Give me a break, a tax break — or else
How windmills help explain the politicking over the Wall Street bailout

Tax earmarks in Senate bailout
The following "tax earmarks" were added to the Senate bailout legislation:

New tax earmarks:
~ Film and television productions (Sec. 502)
~ Wooden arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
~ 6-page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders”:
~ Virgin Island and Puerto Rican rum (Section 308)
~ American Samoa (Sec. 309)
~ Mine rescue teams (Sec. 310)
~ Mine safety equipment (Sec. 311)
~ Domestic production activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
~ Indian tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
~ Railroads (Sec. 316)
~ Auto racing tracks (317)
~ District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
~ Wool research (Sec. 325)

Small update to the bail out events of the day. See link above for more details.

----- Added -----

Article: BREAKING DOWN THE BAILOUT VOTE

By a vote of 74-25, the Senate has approved its version of the financial recovery package that was voted down by the U.S. House on Monday. Senators Biden, McCain, and Obama, as promised, returned to the Hill to vote "aye" on the measure.

Did everyone agree to not vote for a bill filled with earmarks? McCain? McCain? Are you there? I guess things have changed since the debate.

[GarfieldJL]

McCain had said in the debate basically that out of two evils an earmark isn't as big of an evil as the entire economy collapsing.

[Yar-El]

House, in second effort, passes bailout bill

This is why you don't bail out companies:
Oil prices rebound on hopes of bailout package

Its all psychological. We should have just cutback on spending.

[Web Rider]

Originally Posted by Yar-El

Its all psychological. We should have just cutback on spending.

Or maybe NOT given tax breaks in the first place. Or not started expensive wars.

Cutting education, roads, and social services isn't going to save us anything.

[Yar-El]

Do you know why the oil demands are high? Shhh... Its a big secret. Every time we have a oil shortage, we are in the throws of fighting a war. It allways happens. Once the wars are done and over, the demand and price of oil will fall drastically. Shhh...

I knew the bail out would be negative.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Web Rider

Or maybe NOT given tax breaks in the first place. Or not started expensive wars.

1. Why'd revenues increase when we cut taxes then?

2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too?

[Litofsky]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too?

I wonder what we could do with $12,000,000,000 a month... And that's just Iraq.

I don't support either wars, but I understand why we went into Afghanistan: a group of radicals had just killed 3,000 of our citizens, and the group responsible was hiding in Afghanistan (as far as I know). However, Iraq was completely unnecessary. We (being the US) went into there due to suspected weapons of mass destruction (none have been found to date).

[GarfieldJL]

I've done some digging and found information on Senate Bill S-190, posted this in another thread but it applies to both.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s109-190

This will give co-sponsors
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

[Web Rider]

Originally Posted by Yar-El

Do you know why the oil demands are high? Shhh... Its a big secret. Every time we have a oil shortage, we are in the throws of fighting a war. It allways happens. Once the wars are done and over, the demand and price of oil will fall drastically. Shhh...

I knew the bail out would be negative.

I don't recall saying anything about oil. I was responding to the suggestion that we should cut spending. I gave examples of two examples of where we have excessive spending. Generally when you make cut you cut excessive spending, not things that are already just skin and bones.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

1. Why'd revenues increase when we cut taxes then?

Considering we're still cutting spending, cutting jobs, and prices are going up, I'd be curious to know what revenues you're talking about.

2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too?

The $100 billion+ a year stuff didn't start till the war in Iraq. EVERY major power that's launched a war in the last half of a millennium knows that a war with 2 fronts FAILS.

Specifically, our massive military force isn't what's effective against people hiding in caves. What's effective against them is small covert-ops missions. And that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than "shock and awe".

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by Web Rider

Specifically, our massive military force isn't what's effective against people hiding in caves. What's effective against them is small covert-ops missions. And that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than "shock and awe".

Yeah but "Shock and Awe" looks cooler

We could cut spending in a lot of areas. CAGW has a pretty good list.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Yeah but "Shock and Awe" looks cooler

We could cut spending in a lot of areas. CAGW has a pretty good list.

Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.

[PastramiX]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.

Of course, that's coming from Fox News, and they can say that Obama is actually a radical Muslim and everyone who watches them would believe it. Best to actually look for the truth rather than hear it out of a pundit's mouth.
Fox has gone to great pains regularly to point out that Obama is NOT a radical Muslim. --Jae

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.

Negative. Look I'm a Republican, but pinning this all on the Dems or even primarily on the dems is pretty unfair. Both parties are to blame. Two presidents are to blame(Clinton and Bush). Lets face it we the people are partly to blame. Banks are to blame. Deregulation, believe it or not, actually softened the blow(according to economists and of course Clinton who signed it into law after a Republican majority congress passed it). Greenspan is to blame for continuing to lower interest rates. Realtors are to blame. and I'm sure I missed a few other people that share some blame for the economic situation we're in right now.

McCain signed on to the bill when the crisis was about to hit. The housing market was about to collapse. It had nearly reached it's peak when he signed on to the bill. Which never came to the floor for a vote. It wasn't even fillibustered. It never even got to that point. In fairness though, at least his name is on there... with two other Republicans...

[GarfieldJL]

Both parties share some of the blame, but the current President's is not as much at fault as one would think. Also, there were several votes to fix this and each time it went along party lines.

This was decades in the making, and I'm not saying there weren't Republicans involved in this mess but the biggest beneficiaries were Democrats and they were the ones that were trying to block all increases in regulation. The Democrats were also saying there wasn't even a problem.

Again: 2003, President Bush tried to get this fixed and it was shot down in the senate.

2005-2006 John McCain and other Republicans tried to get this problem fixed and again the Democrats blocked it.

2007 another bill by the Republicans including you guessed it Senator John McCain as a cosponsor was made to try to fix this problem, and the vote went along partisan lines again.

So the Republicans were actually trying to fix this issue, and one can look at Senate voting records.

Bleh it's reairing right now at 11:08 AM.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by mimartin

U.S. National Debt

What is another Trillion dollars or two?

Not much when we're talking quadrillions, I guess.

[Arcesious]

I'll be debating about this in politics club today...

What ammo should I bring along?

[Achilles]

This might be a good starting point.

[Arcesious]

I was just wondering what to say since the leaders of the club are pretty intelligent conservatives (they understand economics better than I do), and because they have a resident economy expert coming in...

[Achilles]

Degrees of Hank Paulson

If it sometimes seems that Wall Street is a small world, well, it is. For all its global reach, and for all the bitter conflict in recent months, where, for example, Lehman Brothers was left to tumble into bankruptcy while American International Group was bailed out, these are people who know each other, often well. Nowhere are the ties more evident than with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Many of the CEOs of companies touched by the financial crisis have links to him. Some, such as Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, have direct connections via that company, which Paulson used to head. Others connect through a network of fellow CEOs.

This graphic shows where those CEOs fit into Paulson's network starting as recently as in 2003. Connections include employment at the same company or a position on the same board of directors, but not necessarily at the same time. We did not include every company at which these CEOs have worked – just those within this network. We also omitted ties to community and social organizations as well as instances in which CEOs simultaneously held other positions at a company such as board chairman.

Enjoy!

[jawathehutt]

Anyone else hear about AIG's little party after they got their money? Good to see that the reason why my school cant even afford to do its one main purpose is so that some millionaires/billionaires can have a free party. But hey, who cares if the next generation of workers are under-educated yokels, there'll be more workers for luxury resorts then.

[SW01]

Yeah that was a laugh! Their rationalisations were even better. I seem to recall them saying it was only some of their executives - which makes it alright, of course...