News-Record.com

"making an offensive partisan speech prior to the vote."

What did she say that was so offensive? Unless she called somebody a turdhead...well...stop whining.

I mean, even so, if this bailout plan was sooooooooooooooooo necessary to save the economy, the R's should have just ignored the supposed 'offensive' remarks and done what was best for the American people but...well, it's an election year. What's best for the American people can wait til they're sure they're keeping their jobs (on both sides of the aisle).

If this bail out was soooooooooooooooo imporant, Pelosi ad Reid would have suck to the business at hand! I still aginst this bailout. A 3 page paper turned in to a 470 page paper, with cookies for ever one.

John,

you have just shown that you really don't know much about what you write. While the democratic house had 90 or so votes against, the repubublican house had 160 votes against.

The financial institutions that made bad loas were motivated by one thing,Greed. nothing else. Next time you write a LTE, get your facts straight. There is a website called factcheck.com. its a great place to actually learn something before you spout off.

and to you dog, stop foaming at the mouth. the cookies were inserted in the senate version to lure your beloved rebublicans to vote for the bill.

Dog,
The bill was proposed and pushed by your man in the White House--maybe you should stop believing all they tell you on FoxNews.

Sad.

The wide eyed queen has promised her toadies who are up to their ears in F/F $ that there will be no congressional "witch hunt" to get to the bottom of this. Instead of investigating F/F she is taking aim at wall street.

Great way to "drain the swamp" there Madame Speaker.

Health Care Destruction
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 5, 2008

Sarah Palin ended her debate performance last Thursday with a slightly garbled quote from Ronald Reagan about how, if we aren’t vigilant, we’ll end up “telling our children and our children’s children” about the days when America was free. It was a revealing choice.
You see, when Reagan said this he wasn’t warning about Soviet aggression. He was warning against legislation that would guarantee health care for older Americans — the program now known as Medicare.

Conservative Republicans still hate Medicare, and would kill it if they could — in fact, they tried to gut it during the Clinton years (that’s what the 1995 shutdown of the government was all about). But so far they haven’t been able to pull that off.

So John McCain wants to destroy the health insurance of nonelderly Americans instead.

Most Americans under 65 currently get health insurance through their employers. That’s largely because the tax code favors such insurance: your employer’s contribution to insurance premiums isn’t considered taxable income, as long as the employer’s health plan follows certain rules. In particular, the same plan has to be available to all employees, regardless of the size of their paycheck or the state of their health.

This system does a fairly effective job of protecting those it reaches, but it leaves many Americans out in the cold. Workers whose employers don’t offer coverage are forced to seek individual health insurance, often in vain. For one thing, insurance companies offering “nongroup” coverage generally refuse to cover anyone with a pre-existing medical condition. And individual insurance is very expensive, because insurers spend large sums weeding out “high-risk” applicants — that is, anyone who seems likely to actually need the insurance.

So what should be done? Barack Obama offers incremental reform: regulation of insurers to prevent discrimination against the less healthy, subsidies to help lower-income families buy insurance, and public insurance plans that compete with the private sector. His plan falls short of universal coverage, but it would sharply reduce the number of uninsured.

Mr. McCain, on the other hand, wants to blow up the current system, by eliminating the tax break for employer-provided insurance. And he doesn’t offer a workable alternative.

Without the tax break, many employers would drop their current health plans. Several recent nonpartisan studies estimate that under the McCain plan around 20 million Americans currently covered by their employers would lose their health insurance.

As compensation, the McCain plan would give people a tax credit — $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family — that could be used to buy health insurance in the individual market. At the same time, Mr. McCain would deregulate insurance, leaving insurance companies free to deny coverage to those with health problems — and his proposal for a “high-risk pool” for hard cases would provide little help.

So what would happen?

The good news, such as it is, is that more people would buy individual insurance. Indeed, the total number of uninsured Americans might decline marginally under the McCain plan — although many more Americans would be without insurance than under the Obama plan.

But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage (remember, it’s a $5,000 credit, but the average family policy actually costs more than $12,000).

Meanwhile, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most: lower-income workers who wouldn’t be able to afford individual insurance even with the tax credit, and Americans with health problems whom insurance companies won’t cover.

And in the process of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, the McCain plan would also lead to a huge, expensive increase in bureaucracy: insurers selling individual health plans spend 29 percent of the premiums they receive on administration, largely because they employ so many people to screen applicants. This compares with costs of 12 percent for group plans and just 3 percent for Medicare.

In short, the McCain plan makes no sense at all, unless you have faith that the magic of the marketplace can solve all problems. And Mr. McCain does: a much-quoted article published under his name declares that “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”

I agree: the McCain plan would do for health care what deregulation has done for banking. And I’m terrified.

*****************************************

"and to you dog, stop foaming at the mouth. the cookies were inserted in the senate version to lure your beloved rebublicans to vote for the bill."

When are some of you people going to realize that Congress, R's and D's alike, are EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SPENDERS and wasters of our money?

Take a look at some of the spending padded onto the bailout bill, here is just one but I'll link some others:

"Current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The Oregon senators were the initial sponsors of the provisions. According to Bloomberg News, the provision would be worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon. "

Sure it's only $2 million, a pittance in government speak, but what the hell do arrows have to do with have to do with the Wall St. bailout? Ironic they mention the word "shaft", now that is appropriate.

BTW, Oregon has one R and one D senator.

Look at some of the others, there are both R's and D's to benefit.

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1429&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS

So please face reality mikeg, our govt. doesn't care if they use your liberal tax dollars or my conservative ones, they are equally in the game of seizing our money for their pet projects and wasteful spending. Meanwhile the credit card balance balloons and our children and future generations will be stuck with the tab.

Linking Paul Krugman, funny. Here is his book too:

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223294861&sr=8-1

Mikeg said:" While the democratic house had 90 or so votes against, the repubublican house had 160 votes against."
I say good for the Republicans, only too many caved in when they loaded the bill with pork.
The bozo's in DC just can't pass up a pork laden bill.

Dan you are right, D or R, they love to spend our money, ,while living like royalty.

What will main street get out of this bill, only a bill.
That's what we get is a bill we can't pay off in our lifetime, our kids lifetime and grandkids lifetime.

oxymoron, in your unrelated comment you stated "And in the process of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, the McCain plan would also lead to a huge, expensive increase in bureaucracy:"

How would this differ from you wonderful liberal health care plans?

"When the administration and Republican congressmen attempted to rein them in" -- oh, you mean in 2005, when the Republicans had complete control of the Senate, the HoR and every single committee? Who was "reining in" whom?

But I agree with the sentiment of the writer--Pelosi is no leader we can trust...and I am glad a few Republicans stood up for a few days until they got the perqs they wanted.

"Personally, myself, I’d get rid of all of them (earmarks). None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has… and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.”

Nancy Pelosi on earmarks prior to election 2006.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/07/13/fiscal-restraint-if-democrats-win/

What ever happened to the fiscal discipline promised by the new Congress?

What kind of drug does one have to be on to be delusional enough to believe this tripe? Before things turned sour, the Republicans sure were willing to take credit for what they’re now criticizing. Doesn’t anyone remember George Bush’s “ownership society” campaign they rolled out in 2003 and 2004?

“We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property.” - President George W. Bush, October 2004.

If Republicans saw this crisis coming, as they now claim, why weren’t they more vehement about expressing their warnings to the citizenry so that something would be done about it? I follow politics pretty closely, and I just don't remember them raising much of a fuss about it at all. I’m the first to admit that Democrats were probably asleep at the wheel too, and I’m even willing to forgive the Republicans some of their culpability in this mess because all this “credit default swap” mess, frankly, is extremely complicated. Financial institutions were hiring Math and Physics graduates from MIT to work out the complex equations to help them construct this house of cards.

But to blame Nancy Pelosi’s speech for the failure of the bill to pass only makes Republicans look like wimps. Are you really trying to tell me that Republicans wouldn’t do the right thing for the country because mean ol’ Nancy Pelosi hurt their dear little feelings? This bailout bill originated from a Republican administration. Democrats delivered our share of the votes. It was Republicans who didn’t hold up their end of the bargain, and as a result, 100 billion in incentives had to be added to the bill to get the necessary votes. And where we have a chance to recoup losses from the original 700 billion, that will not be the case for that 100 billion that was added on. Thus, Republicans cost us 100 billion in unnecessary spending.

Okay, I can't stand it when the Republicans don't own up to their crap and I can't stand the same from the Dems.

Most of the "pork barrel" added to the bailout package was added for the DEMOCRATS not the Republicans. The Democratic leadership did not need nor court the votes of the disaffected Republican members. They voted under pressure and got very little in the way of perqs or pork barrel. The Republicans alone could not have stopped the original bill and the real reason it failed was a money grab by certain greedy Democrats--else why the changes that benefit mostly Democratic policies?

Why should the Democrats have been solely responsible for passing a Republican bill? And let them go back to their constituents and make all their claims about how Democrats spent 700 billion when it was the Bush administration that expressed the dire need for the thing to be passsed? I don't think so.

The add-ons, despite who they were designed to entice, wouldn't have been necessary if the Republicans had delivered their share of votes to start with.

The add-ons changed 33 Democrats votes and 24 Republican votes. Thus, there must have been something in that pork that the Repubicans liked too.

I appreciate your comments verelse, you seem capable of rising above the partisan fray. I didn't support this legislation from the beginning regardless of who initiated it. It then went on through partisan bickering and stances, but once the pork was added on R's and D's together were sold on it.

Meanwhile while I type this post the Dow is down over 600 points and Asian and European stocks have tanked today. I thought this bailout was supposed to settle the markets!!

Keep the blinders on Scott Free. As mentioned in my 8:02 am post, both parties are selling us out. The partisanship between constituents, as illustrated on this blog, veils the fact that they are both screwing us and future generations.

I think I'll clean out my Wachovia bank account, before it's too late, move to Tanzania, and live the high life. Financially and politically, this country is screwed.

Have a safe trip, Dan.

I'm the one with blinders on? What a joke. You guys have been supporting this administration for years, and suddenly, when there's some political fallout landing at your feet (and it is), you're pretending you weren't enablers and that things shouldn't be looked at in a partisan way. What cowards.

Most all of the major economists I heard on TV, as well as many Republican leaders (Shelby, McConnell, Paulson, and even Bush) were saying this bailout, although far from perfect, had to be done or else everything would dry up financially for middle America. I didn't like the idea of it either, but I was willing to put aside my partisan differences and support it because I felt it was important to the country, even if it originated from Republicans and was helping bail out the Bush administration. Yeah, I know, I know, everything is really Barney Frank's fault, but in reality--whether you think it's fair or not--an ecomomic meltdown would hurt Bush (and ultimately McCain) and Republicans more than it will hurt Barney Frank and Democrats (and the polls are proving that).

I've read garbage in here for years, been called unpatriotic and un-American for rightfully being against the Iraq war, and been told I was a fool for stating that Bush's tax cuts would result in a deficit (and I was absolutely correct about that).

In the past in this blog, I have defended Palin against unfair letters of attack for her religion, as well as against the idiots who claimed she should not be running for VP because she needs to take care of her family. I have praised Bush for what he has done for the fight against AIDS in Africa. I've even defended Neocon when people grossly misinterpreted his statements and suggested he was advocating for imprisonment, or worse, elimination, of gay people. I have criticized Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, as well as Hillary Clinton for lying about that flight into Bosnia. I even heaped glowing praise on a letter from a right-wing letter writer because it was hilariously written in dialect and clever as it could be.

In truth, even though I'm partisan, I've been about as fair as just about anyone in here. But truthfully, seldom do you right wingers reciprocate at all. It's just insult, insult, and insult. Am I passionate about politics and my country? You bet I am, but don't tell me I'm the one with blinders on. Not a one of you right-wingers will hardly even admit that Bush may be a little bit of the reason that we're worse off than we were 8 years ago. The only thing you'll say is that he wasn't conservative enough. How pathetic is that?

I'm the one with blinders on? What a joke. You guys have been supporting this administration for years, and suddenly, when there's some political fallout landing at your feet (and it is), you're pretending you weren't enablers and that things shouldn't be looked at in a partisan way. What cowards.

Most all of the major economists I heard on TV, as well as many Republican leaders (Shelby, McConnell, Paulson, and even Bush) were saying this bailout, although far from perfect, had to be done or else everything would dry up financially for middle America. I didn't like the idea of it either, but I was willing to put aside my partisan differences and support it because I felt it was important to the country, even if it originated from Republicans and was helping bail out the Bush administration. Yeah, I know, I know, everything is really Barney Frank's fault, but in reality--whether you think it's fair or not--an ecomomic meltdown would hurt Bush (and ultimately McCain) and Republicans more than it will hurt Barney Frank and Democrats (and the polls are proving that).

I've read garbage in here for years, been called unpatriotic and un-American for rightfully being against the Iraq war, and been told I was a fool for stating that Bush's tax cuts would result in a deficit (and I was absolutely correct about that).

In the past in this blog, I have defended Palin against unfair letters of attack for her religion, as well as against the idiots who claimed she should not be running for VP because she needs to take care of her family. I have praised Bush for what he has done for the fight against AIDS in Africa. I've even defended Neocon when people grossly misinterpreted his statements and suggested he was advocating for imprisonment, or worse, elimination, of gay people. I have criticized Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, as well as Hillary Clinton for lying about that flight into Bosnia. I even heaped glowing praise on a letter from a right-wing letter writer because it was hilariously written in dialect and clever as it could be.

In truth, even though I'm partisan, I've been about as fair as just about anyone in here. But truthfully, seldom do you right wingers reciprocate at all. It's just insult, insult, and insult. Am I passionate about politics and my country? You bet I am, but don't tell me I'm the one with blinders on. Not a one of you right-wingers will hardly even admit that Bush may be a little bit of the reason that we're worse off than we were 8 years ago. The only thing you'll say is that he wasn't conservative enough. How pathetic is that?

sorry about that double post.

Scott,

There are better days ahead and not very far off. GWB needs to leave office voluntarily, after that, it is no where else but up. I am sure most of the Republican congress members will be wiping the sweat off their faces. It will be time to bring it together, mend the fences and make the government work for the people.

Hey, I never supported GWB. just because I rightly criticize dems when they need it doesn't make me insane.

Congress is working on legislation to allow those of us with stock the opportunity to reinvest at a better fixed return rate, right? Something like 13%? Why not?

Hey, look. There was already legislation passed back in July to help the foreclosed-upon, implemented October 1, '08:
http://www.hud.gov/fha/home080730.cfm

And it looks like it was a small percentage of total mortgages that created this "crisis":
http://www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/64769.htm

I liked this one:

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 400,000 households will get FHA- insured loans and about one-third of those will fall behind again on their new loans. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a98TMgmjzpSU&refer=home

Sorry, but that's just pitiful. I think "enabler" was used earlier...

So what was this $700B for again?

Verelse,

My lengthy post was not directed at you. I in no way was calling you "insane." My 3 short posts at 2:45, 2:48, and 2:55 were my attempts to be reasoned answers to what you had posted.

My long post was directed at Dan, who said I had blinders on, which I resent. I'm tired of how Republicans insist we be non-partisan only when it will temper any blame they may be getting for something.

Molly,

Thanks for those reassuring words. I'm hopeful, but not feeling overly confident yet.

Scott

R.Bennett,

The 700 billion is primarily to bail out the lending institutions so that they can keep offering credit to individuals and small businesses, the real backbone of the country, in order for them to stay afloat. If small businesses dry up, and individuals can't get loans for necessities, we will absolutely collapse financially, and there's going to be a level of hurt in this country like my generation has never seen before. Is this plan going to bail out everybody? Of course not, nor should it. That's not what it's designed to do. And it may not even work, but we're at a place where we really don't have a choice.

It is absolutely appalling to me that some higher-ups will get saved in this, or even some people at the bottom who don't deserve to be rescued, but I can't worry about that right now. The squirrels often get more than their share of birdfood from my feeder, but I have to tolerate that. I don't want the whole flock of birds to starve just so I can teach the squirrels a lesson.

You touch on something interesting, Scott_Free.

Birds know how to find food when it's not provided.

And birds become dependent on feeders.

And eventually hawks discover the feeders, too.

(general you, not you-you)
In time your goodwill promotes the destruction of those you've made dependent.

Obama '08

Bennet,

There you go again, arguing against and requesting explanation, without even having a position other that "anti". Do you stand for anything, are you really a menace to bloggers and society. What is your point? surely you read and think some. Are you capable of having logic without a "copy and paste". Get a brain and position.

Several times I heard McCain talk about vetoing bills with Pork. Several times I saw him shake his pen at the crowd as he was saying it.

He really blew a good opportunity by not shaking his pen at Rescue Bailout bill – instead he signed it. With 75% “for ” he could have easily done that and picked up big points.

You’ve got a point, Scott .. there’s an awful lot of HO HO HO and HARDY HAR HAR - Stupid Liberals are RUINING this Country, Why don’t you all Go Back to CUBA …

… and when a tail between the legs cannot be avoided, there is “They are the lesser of two evils” ...

… and when all else fails, claim “Well They Are all Bad”.

Scott Free asks rhetorically, “If Republicans saw this crisis coming, as they now claim, why weren’t they more vehement about expressing their warnings to the citizenry so that something would be done about it?”

McCain said on May 25, 2006: "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

Sounds good, but by May 25, 2006, S. 190 was on its last legs .. It had been approved (along party lines - 11R’s to 9D’s) .. and the committee DID try to bring it to the Senate Floor .. but the Senate Floor was controlled by Frist (R-TN).

http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=886&id=19

S. 190 was never considered, and DIED with the 109th congress.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary

More: It was re-introduced as S. 1100: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007 .. Same Sponsor, McCain conspicuously missing as Co-sponsors .. lingering in committee.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100

My goodness. Posting links to back up an argument makes one a menace, and posting an original and thoughtful comparison to another's original and thoughtful response to illustrate looming danger of meddling makes me incapable of logic and "without a brain".

Perhaps we could have a poll on the aforementioned usefulness. I'm not sure where personal attacks and name calling would rank. And I thought we were friends again after I apologized for asking for proof of your statement.

To answer your question, our Constitution, and I'd only ask for your tolerance. But I'll not explain my prior post quite yet because I feel sure there are a number of others who are quite capable of seeing the significance.

R Bennet "In time your goodwill promotes the destruction of those you've made dependent."

Makes perfect sense to me.

Scott Free, I've been posting on this blog almost since it's inception and post here almost daily, I don't remember when you jumped aboard but do remember some of your posts as of late. Over the history of this blog, I have blasted ANYONE in govt. who wastes our money. Might I add those who allow illegals to stream across our borders sans consequence.

When you commence a post with "What kind of drug does one have to be on to be delusional enough to believe this tripe?", go on to blast Republicans for everything evil in your 2:12 post, and then come back with your spirit of partisanship in your 5:10 post.....well I'm wondering which Scott Free it is at a given moment.

As I've said before in this thread, both parties were asleep at the wheel. Both parties waste our money consistently. And for both parties to have the gall to tack on pork to a so called crisis bill to save our financial system, it's an abomination, unless, of course you produce natural wood arrows sans lamination in Myrtle Point, Oregon.

"In time your goodwill promotes the destruction of those you've made dependent."

I dunno, if I take my bird feeder down, do the birds just come by and wait for me to put it back up? I'll try it next spring, see how emaciated birds pile up next to where the feeder was.

If I shoot the hawk, does it really matter?

" .. it looks like it was a small percentage of total mortgages that created this "crisis"

I do hope you did not mean that, Roger .. I do hope you do not believe that.

"In time your goodwill promotes the destruction of those you've made dependent."

Don't disagree .. my issue is the g-men have been making dependent the "business class" LONG before they made dependent the "welfare class", or now the "middle class".

Am I that far off, J.D.R.?

Interview with B. Frank, Oct. 6 '08-
"The bailout bill authorized the US Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in subprime mortgages from troubled financial firms in order to inject fresh capital into the economy and calm the US and world markets."
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/10/frank_bailout_b.html

He even mentioned the July legislation I'd linked yesterday. The small percentage of total mortgages became a political tool, and eventually one that worked its way into a full-on excuse to "do something".

I've read that subprimes represent ~20% of total mortgages, but not everyone is defaulting. Let's say half, which is probably still high (I'd bet closer to 20% of the 20%). Half the subprimes start defaulting, "creative accounting" is used to hide the loss from shareholders, but light eventually has to shine on it. And when it does it's very damaging.

Instead of a few firms facing a down quarter we're all facing a depression, and one can point back to business decisions tied to a small percent of total mortgages.

Where is that wrong?
-

Something I don't get- The $700B can only come from raising taxes, more borrowing, or from printing more money (inflation). Less money in wallets, increase our collective debt, or devalue the dollar more and more. How can any of those be good in the long run?

Fear unintended consequences.
-

rahrah, we've made the same point. Creatures, when required, figure out how to manage for themselves. And don't do that last bit.

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/mbtandx.html

Sorry for the immediate post, but I just heard the Feds might be taking on the small loans ("commercial paper") Scott_Free had mentioned in his 6:32 post.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081007/fed_credit_crisis.html

We're in interesting times.

The Speaker hurt my feelings!! The Speaker hurt my feelings!! Screw the country, the Speaker hurt my feelings!

That's what it's become. Sad. The GOP is now a brand in decline. They say they're conservative, while they ramp up new government programs at warp speed---while there is a GOP congress AND a GOP President. Darn! No Democrats to blame. No place to hide. WAIT! There is one option....they can 'make up' things and repeat them to the American people enough times that surely they will believe them. Yeah, that's the ticket.

And where was John McCain when his fellow Senator from Alaska (and crook) put all the pork in the bills he voted in favor of ..... ???
Face it, folks. McCain is a tired old man with yellow teeth, running with the equivalent of a beauty queen with NO brains. I will add, she's perfect for Alaska, but is not ready for prime time.
Oh, that "conservative" hypocrisy. Of course, some who post here will vote against their own economic self interest because McCain is "Pro Life". What a joke. Guess they think banning abortion will turn our economy around? Sad.

******************************************
TODAY'S NARCISSISTIC MOMENT:

It's a voice crying out to be heard and thought important:

"I've been posting on this blog almost since it's inception and post here almost daily.."

Gee! That must make you a real expert! With those great qualifications, let's take it a step further. I've been driving forty years....sometimes daily! That doesn't make me a candidate for Secretary of Transportation.

******************************

"With those great qualifications, let's take it a step further."

Incoherent attempt at logic yet amusing nonetheless.

Dan,
You are at your funniest when you think you are looking smart.

I remember a post you made about three or four months ago saying McCain would chew Obama up in a debate....something about a telepromper?? You are a funny little fellow.

"Am I that far off, J.D.R."

Yes .. and so is Barney Frank. They are not going to use $700 billion to purchase subprime mortgages. Complimenting your statistic: "subprimes represent ~20% of total mortgages" .. only about 25% of the defaulting mortgages are sub-prime - which leaves three out of four mortgages failing from "good creditors".

It's really lack of confidence - lack of credit - fed by an inability for Bank 1 (or Business 1) - asking Bank 2 for a few Billion dollars in overnight loans – which use to happen every day – to know if they are going to get paid back. Look at how many BIG boys have disappeared overnight - COMBINED that with the real bad toxin - credit default swap derivatives (CDS) …

Stolen from elsewhere:

A credit default swap is, essentially, an insurance contract between a protection buyer and a protection seller covering a corporation’s, or sovereign’s (the “referenced entity”), specific bond or loan. A protection buyer pays an upfront amount and yearly premiums to the protection seller to cover any loss on the face amount of the referenced bond or loan.

Typically, the insurance is for five years.

Credit default swaps are bilateral contracts, meaning they are private contracts between two parties. CDSs are subject only to the collateral and margin agreed to by contract. They are traded over-the-counter, usually by telephone. They are subject to re-sale to another party willing to enter into another contract. Most frighteningly, credit default swaps are subject to “counterparty risk.”

If the party providing the insurance protection - once it has collected its upfront payment and premiums - doesn’t have the money to pay the insured buyer in the case of a default event affecting the referenced bond or loan (think hedge funds), or if the “insurer” goes bankrupt (Bear Stearns was almost there, and American International Group Inc. (AIG) was almost there) the buyer is not covered - period. The premium payments are gone, as is the insurance against default.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/96290-the-real-reason-behind-the-global-financial-crisis
http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/22/credit-default-swaps-2/
http://soundmoneytips.com/article/97087-the-real-reason-behind-the-global-financial-crisis-part-iii


Here's a good semi-interactive source of info:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/archives.html

Scott Free,

Sorry took so long to respond. The "insane" comment I made was a very lame joke. I will stick to well-reasoned logic or outright rants in the future and strictly avoid humor.

"Dan,
You are at your funniest when you think you are looking smart."

Like this?

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE said:
"First of all, cigarettes are addictive"
Posted on May 21, 2008 8:17 AM

or like this?

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE said:
Oh, and before "little Danny" weighs in with "What about Robert Byrd of West Virginia?", let me say that I didn't vote for him…”
Posted on January 28, 2008 11:12 AM

or like my personal favorite?

Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!”
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE | June 15, 2007 7:04 PM

$62 trillion. Holy cow.

Those are great links, J.D.R. I'll stand by my original comment
(it's backed up to the extent I need in your second link, starting at 5th paragraph and ending, I suppose, at "towel", and in your third link under "Those Troubling Tranches"- I'd be more specific but I fear being a menace)

because, while shaking my virtual pitchfork in anger, I'd written my prior posts at what I suspect are the opportunistic and likely nefarious plans of our Federal government.

"They are not going to use $700 billion to purchase subprime mortgages."
Agreed. But ~0.7% of all mortgages were readily and publicly exploited to serve as an excuse for the Feds to gain tremendous ownership in a private financial system and decide which businesses live or die (AIG, Bear Stearns) and who gets to eat what (Citi, Wachovia, Wells Fargo), a move which the majority of Congress and the President saw as reasonable. Birds at the feeder.

And yet the Dow keeps going down.

There's a particular W.S. Burroughs character named Dr. Benway that always fascinated me. I've come to realize Congress is populated almost exclusively by that type of personality.

(while swishing a plunger in a toilet bowl)
"Shouldn't it be sterilized, doctor?"
"Very likely, but there's no time."

---

It's neat how topics parallel each other. We've discussed before how the big problem with healthcare costs is the massive amount of money that is spent at end-of-life events that only keep someone alive for another week or two.

Our money is spent. All we have to do now is wait.

John Hooks,
You are so right about Pelosi and the desire to dominate seats in the house. Sixty seats or close dominated by democrats is an absolute disaster for all of America.
Liberal bills with their agenda can be easily passed-regardless of who is in the White House. Vote republican for your congressman(woman) governor and senator. We can only hope to limit the numbers! Also vote
McCain/Palin 2008!!!!!!