Yay for those *fiscal conservative* Republicans running the show over the past majority of a decade!

Yeah, but they haven't raised taxes. ;-)

*snort* Isn't it wonderful that Palin "rejected" the "Bridge to Nowhere", but so kindly kept $25 million taxpayer dollars to build the "Road to Nowhere", which apparently will be quite useful anyway.... Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein said the 3.2-mile road will be useful for road races, hunters and possibly future development. But with no bridge to serve it, that's probably about it. "I think it will be good for recreational things like a 5K and a 10K," Weinstein said. "And instead of people walking through brush, it may be used for hunting in the area." You're welcome Alaska!

Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama Spar By PATRICK HEALY Published: September 20, 2008 The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday. Mr. Obama, shown in Florida on Friday, won an agreement for the first debates to be about foreign policy and national security. At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates. McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive. [Ed. note (being kind) - Awwww, poor thing....} The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums. Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format. Both campaigns see the four debates as pivotal moments in a presidential race that is not only extraordinarily close but also drawing intense interest from voters; roughly 40 million viewers watched the major speeches at the two parties� conventions. The upheaval in the financial markets has recast the race in recent days, moreover, which both sides believe will only heighten attention for the debates. A commission member said that the new agreement on the vice-presidential debate was reached late Saturday morning. It calls for shorter blocks of candidate statements and open discussion than at the presidential debates. McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Ms. Palin�s debating skills compared with those of Mr. Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Ms. Palin to have opportunities to present Mr. McCain�s positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense. While the debates between presidential nominees are traditionally the main events in the fall election season, the public interest in Ms. Palin has proved extraordinary, and a large audience is expected for her national debate debut. Indeed, both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice-presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Ms. Palin, of Alaska, as a new player in national politics, or Mr. Biden, of Delaware, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep in their debate. The negotiations for the three 90-minute debates between the men at the top of the tickets were largely free of brinksmanship. Neither side threatened to pull out, and concerns about camera angles and stagecraft were minor. [there's more....] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein said the 3.2-mile road will be useful for road races, hunters and possibly future development. Yeah, I think I mentioned this total waste of money before. Criminal when the roads and infrastructure in cities across America is crumbling....literally!

Using the money for it's been mentioned before, but I didn't know exactly what they were going to do with this expensive dead end road. If that was in something previously I missed it. Speaking of crumbling infrastructure, I saw a few days ago the rebuilt bridge that collapsed in Minnesota just reopened.

Right, I didn't post about the road's use (didn't know - all I saw was a pic showing how useless it was). The fact that the earmark money (which eventually lost its earmark when it became the poster child for pork) went into Alaska's general transportion/infrastructure fund was criminal. Smoke and mirrors. No bridge but you get to keep the money too. Insanity. Yeah, saw how the Minnesota bridge reopened. We have bridges and highway overpasses in the city in worst shape than the Minnesota one.

Yikes! Actually ours probably in the best shape either, though a several have had tarps all over them for I think years, with no discernible work done. Maybe at night when I don't see it. One bridge has been worked on noticeably for years, I can only wonder when they'll finish.

You know, I may seem insulting when I post this bit and my comments, but you know what, the specifically white women referred to in this article who believe this, IMO frankly deserve to be insulted. Because they insult me as a woman and as an American. It just shows the extreme ignorance of (some) women in this country if this is the case. Or they just don't care and have some other agenda. I bolded the passages that offended me. Really, people like this shouldn't be allowed to vote. To say that you have the same ideology is one thing. To say their platform (which I consider anti-woman) says that they have a better understanding of women is ridiculous IMO. I guess if women in general feel women's rights are to be pushed back to the dark ages, then well, ok. I guess they do have a good understanding of women. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080922/pl_politico/13714;_ylt=AuBcD4USWt5AHJ5oFUYitfqs0NUE Exclusive: McCain closes huge gap on key question for women David Paul Kuhn Mon Sep 22, 6:15 AM ET Since picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has obliterated what had been a 34-percentage-point deficit in a poll of likely women voters on the question of which candidate has a �better understanding of women and what is important� to them. In this latest poll, conducted Sept. 11-15, age remained a key determinant in response to the question about women�s concerns. Young women, ages 18-34, chose the Obama/Biden ticket as more empathetic to their needs, while women aged 35-64 went for McCain/Palin. Unlike black and Hispanic women, White women saw McCain and Palin as most understanding of their concerns. About one in four women who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries now said McCain and Palin have a better grasp of women�s needs than Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.

Executive bailout compensation? Limits on it? From my money?? I'm aghast that it would even be on the table! Democrats want pay limits, loan aid in bailout By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press Writer Senate Democrats are proposing to add government help for homeowners and limits on executive compensation to the government's $700 billion financial bailout of Wall Street. A draft of the plan obtained Monday by The Associated Press shows that Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd also wants the government to get a stake (Ed note: good move) in the companies helped by the unprecedented rescue. The measure would end the program at the end of next year, instead of creating a two-year initiative as the Bush administration has requested. It also would add layers of congressional oversight (Ed note: unnecessary, including an emergency board to keep an eye on the program with two House and Senate appointees.

You think oversight is unnecessary? I don't think there should be layers, but some rather than none would be prudent I'd think.

Mind boggling. I can't believe this number keeps going so far up and up. And that the number is getting out. China toxic milk sickens 53,000 as scare spreads http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/chinafoodsafetychild;_ylt=AlsJbAUeyu_qwXc40_PCJ2.s0NUE

(Dorine) You think oversight is unnecessary? Congressional. They're worthless. Let the Fed provide oversight. It's the only institution out there with the credentials, true fiscal integrity, and a minimal political motivations.

Or maybe give it to a specifically created, limited-purpose board made up of former Fed governors or similar.

I would tend to favor the latter.

From George Will of all people. McCain Loses His Head By George F. Will Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21 "The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around." -- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama. Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does." To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19, Page A22). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust." Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts. In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17, Page A4; and the New York Times of Sept. 20, Page One.) By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases." The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels? On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned. Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either. It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed? georgewill@washpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html

Analysis: Bush holds Washington blame-free By TERENCE HUNT, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) � How did it happen, America's grave financial crisis? President Bush offered a bunch of explanations but held Washington completely blameless, painting a picture of a government standing innocently on the sidelines as the economy went off the rails. Somehow, under Bush's scenario, the country wound up at the precipice of "a long and painful recession" at a time when, apparently, the Congress, the White House, the regulators and the Fed were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing. Now that the economy has tanked, Bush says the federal government is responding with "decisive action." Shouldn't the people in charge have been doing that before everything became such a mess? "Our entire economy is in danger," Bush said in an address to the nation Wednesday night. Nowhere in his 13-minute speech did the president suggest that the people in Washington who are supposed to keep an eye on the economy missed a step, failed to raise alarms or hesitated to intervene. The guilty parties in Bush's script were overseas lenders flush with cash, American borrowers reaching for more than they could afford, easy credit terms, a banking system eager to cooperate and too much optimism about rising home values. Bush spoke vaguely about investment banks that "found themselves saddled with" toxic assets and banks that "found themselves" with questionable balance sheets. The economic collapse � well, it happened. "The gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt," Bush said, talking to the country as if he were an economics professor in a freshman course. But now, there's plenty of action with federal takeovers and bailouts that have reshaped America's financial industry and left the concept of free enterprise in the dust. On Capitol Hill, key Republicans and Democrats reported agreement in principle Thursday on the outlines of a bailout package and prepared to show it to Bush for his endorsement of their changes to the plan. Bush is a sharp-elbows politician, fiercely partisan and combative. The eight years of his presidency are filled with no-holds-barred, blame-game, finger-pointing attacks on Democrats. But not on Wednesday night. Not when Bush desperately needs Democratic votes to pass the $700 billion (that's with a b) plan to buy distressed assets from financial institutions to shore up the banking system and unlock the nation's severe credit crunch. He could not risk offending Democrats because so many Republicans are balking at his proposal. Bush held his tongue and spoke instead of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. He invited presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama to an extraordinary White House meeting with congressional leaders on Thursday to find a way forward. Appearing before the nation Wednesday night, the president had a formidable challenge to persuade anxious Americans to swallow the bitter medicine of digging in their pockets to pay for a rescue package that could exceed the advertised costs and soar beyond $1 trillion. The painful truth is, no one knows how big the price tag will be. Across the country, Americans are losing their homes or watching neighbors fall into mortgage foreclosure. Small businesses can't borrow money. But the answer from Washington is to bail out the titans on Wall Street, not the people on Main Street. Americans are anxious and angry and the politicians know it. Bush's argument is that rescuing the huge financial companies will preserve America's overall economy and help consumers and businesses get the credit they need. That is a tough sell. Democrats demanded � and got � the administration's acceptance of limits on the pay of executives whose companies would be rescued. McCain has said he would fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is supposed to oversee Wall Street, but the White House has shot that down. In his address, Bush said Americans "deserve clear answers" about how the whole crisis happened. But government accountability was not among them. Borrowers and lenders? They got the presidential spotlight. "Easy credit, combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise, led to excesses and bad decisions," Bush said. "Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on." But whose job is it to regulate the questionable lending? That would be the government. And Bush is in charge of it. Bush came into office eight years ago complaining that he had inherited a recession. It was brief and mild. When he delivered his speech Wednesday night, Bush had 118 days left before the next president is sworn in on Jan. 20. When Bush leaves, his successor will inherit a problem of historic proportions. EDITOR'S NOTE _ Terence Hunt has covered the White House for The Associated Press since the Reagan presidency. Hosted by Copyright � 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Bush's argument is that rescuing the huge financial companies will preserve America's overall economy and help consumers and businesses get the credit they need. Well, they failed me and my bank taking so long and handed JPM Chase a beaut of a deal on a silver platter, so I say pox on every last one of them. From what I'm reading initially, there was a run on the bank since 9/15 (including me truthfully) and liquidity became an issue so the FDIC "came to the rescue". WM people were way quiet after saying just last week they had enough $$ to go for over a year or so. Ironically I put my $$ in Chase.

Realistically, no bank has the deposits on hand to deal with a run.

Then it's fraud I'd think as they said they did. And if it's not, then it's some lame excuse for the FDIC to run in. Someone was making a point and maybe doing someone a favor at the same time perhaps. *snort* I read that on Anderson Cooper's show where a panel was talking about the bailout, etc, that one of them called Bush a "high-functioning moron". On national TV! I hope it's true and there's video somewhere.

Fraud is a bit strong. The banking system is backed by faith, just like our money. "In faith we trust," They took off the designation of a silver certificate years ago. ;-) And if it's not, then it's some lame excuse for the FDIC to run in. I'm not quite following what you're saying. However, once the FDIC comes in to cover the insured deposits, then the bank has already failed. But it is still going to take some time before you get your money from the FDIC. I read that on Anderson Cooper's show where a panel was talking about the bailout, etc, that one of them called Bush a "high-functioning moron". On national TV! I don't think that's the only time that has occurred. It's just more frequent.

I've never heard of anyone saying it, out loud, on national TV. But could be. Re the FDIC taking over, yes, that I'm aware of, but the FDIC won't have to do anything in this instance, they turned around and sold it immediately. And after Chase bid on it in April and were turned down, now they get it for a song...and clean, I believe.

This is the part that fascinates me if even remotely true, though how could they not know... But the seizure and the deal with JPMorgan came as a shock to Washington Mutual�s board, which was kept completely in the dark: the company�s new chief executive, Alan H. Fishman, was in midair, flying from New York to Seattle at the time the deal was finally brokered, according to people briefed on the situation. And of course.... Mr. Fishman, who has been on the job for less than three weeks, is eligible for $11.6 million in cash severance and will get to keep his $7.5 million signing bonus, according to an analysis by James F. Reda and Associates. WaMu was not immediately available for comment.

Ooops, from here... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26wamu.html?hp

Okay, now I understand what you're talking about. I thought it was related to something you said last week... But as for fraud, that has yet to be determined. Have any official financial filings been falsified? Also, there's a difference in declaring bankruptcy and being seized or taken over by the regulators. As for its BOD being shocked? Doesn't shock me. I've yet to encounter a BOD that takes its oversight responsibilities seriously. For more than 25 years, they've successfully avoided any measure to be held accountable. Meetings are merely a way to pick up a spare $30K a pop for the good old boy network. The only part that I believe will be challenged (and probably successfully this time) is the guy's exec comp package. Washington Mutual publicly insisted that it could remain independent, but the giant thrift had quietly hired Goldman Sachs about two weeks ago to identify potential bidders. But nobody could make the numbers work and several deadlines passed without anyone submitting a bid. But as panic gripped financial markets last week after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, WaMu customers started withdrawing their deposits. It is the panic (customer withdrawals) that escalates a situation beyond what is capable of being worked out.

I think if they'd been more open and the wrangling on the bailout pkg perhaps so many people wouldn't have gotten so edgy and run. Communication goes a long way. I read also that the FDIC stepped in on a Thursday, which is unusual as they usually do takeovers on Fridays, because of media leaks that might encourage a run. If there was already a run as they say, what was another day going to matter? The ironic thing is both me and my coworker took our $$ to Chase. I don't like them, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway. They're possibly the lesser of several banking "evils" for me around here. I can't believe the deal Chase got. They are jumping up and down that they saved so much. I understand some generalities in the difference between bankruptcy and being seized. As far as the board goes, I'll presume they'll have sold all their stock and weren't *that* unaware.

I think if they'd been more open and the wrangling on the bailout pkg perhaps so many people wouldn't have gotten so edgy and run. Communication goes a long way. Doubtful. Ever seen the movie Noble House or read the book? People mistake some activity at a bank and cause a run, which eventually leads to the collapse of numerous institutions, where no problems had existed. No one sits back and does nothing where his/her money is concerned. what was another day going to matter? Panic and huge panic. I can't believe the deal Chase got. They are jumping up and down that they saved so much. As did BOA and Barclays... cents on the dollar

I did read Noble House...the whole series actually, but it's been so long I remember none of it. Ah, I see, if there was a panic, there'd not be anything good for Chase to buy.

And pfft! I'll have 3 Chase Visa cards now when they switch over my WaMu one. Just opened one last week when I moved $. I think Chase has bought every bank I've ever had a credit card with.

And interesting, just read WaMu will probably declare bankruptcy. Now this I don't understand. So the bits that are left as WaMu are what will be bankrupt?

LOL! Not exactly, but panic spreads and would infect other institutions that were relatively alright. As I said, no financial institution, no matter how sound, can withstand a run. No one has that kind of ready cash. They do maintain the required levels of reserves, but that is only a fraction of what owuld be necessary to pay off all their depositors.

Now this I don't understand. So the bits that are left as WaMu are what will be bankrupt? Yep. They sold off what they could (@ market, which ain't much) and the rest will go via the bankruptcy judge.

They do maintain the required levels of reserves, but that is only a fraction of what owuld be necessary to pay off all their depositors. As does the FDIC, though I read they were low on reserves, but between that and the great deal of liability in WaMu is why they were brokers but never really took ownership, correct? The thing that still surprises me is I could imagine the shockwaves it would cause to let a bank like this fail at this point, but it couldn't help itself anymore I guess.

As does the FDIC, though I read they were low on reserves We're talking about different things here: what the FDIC actually has as funding (its reserves) and what are called "required reserves" for commercial banks. Those are pledged assets equal to a certain percentage of certain deposit accounts. The assets are pledged, like collateral but not. but between that and the great deal of liability in WaMu is why they were brokers but never really took ownership, correct? ??? Not following again.

Oh wait, they did take ownership, but sold it right off without having to cover deposits themselves.

(Dorine)I read that on Anderson Cooper's show where a panel was talking about the bailout, etc, that one of them called Bush a "high-functioning moron". I saw it. It was Paul Begala. They were talking about Bush's address on the finanical crisis, and all of them--Paul plus the two Republicans, Gloria Borger and Ed Rollins, who is a GOP strategist--commented on how hopeless he sounded and how no one in the Congress in his own party respects him any more. Then Begala called him a high functioning moron; neither of the others disagreed. In fact, Rollins kept shaking his head as he then discussed Sarah Palin's latest performance with Katie Couric, lamenting that she was so ill prepared. You can read about Palin's interview here; I saw it and couldn't beleive what I was hearing. John McCain has chosen as his #2--Rain Man! :-( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26watch.html?ref=television

Even conservatives are calling for Palin to scram. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

I've only seen snippets of Katie Couric's interview, like the part where Sarah couldn't find the right word (mock). LOL! And there was another interesting moement, when Katie asked her for a specific instance where McCain had backed any form of regulation. Sarah said she'd have to get back to her. Holy moly! McCain can�t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP�s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden. The Dems wouldn't have this problem if they'd put Hill at the top of the ticket and BO as her VP. Except for his alleged ulterior motives and Islamic ties for Moon, they'd be so far ahead of McCain and anybody he choose.

Well, I strongly disagree with this conservative writer that BO "faces the same problem with Biden." Oh, please. He doesn't belong in the same sentence with Palin! C'mon. The man knows more about foreign policy that the other three put together. Of course I agree that Hill should have had the nom, but that's old news. I'm done, and I refuse to moan about it any longer which plays right into the R's gameplan. You don't think the R's wouldn't be blasting away at Hill now if she were on the Dem ticket? LOL!

They'd be blasting away, but no one would have a shot that she couldn't handle the current economic crisis. That's all I'm saying.

Nice work if you can get it... WaMu CEO could get $13.65 mln for 18 days work http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN2632102320080926

As the article indicates, Chase doesn't seem to be concerned. It is not liable for the payout. Which would leave it with the bankrupt shell entity, the BHC. Seems like he'd have to stand in line with other creditors to get paid. Good luck! But on the other hand, he isn't to blame for the problems nor did he stand a chance to turn things around once deposits started to go. I see that the AIG CEO wouldn't take his $22 million severance package.

An excellent example of how the good old boy network still functions is the deal given to WaMu former's CEO. If anyone should've been fired for cause, he should've been on the poster, front and center, but the official filing said it was for a reason "other than cause." Here's a fairly decent analysis of the severance packages: http://blog.riskmetrics.com/2008/09/will_wamu_executives_pay_get_a.html

I'm catching up here. Interesting article, Karen. Now on the economy: Senator Clinton: We need some kind of an entity like the old HOLC, the Homeowners Loan Corporation. To be prepared we should start working on the legislation now to try to get something like that up and going so we can have one place in the government to do these mortgage modifications and try to replicate the success that we had 70 years ago. It has not escaped notice that Senator Clinton is providing real leadership on the economic and housing crisis. If anyone missed it, hooray for Bill Clinton who made sure everyone knew that it is Hillary who is out front with sensible, real solutions. Had the country listened over a year ago when she called for a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures as that local financial institutions could do work outs to allow people to keep their homes, preserve their communities and pay realistic rates, we might never have reached this crisis. Some people might not have made as much money through speculation and risk taking, but we would have had a countrywide spasm of true compassion and common sense. My recollection is that BO flicked off the idea and said the wrong people would benefit. Anyway...here we are in a crisis, few people have clean hands and it looks as though the bandits are going to make out like bandits. Can anyone explain why a first step toward fiscal sanity would not be, as Senator Clinton proposed, an immediate moratorium on primary home foreclosures coupled with a requirement that for any financial institution to receive federal bailout funds, it must renegotiate loans for the express purpose of keeping people in their homes at reasonable rates and responsible transparent terms, terms which can be established by a non-partisan group of economists with a working deadline of 10 days. Big financial institutions suffering from cash flow problems? Let the executives with a salary of over x$ take a few weeks of pay deferment so that these firms do not go under, yet the people at the top feel some of the pinch and take some responsibility for the risks they took, if not personally than institutionally. Real people would benefit, localities would not face the dire consequences of vacant properties and tax loss, and the general public would understand that the priorities of the government are to help them and their communities. Consumer confidence wold be restored. No new bureaucracies would be required. Print the regulations, re-assign compliance personnel, and activate Congressional oversight. Would that be so bad or hard? At least as a first step?

I am confused about the response to McCain's decision to work at his day job until this economic crisis has been resolved. I can't understand how doing your job somehow becomes a political move. If these candidates worked at "real" jobs where they pulled a paycheck based on their actually showing up to work, this would be a non-issue. If the company was falling apart and potentially looking at chapter 11, the company officials would be expected to be at work until the crisis was resolved--not campaigning for themselves to take a new job. This is so annoying. It really is irritating that we pay for these politicians to fly around and campaign for themselves. They've been getting paychecks all along, thanks to our tax dollars. Basically, Obama has been getting paid for two years to campaign for president. He's spent his entire time in the senate, getting paid well, receiving excellent health benefits and not worrying about paying his bills. Mr. Hope and Change appears to have no guilt for taking ou tax dollars while he campaigns for a new job. Yet, when McCain wants to work for his money, Obama calls it a political move. I call it caring about the company that you work for--and wanting to keep your job. I have no doubt that if it were HRC, she would be back in Washington, too--would have been there, rather, from day one. Hillary 2012

I think my new favorite topic... Up to 10,000 staff at the New York office of the bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers will share a bonus pool set aside for them that is worth $2.5bn �1.4bn), Barclays Bank, which is buying the business, confirmed last night.... A spokesman for Barclays said the $2.5bn bonus pool in New York had been set aside before Lehman Brothers filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States a week ago. To which I have to respond, so what? Set aside? Give me a break. A bonus for doing what? Running a 150+ year old firm into the ground. Someone needs to amend the dictionary definition of 'bonus'. The firm is in bankruptcy and it has creditors. One would think that bonus pool could pay off quite a number of its legitimate creditors. Instead, the write-off will continue down the food chain. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4795072.ece

(Moon) I can't understand how doing your job somehow becomes a political move. Please, Moon. Probably because he'd been little to none on his day job anytime recently? Certainly no more or less than BO. Was it not important enough to attend to previously? That goes for any and all politicians IMO (including Hillary!). I don't know how any of them campaign and do their "day jobs". And now conveniently, he was too busy for a debate?, which to me is a perfect time to hear what he has to say. t really is irritating that we pay for these politicians to fly around and campaign for themselves. They've been getting paychecks all along, thanks to our tax dollars. Basically, Obama has been getting paid for two years to campaign for president. McCain and HRC weren't doing the same thing during the primaries?

Yet, when McCain wants to work for his money.... I call it caring about the company that you work for--and wanting to keep your job. I apparently missed this the first time around, but I have to just LOL!!!! at that statement.

I see Palin was down in your neck of the woods, sort of, Mari and Linda. I have no problem with people being able to identify with her, but as far as being able to match those to actual policies might be a bit harder. It seems this woman is unaware that Palin cut the budget for special-needs children by 62% in Alaska in the last year. But in all fairness, perhaps they don't get a lot of special needs kids? Though makes you wonder why the budget would be so big in the first place then. "I think she can relate to the common mom," said Olsen-Liney, who has a 3-year-old son with a neurological disorder that prevents him from speaking. "I like the fact that [she's] somebody who recognizes that not enough is done for special-needs children." http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080927_Palin_grabs_a_seat_at_the_bar.html

Time to party! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece

Duh!! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?em

Sorry Dorine, but even on the campaign trail HRC went to Washington to vote on important issues. That's the first job. I don't get the joke. 9Karen), One would think that bonus pool could pay off quite a number of its legitimate creditors. Instead, the write-off will continue down the food chain. I agree. There must be some reason not available to us mere mortals as to why this is allowed to continue with this crisis? All those stupid journalist can't take away time from criticizing Sarah Palin to crank out articles on this very important subject? Or is this what Capitolism 101 is all about? :-(

BTW, Tina Fey did another stint on SNL last night as Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric. If you missed it, I would imagine they've got it on YouTube.

I wasn't making a joke. And going back to vote is one thing and something they all should've done. There's not a vote everyday, I don't think, and they weren't there everyday. My point is you kept singling out BO for campaigning instead of doing his day job, yet he did no different than anyone else. Whether any or all of them got back to vote on all they should, I don't know off the top of my head and I'm not bothering to go look up on what votes they all missed. It wasn't a situation that McCain had to "suspend his campaign" and skip the debate (which BTW, did you see all his talking points mistakenly faxed to the media by his communications person about it?). Plus when he was there, he reportedly had no significant contribution to make that couldn't be done over the phone. And it's funny he had to "suspend his campaign" and ditch Letterman, but didn't have to rush out so fast to not talk to Katie Couric at the time he was supposed to be with Letterman......and then not leave until the following morning. There are trains to DC probably every hour or so if he didn't feel like dealing with traffic. ;-)

SNL Toooooo funny! http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

All those stupid journalist can't take away time from criticizing Sarah Palin to crank out articles on this very important subject? Because focusing on a woman "Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League" (and by proxy, questioning McCain's judgement since he picked her), who could be one heartbeat away from the presidency, isn't remotely important. No, not at all. Seems to me, the journalists could do both. I'd like to think they could multitask.

Thanks Dorine for the SNL link. Way tooo funny!

My point is you kept singling out BO for campaigning instead of doing his day job, yet he did no different than anyone else. BO has been running for President for years now, considering that he is a new senator, I would say that took a lot out of his day job. I grant you that Sarah appears out of her league for now, but you know what? I have faith in her. She seems to be a quick learner, and I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, why? Maybe because I am thrilled to have a woman held in high regard by the Republican party. Is that a sign of change? Hell yes! Yes, I have faith in her as a woman to come through for me. She will learn what she needs to learn, she will work twice as hard to get it right. She is the Gov. of the biggest state in the nation. She can speak in public, she reads the monitor well, she wears skirts and heels, and she wants to lead. If I were in her position, I know what I would do, and I would come through. Have faith in your female representative. FGS, we've had Bush for 8 years!!!

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign�s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics. �St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign. �What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment. �This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson�s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election. �Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.� http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

I just watched the SNL clip. Wow, even Katie gets ripped. Sad state, and sad times to be a woman? ;-) Go men!

(Moon) Maybe because I am thrilled to have a woman held in high regard by the Republican party. But it's becoming increasing apparent they don't feel that way now themselves. She is the Gov. of the biggest state in the nation. In acreage maybe. Our mayor governs a comparable amount of people in just one of our boroughs, let alone probably 5 square blocks. She can speak in public, she reads the monitor well, she wears skirts and heels, and she wants to lead. *shakes head*

I wouldn't automatically back a candidate just because she was a woman. She needs to be the right woman.

Don't shake your head, think of Bush! ;-) Dorine, you are speaking of a small group of R that don't want her. IMO, it's the group that would have a problem with any woman. LOL, yes, I do know that it's in acreage only. Still it looks good on paper. ;-) But that gives her an advantage on Energy policies because of the oil, wind and natural gas resources. Energy is one of the lead issues today and Sarah does have experience there. Biden might know his foreign policies, but that can be learned. I'm looking forward to the debate. This is an excellent explanation for the current economic crisis. Watch it to the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Kathryn, if all goes as planned, the right woman will run in 2012. :-)

(Kathryn) I wouldn't automatically back a candidate just because she was a woman. She needs to be the right woman I just said the same thing almost verbatim to my boss and co-worker. Citing Pelosi as well. A bad woman can do more damage than not having one at all IMO. I am thinking of Bush! ;-D (Moon) Still it looks good on paper. ;-) Hee. Biden might know his foreign policies, but that can be learned. And was learned over 29 years, not 6 weeks.

But Biden is also much older. It can be learned. Pelosi is out of control. But she's turning into an old fox. Did you hear her speech today? LOL, she touched on some R's nerves. The bill might have passed. Now back to making adjustments. Wachovia bought by Citibank? I did not see that coming. A few weeks ago I was ready to close my Citibank account and transfer all to my Wachovia account! I can't bear to look at the stocks value. :-(

I worked for Wachovia for 2 1/2 yrs in their student loan dept and MasterCard dept 23 yrs ago in Winston-Salem. I can't listen to much at work. The stock closed at 10 on Friday, down to 8.30 or so pre-market today and I think opened at 92 cents. There's going to be 4 major banks standing and that's it at the rate it's going.

Can you believe they didn't pass the bailout bill? Shoot! I should've waited another day to buy Apple. Thought I'd gotten it for a bargain last week. :-( I'm aghast! (Dorine) There's going to be 4 major banks standing and that's it at the rate it's going. But that's not a new concept. Everyone thought that would've already been the case by now. What's driven me crazy is that there were supposed to be far few "brick and mortar" establishements, as we got more and more electronic. No need to ever have to go into a bank. Yet, there are 4 banks on every single block around here and more being built. That has gone completly counter to projections. I'm still aghast about Congress. Evidently those representatives don't have any constituents with money tied to the market.

Up until the 1980s, interstate bank wasn't allowed. First it opened up regionally via state reciprocity legislation, but then went national in the mid-1990s.

From one of the AP articles about today's markets and Congressional inertia: But Wall Street found further reason for worry overseas, as the fallout from U.S. economic problems kep spreading. Three European governments agreed to inject Fortis NV with a $16.4 billion bailout. Fortis, with has headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and Utrecht, Netherlands, is Belgium's largest retail bank. The British government, meanwhile, said it is nationalizing mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley, which has a $91 billion mortgage and loan portfolio. It was the latest sign that the credit crisis has spread beyond the U.S. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wall_street

McCain is blaming Obama for the bill's defeat, but all you have to do is look at the actual votes by party and state. It's f**king amazing! Why haven't any of the analysts written this up yet? http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/674/ Alaska: 1 vote; 1 no Arizona: 8 votes; 8 votes no Texas: 32 votes; 23 votes no vs Illinois: 19 votes; split evenly Delaware: 1 vote; 1 vote yes McCain evidently has no cloud whatsoever with his colleagues. Must be because they view him as a maverick. The states that really stick out to be are Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and California...heavy retirement areas. Makes no sense to me.

McCain has stated that he's not afraid to make enemies in Washington. Did you see the video I posted from youtube? It explains so much. I'm trying to keep calm during this disaster, but DH is furious. Can Congress plese work together? Can this partisanship end? Can someone shoot Pelosi?

McCain has stated that he's not afraid to make enemies in Washington. Yay, that's the spirit. Way to get things done! How mavericky. ;-)

Yay, that's the spirit. Way to get things done! How mavericky. ;-) Yeah, a lot of good his DC photo op did, and his "rushing back to Washington"--it was his own party that defeated this! From the NY Times: "In the end, only 65 Republicans � just one-third of those voting � backed the plan despite personal pleas from President Bush and encouragement from their presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. By contrast, 140 Democrats, or 60 percent, voted in favor, many after voicing grave misgivings. Their nominee, Senator Barack Obama, also backed the bill." " . . . lawmakers on both sides pointed to an outpouring of opposition from deeply hostile constituents just five weeks before every seat in the House was up for election as a fundamental reason that the measure was defeated. House members in potentially tough races and those seeking Senate seats fled from the plan in droves." And apparently the R's are more concerned with getting re-elected than they are about doing the right thinhg, dare I say it, the mavericky thing.;-) Go to this link for a map you can click on to see exactly how they voted by state: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30cong.html?ref=politics

I try to stay away from this topic, because I am so sick of partisan politics, on both sides of the aisle. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the mess our economy is in these days, and for either side to blame the other is disingenuous. For Democrats to blame Bush is the height of hypocracy. Wall Street is in the mess it is in almost entirely because of the abuses at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The abuses at Freddie and Fannie actually began because of looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make loans to iffy borrowers begun during the Clinton administration. (The looser standards were intended to help increase homeownership among all Americans.) It took 15 years to get to where we are today. During that time, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank consistently opposed efforts to tighten standards and oversight at Fannie and Freddie. Bush actually began asking for new regulatory reform of Fannie and Freddie in 2003, but Congress always defeated his proposals. In 2005, after Alan Greenspan warned of exactly what is happening today, McCain was one of three sponsors of another reform act, which was again defeated. Republicans are not blameless, by any means. Many Congressional Republicans sided with the Democrats in defeating the various bills designed to straighten out this mess years ago, before it got to where it is today. They did so because Fannie and Freddie were big campaign contributors, on both sides of the aisle. I am not a fan of John McCain (nor George Bush), but I do know something about economics and the mess we're in now. I could go into much more detail, but I think I've said enough.

Looks like there's now going to be a serious push to extend term limits so Bloomberg can run again. God knows I pray so, because I can't imagine this city in the financial shape it's in and headed for being run by anyone but a great business man. He was so great to have after 9/11.

Thanks you Peggy. That is exactly what the youtube video I posted explains. And it was unforgivable for Pelosi to present the bill with that partisan speech in a time in which bi-partisanship should rule. Dorine, I agree about Bloomberg. I am also a fan a Cuomo(son) fan. I lived in NYC during Dinkins and he was the worst mayor ever! Even walking in the Theatre District at night was dangerous then. Giuliani had so much to clean up after him and did an excellent job.

Family Upset Obama Wears Their Son�fs Bracelet NewsBusters is reporting in their article: Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son�fs Bracelet�c Where is Media? that the family of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek whose name is on the bracelet Senator Obama wears does not want him speaking about their son in public. The father Brian Jopek stated in a radio interview that the family even asked Senator Obama to stop wearing his son�fs bracelet. Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show �gRoute 51�� asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama�fs positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son�fs name on the campaign trail. Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because �gshe just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan�fs name.�h Jopek went on to say that �gshe wasn�ft looking to turn it into a big media event�h and �gjust wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.�h Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal. Senator Obama�fs inability to even remember Sergeant Jopek�fs name during the debate made it appear that the bracelet was just a political prop. However, now with news that the family doesn�ft even want their son�fs bracelet worn by the Senator, and are upset that Senator Obama uses Sergeant Jopek name in public, makes this appear to be an incredibly cold callous political move. http://purplepeoplevote.com/2008/09/28/family-upset-obama-wears-their-sons-bracelet/

http://www.justsaynodeal.com/acorn.html

Possible Change of Heart. Rezko talked with prosecutors, Chicago Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-flip28sep28,0,5691387.story

This manipulation is a little too communist for me. I know that sounds extreme, but seriously, this is insane. http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.html Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations. After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness. At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript. Here are the missing pieces of the transcript: (2:58) Couric: What, specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take20a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country? Palin: At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that's what we'll take advantage of with new leadership in the US and in Pakistan. And I'm sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism. (3:32) (5:39) Couric: But what lessons do you think you have learned as you've watched this unfold in terms of implementing the democracy and the challenges inherent in that goal? Palin: Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do. Couric: What happened if the goal of democracy, Governor Palin, doesn't produce the desired outcome, for example in Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won. Palin: Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we're seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and e xpress such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends�Israel�and we're hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, expecially there in the Mideast, then nothing will. If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11.(7:25) What do each of these three Palin answers have in common? They portray her as a foreign policy moderate who seeks multilateral coalitions with allies and who advocates for human rights, caring about better lives for Middle Easterners. Interestingly, ABC News also edited out the same kind of moderate, multilateralist comment in order to more effectively promote the misinformation that Palin was advocating a new, warmongering approach to Russia. Katie Couric clearly hasn't learned much from the previous CBS News scandal, Rathergate. Technical note: There may have been further editing of each of the two interviews. In both instances, we only know about the modifications because of sloppy editing. In one, the transcript is the smoking gun for the discrepancies; in the other it is the video. Here's an analytics perspective on the deletions: In the Gibson (ABC News) interview: 7 instances were deleted of "allies" 5 instances were deleted of "countries" 5 instances were deleted of "democracies" In the Couric (CBS News) interview: 4 instances were deleted of "allies" 3 instances were deleted of "democracies" 3 instances were deleted of "friends" 3 instances were deleted of "nations" (A few word variants were included.)

The current crisis can't be attributed to any one thing. I wish it were that easy. There is plenty of blame to go around. Credit was too easy. Interest rates remained artificially low for far too long, and some are now blaming Grennspan for that. I remember traveling in California a few years back and coming across a traffic pile-up in a residential neighborhood. Turns out people were lining up to put in bids to buy houses that were not yet built--bidding wars to overpay by hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond the asking price, that's how sure these people were that the value of what they were trying to buy would continue to grow by leaps and bouns, outpacing their debt. This is what happened in Florida and elsewhere, too. Remember "house flipping"? You can't lay that blame on poor folks trying to buy a house. Blame the bankers too for packaging up the bad debt into investment vehicles offering way inflated rates of return. That's how Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers got burned. No one or no "side" is blameless. So how are we going to fix it?

How will we fix it? There are 300 million Americans, the debt is 700 billion. Russell Crowe on Leno last night suggested the Governmwent pay each American a million dollars to ease the hardship and help their debts. Bloody hell, I loved it! LOL! Why not?

Why not you ask? One reason might be that 300 million times 1 million is 300 TRILLION. Stick to acting, Russell, your math sucks. One other factor in this mess that I should have mentioned is the rates of personal bankruptcies, which are fueling a lot of the mortgage foreclosures. And the number one reason for personal bankruptcies? Medical bills and lack of medical coverage! But, hey, let's rant about socialism as a reason to not offer universal coverage. Hey, I have coverage, hooray for me and the hell with everybody else! In fact, cut my taxes and I'll follow you anywhere! Don't look now, but we *all* are "everybody else."

(Moon) This manipulation is a little too communist for me. I know that sounds extreme, but seriously, this is insane. Not the first time at all and not just CBS. Quite a number of times from various places on other subjects/interviews. The White House website has made adjustments on things, too.

I can�t believe I am posting today of all days, but ... (Peg) but I do know something about economics Fortunately, so do I. ;-) Your recap of salient points however is strictly partisan, displaying the current Republican spin and time-honored tradition of attempting to �share� blame when the overwhelming evidence points it squarely at oneself. The abuses at Freddie and Fannie actually began because of looser lending standards Neither actually makes loans, but you know that. However, I�ll take it that you meant to cite Fannie and Freddie�s dubious accounting practices, which were all fueled by a desire for senior management bonuses. Who hasn�t seen that one before? Paper profits or paper capitalization (where none exists) to ensure that the big boys achieve their performance goals and therefore get their bonuses? It always boils down to corporate greed, which seems to flourish during Republican Administrations, which can be counted on to stand aside and �let the markets work.� None of that pesky regulation or oversight to interfere. (Peg) regulatory pressure on banks to make loans to iffy borrowers begun during the Clinton administration. Why not go back to the Community Reinvestment Act (a Carter initiative), where affordable home ownership started? Or maybe even back to Roosevelt�s (another Dem) programs? In my view, the goals of the CRA are fine and epitomize the social conscience of the Democratic party. Why shouldn�t banks, which have taken deposits from a given community, also be required to lend out to the same? That�s all it is attempting to achieve. How a bank actually carries it out is another issue. No one forces a bank to lend to noncreditworthy individuals. Banks are only motivated by profit. When they don�t have decent spreads in other sectors, then they take on risk. Abuses took place at the least regulated entities: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, plus the Wall Street investment banks. Not a shocker IMO. Good article here, which I think puts many of the comments into context and provides dates and names: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html (Peg) Bush actually began asking for new regulatory reform of Fannie and Freddie in 2003, but Congress always defeated his proposals. In 2005, after Alan Greenspan warned of exactly what is happening today, McCain was one of three sponsors of another reform act, which was again defeated. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 died in a Republican-controlled committee. This is your example? Sorry, but I cannot give any credence to McCain attaching his name to any reform package, when one of his chief economic advisors (term used loosely) is Phil Gramm, a major architect of the deregulated, hands-off Wall Street environment.

While I don't know if it's accurate, I read yesterday that calls into Congress yesterday from constituents averaged 300 to 1 against the bill. The Bailout Defeat: A Political Credibility Crisis By MICHAEL SCHERER / WASHINGTON 2 hours, 51 minutes ago There was a lack of trust, a loss of confidence, a popular revolt. Nearly every major political leader in the U.S. supported the $700 billion financial-bailout bill. The President. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for President. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate. All of them said the same thing: vote yes. But a majority of those politicians anointed by the Constitution to reflect the will of the people voted no. This is a remarkable event, the culmination of a historic sense of betrayal that Americans have long felt for their representatives in Washington. The nation's credit crisis on Monday exposed a much deeper and more fundamental problem: a crisis of political credibility that now threatens to harm our nation further, should the markets freeze up and more companies begin to fail, as many experts predict. The problem has been growing for years. Roughly 28% of Americans approve of President Bush. Roughly 18% of Americans approve of Congress. Now those low numbers and majority of bad feelings have manifested themselves in the starkest of terms. Asked to take a leap of faith regarding a dizzyingly complex problem, a critical mass of voters refused to trust their leaders, turning down the medicine that was offered. And so the politicians who are most exposed to popular whims have run for cover. With an election on the horizon, 95 House Democrats and 133 House Republicans opposed the bill. Some portion voted no for clearly ideological reasons. But many more were simply doing what politicians do - responding to the will of the people. An analysis by statistician Nate Silver, who runs FiveThirtyEight.com, made this clear. Of the 38 incumbent members of Congress from both parties who are considered vulnerable in the coming election, 30 voted against the bill (eight supported it). By contrast, members of Congress from relatively safe districts were evenly divided - 197 for it to 198 against it. "What this showed more than anything else was that not even members of Congress can ignore a switchboard system of Capitol Hill that is so totally jammed," said Peter Sepp, a conservative opponent of the bill with the National Taxpayers Alliance. If the experts are right, the nation now risks great financial hardship, because there was no one to stand up and explain the situation. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 778 points on the news. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson warned Monday afternoon that car loans and student loans were likely to tighten. Other economists have warned of the possibility of widespread corporate failures and unemployment, if the short-term credit markets freeze up. Bank failures, or mergers, are likely to continue. The taxpayer costs of federal insurance on deposits could increase. In a worst-case scenario, economic historians may find that all of Paulson's predictions come true, leaving the cost to the Federal Government far greater than the risky $700 billion investment in the private sector. If this comes to pass, the historians will find many people to blame: Paulson and President Bush for failing to explain the plan better. The House leadership for failing to whip enough votes. Even the presidential candidates for failing to use their bully pulpit to force the issue. But those historians should not forget that roots of the failure predate the vote on Monday, and even the mistakes of Wall Street. Years ago, the trust between the people and their politicians was broken. Credibility was lost. The reserve of goodwill went bankrupt. And when they needed it most, our nation's leaders found that they had squandered their ability to exert influence over the people who chose them to lead. View this article on Time.com

Mari? If 300 million people get 1 million each, it totals 300 million. I wrote this letter to Obama and have called several senators and representatives expressing this view: URGENT READ IMMEDIATELY To: Senator Obama Re: Economy Bailout There are plans for a 700 billion bailout bill. There are 300 million Americans. I suggest making two separate 2 Bills. One that will help Main Street (middle and lower middle class directly and immediately): 1. Give 300 million Americans one million dollars each with the stipulation that the money goes to pay off their mortgages, their credit cards, autos, and outstanding bills. 2. If they want to buy a home, it must be paid in cash, same for a car, home improvements, etc. 3. Pay up Retirement Funds. The other Bill should help out Wall Street, obviously, that amount should be much less than 700 billion dollars. * Taking into consideration that the 300 million amount will be less than that when one considers a big part of that number are children. It is a win/win situation. Americans will feel that their government really cares about them. And Wall Street would have its bailout.

I urge everyone here to call or fax their Senators and Representatives with my message. Americans want the bailout to include them directly, not indirectly through Wall Street. This is your chance to get involved.

I forgot to add: 4. Pay off college loans. I truly see this as a win/win situation.

(Moon) If 300 million people get 1 million each, it totals 300 million. Sorry Moon, but if 300 million people get $1 each it equals $300 million.

See that's why we need oversight. LOL, OK, I'm ready to work it down 50 thousand each household. Still, I'd rather have the bailout go mostly to the people.

Family Upset Obama Wears Their Son's Bracelet An update to that: http://www.startribune.com/29863889.html?elr=KArksDyycyUtyycyUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU Could be just damage control.

Just take out all those kids and that should help. ;-) I knew I wasn't concentrating on everything about that plan properly. ;-D Work isn't the best place for me to ponder US economic resolutions. ;-)

bugger.

I just now realized if elected, Palin would be President of the Senate with tiebreaking abilities. *shudders*

Looks like Bloomberg will make it official he wants another term. While I by no means agree with everything he's done or said, I was speaking with a friend tonight who doesn't like him because of his policies encouraging significant and in some cases, reckless, building, but agreed that it's a good idea to keep him in for one more go 'round considering our situation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bloomberg_third_term;_ylt=Ap02iPrzAEu4ATvsum2du4as0NUE

(Karen)It always boils down to corporate greed, which seems to flourish during Republican Administrations Of course it all boils down to greed, on the part of corporations, politicians, and even some homeowners who treated their homes like cash machines and way overextended themselves (I'm referring to people who did such things as refinance or take out home equity loans to replace their perfectly good appliances with stainless steel, or their perfectly good countertops with granite just to keep up with the latest trends), but I disagree that it flourishes only during Republican administrations. As an example of greed during a Democratic administration, look no further than Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson (both Democrats) the CEO's of Fannie Mae from 1991-98 (Johnson) and 1999-2004 (Raines). That spanned all of the Clinton administration (and parts of the Bush administrations). Both received bonuses in the millions of dollars during a time when Fannie Mae was engaging in some creative accounting practices. (Karen)In my view, the goals of the CRA are fine I agree. The problem wasn't the CRA, it was broadening of it that caused problems, which is why I don't go back to its enactment under Carter. (Karen)No one forces a bank to lend to noncreditworthy individuals. No one holds a gun to anyone's head, but the rewrite of the CRA rules in 1995 made it so that banks had quotas for the level of diversity in their loan portfolios. The quotas included quotas on income level of people receiving the loans. If a bank wanted to expand or merge, it needed a good CRA rating, so banks began making riskier loans to meet those quotas. Not all banks were interested in expanding or merging, of course, so not all banks made risky loans. You could argue, of course, that it was greed that made banks want to expand. It took years for the economy to get to where it is today, years that included both Republicans and Democrats in power, and I still say it is disingenuous for either side to blame the other. There is plenty of blame to go around, to politicians of both parties, to Wall Street, to homeowners who took out loans they knew they couldn't afford, but pointing fingers is not the way to solve the problem. If politicians (of both parties) spent as much time and energy actually trying to solve problems as they do trying to pass the blame, maybe there wouldn't be as many problems to solve.

So I was sitting here contemplating what to do with my $1 bailout money from the Crowe-Moon plan, when I came across this very good, down to earth explanation of what failure to fix this thing means in very practical terms. Op-Ed Columnist Rescue the Rescue By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN NEW YORK TIMES I was channel surfing on Monday, following the stock market�s nearly 800-point collapse, when a commentator on CNBC caught my attention. He was being asked to give advice to viewers as to what were the best positions to be in to ride out the market storm. Without missing a beat, he answered: �Cash and fetal.� I�m in both � because I know an unprecedented moment when I see one. I�ve been frightened for my country only a few times in my life: In 1962, when, even as a boy of 9, I followed the tension of the Cuban missile crisis; in 1963, with the assassination of J.F.K.; on Sept. 11, 2001; and on Monday, when the House Republicans brought down the bipartisan rescue package. But this moment is the scariest of all for me because the previous three were all driven by real or potential attacks on the U.S. system by outsiders. This time, we are doing it to ourselves. This time, it�s our own failure to regulate our own financial system and to legislate the proper remedy that is doing us in. I�ve always believed that America�s government was a unique political system � one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong. No system can be smart enough to survive this level of incompetence and recklessness by the people charged to run it. This is dangerous. We have House members, many of whom I suspect can�t balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don�t understand, swamped them with phone calls. I appreciate the popular anger against Wall Street, but you can�t deal with this crisis this way. This is a credit crisis. It�s all about confidence. What you can�t see is how bank A will no longer lend to good company B or mortgage company C. Because no one is sure the other guy�s assets and collateral are worth anything, which is why the government needs to come in and put a floor under them. Otherwise, the system will be choked of credit, like a body being choked of oxygen and turning blue. Well, you say, �I don�t own any stocks � let those greedy monsters on Wall Street suffer.� You may not own any stocks, but your pension fund owned some Lehman Brothers commercial paper and your regional bank held subprime mortgage bonds, which is why you were able refinance your house two years ago. And your local airport was insured by A.I.G., and your local municipality sold municipal bonds on Wall Street to finance your street�s new sewer system, and your local car company depended on the credit markets to finance your auto loan � and now that the credit market has dried up, Wachovia bank went bust and your neighbor lost her secretarial job there. We�re all connected. As others have pointed out, you can�t save Main Street and punish Wall Street anymore than you can be in a rowboat with someone you hate and think that the leak in the bottom of the boat at his end is not going to sink you, too. The world really is flat. We�re all connected. �Decoupling� is pure fantasy. I totally understand the resentment against Wall Street titans bringing home $60 million bonuses. But when the credit system is imperiled, as it is now, you have to focus on saving the system, even if it means bailing out people who don�t deserve it. Otherwise, you�re saying: I�m going to hold my breath until that Wall Street fat cat turns blue. But he�s not going to turn blue; you are, or we all are. We have to get this right. My rabbi told this story at Rosh Hashana services on Tuesday: A frail 80-year-old mother is celebrating her birthday and her three sons each give her a present. Harry gives her a new house. Harvey gives her a new car and driver. And Bernie gives her a huge parrot that can recite the entire Torah. A week later, she calls her three sons together and says: �Harry, thanks for the nice house, but I only live in one room. Harvey, thanks for the nice car, but I can�t stand the driver. Bernie, thanks for giving your mother something she could really enjoy. That chicken was delicious.� Message to Congress: Don�t get cute. Don�t give us something we don�t need. Don�t give us something designed to solve your political problems. Yes, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke need to accept strict oversights and the taxpayer must be guaranteed a share in the upside profits from all rescued banks. But other than that, give them the capital and the flexibility to put out this fire. I always said to myself: Our government is so broken that it can only work in response to a huge crisis. But now we�ve had a huge crisis, and the system still doesn�t seem to work. Our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, have gotten so out of practice of working together that even in the face of this system-threatening meltdown they could not agree on a rescue package, as if they lived on Mars and were just visiting us for the week, with no stake in the outcome. The story cannot end here. If it does, assume the fetal position.