“Can we ask Ms. Pelosi to enforce party unity as one normally might enforce party unity?”
During the O.J. trial — the first one, you remember that one? — a pivotal moment occurred when Chris Darden asked O.J. to put on the gloves used by the murderer. There were numerous reasons why it was a boneheaded move for Darden to do this. Notably, Simpson put on the murderer’s gloves over a pair of latex gloves, and it’s hard to put on a pair of gloves when you already have a pair on.
But mainly, it was a stupid move for Darden to make, because he set up a dramatic moment that was completely within the control of his opposing party. All Simpson had to do was look like he was unable to put on the gloves, and any chance of a conviction would be gone.
For some reason, I was reminded of this when the bailout failed yesterday.
John McCain set up a dramatic moment where he would come in and save the day by convincing Republican lawmakers to support the bailout. But he made this move in a Congress completely controlled by Democrats.
And the Democrats clearly didn’t like it. Harry Reid demanded to know where McCain stood on the bill — but after McCain surprised Reid with his overly dramatic campaign “suspension,” Reid told McCain he wasn’t needed. He told the press that McCain wasn’t being helpful or even articulate in the meetings.
McCain worked the phones, while Obama didn’t call a single Democrat lawmaker. McCain reportedly turned around about 60 lawmakers. It wasn’t quite enough.
People are now arguing about where the blame lies. Democrats point out that Democrats supported the bill, while Republicans opposed it. Also, we’re told, Republicans promised a certain number of votes, and didn’t deliver. Meanwhile, Republicans point out that Democrats controlled the chamber. If they really wanted a bill passed, a bill would have passed.
Who’s right? I don’t know. But I remember hearing before the fact that Democrats didn’t want to pass the bill without a majority of Republicans in favor. Did they change their minds?
And isn’t it odd that this all ends up making John McCain’s gesture look empty and incompetent?
Hmmmmm.
Remember Chris Darden’s pathetic entreaty to Judge Lance Ito as O.J. clowned with those gloves:
Can we ask him to straighten his fingers and extend them into the glove as one normally might put a glove on?
You can ask, Darden. But I don’t know why he would comply.
McCain asked Nancy Pelosi to put on the gloves. He made a dramatic gesture, but made it at a time when control of its outcome lay in the hands of the other party.
And whaddya know: the dramatic gesture failed. The gloves didn’t fit.
P.S. Most people seem to assume some version of this bailout will pass. If it does, watch closely to see whose votes change. If I’m right, it will be mostly Democrat votes. I could be wrong. We’ll see.
I guess now we have to come up with some witty line along the meme of “if the bill don’t fit, you must…quit?”
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:02 amGovernor Palin has a historic opportunity to resurrect the bailout that was rejected yesterday. Her natural constituency is the people who are opposed to the bailout and whose objections prevented the bailout from passing. During the debate Thursday , Governor Palin can bring these people on board by doing the following:
1)Showing that she understands the source of these voters’ anger.
MartyH (7acda8) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:02 am2)Explaining in layman’s terms what the mess is and how we got into it.
3)Explaining the implications of not supporting a bailout.
4)The bill that was rejected Thursday was the best possible under the circumstances, and the alternatives are worse.
5)This is what she would like to see happen
a. Have the bill brought up again for a vote on Friday. By noon Eastern so that the markets will have time to react. (This needs to be put in motion before the debate.)
b. Contact your Congressperson tonight and tomorrow morning and tell them that you now support today’s bill.
6) After the bailout passes, elect McCain/Palin to make sure that your tax dollars are spent wisely.
Governor Palin is the only political figure trusted by the people who object to this bailout. She can show real leadership by being the motivating engine behind getting the bailout passed.
It was a trap and McCain walked into it. Pelosi did not “whip” the vote and committee chairs and members of Franks’ committee voted no. There was no sign that the Democrats considered this a crucial vote. The Republican leaders could have said that these signs of a casual approach convinced their members that there was no urgency and they could vote their conscience. Instead, they made it worse by complaining about that reckless speech by Pelosi. It has all the signs of a trap.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:17 amI think Pelosi did this on purpose so ‘O’ would look better and win the election. A good portion of Frank’s Democrats voted against this bill. Does it not seem that if you were part of the writing of it you would support it? If she really wanted it to pass she would have talked up the good points and talked to the american people about what good it would do. Instead she slammed it just for political means. Down with the Dems. Another example of the do nothing Democrats.
sandrakey (c84f8d) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:20 amI’m quite sure that more GOP members will be changing than votes to AYE, than DEM members.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:22 am.
The REpublicnas won’t be able to assign blame to the guilty (i.e., the legislooters who fought against redlining, etc.) either.
ACORN cash gets in the House bill. More GOP members defect to Nay. The Dem Nays before are now Ayes. It goes to the Senate. The ACORN cash gets removed. The bill passes. Bush signs it.
The markets stay the same.
Does this doom the GOP or help it?
Gabriel Sutherland (90b3a1) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:35 am— ACORN cash gets in the House bill. More GOP members defect to Nay. The Dem Nays before are now Ayes. It goes to the Senate. The ACORN cash gets removed. The bill passes. Bush signs it. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:45 am.
You left out a step. Both chambers have to pass exactly the same language. If the Senate amends the bill, that bill, as amended, goes back to the House.
.
No matter what the future holds, one can count on both parties taking credit for the good, and assigning blame for the bad, to the opposing party. This is one way that both sides work together to avoid accountability.
.
Senators Kyl, Domenici, McConnell, Alexander and McCain are vocally in strong support of the government buying the toxic paper. Passage in the Senate is a slam dunk gimme. Heck, the Senate would have passed Paulson’s 3-pager.
McCain is playing by the same rules Bush did–and it shows in his declining support.
The media don’t play fair. They hate Republicans.
If they bring a knife, you bring a gun, McCain!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:50 amCould it really be true that House R’s changed their vote simply because Pelosi’s inflammatory statements hurt their feelings?? How utterly shameful, if so. This bailout proposal is so ginormous and so much is at stake, its incomprehensible that they would allow her to so easily push their buttons and influence their votes. Vote no on principle because it’s a very bad bill but don’t change your vote because one woman has caused you grief… my confidence in those with R’s after their names is sinking as quickly as the economy.
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:54 amPelosi may be the most skillful politician to set foot in Washington since LBJ.
What I believe she did here, she prevented a palace coup and maintained her leadership position. Looking at the numbers, there could have been a “Republican” bill with the support of almost all the Republican Representatives and a relative handful of pro-business Democrats. If …
Maybe Bush should have called her in first off and made her, instead of Paulsen, the point-man.
nk (5335a4) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:59 amI sure don’t give Pelosi credit for smarts. If she wanted to be smart, she would have whipped the bill and left the Republicans out but she was afraid of a backlash from constituents. Most of the Democrats in tight races were allowed to vote no and many leadership Democrats voted no. Now you may credit cunning, which allows a trillion dollar loss on Wall Street to gain a few votes in November, as “smarts,” but I don’t. What she shows is a sort of low cunning typical of many hack politicians.
The NY Times has a typical dishonest piece about the vote today. They may succeed in winning the election for Obama but I don’t know what he will do then. Remember the movie “The Candidate”?
“What do I do now ?”
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:07 amThe problem with this analysis is that the American people at large opposed the bailout by a wide margin. Voters would not blame Republicans for killing a bill they opposed.
First and foremost, the backers of a bailout must sell it to the American people. A bailout can not pass with landslide opposition from the electorate.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:15 am#3, MikeK, I understand your point of view, but I’m not yet persuaded it was a trap. I agree Big Ass Nancy failed to bring her votes to the floor, and her insane diatribe may well have cost some GOP votes. However, there’s a wide variety of possible explainations for the individual Dems who refused to support the bailout.
In fact, the more individual reasons, the less likely it’s a pre-arranged trap. The taxpaying voters reject the bailout by a wide margin and any Dem in a close race can’t be expected to fall on his sword for a charade.
Some Dems are actually honorable people, I know there’s little evidence to support that contention, but it’s true nevertheless, and they well may have voted their conscience.
Among the other Dems who voted NO are likely to be several with their fingers in FannieMac’s cookie jar, (not the main perps like Barney Frank) but the small fry like the ones on his committee who need to be on-record as opposed to the bailout as cover for their greedy moneygrubbing.
Also, there could be some horse trading going on as well, or, some past debts being collected. I’m not sure just how much of that sort of thing goes on, but some surely does.
So, I’m going to wait and see before I sign onto the trap explaination. It could be only a fig leaf designed to cover nasty Nancy’s red rear end, or simply a story paranoid Republicans tell themselves to explain the shadow figures dancing in the dark.
Ropelight (1be620) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:18 amDana,
Nobody changed their vote soley because of the Pelosi speech. There were plenty of rep’s wavering in their support. Pelosi’s unnecessary partisan ravings were, shall we say, not helpful to them.
What she did was the opposite of leadership, assuming she even wanted the bill to pass. I lean to the sabotage side myself and am not conspiratorially minded. Just a straight-up power play and to hell with the country.
Nice OJ analogy, Pat and not far off the mark. Let’s hope McCain can overcome the bad faith of Reid and Pelosi. Let’s also hope that he’s seeing things now for what they are rather than what he’d like them to be.
That the other side was negotiating the fate of our economy and financial markets in bad faith should hopefully be the last straw for McCain. Time to name names of the corrupt who led us to the brink. I wrote on another post that we have to come up with a name for the corrupt pols that sticks. The Fannie five or the GSE three, depending on how many we want to take on, are catchy and might resonate with the public.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:25 amIgnoring Pelosi’s rant for the media and campaign ads for a moment, Republicans were really supposed to fall on their swords and vote for an unpopular bill when they saw people like Jesse Jackson Jr., Co-Chair of the Obama campaign and someone not in a close race voting against it? How about John Conyers or one of Barney Frank’s subcommittee chairs? Gimme a fucking break.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:27 amJust saw McSame on TV. He’s an old dog and can’t seem to learn any new tricks.
The chance of a lifetime is staring him right in the face, and he refuses to see it. He wants to relive his glory days as the “Maverick,” the leader of the gang of 14 and similar bipartisan blunders.
Why? I don’t know, unless he thinks MSM big shots will suddenly rush to his side, fight among themselves to kiss his ass just like in the good old days. Fat chance. Let’s face it, he’s too old to cut the mustard.
Ropelight (1be620) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:31 amThe fact that the taxpaying voters rejected the bailout by a wide margin is the most important factor, above all else.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:36 amI tend to think that the GOP members who opposed the bill may have been genuinely thinking of the wishes of their constituents, whose displeasure at this bailout package has been well – known. Regardless of their motivations, they now have to come up with an effective alternative, or else the MSM will be forever braying about the mess they put the economy in, even though the facts suggest otherwise.
I sure don’t give Pelosi credit for smarts.
I don’t, either. When I worked for a big magzine publisher back in the 90’s, we had the opportunity to have Ms. Pelosi come to one of our annual sales meetings, this time held in SF – needless to say, even the far left crowd at the magazine was none too impressed with her speech or comments afterward. Remember, this is the same woman who claimed that natural gas was not a fossil fuel. And now she’s allegedly the evil mastermind behind the scuttling of this bill? Yeah, don’t think so.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:42 amLooks like the markets are handling the problem.
Is it just coincidence that the estimates of the true price for the 700 Billion dollar banker’s beemer rescue bill is 1.2 billion dollars is equal to the amount of toxic gas release in the stock market yesterday?
Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:56 amI tend to think that the GOP members who opposed the bill may have been genuinely thinking of the wishes of their constituents
I tend to think that both the Republican members who opposed the bill and the Democratic members who did were genuinely thinking of the wishes of their constitutents.
This bill is no more popular on the left than it is on the right.
I hold Speaker Pelosi responsible for getting the count wrong and not knowing that it would fail before the vote was held; but I doubt there was anything she could do to get more Democratic votes than she did without losing the Republican, and the Blue Dog Democrat, votes she had.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:01 amMy “representative” Xavier Becerra touts himself as “Assistant to the Speaker of the House” and he voted against the “bailout”. Nice assist.
Peter W (d63e2b) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:19 amI don’t see how saying Pelosi’s speech caused folks to not vote for the package is so bad. If the reason why a Congressperson planned to vote for it was for unity (Pelosi’s appeal for Republicans to support the bill to make it bi-partisan comes to mind) then Pelosi’s speech zeroed out that reason. Politicians don’t always vote their conscience.
Bel Aire (2fd7f7) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:23 am“And isn’t it odd that this all ends up making John McCain’s gesture look empty and incompetent?”
– Patterico
Like he needs any help looking empty and incompetent.
Cue Dmac and Icy Truth bitching: “But Obama’s incompetent too!!!!”
Maybe, but between the two of them, McCain’s the one who insists on looking like a moron on national TV.
Leviticus (ab6dbd) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:23 amAnd the Deputy Minority Whip didn’t vote at all, which hardly seems helpful. (He’s not running for re-election, but that doesn’t really provide an excuse for abstaining).
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:25 amI heard that the Republicans heard that a Dem was on NPR during the vote and crowing that they were going to tag them with the bill in November.
End of cooperation by Republicans.
Patricia (5f00ec) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:25 am“I doubt there was anything she could do to get more Democratic votes than she did”
Yup. Asking her closest friends and allies to vote for the bill would have been a bridge too far. Or Franks’ Banking sub-committee chairs. Im. Poss. I. Ble.
Bel Aire (2fd7f7) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:26 amIs it just coincidence that the estimates of the true price for the 700 Billion dollar banker’s beemer rescue bill is 1.2 billion dollars is equal to the amount of toxic gas release in the stock market yesterday?
“Toxic gas.” It’s toxic gas if it’s “money maybe” lost to speculators on margin. It’s not toxic loss if it’s actually 400 million Big Macs, i.e. real cash, from labor and productivity, which went to buy 400 million Big Macs for stock brokers and investors smart enough to cash out.
nk (5335a4) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:26 amBel Aire: do you have evidence that she didn’t ask them?
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:28 amIt is far past time for John McCain to re-find the steel in his backbone. He has, in the past, bent over so far in attempted bi-partisanship, that it is a wonder that he can still stand straight.
AOracle (7b9099) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:48 amFind the steel, John!
Confront those who would attempt to destroy you!
Lead the fight for the future of the country!
If you can’t, or won’t, then retire from the field now!
Is he in a close race?
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:48 amI watched the O.J. trial. The gloves in question appeared to be too small for O.J.’s hand. Call the outcome what you will (clowning) it looked to most people the gloves were too small for O.J. To make the claim later about why they did not fit other than the fact they did not is very lawyer like. Here is another fact. McCain did his job as a U.S. Senator. He came back to Washington to do his job and help try to get a bill, faulty though it may be, passed. Obama voted present, once again. Obama is excellent at taking credit for the actions of others. Last night Newt Gingrich (?) spoke of a plan to alleviate the problem including expanding FDIC protection. Today, Obama claims it was his idea and he forwarded it this morning. I refer to the record of accomplishments of both candidates. When Obama was a community organizer, candidate for the legislature and anything else, he made promises of action to be taken. The only thing that improved was the space he left vacant.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (620731) — 9/30/2008 @ 10:44 amComment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — 9/30/2008 @ 10:44 am
I am reminded of a situation that occurred in San Diego CA in the early 80’s.
AOracle (7b9099) — 9/30/2008 @ 11:09 amMayor Pete Wilson was famously at odds with a member of his City Council, and also with a County Supervisor that represented the same general area as the Councilman.
When the Supe announced his intention to retire, and the Councilman stated he would run for that Supe seat, the Mayor announced that the election of the Councilman to the Board of Supervisors would raise the intelligence level of both bodies!
If the Republicans had not tried to reinstate redlining and slavery, the bill would have passed.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/30/2008 @ 11:48 am#14, whether wavering or not, this should not have been a deciding nor influencing factor in their decision. From NRO, (emph. added)
After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi’s speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/30/2008 @ 11:50 amMichael: I can’t imagine that Rep. Becerra is in a close race.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/30/2008 @ 12:10 pmDana 34-
my understanding is that what Pelosi’s speach was supposed to do was state the purpose of the bill.
So, folks who were reluctant but willing were suddenly hit in the face with Pelosi politicing so she’d have a chance to say “See! Almost the *whole house* agrees that this is ALL Bush’s fault!”
This kind of BS is why I don’t like politics in action; can’t act in good faith unless both sides will at least fake it.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 9/30/2008 @ 12:24 pm#35— Rep. Becerra is running unopposed.
Peter W (d63e2b) — 9/30/2008 @ 12:52 pm(OT: I started wearing latex or nitrile gloves under other gloves years ago in extreme cold. It works well, keeping my hands warmer, and I don’t have a problem putting on the over-glove. OJ may have put on the best acting performance of his life.)
htom (412a17) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:06 pmDow Industrials currently up over 475 points, flirting with an across the board big time up-day. NASDAQ is up, and S&P 500 up too. Sure seems like the Bulls are in the ascendency.
Expect some pull back as day traders get out before the close.
Ropelight (1be620) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:09 pmFirst and foremost, the backers of a bailout must sell it to the American people.
She could have begun by selling it to the House. The whole thing has been terribly handled. It did look like a setup to me.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:19 pm…gloves…
Let’s also not forget that leather, when wet, tends to shrink slightly when it dries; and those gloves were very wet with the blood of two people when they were entered into evidence.
AOracle (7b9099) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:22 pm“So, folks who were reluctant but willing were suddenly hit in the face with Pelosi politicing so she’d have a chance to say “See! Almost the *whole house* agrees that this is ALL Bush’s fault!”
Heh. My thought is, by now they should know how cunning she is and be one step ahead of her. This is cutthroat politics at its worst – an economic meltdown plus the election. It would appear a no-holds barred season and I want to know that those with R’s after their name are expecting the worst and not caught unaware….
Of course, I also want Palin to realize this too before Thursday night!
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:24 pmwho insists on looking like a moron on national TV.
Yeah, you tell ’em, Leviticus! He looks like a moron in your eyes, while your hero and heroine look like…what, exactly? Profiles in courage? No, that’s not it – putting their reputations on the line in order to pass legislation they felt was critical to the continuing functioning of the economy?
No, that’s not it, either – how about acting like the craven politicos they’ve always been? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:28 pmJesse Jackson Jr., the co-chair of the Obama campaign, didn’t even for for the thing.
For this crisis, for Obama down for “present“.
Neo (cba5df) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:36 pmYeah, but don’t dare tell us he looks like a moron for doing absolutely nothing, as usual. It’s all about teh nuance.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:45 pmPat, sorry but I reject your premise. The Democrats didn’t set this bill up to fail – in fact they continued to offer compromises to bring Republicans on board.
As you note, it was McCain who injected himself into the process and stupidly called for that White House meeting that only highlighted the Republican House opposition. Did the Democrats use that for political advantage against McCain afterwards – absolutely; you get handed lemons, you make lemonade. But were the Republicans offering up realistic alternatives to the provisions that had been negotiated with their ‘leadership’? No, their alternatives were demonstrably laughable (capital gains tax cuts? really? the lose-lose of insuring predictable losses?) and only showed how little they understood the problem and how little ‘leadership’ they actually had (including that provided by McCain).
Did the Democrats go on to make hay of that fact? No, they set about further negotiations in good faith; making compromises by dropping some of their own provisions and adopting an insurance provision to pay lip service to the House Republicans to save them from embarassment and bring them onboard. Why? Because neither party wants to “own” this bill – it’s simply too unpopular with voters. Had it been better “sold” to the voters – and that was Paulsen/Bernake/Bush ‘s job – maybe one party would have been able to step up, but likely there really wasn’t a way to make the entire concept palatable to the voter. Hence the call for bipartisanship in passing an unpopular, but needed bill just prior to an election.
True bipartisanship would have been a bill which was supported 50%/50% by both parties, with the majority party providing the +1 vote necessary to pass. The Democrats delivered that with a healthy buffer – 60%. Last week they were calling for 100 House Republicans (i.e. 50%), yesterday they would have accepted 39% – they got less than 33%. That can’t be blamed on the Democrats. What else could the Democrats have put in the bill to bring the Republicans on board?
I understand your point that McCain was putting himself in the hands of the Democrats and therefore was just begging to be torpedoed by them, but they aren’t the ones who did so – that was his own party. It was within his own power to change that situation; he failed. Or did he expect the Democrats to go out of their way and risk their own re-election bids to save his? If so, that was a very stupid gambit.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:48 pmDmac – It is racist to criticize Baracky’s response, or lack thereof. Standing on the sidelines and shooting spitwads at people is totally leading.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:49 pmSpeaker Pelosi has all of the votes she needs in her own caucus.
If this bill is soooooo unpopular with the people back home that it requires broad bi-partisan support, then the fuckin’ Speaker of the House should not be out in front of it in a blatantly and hostile political manner, and the leaders of the House and Senate should be out selling the “why” to the American people.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:53 pmI should have posted this here and not the other thread,
Yesterday, Democrats compared McCain’s first response to the financial crisis to Bush and New Orleans, and today McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds returns the favor:
“We welcome Barack Obama’s new-found interest in passing this critical economic rescue of our economy, but the American people needed leadership last week, and our next President can’t wait until after the levees break to start making phone calls.”
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:54 pmWaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaa, waaaaaaaaaaa, waaaaaaaa. The house minority leader John Boehner came out crying about Nancy Pelosi blaming her for the rejection of the bailout bill. Is there just one republican out there who is capable of seeing through Boehner’s attempt to assign blame to others for the failure of his own party members for the rejection of the bailout? Republicans must believe Nancy Pelosi is an extremely powerful person to have so greatly affected the entire republican party.
It is obvious republicans would rather pout and blame others rather than do what they are supposed to do and that is to represent America and do what is right for Americans, regardless of how popular or unpopular their action. “Pouting before People” is the new republican mantra because if their feelings are hurt so easily they should not be in congress. They should be in therapy, preferably in a lockup mental ward with dozens of doctors medicating them 24/7.
John Boehner also must not have much power, even as the leader of the republicans in the house. He was able to only convince a paltry 33% of his fellow republicans to vote for the bailout bill. A supposed ‘leader’ with so little clout isn’t much of a leader is he?
I find it almost humorous because republicans, especially the conservative talk show freaks, constantly attack the democratic party as being too touchy feelie and only react out of feelings, rather than intellect. Not one of the conservative radio freaks has uttered one word of blame on members of their own corrupt political party.
Neal Bush (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:55 pmLET THE HANGINGS BEGIN !!!
The only way to stop the massive corruption in American businesses is to pass laws that make any executive guilty of screwing the people subject to life imprisonment or hanging on prime time television. We the people need to start to see that white collared criminals stop getting away with their corrupt acts. Under the current system, they are virtually unaccountable for any corrupt acts. And when they do get caught and ‘punished’ they go to country club prisons where it is more like a vacation than a prison. And when the corrupt thugs get out they still get to keep the money they stole.
Let’s apply the same laws we have for drug dealers applied to white collared criminals. When an executive is caught the government must seize ALL of his assets. All of his mansions. All of his mini-ships. All of his $250,000 cars. All of his bank accounts, even the ones oversees. And all of the islands he bought with stolen money.
During the Savings & Loan scandal in the 1980s under Reagan all of the crooks got to go free. The government couldn’t even seize the property that was bought with stolen money. All of their mansions, mini-ships, Rolls Royces, oceanfront vacation homes,
GW Bush’s own brother Neal Bush a criminal in the Savings & Loan scandal. He was caught stealing ONE BILLION at the Silverado Savings and Loan in Colorado. Even though Neil Bush was one of seven defendants who stole ONE BILLION DOLLARS from the people he only had to pay a paltry $50,000 fine. Who says crime doesn’t pay??? It does and if you steal, you might as well steal as much as you can, because with our current system of justice in this country the more you steal guarantees that you will not suffer punishment.
The same Neal Bush also was able to get a multi-million dollar loan from the Small Business Administration while his daddy was president. Neal Bush took the money and then went out of business within a year. He never paid back a dime. Do you think you could get away with an SBA government loan and then not have to pay it back? Hell no! But Neal Bush did because the head of the SBA was a woman appointed by his daddy, the president.
Neal Bush has a long record of unethical and illegal business activities that would have made Al Capone blush with lust and envy. He was even involved in the Dubai port scandal. The previous accounts are just of Neal Bush’s business crimes. In his private life he routinely goes on sexual junkets to Southeast Asia to screw children. That fact came out in his divorce proceedings when his wife told the truth about her diseased husband.
I am against abortion, but in the case of the Hitlers and the Bushes in the world I wish Barbara Bush would have spared the world of her defective offspring and at least kept her legs shut. The world would be a much better place.
So much for accountability and responsibility. Republicans only mention ‘personal responsibility’ and the ‘rule of the law’ during elections to dupe people into voting for them. In reality they don’t practice personal responsibility or following the law when one in their own party steals, defrauds, or commits other crimes. BTW, not one republican has ever denounced GW Bush’s brother, but they froth at the mouth every time they attack one of the relatives of any democrat. Are all republicans hypocrites? Apparently so.
Aren’t you sick of the wealthy screwing you? Don’t you think it’s time to start punishing criminals who destroy families’ life savings? Anyone who does that to another person should be given a life sentence or be hung on national television. I am sick of the wanton corruption, especially since the Bush Regime began stripping away one regulation after another as soon as he stole the office of the presidency.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:57 pmWe await the perp-walk of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson …
Kneel & Bob – Pelosi is one hell of a Leader, huh? She lost over 90 of her own people, including people like Bacera in leadership. Baracky clearly showed his leadership skills on this one.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:11 pmSo JD (@1:53pm), it’s one party’s job to save the country and your party’s job to locate scapegoats? Do I have that right?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:11 pmSHOCKA! No, you do not have it right, Bob.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:13 pmOh, I guess I should add: “your party’s job to locate scapegoats while demanding that their emotional needs be met!”
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:16 pmSHOCKA! Again, not even close, bobby.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:18 pmShorter JD & Republican House members: “Politics is mean! Hug ME!”
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:20 pm“They may succeed in winning the election for Obama but I don’t know what he will do then. Remember the movie “The Candidate”? “What do I do now ?””
– – –
But that’s the beauty – he doesn’t HAVE TO do anything, except sit in that chair and NOT VETO BILLS.
It’s gonna be Christmas On Every Day That Ends With The Letter “Y”, for four years, if you’re an entitlement-seeking, rent-gathering, social-guilt whore.
– – –
“We the people need to start to see that white collared criminals stop getting away with their corrupt acts.”
– – –
Know where all of the “missing” money went? Every dollar?
Understand that the entire crisis exists because We The People pressured banks into taking too little security for risky loans that we made them issue. Every time one of those loans was used in a real estate transaction, a seller took away the bubble-induced extra profit on the home’s sale price, plus the additional little smidge of money attributable to the presence of that buyer – yet another buyer – helping to build up a seller’s market through sheer mass demand.
All of those $Billions of ExtraDough went into house-sellers’ pockets as they rode the bubble up and leaped at the right time. See, that money went away long ago.
It’s just that we just finally, this week, had to make the accounting entries to reflect those sales.
bobby b (361921) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:21 pmNANCY PELOSI TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH
Everything Nancy Pelosi said before the vote was the truth. Why can’t republicans handle the truth? Pelosi talked about the disasterous Bush Regime’s failures in every measurable area, and she was correct. Ever since Bush stole his office and was sworn in he, along with the rabid republican party, started to pass bill after bill to strip regulation from every business they could find.
In 2000, during the presidential election GW Bush said over and over again “Businesses MUST be allowed to regulate themselves!”. Republicans actually believe there should be no regulations on businesses. Repubilcans actually believe corporations should own our government and control our people. Republicans actually believe no corporation should be accountable for their actions no matter how many people are killed by one of their drugs, tainted food, or mutilated patients in hospitals.
Bush stopped saying “Businesses MUST be allowed to regulate themselves!” after the Enron scandal surfaced in the Fall of 2001. But even though he wasn’t saying it anymore the republican party, which controlled all three branches of government, continued to slice and dice regulations allowing corrupt thugs to do what they wanted. Now we have an impending economic collapse all because the repulbican party does not believe there should be one regulation to keep corporations honest.
In the Fall of 2001, Dick Cheney had at least six energy meetings with the corrupt Ken Lay of Enron. To this day Cheney is fighting to keep the minutes of those meetings secret. Obviously Cheney doesn’t want to be exposed as the crook he is.
During the 2000 election, GW Bush blasted Al Gore for the Clinton Presidency not having an energy policy. And then Bush once in office relied on corrupt thugs like Ken Lay to determine the energy policy of the United States. Because of the so-called energy policy of the Bush Regime, we are now faced with record prices for gasoline, if you can even find a gas station where you can buy it.
So much for Bush’s “Energy Policy”. All he cared about was rewarding all of the corrupt oil companies with massive profits. Bush even started a war based entirely on lies just so he could funnel hundreds of billions to republican-friendly corrupt corporations, like Halliburton. It’s no coincidence that Halliburton received so many no-bid contracts directly from the White House because Dick Cheney was its CEO for five years.
Can anyone imagine what the republicans would have said and done if Al Gore was sworn into office and then funneled hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to his former company? There was not one peep of contempt from any republican or from any right wing conservative freak show host.
Dick Cheney was hired as the CEO of Halliburton even though he had no experience as a CEO and no experience in oil. The only experience he had was having his driver pull his limo into a full service gas station and having it filled up. The real reason why Halliburton hired Cheney was because they wanted to use his connections to funnel our tax dollars into their corporate coffers. Again, not one republican spoke out against the obvious corruption.
I mention all of this because it all is related to the current bailout idea by Bush. He wanted to hand over 700 billion dollars to criminals who stole and manipulated your money which eventually caused this economic mess. Bush’s plan was to give the entire amount of the money to Paulsen and give him 100 percent control over it. In section 8 of the proposal it stated that Paulsen would have sole discretion over every dime used of the 700 billion. At no time in the history of America has such an obvious scam tried to be perpetrated on the American people. It was only after the democrats in congress rebelled and revised Bush’s bailout plan was Section 8 removed.
The arrogance of GW Bush is almost beyond comprehension. He was so arrogant over the war he started all based on lies that he said he didn’t care if everyone in the world or the US was against the war as long as his dog and Laura were for it.
That speaks volumes about how mentally diseased Bush really is and how he is completely void of any feelings for any other human being on earth. But when you look at the family of criminals he came from you can start to understand.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:24 pmLarry, a real idiot – Nevermind … Where did you copy and paste that from? It is not nice to use other people’s words without attribution.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:27 pmWaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaa!
Brilliant and scintillating analysis, Neal – we await your forthcoming pronouncements in your newsletter, sure to be called Mad Political Skillz by Booshie.
It was within his own power to change that situation; he failed. Or did he expect the Democrats to go out of their way and risk their own re-election bids to save his? If so, that was a very stupid gambit.
This is even better analysis, given by the immortal Lobotomy Bob. So let’s see if the rest of us understand your point – it was entirely in McCain’s power to bring the minority party into line, while your Princess McBotox gets a complete pass?
No, they set about further negotiations in good faith;
Of course they did – because Lobotomy Bob says so, so there! Awesome work there, truly.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:31 pmWhere did you copy and paste that from?
I’d have to give my top vote to ManBearPig – this is right up her noxious and fungal – infected alley.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:33 pmBob Loblaw – if you had half a clue as to how things run on Capitol Hill, you would accept, at face value, that Pelosi and the Dems were more interested in political cover, than they were in passage.
Do you know what the odds are, if the Speaker cares, of having FIVE committee chairs voting against a Speaker in a crucial vote? Zero.
She made it perfectly clear that the politics trumped the issue. This is not arguable, sir.
Ed (385e88) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:37 pmBobby B, Did We The People mandate that banks take all those mortgages and turn them into Mortgage Backed Securities? And then further spin them off into derivatives that further divorce them from their underlying assets and in a way that nobody seems to be able to articulate in a clear manner? And then using these to over leverage themselves well past the point of no return? If so, then We The People are clearly a foolish We. But perhaps this is more a problem of a foolish Some of The People?
The heart of the problem does not lie in the CRA. The heart of the problem lies with some very clever people who were perhaps too clever for their own good, but in any case turned out to be too clever for our own good. I know We would all be better served if We did some more reading rather than just parroting.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:39 pmCorrupt Banks and Predatory Lending
In the 1970s a prospective home buyer had to show proof of their earning capabilities and their debts. They also could not get a loan if their mortgage payment was more than 25 percent of their take home pay. Because of unbridled greed from parasitic banks and loaning institutions, those rules were eliminated because they wanted to trap as many people into loans as they could. It’s called predatory lending.
Yes, there are a lot of people who knowingly bought houses and knew the schemes they were getting into, but they thought they could make money by reselling the house in a short time. But most foreclosures are from people who are losing their homes because of lost jobs, increasing mortgage premiums, and balloon payments.
California and Florida are leading the nation in foreclosures and it is not just a coincidence that California and Florida are also the highest states in the country in unemployment. In both states unemployment has skyrocketed upward by 50% within just the past year.
They also came up with a myriad of schemes to trap unsuspecting buyers into agreeing to a loan. In the 1970s all rates were fixed, but the corrupt and greedy loan institutions changed that to varible rates. They are on record of telling home buyers the interest rates would either stay the same or go down. Millions believed them and ended up losing their homes because as the interest rates increased so did mortgage payments.
Republicans controlled both houses of congress for almost every year from 1994 to 1996. During that twelve years they changed the way banking institutions could operate, allowing them to devise ever gimmick in the world to entice and then capture unsuspecting home buyers into shady mortgage schemes. Now that millions are facing foreclosure the money is drying up because the greed of the banking industry.
Republicans are always on the side of business and against what is best for people, human beings. Five years ago they changed bankruptcy laws preventing people from escaping the tyranny of debt from credit card companies. Republicans always sell out the people when corrupt corporations are buying their elections.
I have had it with republicans. They are so gullible and easily manipulated by propaganda and fear. While Bush was scaring you to death by telling you Bin Laden was going to kill you, Bush has allowed over 12 million illegal aliens to simply walk across our borders. The next time you go to an airport to go somewhere and have to go through a full body cavity search remember how open our borders are and how Bush lied when he said he would protect us from terrorism.
I would rather have the $12,500 every family is paying for supposed “Homeland Security” and Bush’s Iraq War, which has not reduced Al Quaeda by one person, but rather has created tens or hundreds of thousands of new members. Bush has been a boon to Al Quaeda’s recruitment. Thanks Bush. Thanks republicans. You have virtually destroyed the country I fought for.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:46 pmLarry, your astroturfing is not only clumsily apparent, you’ve left out the most important part of your nomenclature:
Larry, a real patriot & veteran…and Concerned, Conservative Christian.
Got that?
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:50 pmEd, There is no political naivety in what I posted; you have simply reformulated what I already said. Yes political coverage was sought. Now answer me: which side failed to provide coverage? Which side did the heavy lifting? And now you complain that it simply wasn’t heavy enough? Do you think both sides went into that vote without some assurances from the other? Now who is being naive?
Dmac, I already gave you your shorter @2:11pm – and spare me your childish taunts, this is not a time for children.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 2:56 pmTo “JD”… Everything I write I write myself. And my articles are based on fact and a great deal of research. I noticed you failed to rebut even one word or sentence in my aritcle and instead resorted to tactics common among republicans, simple attacks and name calling. It is discouraging to see so many people (republicans) who do not search for the truth, are uninterested in the truth, and who even run from the truth. As long as republicans continue to get their distorted information from the Rupert Murdock owned Faux News or the conservative radio talk show hosts, like the cowardly Hannity, Limblahhh and O’Reilly you will always be in the dark and you will continue to blindly vote republican without thinking of what the consequences of your actions will be.
Our founding fathers warned that an ignorant populace was the greatest threat to future survival of our country. They were right, because today’s republican party is no longer a political party, it is more like a disease worse than Ebola.
I will debate you on any issue, but I know that as soon as a person responds with a less than a one sentence response usually with the word ‘idiot’ in it I am not communicating with an informed or even rational person. That is sad, for you, and for our country.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:03 pmBullshit. Where did you copy and paste that drivel in #65 from?
Larry – The volume of words does not make you any brighter. That I can reubt your fanciful diatribe in less than a sentence says more about the noxious lies you traffic in than my ability to form a sentence.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:27 pmFor those interested, here’s an instructive video on How to Build a Self-Aimed Torpedo.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:33 pmLarry, a real mental midget, patriot, veteran and all-around swell guy.
I was going to go through and fisk #65, but realized that I could condense my response down to the following.
Your diatribe is a host of unsupported assertions, opinions stated as fact, and bald faced lies.
Larry – 28,936 words of nonsense.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:34 pmJD’s succinct rebuttal – 16
Bob – Were we to wish to read Joshua’s musings, we would go to his fevered swamp.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:35 pmand spare me your childish taunts, this is not a time for children.
Then why do you write like one, Larry? Your link just gave your entire game away – we don’t waste our time debating common variety Trolls here, in case you haven’t figured that out by now. Time to go forth with your fevered musings to KosLand. They just love that kind of stuff – real box office boffo.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:51 pmHere’s the first comment on Lobotomy’s link:
We need new rules,new leadership.John McCain if a failed leader.Forget him.
Gosh, Larry – wherever can we find cogent analysis such as this?
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:54 pmWhoops, those posts were directed at Bob – my bad.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:54 pmAnyone need any tar and/or feathers?
AOracle (7b9099) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:56 pmDmac – Give Comment #1 a break. Its idiocy is dwarfed by Comment #2. And by Larry the Patriot’s incoherent ramblings.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:56 pmDmac – Bob is marginally more coherent than Larry the Patriot.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 3:57 pm“Larry – The volume of words does not make you any brighter. That I can reubt your fanciful diatribe in less than a sentence says more about the noxious lies you traffic in than my ability to form a sentence.”
– JD
So far, your “reubttals” have consisted of “SHOCKA! No, you do not have it right, Bob” and “Your diatribe is a host of unsupported assertions, opinions stated as fact, and bald faced lies” (which due to your boner for brevity is itself an unsupported assertion). Biting analysis, JD. In the Point-Counterpoint of Patterico’s Pontifications, you are Dan Akroyd to Larry’s Jane Curtin.
When you say to Larry that “the volume of words does not make you any brighter”, you’re right… but your preference for hit-and-run verbal jabs doesn’t make you a genius, either.
Leviticus (41975c) — 9/30/2008 @ 4:03 pmLevi – I have never made myself our to be some holier-than-thou self-Lefteous patriot and veteran either, unlike Larry.
After I get my girls to bed, I will go through Larry’s rhetorical diarrhea, point by noxious point, just for your edification.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 4:11 pmLevi – I have never claimed to be a genius. In fact, I have stated quite the opposite. I am dummerer than a box of timmah’s.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 4:12 pmLarry, the real vet and patriot, needs to do a little more research. About the ties between Enron and the Clinton administration on issues like global warming. About the fact that Obama voted for “the Bush energy policy” and McCain did not. About how the lending practices he decries were set in motion by Andrew Cuomo at HUD during the Clinton administration. And so on. And try to cite some authority for his unsupported BS next time.
Karl (1b4668) — 9/30/2008 @ 4:35 pmHey! I never said read the comments, I said watch the video.
I strongly recommend avoiding the comments sections on sites on both the left & right, as most comments are puerile nonsense of the highest order; they are drivel best suited to be wiped away summarily. There are very few exceptions to this rule on either side. Obsidian Wings is one on the left, I used to think this was one on the right – although as we draw closer to the election….
(Sadly, No probably has the funniest comment section IMO, although I am obviously biased towards the usual object of their humor)
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 4:41 pmBob Loblaw – Pelosi was on record that she would not allow a vote unless there were 100 GOP votes. Boehner is on uncontroverted record as telling Pelosi he had, at best, 70. So much for assurances mattering in this sham of a vote.
This “crisis” is either a matter of grave national concern, or it is something less. Pelosi and the leadership have insisted it is the former. THEY had the power to get this through. THEY strove to win a majority. THEY abrogated their duty.
Ed (385e88) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:07 pmSo Ed, we are back where we started: they all had the same duty. But one party has to step up and save the country allowing the other to gain an election advantage by pointing at the party that saved the country.
or
“It’s one party’s job to save the country and your party’s job to locate scapegoats while demanding that their emotional needs be met!”
And no one will answer my question: “What else could the Democrats have put in the bill to bring the Republicans on board?” Because the answer is: Nothing. The Democrats stripped out everything the Republicans found objectionable; there was nothing they were requesting to see added – I just read that the suspension of “mark to market” was even added to the bill they voted on (and I think that provision might actually be insane). But no it wasn’t enough. The Republicans REFUSED to provide bipartisan support.
So I guess the Democrats had 3 options: Don’t bring the bill to the floor – just say “see you all on Wednesday, good luck with the markets” or tell the Republicans that they had 135-140 votes and put up the bipartisan bill for a vote. Maybe even give a partisan speech or two to induce an extra Democratic vote or two. The third option is what we’ll likely see on Wednesday – bring forward a bill the Democrats can get fully behind (while not causing a full revolt in the Senate), pass the bill largely on their own and face the costs at the ballot box. Oh yeah, and remember to stop treating their opponents as adults….
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:45 pmCorrupt Banks and Predatory Lending
Larry copy and pasted the chapter of some Leftist manifesto, which had already arrived at the conclusion that the banks are corrupt, and the lending was predatory.
In the 1970s a prospective home buyer had to show proof of their earning capabilities and their debts.
Oh, the horror.
They also could not get a loan if their mortgage payment was more than 25 percent of their take home pay.
Seems reasonable to me.
Because of unbridled greed from parasitic banks and loaning institutions, those rules were eliminated because they wanted to trap as many people into loans as they could. It’s called predatory lending.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Ignores actual facts, ie CRA, ACORN. Pulls other shit directly from ass. Could you please give us one example of one person who entered into this type of contract unwillingly?
Yes, there are a lot of people who knowingly bought houses and knew the schemes they were getting into, but they thought they could make money by reselling the house in a short time.
And they were forced to do this? Why should these people be saved from irresponsible financial decisions?
But most foreclosures are from people who are losing their homes because of lost jobs, increasing mortgage premiums, and balloon payments.
Most foreclosures are not a result of people losing their jobs. Most are a result of people signing onto mortgages beyond their actual means, or not taking the time to understand the terms of their mortgages insofar as ARMs go. There has not been a significant increase in unemployment during the time of this financial crisis that would suddenly make your assertion true.
California and Florida are leading the nation in foreclosures and it is not just a coincidence that California and Florida are also the highest states in the country in unemployment.
Their hyperinflationary real estate markets have nothing to do with it, huh?
In both states unemployment has skyrocketed upward by 50% within just the past year.
Cite, please.
They also came up with a myriad of schemes to trap unsuspecting buyers into agreeing to a loan.
Examples, please. And, as asked above, please provide examples of people that unwillingly took out a mortgage on a home. On a tangent, but timmah was whining about redlining and slavery, and here is this clown whining that people were given loans that they were too stupid to know were bad for them. You cannot win for losing with these folks. Don’t lend – racist. Lend – racist.
In the 1970s all rates were fixed, but the corrupt and greedy loan institutions changed that to varible rates.
I am a rube. You will have to explain to me why this is a bad thing.
They are on record of telling home buyers the interest rates would either stay the same or go down.
Who is they? I guess the buyer was without any culpability in ignorning the fact that the rates could/would go up over time.
Millions believed them and ended up losing their homes because as the interest rates increased so did mortgage payments.
Again, if they chose to ignore the very real possibility that rates could go up, I fail to see why this is such a bad thing.
Republicans controlled both houses of congress for almost every year from 1994 to 1996.
It wasn’t almost every year, it was every year. I am not going to point out the typo.
During that twelve years they changed the way banking institutions could operate, allowing them to devise ever gimmick in the world to entice and then capture unsuspecting home buyers into shady mortgage schemes.
Cite, please. Not anecdotal. I want specifics. What de-regulation happened that led to this.
Now that millions are facing foreclosure the money is drying up because the greed of the banking industry.
I would agree that there was greed in the banking industry. I would also agree that for almost every instance of greed in the banking industry, there was also greed/opportunity for that person/family sitting at the table signing their names to a mortgage.
Republicans are always on the side of business and against what is best for people, human beings.
Always is a pretty damn big blanket condemnation. I guess that when someone is pro-life, that would throw a wrench in your overly broad assertion. That is siding with the human life, after all.
Five years ago they changed bankruptcy laws preventing people from escaping the tyranny of debt from credit card companies.
Sen. Biden, what say you?
Republicans always sell out the people when corrupt corporations are buying their elections.
Let’s assume, arguendo, that this is true. How is that any different than the Dems selling out to the teachers unions, SEIU, AFSCME, and the trial lawyers?
I have had it with republicans.
SHOCKA! Next thing you know, you will tell us that you have been a life long Republican, and previously supported President Bush.
They are so gullible and easily manipulated by propaganda and fear.
Do explain. The only propoganda I see is the Pravda-esque MSM in their fawning adoration and idolatry of Teh One.
While Bush was scaring you to death by telling you Bin Laden was going to kill you, Bush has allowed over 12 million illegal aliens to simply walk across our borders.
Hyperbole often? Who, exactly, in Washington DC, actually wants to do something about illegal immigration? Racist.
The next time you go to an airport to go somewhere and have to go through a full body cavity search remember how open our borders are and how Bush lied when he said he would protect us from terrorism.
Your meds appear to be wearing off. Though I appreciate your attempt to tie illegal immigration to national security issues, it is a legitimate concern. Now, when the Dems and the media quit calling everyone a racist for wanting to enforce our immigration laws, then maybe, just maybe, we could have a real discussion about this issue. Clearly, your mind is open to that.
I would rather have the $12,500 every family is paying for supposed “Homeland Security” and Bush’s Iraq War
A bipartisan coalition voted in favor of the war. Unfortunately for you, the Dems were tricked by the dummerest Preznident EVAH!
, which has not reduced Al Quaeda by one person,
This is a demonstrable lie. I am sure that the tens of thousands of dead AQ appreciate your efforts while they look down upon you while surrounded by their 72 virgins.
but rather has created tens or hundreds of thousands of new members.
The Left always asserts this, but were it true, there would be about 9,385,716,592 members of AQ right about now.
Bush has been a boon to Al Quaeda’s recruitment. Thanks Bush. Thanks republicans.
Life would have been so much easier for AQ if we had just ignored them, and let those peaceful little shepherds and goat-fuckers go on about their peaceful existence. They just want to be left alone, right?
You have virtually destroyed the country I fought for.
Virtually destroyed? Are you sure you don’t mean actually destroyed? I guess Bush has a few months left to finish up what he started.
Comment by Larry, a real patriot & veteran — 9/30/2008 @ 2:46 pm
Describe for us what a not real patriot & veteran is, Larry.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:49 pmBetter, Levi?
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:49 pmBob, Pelosi ranting about “Bush economic policies” and making false claims about the origin of the crisis was treating opponents as adults? I’ll have to remember that one.
It will make for a good chuckle.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:49 pmGood job on Larry’s load of manure, JD. I don’t think I’ve seen a more warped revision of reality outside of a commitment hearing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:51 pmWhy is bipartisan support always centered around Republicans voting with the wishes of the Dems? Bob – If Baracky and Pelosi were leading, the Republican votes would not have been needed. 90+ Dems failed to follow Senorita Pelosi, including several in leadership, and committee chairs.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:52 pmBob – If this is a crisis, and if this is so damned important that it requires bipartisan approval to provide cover to all involved, then the fucking Speaker should act like it. As long as the Speaker is treating this like some political gotcha’, there is no reason to believe that this is anything but a partisan issue. She proved with her rant that they are not the least bit serious about it. The raw and naked political games played by Pelosi, and the calculated political responses from Baracky are making me wonder if this “crisis” is like the global warming crisis. When the people standing out in front screaming that this is a crisis actually start acting in such a manner that suggests that they believe it is a crisis, then I will start paying attention to them. Until then, I will join Baracky in voting present, and monitoring the situation.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:56 pm“Why is bipartisan support always centered around Republicans voting with the wishes of the Dems?”
In this case it seemed like it was voting the wishes of Bush, Mccain, Boehner and others.
imdw (513533) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:59 pmBob Loblaw – You still don’t get it, do you?
When one accepts a leadership position, such as Speaker, one necessarily must put aside partisanship when the Republic is imperiled. It would be one thing if Pelosi and Frank didn’t say again and again that this was a vital bill. But, since they each acknowledged (and lectured and lectured) the criticality of passage, they had an absolute duty to see it through.
The minority, when they do not believe the Republic is imperiled, are not similarly bound. The GOP House members insisted from the start that this bill was not necessary and that trying to fix the problem in a panic would do more harm than good. So, when it came time to vote, they were free to vote “nay.”
Pelosi and her leadership, which absolutely, 100%, includes committee chairs, did not have the moral standing, per their own words, to fail to get this bill through. THEY were the ones who said this bill was vital. THEY had the power to pass it without minority participation. THEY sought their positions of power and cling to them.
With power comes responsibility. Period.
Ed (385e88) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:01 pmimdw – I am confuzzled. Baracky says it is bad to vote with Bush. I guess the Dems are used to only doing what their leadership tells them, except on this vote where Pelosi could not even corral the leadership votes or Committee Chairs, and therefore projects same onto the Republicans. The simple fact is this. San Fran Nan has all of the needed votes in her own caucus. That she lost leadership votes, Committe Chair votes, etc … says she needs to look inwards before pointing fingers outwards.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:09 pmJD & SPQR: Nobody wanted to actually eat the shit sandwich that was handed to them, all they got to do was determine which condiments would help them digest it. If the Republicans required ‘hugs’ to get it down they should have had that entered in the negotiations. Did you listen to any other floor speeches? Were the Republicans offering odes to the Democrats who were sharing their meal? I suspect they may have been pointing some fingers of their own. I’m certainly not going to go listen to it to find out, I already know that politics ARE mean (no hugs necessary).
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:13 pmPaulson is the one to blame for this mess. He didn’t give congress much to work with.
Lori (68a3f9) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:17 pmBob, as has been pointed out, you have been repeatedly avoiding the fact that Pelosi intentionally offended the people she supposedly needed to join her in a vote.
We can either assume she is incompetent, and that her silly, partisan propaganda was an accident or we can assume that her behavior was a deliberate attempt to torpedo the legislation.
Either way, she failed in her duty to the American people in her leadership role.
So now we’ll wait here patiently while you attempt yet another time to avoid confronting this issue and watch you introduce yet another non sequitur.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:17 pmYou’re right Ed, and that’s why I expect a bill will pass on Wednesday. But until then the Republicans won the day – and their cry was “let it all burn” (fiddles sold seperately).
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:18 pmShe is the fucking Speaker, Bob. Never mind, you are aggressively attempting to not get the point we are making. GO back to TPM and tell them how brave you were.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:21 pmSPQR: And here I was thinking that politicians understood how politics is played. I’m sorry, which side opposes a nanny state?
Did you consider that maybe she was just rallying votes on her own side?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:32 pm“The simple fact is this. San Fran Nan has all of the needed votes in her own caucus. ”
Yup. She’s also got all the needed votes in her caucus plus what boehner promises to deliver. She ain’t gonna bite that shit sandwich herself. Bush and McCain want their bailout? They make one.
Let me ask this, do you want pelosi to pass this with the votes in her caucus?
“Bob, as has been pointed out, you have been repeatedly avoiding the fact that Pelosi intentionally offended the people she supposedly needed to join her in a vote.”
They’re not such pansies. I don’t think its that they were ‘offended.’ I think its that they realized they were getting played. But so far its a mystery who these people are that went back on their word. Don’t you want to know?
imdw (dfd808) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:38 pmSo, Bob and imdw are the same person?
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:39 pmIf it is a crisis like she says it is, then yes, not only do I expect her to, I want her to.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:40 pmJD: You do realize that nobody in congress is continuing to make the “Nancy was too mean” argument? That too was just politics.
And I’m accused of failing to address the issues – you guys don’t lack hutzpah….
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:41 pmBob,
“And no one will answer my question: “What else could the Democrats have put in the bill to bring the Republicans on board?” Because the answer is: Nothing.”
The answer is, lots of things. A change in the mark-to-market accounting rules, for starters. No direct cost to anyone. Raising the limits on FDIC insurance. Oh, wait. Pelosi squashed that one and Barack came out in support of it today. Guess she didn’t call him. Either that or he just figured out today that he was for it.
Those two additions alone would have easily garnered an extra dozen votes, probably twice that.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:42 pmThat’s about what I expected from you, Bob … albeit even thinner than I would have predicted.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:42 pm“A change in the mark-to-market accounting rules, for starters. No direct cost to anyone”
I like this one the best. Its got the most magic.
imdw (12c068) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:48 pmimdw,
You should try and educate yourself on accounting rules. There’s no magic involved. It’s gonna happen regardless. I’m gonna cut and paste a post I left for another rocket surgeon over at JOM:
We’re not talking about creativity, TCO. We’re talking about using GAAP to properly value a debt instrument. Just because the market isn’t willing to buy something today doesn’t mean there isn’t an underlying value. If your neighbor can’t get a bid on his home does that make yours (and his) worthless? Markets are perfect, over the long term. In the short run, they can be very irrational both on the upside and the downside.
A pool of mortgages has a cashflow and an expected payoff date. From that and some other inputs you can derive a fair value. If bigbank X has 100 miilion in MBS’s paying $300,000/month, albeit with a substantial # of defaults, is it really worthless or nearly so? If X must carry that on the balance sheet at or near zero, then it certainly reduces their ability to extend lines of credit and make further loans to people/businesses with even good credit.
So nobody is suggesting Enron as a solution. What they are suggesting is coming up with a means to fairly value a rather esoteric instrument.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:03 pmWell said, Chris.
A non-sequeter or silence from imdw in 3, 2, 1 …
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:14 pmSEC and FASB announced a “clarification” on mark to market today.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:14 pmTO JD AGAIN… To “JD”… Everything I write I write myself. And my articles are based on fact and a great deal of research.
Bullshit. Where did you copy and paste that drivel in #65 from?
Larry – The volume of words does not make you any brighter. That I can reubt your fanciful diatribe in less than a sentence says more about the noxious lies you traffic in than my ability to form a sentence. Comment by JD — 9/30/2008 @ 3:27 pm
I know it is hard for a lot of people to understand that there are a lot of intelligent people ‘out there’ who are intelligent, articulate, and can write. The same people who find that baffling still believe GW Bush is godlike and infallible, when in reality GW Bush arguably can’t read, write or speak on a third grader’s level. Face it, your ‘president’ is a dunce.
When Bush is not reading off of a teleprompter he is one of the worst speakers in the world. Bush doesn’t just a lack of intelligence, he lacks wisdom, common sense and he has never spent a moment of his life having to live as average Americans live. In 2000, I wrote an article where I estimated the IQs of all the presidents for the past 50 years. In that article I gave Bush an IQ of 91. I know I was being very generous and very kind. I seriously doubt if his IQ is above 80. But his low IQ is what causes so many uneducated, illiterate and low-intelligence people to like him and support him.
JD, I can tell you have a problem with reading comprehension. You attacked my ‘volume’ of words. But rarely can any issue be explained with two or three word responses. Unfortunately, I get a lot of extremely short responses to my very well thought out articles. You find it baffling I can write so much about so many issues. Perhaps if you stopped watching Fox News or listening to the likes of Limblahhh, Hannity and O’Reilly, or listening to the Bush Regime spew out three word slogans to dupe the masses into supporting them, then perhaps you could spend time seeking out other REPUTABLE sources for news. You won’t find much news on television. Most news has to be read, and unfortunately, 95% of the people do not read to gather information. They mindlessly turn on the television and vegetate in front of it having their minds filled with propaganda and the sensational story of the day.
JD, I wish you well on your quest for knowledge, truth and facts, that is if you choose to embark on that journey. So far you are still at the dock sitting in your boat.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:15 pmLarry, now you are claiming credit for the hoax “study” of presidential IQ? Larry, you really are the dumb one and JD gave you a schooling that you don’t seem bright enough to appreciate.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:17 pmBob Loblaw – You still don’t get it, do you?
“When one accepts a leadership position, such as Speaker, one necessarily must put aside partisanship…”
Do you mean like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott did during the 1990s? Gingrich and Lott were the two most partisan politicians in the history of our country. So was the criminal Tom Delay. All three used every legislative trick to completely shut down any measures the democratic party wanted to introduce.
BTW, Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott preached fiscal conservatism, but in reality they were the largest pork gatherers in the country. Newt Gingrich had more pork going to his 8th district in Georgia than any other district in the United States, except for the district that surrounds the Kennedy Space Center. And Trent Lott had more pork going to his state than all the other 49 states in the country. Can you say “hypocrites”??? Yes, both of these republican fiscal conservatives are hypocrites because they both were like sponges soaking up as many tax dollars as they could.
But republicans still lap at their toes without thought, without searching for the truth, and without caring about our country. When will you wake up and realize that your party is corrupt?
Both major political parties are corrupt, but the republican party is the most corrupt party in the history of the United States. BTW, I am an American first and last and I am sick of the ignorant being duped by slick propaganda from evil and corrupt thugs like Bush and Cheney.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:27 pmLarry, you are not an American first, you are a slanderer first.
And your attempt to paint Pelosi as the equivalent of Delay and Gingrich is silly.
First, you haven’t pointed to any time where bipartisanship was specifically called for by Gingrich or Delay and when they then accompanied it by the partisan display of Pelosi. Secondly, Pelosi claimed to be specifically reversing that kind of practice.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:29 pmAnd I call BS. I went through your prior comment, line by line, and pointed out the multitude of errors, made up shit, and overall nonsense.
Larry, I know a lot of intelligent, articulate people, and you sir, are not amongst them.
Who here thinks he is godlike? Infallible? As far as not being able to read, write, or speak at a 3rd grader level, that is laughable, but also quite sad that the minimal grey matter between your ears has deteriorated to Andrew Sullivan-esque levels.
He actually is better without a teleprompter, the exactly opposite of Teh One.
And the proof of this is your assertion of same?
I wrote an article today where I estimate the IQ’s of all of the drive by twatwaffles that have visited here in the last week. I gave you a 52, and I was generous.
I have many problems, and reading twatwaffle for comprehension is but one of them.
Brevity is a virtue.
That should tell you something.
This list of things that I find baffling is practically endless. Clay Aiken is teh ghey? Are you kidding me? I find your writing baffling insofar as your worldview does not appear to even parallel reality. It starts with a close approximation of reality and then gets off track. I do find it baffling that you write so much. Were I to put that kind of stoooopidity on display, I would attempt to minimize it.
This is standard Leftist pablum. The idea that you deal in superior knowledge is laughable. So is the idea that I watch Fox, or listen to Rush.
Should I choose to embark on that journey, I will have to remind myself to avoid your blathering. That would be a major detour off the path of enlightenment.
I am still waiting for your actual responses to mine in #86.
However, again, should I seek the path of enlightenment, rest assured that should I need a tour guide, I will not seek you out. DRJ, Patterico, WLS, Barney, Simba, and my pet unicorn are far better equipped tp help me learn than you are.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:33 pmThank you Chris – real solutions. I actually read today that a suspension of “mark to market” was included in yesterday’s bill – I haven’t gone to read the actual bill so that may have been mistaken. I’m not sure if the FDIC limit increase was even floated over the weekend or simply came out in discussions of late. It does seem to be on everybody’s lips today. I know that some Republicans still want to eliminate Capital Gains taxes, but they clearly are not working towards a serious solution.
If I recall correctly, Enron introduced (or at least pushed to get accepted) the “mark to market” system, in which case the suspension would be a return to a pre-Enron GAAP. THAT does make sense to me – but if the substitute is face value that is just a bigger house of cards. I understand setting realistic values on the MBS’s, but I get lost once they start talking about the other derivatives.
Maybe we will get a shot at another ‘bipartisan’ bill, but if the Republicans actually just want a ‘partisan’ bill why don’t they step up and just admit it.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:35 pmHow did that turn out for you?
As opposed to the Speakers that preceeded them? I am shocked, I tell you I am shocked to find that there is politics in politics.
Neither of them has been in office for a while. Keep on fighting the last fight.
Your evidence of this is …. ?
Please explain to us your well-researched and reasoned thought process that led you to this conclusion.
If President Bush is such an imbecile, I can understand your hostility towards him since he keeps duping you.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:40 pm“If X must carry that on the balance sheet at or near zero, then it certainly reduces their ability to extend lines of credit and make further loans to people/businesses with even good credit.”
Now, If x’s balance sheet isn’t properly stating its value, why isn’t X then an opportunity for purchase, thus increasing its value?
imdw (a0d4b5) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:46 pmRe: 112 Larry, now you are claiming credit for the hoax “study” of presidential IQ? Larry, you really are the dumb one and JD gave you a schooling that you don’t seem bright enough to appreciate. – Comment by SPQR — 9/30/2008 @ 7:17 pm
Just who do you think wrote the presidential study? I have proof, the date it was published and the site on the internet where it was first posted. I wrote it with my tongue in cheek, but because it was so believable it was picked up by UPI, AP, and the article made it around the world within three weeks after I published it.
I wrote it prior to Bush’s first trip to Europe. Everyone, except republicans, believed my article because the majority of people could easily see how Bush mangled words and seemed clueless when asked simple questions. I believe my IQ estimates were very close to their read IQs. I guessed Jimmy Carter’s IQ within one point. His IQ was the only one actually measured.
As further proof I wrote the article, the names in the article were from friends so my article could not be ripped off. I have several other items in the article which were also coded proving I am the intellectual owner of the article. Unfortunately, because there are so many corrupt and unethical people in the world, my article was stolen and claimed by many people. I subsequently sued the people who are using my article as their own and it is at this point in time going through the courts.
You can believe what you want to believe, that is obvious. But when it comes to the truth it always seems as if republicans run from it like cockroaches run from the light when the kitchen lights are turned on in the middle of the night.
Larry, a real patriot & veteran (2128f2) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:47 pmSPQR (#110 @7:14pm): Maybe that was where I heard about the change to ‘mark to market’ and I got my wires crossed.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:50 pmLarry, your story gets loonier by the minute. Your initials are not MDKP are they?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:53 pmlarry,
That’s a lot of hyperbole.
I’d especially like to see you back up this claim: “[Bush] has never spent a moment of his life having to live as average Americans live.”
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:53 pmDRJ, does “hyperbole” come out of the south end of a north-bound bull?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 7:55 pmlarry,
Before you answer, check out the photo at this link of the modest home George Bush lived in during his elementary school years.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:02 pmGuys, I think these Imdw and Larry folks are having one over– they seem to be talking like they live in IMAO.us’ alternate reality– you know, the one with Buck the Marine, and Chomp, and Darth Rove?
Foxfier (15ac79) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:04 pmimdw,
“Now, If x’s balance sheet isn’t properly stating its value, why isn’t X then an opportunity for purchase, thus increasing its value?”
X is properly stating the value under the current regulations. That’s why many are calling for a suspension of MTM. The last “sale” of a similar security might have been last week when WAMU was taken over and the acquiring company rated that specific security as being worth zero, or ten cents or twenty on the dollar. Whatever. The acquirer, be it JPM or the Fed, weren’t really concerned with the true value. They were giving a worst case interpretation in a fire sale.
Let X value the security properly under GAAP and this helps the balance sheet immediately.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:13 pmLarry – 115 and 117 await your response. Maybe you need to go ask your brother Darrell, and your other brother Larry to help you out.
FWIW – You are approaching MDKP levels of whack-a-doodle, but could still use some work. Think frogmen, snipers, and roast beef cutters.
That someone in the media ran with your Presidential IQ story in no way validates your conclusions. It does show how incredibly fucking biased the media is. It also makes you really sound like teh krazy.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:13 pmChris – Could you explain the reverse auctions and how the government could incentivize same?
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:14 pmSPQR,
Hyperbulle?
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:15 pmDRJ, I’d be the last to criticize spelling.
( grin )
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:18 pmY’all are too nice. It was shit when Larry thought it, shit when he typed it, and shit when you read it. It was, is, and ever shall be shit.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:19 pmThe current financial mess is the result of race based loans.
Congress required lending institutions to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers, based on skin color.
Senator Obama will continue this failed policy. If he does not, the congressional black caucus will no longer believe the magic negro is black enough.
Obama could never have become the nominee of the DNC if he was not black.
Race based motives always fail. That is why slavery had to end. That is why seperate but equal had to end. That is why affirmative action needs to end. That is why voting for Obama because he is black is wrong.
Vote John and Sarah 2008.
highpockets (eee2ff) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:25 pmThere is a lot more to it than that. Why don’t you let Baracky focus on the race issues?
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:47 pmIn case you missed it above …
Chris – Could you explain the reverse auctions and how the government could incentivize same?
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:52 pmJD,
I’ve heard two theories floated on the treasury making a market. Dutch auction and reverse. A reverse auction would probably be the way to get things started.
Treasury takes bids from everyone and fills a certain amount of orders which were pre-determined. Golman bids X on a certain quantity, Morgan Y, bighedge Z. It’s a kick start and the early buyers will undoubtedly scoop up some bargains. More importantly you’ll have a return of liquidity to a frozen market.
Once a floor has been determined things should slowly work through. Not perfect but I think you can see that it has more than a chance to succeed. Is it desirable under normal circumstances? Absolutely not. But under current conditions it’s probably the best we can hope for.
Once the market has been established for a few months they’ll probably revert to something more traditional like Dutch and eventually just plain old bid and ask.
My two cents.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:52 pmJD,
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 8:58 pmThink of a reverse auction as the auctioneer shouting out offers to purchase rather than offers to sell at a cetain price. You have multiple auctioneers with only one person, the seller, in the audience.
Is this part of the bailout package at this point?
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:00 pm#127 JD:
Man, I need to go back to being a full time drug addict so I don’t miss any more goodun’s.
This working stuff is for the birds! Cuts way to much into my Internet crazies time…
EW1(SG) (e8fd8c) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:06 pmDon’t know for sure. I am sure Paulson has it in mind though. It’s part of the reason why I don’t think we will ever even have to commit the full amount of money, though. Just the knowledge that there’s that kind of financial firepower behind this thing will cause a bunch of people to step forward and begin lowball (10 cents, 20 cents on the dollar-whatever) bidding.
It could actually be part of a government intervention or a freer market solution. This is a huge problem but also solvable. That’s probably what has Nancy so po’d.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:07 pmThat is comforting, Chris. Thanks.
I got great rates locked in for a re-fi, which was fortunate, as the rates would have been 4/10ths higher by the time we wrote our names on the papers today.
We also got a great rate for a bank-owned investment property, which I was told was very difficult to do at this time.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:10 pmYea, rates went up a bit today. Actually a semi-positive sign. We’ve had rates too low for too long. Not pining for inflation but we need “healthy” inflation. The Fed’s target rate has been too low for a couple of decades. Deflation is/was possible and the ramifications from that would be brutal.
What area was the bank-owned property in?
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:19 pmAlso notice that the dollar was up–huge today. Another good sign for us.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:20 pmWe got 5.75% on the re-fi and on the investment property.
I am in Indianapolis, Chris.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:28 pmYou’ll do well on that. I’m assuming you had a distressed seller. Good move. Gonna take a bit longer for things to recover out here in CA but I’m keeping my eyes open at the moment.
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:29 pmGmac. It was bank-owned. We have our eyes on a couple others, but our mortgage company thinks that given the climate, it might be a stretch to get another non-owner-occupied investment.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:32 pmg’night, all.
JD (f7900a) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:35 pmHasta…
Chris (cefe13) — 9/30/2008 @ 9:41 pm“When Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) went to the floor on Monday, he anticipated that 75 House Republicans would vote for the revamped financial rescue package.”
The Hill
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/30/2008 @ 10:05 pmIt does beg the question of how he became the nominee in the first place, considering that a lot of the negatives about him (his state Senate record, his connections with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright) were already known during the primary season.
Were his primary opponents as inept as John Kerry was in the 2004 general elections?
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 10/1/2008 @ 6:17 am