THE BLUFF HAS BEEN CALLED!

[texaspackerbacker]

House Republicans, with the help of 93 Democrats, called Wall Street's BLUFF and voted down the Bail Out package.

WILL the Wall Street bankers who have tried to hold America hostage harm America by tying up credit?

CAN the Wall Street bankers tie up credit to the extent that it is really felt by normal Americans?

PROBABLY we STILL won't get answer to that, because probably the bigwigs will STILL put together a welfare package for financiers who either deliberately or stupidly cause this trumped up contrived pseud0-mess.

McCain chastized Obama for not rallying House Democrats, who clearly would have had the votes if Pelosi had been able to keep her troops in line. What a joke. No way I'm gonna vote for Bob Barr, but having both presidential candidates seemingly lining up AGAINST the people on this really is irritating. BTW, anybody know what Barr's position is on the bail out package? I understand Ron Paul is talking against it.

[hoosier]

The proposed bailout may have been pathetic, I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about that, but doing nothing may be much much worse. I realize you say that something will eventually be passed in its place, and thus the shooting down of THIS bailout no big deal. That may be, but what? And do you really think that doing nothing would be the right thing under these circumstances?

[Harlan Huckleby]

it is easy to be against a bailout. Hard to deal with consequences of doing nothing. No surprise that some people would want to vote the easy way and let the other guys take the heat.

i'm glad that this plan was rejected, there's nothing wrong with taking a little more time for a compromise.

But of course they have to do something.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm confused. When dems vote along party lines...they are criticized for partisan politics.

When they break and think about country first...they are criticized.

I would say the same applies for Republicans.

[sheepshead]

I'd say the people have spoken. Back to the drawing board.

[Freak Out]

It appears that more Dems voted no than Republicans did.

Time for a little trickle up.

[Joemailman]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It appears that more Dems voted no than Republicans did.

Time for a little trickle up.

You have it reversed...90 or so Dems vs. 130 or so Repubs.

[Freak Out]

It appears that more Dems voted no than Republicans did.

Time for a little trickle up.

You have it reversed...90 or so Dems vs. 130 or so Repubs.

I'm not to surprised...I didn't look at any roll call or votes. Some of the interviews I heard after the vote led me to believe that. Maybe it was a "greater majority of" deals. :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Where's that article on the Swedish bailout?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

No bailout thread i believe.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm confused. When dems vote along party lines...they are criticized for partisan politics.

When they break and think about country first...they are criticized.

I would say the same applies for Republicans.

65 Republicans voted FOR the thing--34%. 66% voted AGAINST.

93 Democrats voted AGAINST--40%. 60% of the Dems voted FOR.

The great majority in the Senate of BOTH parties were FOR it.

Tyrone, I'm certainly NOT criticizing the Democrats who had the courage to split with their party's leadership and vote AGAINST this. Whwew do YOU stand--or do you not have the courage to take a stand?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

[texaspackerbacker]

Maybe we will find out about that; Maybe not.

The Washington politicians and Wall Street power brokers may yet find a way to circumvent the will of the people. This apparently start re-negotiating on Thursday.

I really don't see that bad things NECESSARILY will happen. There just is NOT a significant enough percentage of bad mortgages for that, and even of there were ten times as many foreclosures as thee really are, the mortgage notes are all secured by real estate, which even if it is only worth half or so of the face value in a few areas of the country, STILL DO HAVE VALUE. There is no getting around those facts. This whole mess is contrived--either for financial gain by the beneficiaries of the massive bail out OR for political gain of those pushing it--mainly the political left. I lean toward the former, because if it was the latter, you wouldn't have so many Republican bigwigs aboard.

If bad things do happen, it will be the result, as I said, of SPITE and VENGEANCE on the part of those who expected to get ALL THAT MONEY and were deprived of it by the American people. In any case, I don't think the perpetrators will be able to sustain a credit tie-up for any length of time.

[bobblehead]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

[packinpatland]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I listened to one of his interviews on NPR a few days ago.........he makes sense.

[cpk1994]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?Nancy Pelosi is probably the most responsible for those republicans that voted against it with her insanely idiotc speech right before the vote. Way to go Nancy! Your partisan politics tanked the economy 800 pts. Congratulations! :roll:

[hoosier]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?Nancy Pelosi is probably the most responsible for those republicans that voted against it with her insanely idiotc speech right before the vote. Way to go Nancy! Your partisan politics tanked the economy 800 pts. Congratulations! :roll:

So a bunch of Republican reps decided to screw the country because Nancy Pelosi hu huh hhht their feeeeeewings? :cry: :cry: :cry:

[LL2]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?Nancy Pelosi is probably the most responsible for those republicans that voted against it with her insanely idiotc speech right before the vote. Way to go Nancy! Your partisan politics tanked the economy 800 pts. Congratulations! :roll:

So a bunch of Republican reps decided to screw the country because Nancy Pelosi hu huh hhht their feeeeeewings? :cry: :cry: :cry:

Well, here is what Pelosi said. From what I was able to find online:

PELOSI: "When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?

It’s a staggering figure and many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate.

$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

They claim to be free-market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.

Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.

Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. It seems like an eternity, doesn’t it? So much has happened. The news was so bad. They described a very dismal situation. "

In a nutshell what she said wasn't entirely bad, but if you want Republican support you do rip on them and puff your chest and say the Republicans created this chaos and the Democrats are the good guys. If she wanted bipartisan support she went the wrong way about it.

[MJZiggy]

It's an election year. Bipartisan support starts in December. If the Repubs could figure out a way to blame this on the Dems, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[bobblehead]

Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.


so she lied?? I defy anyone to show me ONE SINGLE YEAR of clinton where the national debt was reduced?? If not, then no actual surplus ever existed.

[texaspackerbacker]

Would you accept that a Congressional mandate overruling normal qualification standards in order to allow more minority loans to be approved is a highly likely cause of the plethora of bad loans? This program was a liberal Democrat thing from its inception. Predictably, those minority mortgages which were processed without adherence to established standards have resulted in defaults at a geometrically higher rate. The only Dem/lib response to this situation--predictably also--is "let's find a way to keep these mortgagees who have defaulted in their homes". Does that sound like unjustifiably "finding a way to blame the Dems" to you, Ziggy?

[MJZiggy]

If anyone could attempt it, I knew it would be you, Tex. Actually, I blame the mortgage companies that for years hounded me about lowering my payment without mentioning the fact that it was an interest-only loan or an ARM that would have my payment magically go up after a couple years. When I let be known that I was shopping for a new mortgage, the jackals crawled out of the woodwork to offer me this or that. If I hadn't absolutely INSISTED on a fixed rate--even hanging up on some of the pricks who called, e-mailed, direct mailed and practically shoved their mortgages down my throat insisting it wouldn't cost me anything, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage either. I don't see this as a political failing as neither democrats nor republicans forced the companies to advertise the mortgages like that. This was corporate greed once the gloves came off. Not all banks engaged in those practices, and not all of them are failing. Funny it's the ones that made responsible lending choices that are still standing.

[falco]

If anyone could attempt it, I knew it would be you, Tex. Actually, I blame the mortgage companies that for years hounded me about lowering my payment without mentioning the fact that it was an interest-only loan or an ARM that would have my payment magically go up after a couple years. When I let be known that I was shopping for a new mortgage, the jackals crawled out of the woodwork to offer me this or that. If I hadn't absolutely INSISTED on a fixed rate--even hanging up on some of the pricks who called, e-mailed, direct mailed and practically shoved their mortgages down my throat insisting it wouldn't cost me anything, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage either. I don't see this as a political failing as neither democrats nor republicans forced the companies to advertise the mortgages like that. This was corporate greed once the gloves came off. Not all banks engaged in those practices, and not all of them are failing. Funny it's the ones that made responsible lending choices that are still standing.

i agree ziggy, predatory lending is bad, but also lets not forget that those loans with special provisions such as prepayment penalties, interest only, etc, contain disclosures informing the borrower of all that... specifically by law these disclosures are required, to protect borrowers

i lean strongly towards blaming lenders (particularly mortgage brokers and also bretsky) but people gotta own up too

[MJZiggy]

I'm with you there. I think they preyed on the people that weren't smart enough to read the fine print and know what they were getting into which is still on them for putting their name on the line without getting the information they needed first.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm with you there. I think they preyed on the people that weren't smart enough to read the fine print and know what they were getting into which is still on them for putting their name on the line without getting the information they needed first.

You just can't get an ARM--or any other type of financing--without numerous repetitious disclaimers and disclosure forms stating that you understand exactly how much the thing can go up, how often, triggered by what, etc. The Truth-in-Lending form that provides a detail dollars and cents--not fine print--explanation of exactly what the effective rate of interest is, exactly how much the total of payments over the term of the mortgage, and how much is owed at any given point of the mortgage has been around for decades.

You'd almost have to be trying to avoid being aware of these facts and figures.

The great majority of buyers or people getting refinancing are completely confident of their ability to repay. If that confidence is unjustified, well, is that the mortgage company's fault? I would say no--as long as the accurate facts and figures are provided. And in my experience--which is fairly vast involving closings of sales, the transaction just doesn't get done without all the signatures on the papers saying the buyers/refinancers are aware and have received copies of all of the disclosures.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

I'm not talking specifics...i'm just for a bailout. this is a hold your nose type situation.

The "i told you so" part says let the whole thing crash and burn, but i'm unwilling to risk how bad things would get and how many people would be financially crippled....just to prove my point.

Entire: Sounds like you are advocating socialism..am i getting this wrong?

[Bretsky]

If anyone could attempt it, I knew it would be you, Tex. Actually, I blame the mortgage companies that for years hounded me about lowering my payment without mentioning the fact that it was an interest-only loan or an ARM that would have my payment magically go up after a couple years. When I let be known that I was shopping for a new mortgage, the jackals crawled out of the woodwork to offer me this or that. If I hadn't absolutely INSISTED on a fixed rate--even hanging up on some of the pricks who called, e-mailed, direct mailed and practically shoved their mortgages down my throat insisting it wouldn't cost me anything, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage either. I don't see this as a political failing as neither democrats nor republicans forced the companies to advertise the mortgages like that. This was corporate greed once the gloves came off. Not all banks engaged in those practices, and not all of them are failing. Funny it's the ones that made responsible lending choices that are still standing.

i agree ziggy, predatory lending is bad, but also lets not forget that those loans with special provisions such as prepayment penalties, interest only, etc, contain disclosures informing the borrower of all that... specifically by law these disclosures are required, to protect borrowers

i lean strongly towards blaming lenders (particularly mortgage brokers and also bretsky) but people gotta own up too


OUTRAGE OUTRAGE !!! :lol: :lol:

For the record I am not a mortgage broker :lol: but if it's alright to blame lenders at banks to I'm down with that.

One might say all of us use loopholes when they are available to us. In six years I did two of those stated income loans mortgage brokers became famous for and they were both legit and are both performing.

On the other side, I became a no money down expert; realtors sent there clients to me because I was smarter with the more liberal underwriting programs. Some of those are performing and others are not. They should have had higher credit score requirements for those programs.

As far as disclosures go, I'm more honest than I need to be and often lose deals because I'm too d@m honest. Never been one to tell people what they want to hear and fudge things...............just like I treat TT :wink:

[falco]

i'll let you off the hook this time bretsky... :)

[texaspackerbacker]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

I'm not talking specifics...i'm just for a bailout. this is a hold your nose type situation.

The "i told you so" part says let the whole thing crash and burn, but i'm unwilling to risk how bad things would get and how many people would be financially crippled....just to prove my point.

Entire: Sounds like you are advocating socialism..am i getting this wrong?

What do you see happening--how bad and how soon--if the new bail out package--which somebody in another thread said is now up to 450 pages--doesn't get rammed through with a minimum of discussion and an all or nothing proposition?

And if, in fact, you foresee some sort of gloomy scenario for America, is that not something that appeals to you? Desire for harm to America is what your kind is all about, isn't it?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

I'm not talking specifics...i'm just for a bailout. this is a hold your nose type situation.

The "i told you so" part says let the whole thing crash and burn, but i'm unwilling to risk how bad things would get and how many people would be financially crippled....just to prove my point.

Entire: Sounds like you are advocating socialism..am i getting this wrong?

What do you see happening--how bad and how soon--if the new bail out package--which somebody in another thread said is now up to 450 pages--doesn't get rammed through with a minimum of discussion and an all or nothing proposition?

And if, in fact, you foresee some sort of gloomy scenario for America, is that not something that appeals to you? Desire for harm to America is what your kind is all about, isn't it?

Tex,

I am unwilling to discuss this with you...perhaps you didn't notice that i'm responding to bobble. Why not you? Because you have shown little comprehension for the facts of this as presented by both liberals and conservatives. Your inability to comprehend or acknowledge the basics as presented by bobble and howard leaves little room for discussion.

I am not an economist..nor do i pretend to be one like yourself. I do know that if things go the way they are, it will get worse...worse on the stock market, worse for businesses..in that they won't be able to borrow and potentially meet payroll, worse for homeowners whose houses will depreciate in value with all the available houses, worse for apartment owners/landlords who will be in trouble because of excess inventory, worse for those who effed up and now have bad credit, etc.

Scenario: Why would i want that. If i did so, i would be against the bailout. The worse things get, the harder it will be for Obama.

If you think a bailout is wrong...great! Watch the situation get worse, and virutally assure us of an obama presidency. If you are against obama...take the poison pill and get down on your knees and pray that the ecomony is at least stable...cause that is the only chance Mac has.

[HowardRoark]

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

This is basically what is going on right now. The FDIC figures out who is going to dance with whom and puts a gun to their head. The assets are bought of for pennies on the dollar. WaMu, Wachovia....that's what happened. With the Wachovia deal, the Feds were stuck with around $50Billion to make the deal work, but generally they don't have to get involved.

With Lehman, they went tits up and Barclays was there to buy stuff off the junk heap for nothing. The Invisible Hand is doing this already. It is rather funny when people say they are against the "bailout" because they don't want to help out Wall Street.

There is no Wall Street. Name one investment bank.

The problem is no matter who buys out whom, the stink just keeps going along with them. You can't magically get rid of this junk....it's got to land somewhere.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Is is possible for it to land on Tex's house? Like the Wizard of Oz?

[texaspackerbacker]

Very interesting!

I heard somebody on TV this afternoon, Howard, say the same as you--there is no more Wall Street--alas, all those illustrious investment bankers no longer exist--in a freestanding way, anyway. First of all, that is not ALL because of the current financial "crisis"--failures, and all. Most of the disappearance of investment bankers stems from the repeal of the Glass/Stiegel Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking and investment bankers to get into commercial banking. It seems that most of the winners these days are the traditional commercial bankers--buying out the failing traditional investment bankers. Is that a bad thing--having winners and losers in our capitalist system? I don't think so. Do you?

Tyrone, I never claimed to be an economist as such. Being my unofficial biographer, you should know that. As a finance major, I did take a lot of Econ courses, and I like to think I have kept up with things over the years. So you have been following the back and forth of me and Howard--and Bobblehead and aynrand too? And you like what they have to say better than what I have to say? OK, that's fine.

My position, though, is they--Howard, at least, I'm not sure about the others--buy into the ideas being pushed by the leftists and with the complicity of Senate Republicans--most of them anyway--to the DETRIMENT of the American people.

So you really think there would be a meltdown? And you really don't think it would come back on Obama and his crowd for voting down the reigning in of Fannie and Freddie that McCain is on record as pushing? Yeah, I suppose Obama wasn't even in the Senate in '04 and '05 when that occurred. However, you are aware, right, that the chief culprits in that scandal were Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson? And you also are aware, aren't you, that those two are now high level economic advisors of Obama? Do you really think the STINK won't fall on him? Yeah, I know his mainstream media buddies will do their best to conduct an "Obama bail out", that might just be Mission Impossible, especially if the shit does hit the fan.

In the more down to earth here and now, though, we have Obama and McCain standing shoulder to shoulder WITH the elitist establishment and IMO, AGAINST the American people. I, obviously, am not pleased about that, but I ask you, how does that translate to a big win for Obama if the Wall Street types choose to freeze up credit and harm America? And the better question is, why would the parasite kill the host--why would the Wall Street bankers deliberately increase the chances of an Obama presidency--which would harm ALL of America, but in particular, them? Or is there some way an Obama presidency would benefit Wall Street?

I actually, am in the unique position that only an optimist could be here. On the one hand, I truly don't think the doom and gloom predictions would come true at all it this "bail out" package DOESN'T get rammed through. On the other hand, I can visualize the HUGE debt increase that would occur if this package passes and all that money is injected into the system. Just imagine the Keynesian multiplied benefits in the form of economic growth from THAT KIND of stimulation!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex,

You have long claimed to know economics..that is your thing. Calling you an ecomist is a joke.

As for the blame game...of course you would pin in on two dems. What a surprise that no mention of Phil Gram. :oops:

Why don't you really go after the dems and mention LBJ who let private finance into the equation...so that you and the rest of the idiots could continue fighting in Nam. :oops:

[HowardRoark]

First of all, that is not ALL because of the current financial "crisis"--failures, and all. Most of the disappearance of investment bankers stems from the repeal of the Glass/Stiegel Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking and investment bankers to get into commercial banking. It seems that most of the winners these days are the traditional commercial bankers--buying out the failing traditional investment bankers. Is that a bad thing--having winners and losers in our capitalist system? I don't think so. Do you?


Bear
Lehman
Merrill
Goldman
Morgan Stanley

All happened because of the crap on the balance sheet over the last 9 months.

There was only one "buy out" at the wrong end of gun to the head....that would be Merrill. And that's only because they have a wealth management group.

Bear is done.

Lehman is done.

The other two were able to get the Fed. to turn them into commercial banks on a Sunday......gee, I wonder how that happened (Goldman). Now they can go raise money via insured deposits because they sure could not raise money any other way.

And another thing....this is really not politcal. Virtually all of the politicians don't even understand what is going on. Paul Ryan is making a name for himself though.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're coming a little unglued, Tyrone.

Phil Gramm was out of the Senate, and the president of Texas A. & M. by the time of the Fannie and Freddie scandal--or more accurately, the McCain effort to regin them in that Dem/libs in Congress blocked even as a minority by filibustering.

And the LBJ thing? I guess you're right about the early privatization thing, but how on earth do you presume to link THAT to the Vietnam War?

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, that is not ALL because of the current financial "crisis"--failures, and all. Most of the disappearance of investment bankers stems from the repeal of the Glass/Stiegel Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking and investment bankers to get into commercial banking. It seems that most of the winners these days are the traditional commercial bankers--buying out the failing traditional investment bankers. Is that a bad thing--having winners and losers in our capitalist system? I don't think so. Do you?


Bear
Lehman
Merrill
Goldman
Morgan Stanley

All happened because of the crap on the balance sheet over the last 9 months.

There was only one "buy out" at the wrong end of gun to the head....that would be Merrill. And that's only because they have a wealth management group.

Bear is done.

Lehman is done.

The other two were able to get the Fed. to turn them into commercial banks on a Sunday......gee, I wonder how that happened (Goldman). Now they can go raise money via insured deposits because they sure could not raise money any other way.

And another thing....this is really not politcal. Virtually all of the politicians don't even understand what is going on. Paul Ryan is making a name for himself though.

Where did the under-valued assets of those companies go, Howard? They didn't just vanish into thin air. They were bought up by those with the ability to do so a.k.a the winners in this situation--at fire sale prices. You, yourself, are describing collusion here between the government and at least, Goldman Sachs. Does that NOT cause red flags for you regarding the whole bail out in general?

Just because you have Senate Republicans complicit with the left on this does NOT mean this is NOT political. House Republicans--who are the MOST in tune with the people constititute the opposition--apparently including Ryan?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're coming a little unglued, Tyrone.

Phil Gramm was out of the Senate, and the president of Texas A. & M. by the time of the Fannie and Freddie scandal--or more accurately, the McCain effort to regin them in that Dem/libs in Congress blocked even as a minority by filibustering.

And the LBJ thing? I guess you're right about the early privatization thing, but how on earth do you presume to link THAT to the Vietnam War?

Right. The whole mess just started in this century. :roll:

Why don't you actually read and learn about what Mr. Gramm pushed thru in 99.

LBJ: Again, you don't know...why did he privatize? :roll: