Nice Job, Mr. President

[Lurch]

Economics 101 for the country.  Clear and concise.  Well played, Sir.

[Lurch]

Holy shit.  Where has that guy been the last 8 years?

[austro]

Missed it. Was he actually coherent?

[jonbloozy]

Transcript

[Lurch]

Transcript

That's not it

[HudsonHawk]

Economics 101 for the country.  Clear and concise.  Well played, Sir.

Did he make the pie higher?

[jonbloozy]

That's not it

I know, sorry.  Still can't find the actual transcript.  Here's CNN

[jonbloozy]

Video here

[T. J.]

Transcript

[Gizzmonic]

He explained the scenario well.  He didn't explain why we're just handing out more money to the people that got us into this mess, while explicitly prohibiting oversight.  We reward poor investing strategies with free taxpayer money?  Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

[ybbodeus]

It was well delivered, at least in terms of how it played on the radio; I wasn't home to view it.  We've only been hearing about this nightmare for about a year and a half, longer if one has access to professional Wall Street watchers (analysts, not brokers or even IB's).  Now that the issue is on our front porch one can't help but think that the impact goes far beyond our own economy; it will have world imact, given how much foreign investment is wrapped up in our financial system.

This matter is so complicated that there's no reason to think that throwing good money after bad is going to fix it to any great degree.  The alternative, the government's doing nothing and hanging on to our money for a down-the-line rescue, doesn't exactly sit well, either.  

[Lurch]

He explained the scenario well.  He didn't explain why we're just handing out more money to the people that got us into this mess, while explicitly prohibiting oversight.  We reward poor investing strategies with free taxpayer money?  Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Not sure anyone is suggesting no oversight.

Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st-century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th-century laws.

Recently, we've seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability.

There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow.

... but there are expressed concerns about trying to figure that out right now if you believe the money is needed ASAP.

And my impression is, no, this is not how capitalism is supposed to work, but we're not willing as a whole to take the pain side of capitalism.  We've never been pure capitalists, and it's not reasonable to assume we ever will be.  Politics will always prevent it.

[Lurch]

This matter is so complicated that there's no reason to think that throwing good money after bad is going to fix it to any great degree.  The alternative, the government's doing nothing and hanging on to our money for a down-the-line rescue, doesn't exactly sit well, either.  

One thing I heard from a talking head last night after the speech was that the $700B could only cover 5% of the bad debt.  I've not been able to validate that yet, but if true, that probably needs more explanation than we got last night.  I couldn't begin to understand the problem on the level Paulson has it, but to a simpleton like me that seems like pissing on a fire.

[Craig]

Not sure anyone is suggesting no oversight.

Bush's plan has this section in it:

"Decisions by the (Treasury) Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

[Gizzmonic]

Not sure anyone is suggesting no oversight.
... but there are expressed concerns about trying to figure that out right now if you believe the money is needed ASAP.

And my impression is, no, this is not how capitalism is supposed to work, but we're not willing as a whole to take the pain side of capitalism.  We've never been pure capitalists, and it's not reasonable to assume we ever will be.  Politics will always prevent it.

Let me put it this way: how is taking taxpayer money and giving it to the very people who caused the problem with NO STRINGS ATTACHED anything other than wholesale theft and rewarding failure?  And don't say "because the government's doing it."

[Lurch]

Bush's plan has this section in it:

"Decisions by the (Treasury) Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Ah.  I misunderstood the point.  Thought we were talking about oversight of the recipients.  This does seem troubling, though I'm sure the party line is that it is needed to prevent politicians and/or lawyers from slowing down the flow of cash on every payout made.

[Lurch]

Let me put it this way: how is taking taxpayer money and giving it to the very people who caused the problem with NO STRINGS ATTACHED anything other than wholesale theft and rewarding failure?  And don't say "because the government's doing it."

I completely agree with you.  It's shitty, but that doesn't mean that its not necessary.  The collapse of these corporations is warranted.  But, do we ALL want to deal with the consequences when they go under?  It's not just the executives that are going to feel the pain, it's our entire credit infrastructure and all of us rely upon it.  How painful would you let it get before allowing this to happen?  Great Depression II?

[Ty in Tampa]

I completely agree with you.  It's shitty, but that doesn't mean that its not necessary.  The collapse of these corporations is warranted.  But, do we ALL want to deal with the consequences when they go under?  It's not just the executives that are going to feel the pain, it's our entire credit infrastructure and all of us rely upon it.  How painful would you let it get before allowing this to happen?  Great Depression II?

I'm wondering where the outrage is. This is torch and pitchfork shit.

[Jacksonian]

I completely agree with you.  It's shitty, but that doesn't mean that its not necessary.  The collapse of these corporations is warranted.  But, do we ALL want to deal with the consequences when they go under?  It's not just the executives that are going to feel the pain, it's our entire credit infrastructure and all of us rely upon it.  How painful would you let it get before allowing this to happen?  Great Depression II?

The laws and regulations and formulas governing credit are so anti-consumer it's a wonder it took this long to get here.

[Jacksonian]

I'm wondering where the outrage is. This is torch and pitchfork shit.

We're not, today, at double digit unemployment.

[Lurch]

The laws and regulations and formulas governing credit are so anti-consumer it's a wonder it took this long to get here.

Credit is not a right.  That we've become so dependant on it is our own fault.  We've let the credit companies bend us over

[Jacksonian]

Credit is not a right.  That we've become so dependant on it is our own fault.  We've let the credit companies bend us over

I agree.  I was referring to credit granting being anti-competitive.

[Limey]

Seems to me that the bailout is necessary, but why is it so focused on Wall Street while ignoring the idividuals whose taxes will be used for the bailout?  No plan should be put in place that (a) doesn't include a moratorium on foreclosures; (b) allow for the rewriting of "at risk" mortgages so that the borrower has a shot at paying it, or a good portion of it at least, back; and (c) require equity to be gained and/or the money to be repaid with interest as they did with the AIG bailout.

Just giving Wall Street more money to keep them solvent is a really, really bad idea.

[Gizzmonic]

I completely agree with you.  It's shitty, but that doesn't mean that its not necessary.  The collapse of these corporations is warranted.  But, do we ALL want to deal with the consequences when they go under?  It's not just the executives that are going to feel the pain, it's our entire credit infrastructure and all of us rely upon it.  How painful would you let it get before allowing this to happen?  Great Depression II?

I'd be happy with either of these, but they are both probably too radical for most Americans to support:

Socialistic/FDR The CEOs should have their golden parachutes seized away from them to pay unemployment for all the lost jobs, and the government should be appointing economists to the boards of every one of these companies to make sure they don't overextend themselves again, along with stricter regulations.

Classic liberal/capitalismOr...we should let the financial sector crumble.  Just like we did with the manufacturing sector.  Smart, better run banks in other parts of the world (Brazil, Europe, Asia) will emerge to pick up the slack.

Rewarding the people who ran the financial sector into the ground is like buying your teenager who just wrecked your BMW a new Maserati and a bottle of bourbon.

[MusicMan]

Seems to me that the bailout is necessary, but why is it so focused on Wall Street while ignoring the idividuals whose taxes will be used for the bailout?  No plan should be put in place that (a) doesn't include a moratorium on foreclosures; (b) allow for the rewriting of "at risk" mortgages so that the borrower has a shot at paying it, or a good portion of it at least, back; and (c) require equity to be gained and/or the money to be repaid with interest as they did with the AIG bailout.

Just giving Wall Street more money to keep them solvent is a really, really bad idea.

I think all 3 points are fine, but keeping Wall Street solvent is a really, really necessary thing.

[MusicMan]

I'd be happy with either of these, but they are both probably too radical for most Americans to support:

Classic liberal/capitalismOr...we should let the financial sector crumble.  Just like we did with the manufacturing sector.  Smart, better run banks in other parts of the world (Brazil, Europe, Asia) will emerge to pick up the slack.

I think you misunderstand America's place in the global financial system if you think that "better run banks" will just "pick up the slack" without a scenario that makes "the Great Depression" look like "a walk in the park".

[Jacksonian]

Socialistic/FDR The CEOs should have their golden parachutes seized away from them to pay unemployment for all the lost jobs, and the government should be appointing ethical economists to the boards of every one of these companies to make sure they don't overextend themselves again, along with stricter regulations.

FIFY. Qualify "economists" with "ethical."  Corruption is a massive part of the problem, and just being an economist doesn't mean you can't be unethical or criminal.

[Lurch]

Seems to me that the bailout is necessary, but why is it so focused on Wall Street while ignoring the idividuals whose taxes will be used for the bailout?  No plan should be put in place that (a) doesn't include a moratorium on foreclosures; (b) allow for the rewriting of "at risk" mortgages so that the borrower has a shot at paying it, or a good portion of it at least, back; and (c) require equity to be gained and/or the money to be repaid with interest as they did with the AIG bailout.

Just giving Wall Street more money to keep them solvent is a really, really bad idea.

I might be misunderstanding, but we are getting assets for our $700B.  We, as a country, are in a unique position to buy these out of favor assets while the market is in the hole.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these assets (ultimately, homes) will uptick in the future and the country will actually profit off of this exchange.  With that in mind, I'm not sure (c) is necessary.

I think (a) can't happen if we want my point above to work.  People who have no business in a home they cant afford must get out so that it can be sold to someone who can.

I would think that if I (as the government) now own these mortgages, there is an interest rate number at which I'd be willing to go to for my homeowners where my investment pays off.  That might be the way out for (b).

On the other hot topic here, the whole discussion about limiting executive pay seems unnecessary, but I suppose you have to throw something at the mob.  Should be interesting trying to fill those positions when the rest of the executive search market doesn't have such limitations.  Guess we just hope someone will take the lesser pay for an already troubled business out of the kindness of their heart.  Good luck!

[Lurch]

The CEOs should have their golden parachutes seized away from them to pay unemployment for all the lost jobs

Only if they did something illegal.  Golden parachutes are a valuable sales tool to get an executive to consider your company.  You shouldn't be able to take them away just as you can't take away an assembly line worker's paycheck from last week because they suck at their job.

[BizidyDizidy]

Lurch is right on point - the 700B isn't a gift, it's buying assets. Last time they did this (RTC during the S&L scandal) it was a net payout to taxpayers. The key issue is how they price the assets and making sure the government pays a fair price.

Quite frankly, the idea of keeping people in houses they had no business buying and couldn't afford is more repulsive to me than bailing out the financiers (not that I have any great sympathy for them either).

[MusicMan]

Lurch is right on point - the 700B isn't a gift, it's buying assets. Last time they did this (RTC during the S&L scandal) it was a net payout to taxpayers. The key issue is how they price the assets and making sure the government pays a fair price.

Quite frankly, the idea of keeping people in houses they had no business buying and couldn't afford is more repulsive to me than bailing out the financiers (not that I have any great sympathy for them either).

On one hand, you praise the gov't for buying assets that could become a net payout to taxpayers.

On the other, you suggest making the assets as worthless as possible by kicking people out rather than renegotiating the terms of the loan.  And don't tell me about getting a return at forelosure - in the locations of most of these properties, you'll get pennies on the dollar if you auction a foreclosure.

[Lurch]

On one hand, you praise the gov't for buying assets that could become a net payout to taxpayers.

On the other, you suggest making the assets as worthless as possible by kicking people out rather than renegotiating the terms of the loan.  And don't tell me about getting a return at forelosure - in the locations of most of these properties, you'll get pennies on the dollar if you auction a foreclosure.

Only if you try to immediatly flip.  If, however, you believe these homes will be valuable some day in the future (5 years) that is a different story.  Again, the US government is in the unique positon to play this game.  Buy low (with $700B), wait, sell high.

[Gizzmonic]

Only if they did something illegal.  Golden parachutes are a valuable sales tool to get an executive to consider your company.  You shouldn't be able to take them away just as you can't take away an assembly line worker's paycheck from last week because they suck at their job.

Greater pay, greater responsibility.  The boards of these companies got themselves into this mess by rewarding failure after failure.  They already destroyed the relationship between compensation and results, to the detriment of everyone.  And now, if they have to buy back a little bit of what they broke, it's going to discourage the "top" talent from coming on board?  I don't think so.

[Lurch]

On one hand, you praise the gov't for buying assets that could become a net payout to taxpayers.

On the other, you suggest making the assets as worthless as possible by kicking people out rather than renegotiating the terms of the loan.  And don't tell me about getting a return at forelosure - in the locations of most of these properties, you'll get pennies on the dollar if you auction a foreclosure.

Also... "pennies on the dollar".  We'll be buying these at ~$.20.  Homes have not dropped 80% in value on average.  You could theoretically sell for $.30 (what would otherwise look outlandish) and still make a 50% profit.

[Lurch]

Greater pay, greater responsibility.  The boards of these companies got themselves into this mess by rewarding failure after failure.  They already destroyed the relationship between compensation and results, to the detriment of everyone.  And now, if they have to buy back a little bit of what they broke, it's going to discourage the "top" talent from coming on board?  I don't think so.

Many believe that risk taking is what makes great leaders great.  Just doing business as usual and only making safe decisions leads to a stagnant company in a competitive marketplace. This is obviously a very visible failure, but we don't hear about the risks that CEOs make that lead to great success (creating new jobs and all).  Given the option to take another job in which risk is rewarded, vs this one where it is not and actually could result in you losing earned income, I can't imagine there will be long lines of the type of talent needed for this role waiting for an interview.  So there, we must choose to disagree.

[MusicMan]

Also... "pennies on the dollar".  We'll be buying these at ~$.20.  

That's not yet settled.

[Lurch]

That's not yet settled.

True.  The reverse auction should be interesting.  I was able to do that once for a 1500 unit PC purchase.  Dell, HP and Lenovo taking turns droping their shorts was facinating to watch.  Done right, it can be very effective.

[Gizzmonic]

Many believe that risk taking is what makes great leaders great.  Just doing business as usual and only making safe decisions leads to a stagnant company in a competitive marketplace. This is obviously a very visible failure, but we don't hear about the risks that CEOs make that lead to great success (creating new jobs and all).  Given the option to take another job in which risk is rewarded, vs this one where it is not and actually could result in you losing earned income, I can't imagine there will be long lines of the type of talent needed for this role waiting for an interview.  So there, we must choose to disagree.

The entire problem is that none of these people seemed to be aware that they were taking risks.  Mortgages were thought of as safe investments.  The radical thinkers were the ones who sold short and realized what would happen when the ARMs got to the breaking point.

Also, let me make clear that I don't support long-term limitations on executive compensation.  I just think the people whose poor judgment led to this collapse should have to pay for some of the mess they created.  Just like the hapless bank teller is paying for it now, probably by selling his plasma.

And yes, I do believe that there is young, hungry talent in the banking industry waiting to take the challenge of leadership and reap the rewards in these tough times.  I don't think they would be scared away by the prospect of having a personal stake in success.  J.P. Morgan lost millions of his own fortune pumping money into the market to prevent a panic.

[Limey]

I think all 3 points are fine, but keeping Wall Street solvent is a really, really necessary thing.

Absolutely, didn't mean to suggest otherwise.  Just saying that a $700bn soup kitchen for banks isn't going to solve anything.

[Limey]

Quite frankly, the idea of keeping people in houses they had no business buying and couldn't afford is more repulsive to me than bailing out the financiers (not that I have any great sympathy for them either).

Please.  This didn't happen because individuals decided to strong-arm the banks into lending them money that the banks didn't want to.  This happened because the banks were awash with cheap capital, and needed a way to put it to use.  Hey presto!  Sub-prime mortgages.

[Limey]

Only if you try to immediatly flip.  If, however, you believe these homes will be valuable some day in the future (5 years) that is a different story.  Again, the US government is in the unique positon to play this game.  Buy low (with $700B), wait, sell high.

The Government We are not buying the properties.  We are buying the mortgages and trusting that as many as possible get repaid.

[Lurch]

The Government We are not buying the properties.  We are buying the mortgages and trusting that as many as possible get repaid.

um... who owns the property if when they dont get repaid?

[Taras Bulba]

The last three houses I bought, I have been increasingly horrified at what banks were willing to lend me--money I had no business borrowing.  Each time, I wondered about the people who did indeed took them up on their offers, not thinking about what happens when a little drizzle comes their way, much less a rainy day.

[MusicMan]

The last three houses I bought, I have been increasingly horrified at what banks were willing to lend me--money I had no business borrowing.  Each time, I wondered about the people who did indeed took them up on their offers, not thinking about what happens when a little drizzle comes their way, much less a rainy day.

Just look at an on-line mortgage calculator some time.  It's comical.

[JackAstro]

The last three houses I bought, I have been increasingly horrified at what banks were willing to lend me--money I had no business borrowing.  Each time, I wondered about the people who did indeed took them up on their offers, not thinking about what happens when a little drizzle comes their way, much less a rainy day.

About 7 years ago, a mortgage broker advised me - based on full knowledge of my finances - that I was eligible for a mortgage that approached my entire net monthly income. With no money down. And an adjustment after 3 years.

That's insane, I told her... why in the world would you offer me something that would absolutely result in a default? She got pissy and told me, "well, it's not my responsibility to tell you what you can and can't afford." Oh. Okay. I kind of thought that would be important to the mortgage company, but I suppose I'm hopelessly naive. I promptly found a new broker.

[Lurch]

When a borrower defaults and the bank forecloses, who gets the remainder of the cash if the house sells for more than the mortgage due?

[otterjb]

When a borrower defaults and the bank forecloses, who gets the remainder of the cash if the house sells for more than the mortgage due?

The borrower.

[Lurch]

The borrower.

Never mind, I was thinking about that incorrectly.  These will likely never recover to the mortgage value.  These are bought at a loss and will hopefully be sold at a lesser loss, but still a loss as far as the buyer is concerned nonetheless.

So we will buy a $500k mortgage for a house thats actually worth about $200k and we'll pay $100k for the paper (the reverse auction would theoretically lead to us getting the substantial discount which is why we're not paying $200k).  The owner will default (not able to make a payment on a $500k note) and walk away entirely.  We will temporarily own the home and wait for a buyer.  It might be a long wait.  Eventually, someone will come in and take it off our hands for $150k.  In essence, the bank takes a $400k loss now rather than "just" $350k later.  The trade off is that they have liquidity again, and realistically, they couldn't have waited for "later" because they'd go out of business before that day happened.  But at least now with their newfound liquidity they can reinvest somewhere else and hope to recover their $400k loss down the road.

The banks risk: that they wont be able to convert that new $100k cash into something profitable.  They still have a $400k hole to dig out of.  They may very well still tank.

Our risk: that we won't be able to sell our new mortgage turned property for at least $100k in a reasonable (whatever that is?) amount of time.  In the meantime, our dollar value decreases as we go further into debt.

[austro]

Our risk: that we won't be able to sell our new mortgage turned property for at least $100k in a reasonable (whatever that is?) amount of time.  In the meantime, our dollar value decreases as we go further into debt.

Plus the bonus parting gift: all property values of adjacent properties dive (already happening), taking with them the tax revenues that municipalities require for services (coming soon to towns near you).

[Lurch]

Plus the bonus parting gift: all property values of adjacent properties dive (already happening), taking with them the tax revenues that municipalities require for services (coming soon to towns near you).

Yes, but that will happen regardless.  The bailout shouldnt increase that problem, I wouldnt think.

[Limey]

um... who owns the property if when they dont get repaid?

That's a whole nother transaction.  Plus, foreclosed assets are going to be worth a fuck of a lot less than the mortgage.

[Lurch]

That's a whole nother transaction.  Plus, forclosed assets are going to be worth a fuck of a lot less than the mortgage.

Am I wrong to assume that we will own the property? And I think the foreclosure is assumed at this point since these are the bottom of the barrel subprime mortgages.  So that it will be a lot less than the mortgage is already priced in (thus the $.20 estimate)

[Lurch]

Stick-figure explanation on Google Docs...

[Limey]

Am I wrong to assume that we will own the property? And I think the foreclosure is assumed at this point since these are the bottom of the barrel subprime mortgages.  So that it will be a lot less than the mortgage is already priced in (thus the $.20 estimate)

We are buying the mortgages, not the properties.  With the mortgage comes a lien and the ability to foreclose, but I don't see the govt foreclosing on voters.  What I expect will happen is that the mortgages will get re-written in a form that gives the property "owner" some chance of keeping up payments.

also, FWIW, Congress has announced agreement on the bill.  No details yet, but the expectation is that it will include provisions to curtail executive pay and strict oversight.

[Arky Vaughan]

If a bank has mortgages payable at $10 billion secured by properties whose value has fallen to $5 million, and somebody buys the mortgages from the bank for $2 billion, does the bank not suffer an $8 billion loss? I mean, the bank at least gets to stop its bleeding, but it is not as if the bank gets off free and easy, right?

[Jacksonian]

Stick-figure explanation on Google Docs...

If there was a lightbulb smiley I'd post it here.

[Duman]

Stick-figure explanation on Google Docs...

Wish there was a G rated version I could share with family.  That is pretty clear and consise

[Arky Vaughan]

If there was a lightbulb smiley I'd post it here.

That was awesome.

[Limey]

If there was a lightbulb smiley I'd post it here.

The building society (savings and loans) that failed in the UK - Northern Rock, IIRC - used to dish out 120% mortgages so that the borrower could buy a house and pay off some credit cards.  Clearly, they never expected to housing market to fall...

[Jacksonian]

Wish there was a G rated version I could share with family.  That is pretty clear and consise

You could get a pad of paper and redraw each frame on sequential pages and revise the language.  Afterall, anyone can draw stick figures.  But translating "fuck you" from Norwegian might be difficult.

[jonbloozy]

Every stick figure I've ever met has been a vulgar asshole

[MusicMan]

Every stick figure I've ever met has been a vulgar asshole

Paris Hilton.

[austro]

Paris Hilton.

Wrong hole.

[MusicMan]

Wrong hole.

I doubt she's ever said that.

[tophfar]

Wrong hole.

What are "Words that have never come out of Paris Hilton's mouth".

I'll take anal bum covers for 300 Alex.

[Lurch]

Wish there was a G rated version I could share with family.  That is pretty clear and consise

I don't know.  I think "blow me" is a critical part of the history.

[Limey]

Wrong hole.

FIFY

[Lurch]

If a bank has mortgages payable at $10 billion secured by properties whose value has fallen to $5 million, and somebody buys the mortgages from the bank for $2 billion, does the bank not suffer an $8 billion loss? I mean, the bank at least gets to stop its bleeding, but it is not as if the bank gets off free and easy, right?

Correct, and they needed that $2B to try to create value elsewhere to cover the $8B loss, or they will still, ultimately, fail.

[austro]

I don't know.  I think "blow me" is a critical part of the history.

It absolutely is. I'm no accountant, but it seems to me that Enron's chicanery was possible because of SPVs, and that should have been enough of a warning to warrant much more rigorous disclosure rules. Apparently it wasn't.

[BizidyDizidy]

About 7 years ago, a mortgage broker advised me - based on full knowledge of my finances - that I was eligible for a mortgage that approached my entire net monthly income. With no money down. And an adjustment after 3 years.

That's insane, I told her... why in the world would you offer me something that would absolutely result in a default? She got pissy and told me, "well, it's not my responsibility to tell you what you can and can't afford." Oh. Okay. I kind of thought that would be important to the mortgage company, but I suppose I'm hopelessly naive. I promptly found a new broker.

But we shouldn't penalize the people who weren't responsible I guess - you should subsidize them and suffer for your responsibility.

[MusicMan]

But we shouldn't penalize the people who weren't responsible I guess - you should subsidize them and suffer for your responsibility.

You're really not getting this.

[BizidyDizidy]

You're really not getting this.

Please explain it then. Mortgage lenders (who should be put in jail if they falsified documents) were pushing loans so the people who signed loans they couldn't afford shouldn't be responsible?

The people who own the securities weren't pushing loans, to be clear.

[JackAstro]

But we shouldn't penalize the people who weren't responsible I guess - you should subsidize them and suffer for your responsibility.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying right now.

[Lurch]

But we shouldn't penalize the people who weren't responsible I guess - you should subsidize them and suffer for your responsibility.

They were penalized.  The market kicked the shit out of them and left them for dead.  We've put them on a ventilator, but they're not exactly out chasing tail right now.

[MusicMan]

Please explain it then. Mortgage lenders (who should be put in jail if they falsified documents) were pushing loans so the people who signed loans they couldn't afford shouldn't be responsible?

The people who own the securities weren't pushing loans, to be clear.

I'm not subsidizing the people who took out the loans.  I'm in favor subsidizing the banks who securitized them, because I'm in favor of people being able to exhange the US dollar for goods and services.

[Lurch]

Please explain it then. Mortgage lenders (who should be put in jail if they falsified documents) were pushing loans so the people who signed loans they couldn't afford shouldn't be responsible?

The people who own the securities weren't pushing loans, to be clear.

The FBI is currently investigating such practices.  This in no way absolves anyone of illegal activities.  But just selling something to an idiot without considering their ability to keep paying for it is not illegal.

[BizidyDizidy]

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying right now.

Now you're saying I should be penalized just because I can't type worth a shit.

[Jacksonian]

Now you're saying I should be penalized just because I can't type worth a shit.

No, he's saying you should stop penalizing us by continuing to type.

[BizidyDizidy]

The FBI is currently investigating such practices.  This in no way absolves anyone of illegal activities.  But just selling something to an idiot without considering their ability to keep paying for it is not illegal.

I've been incredibly obtuse upon rereading - here is the order of responsibility in my humble opinion:

1) Mortgage brokers who falsified papers without the homeowners knowledge.
2) People who bought homes they knowingly couldn't afford.
3) Mortgage brokers who legally pushed people to buy homes they couldn't afford.
4) People who purchased securitized mortgages
5) People who bought houses they could afford

The current plan protects 4 from insolvency (and avoids global financial meltdown) at the least expense to 5. I am just saying I have no sympathy for 2, would put 1 in jail and hopefully most of category 3 will be out of business soon.

Dammit, hit modify rather than quote on accident. Sorry, BD. -- Arky

[ybbodeus]

Is this bailout the equivalent of "clean up on aisle 7", not to mention aisles 8 - 49?  Or does it also include provisions to encourage continued investment in our financial markets?  

For example do you think either side (read Republicans) would have that nads to suggest a brief reduction in the capital gains tax rate to keep the influx of capital into financial markets coming?  

[S.P. Rodriguez]

....  But just selling something to an idiot without considering their ability to keep paying for it is not illegal.

No, it's just incredibly poor business practice.  And in a normal environment, those holding the mortgage would be left to face the consequences of this high risk decision.  When it becomes a wide-spread issue, as it is currently, it will take us all down....

[Arky Vaughan]

I've been incredibly obtuse upon rereading - here is the order of responsibility in my humble opinion:

1) Mortgage brokers who falsified papers without the homeowners knowledge.
2) People who bought homes they knowingly couldn't afford.
3) Mortgage brokers who legally pushed people to buy homes they couldn't afford.
4) People who purchased securitized mortgages
5) People who bought houses they could afford

The current plan protects 4 from insolvency (and avoids global financial meltdown) at the least expense to 5. I am just saying I have no sympathy for 2, would put 1 in jail and hopefully most of category 3 will be out of business soon

And that's all it does for 4. It doesn't make them profitable again. It allows them to sell of the mortgage-backed securities at a massive loss but keeps them from going under, which at that point would chiefly screw over (1) depositors, (2) responsible borrowers who need access to credit and (3) taxpayers, who are on the hook anyway thanks to the FDIC.

My fear is that any government-sponsored intervention will result in (a) the mortgage-backed securities being purchased from those banks for more than the they're worth, resulting in a subsidy and (b) the government not repossessing on the mortgages that can't be repaid, and instead trying to help borrowers make good on those mortages.

All the creative rewriting in the world isn't going to make it possible for some borrowers to repay their mortgages if the outstanding balance is hopelessly greater than what the borrower has the ability to repay.

[Lurch]

No, it's just incredibly poor business practice stupid.  And in a normal environment, those holding the mortgage would be left to face the consequences of this high risk decision.  When it becomes a wide-spread issue, as it is currently, it will take us all down....

FIFY. Per Mr Stickfigure, they thought the home value would continue to go up, so it was just a matter of foreclosing to recoup the investment.

[Limey]

My fear is that any government-sponsored intervention will result in (a) the mortgage-backed securities being purchased from those banks for more than the they're worth, resulting in a subsidy and (b) the government not repossessing on the mortgages that can't be repaid, and instead trying to help borrowers make good on those mortages.

I think (a) was the big concern over the "no questions asked" element of the Paulson Plan.  If he started overpaying for some or all of these toxic securities, and thereby rewarding the holders in some form, there was no way to stop it.

As for (b), once the government buys the loans, there's no reason why they couldn't drop the interest rate to the current Fed rate - i.e. the same rate at which they lend to banks - which will eliminate a big piece of the monthly payment.  Foreclose only in those cases where the loan can't be restructured to the point where the borower can service it over the long term.

[Limey]

FIFY. Per Mr Stickfigure, they thought the home value would continue to go up, so it was just a matter of foreclosing to recoup the investment.

At least it shows that they believed it when the told the potential borrower not to worry about the balloon payment or rate hike because the house was guaranteed to appreciate.  They built their whole business plan on that assumption!

[Jacksonian]

At least it shows that they believed it when the told the potential borrower not to worry about the balloon payment or rate hike because the house was guaranteed to appreciate.  They built their whole business plan on that assumption!

When I was shopping for mortgages the lenders tried to get me to go for the low rate now ARM with the understanding that the house would appreciate AND that I'd then sell my house for a profit before the rate increase so the adjustment was just going to be window dressing on the low rate.  I passed.

[BizidyDizidy]

I think (a) was the big concern over the "no questions asked" element of the Paulson Plan.  If he started overpaying for some or all of these toxic securities, and thereby rewarding the holders in some form, there was no way to stop it.

As for (b), once the government buys the loans, there's no reason why they couldn't drop the interest rate to the current Fed rate - i.e. the same rate at which they lend to banks - which will eliminate a big piece of the monthly payment.  Foreclose only in those cases where the loan can't be restructured to the point where the borower can service it over the long term.

They should only do that though if the value of the new mortgage is greater than the foreclosure value of the house.

[Lurch]

They should only do that though if the value of the new mortgage is greater than the foreclosure value of the house.

I imagine the line to be the discounted purchase price, not the potential foreclosure value.

Ie:
We pay $100k for a $500k mortgage.
Foreclosed home presumed to sell for $150k.

If buyer can afford $100k mortgage, they'll keep the house, even though open market would bring $150k.  Even if they could also afford a $150k mortgage.  So, thats pretty fucked up.

[BizidyDizidy]

I imagine the line to be the discounted purchase price, not the potential foreclosure value.

Ie:
We pay $100k for a $500k mortgage.
Foreclosed home presumed to sell for $150k.

If buyer can afford $100k mortgage, they'll keep the house, even though open market would bring $150k.  Even if they could also afford a $150k mortgage.  So, thats pretty fucked up.

I am 100% in favor of this plan if it is executed like a market transaction. I am 80% in favor of it if it is above market only insofar as necessary to avoid global financial meltdown (either on the asset price side or the treatment of foreclosures side). I am 100% against it otherwise.

[Savage]

My fear is that any government-sponsored intervention will result in (a) the mortgage-backed securities being purchased from those banks for more than the they're worth, resulting in a subsidy and (b) the government not repossessing on the mortgages that can't be repaid, and instead trying to help borrowers make good on those mortages.

I think this (b) is highly unlikely given that the MBS are sliced and diced and repackaged so that no one is in possession of the actual mortgage, merely a piece of it.  That's why they want to tack on a provision that would allow courts the authority to alter the provisions of the mortgages.  It's the lack of transparency that is giving the market such fits in valuing these things and why they are so toxic.  It's one thing if they were just poorly performing assets, but people could feel comfortable quantifying how bad they were (see how the banks slowly, painfully but effectively digested most of the pre-credit crunch committments which were weighing down the system).  Take Tribune debt - worth pennies on the dollar but you can at least know what that is by looking at asset values and where you fall in the liquidation waterfall.  But the issue here is this nasty soup of parts of various mortgage where everything is obscured - where you fall in the liquidity waterfall and what the assets backing the security are worth.  And no one knows who has what so everyone is just paralyzed.  This "bailout" works if by getting rid of these assets these institutions and the markets feel confident and comfortable enough with the remaining capital quality and levels to start lending for investment again.  If not, we're all fucked.

[ybbodeus]

This "bailout" works if by getting rid of these assets these institutions and the markets feel confident and comfortable enough with the remaining capital quality and levels to start lending for investment again.  If not, we're all fucked.

That's what I was looking for with my question from previous page.  Is the bailout in and of itself enough to do that, or do we think it might take additional decisions, some so controversial because of the polarization in DC that they might never get made? 

[Savage]

That's what I was looking for with my question from previous page.  Is the bailout in and of itself enough to do that, or do we think it might take additional decisions, some so controversial because of the polarization in DC that they might never get made? 

I think so - GS and MS are question marks but I think the traditional universal banks (JPM, BofA, Citi and now Barclays) start trying to build market share quickly to take advantage of the dislocation.  Investment bankers are commercial animals and people aren't going to save their jobs by not doing business.  Though I still think you're a ways away from LBO activity.  It's not clear to me what the PE firms are going to do with the capital they're sitting on. 

[Limey]

I think so - GS and MS are question marks but I think the traditional universal banks (JPM, BofA, Citi and now Barclays) start trying to build market share quickly to take advantage of the dislocation.  Investment bankers are commercial animals and people aren't going to save their jobs by not doing business.  Though I still think you're a ways away from LBO activity.  It's not clear to me what the PE firms are going to do with the capital they're sitting on. 

OK

[MusicMan]

I think so - GS and MS are question marks but I think the traditional universal banks (JPM, BofA, Citi and now Barclays) start trying to build market share quickly to take advantage of the dislocation.  Investment bankers are commercial animals and people aren't going to save their jobs by not doing business.  Though I still think you're a ways away from LBO activity.  It's not clear to me what the PE firms are going to do with the capital they're sitting on. 

This was just FYI.

[ybbodeus]

Well, hell; there went my bank.  Nice when the feds can broker your LBO for you, so to speak; I suppose receivorship isn't exactly like that, is it?  Anyway, JPMC just picked up some serious retail banking presence. 

Every time I try to leave Chase, they pull me back in.

[MusicMan]

Don't worry, soon you'll just go to The Bank.

[Limey]

In case you missed it, McCain ditches Letterman and Dave goes off.  And again the next night.

[Jacksonian]

Don't worry, soon you'll just go to The Bank.

Andrew Jackson's ghost is looking for you.

[Lurch]

Well, hell; there went my bank.  Nice when the feds can broker your LBO for you, so to speak; I suppose receivorship isn't exactly like that, is it?  Anyway, JPMC just picked up some serious retail banking presence. 

Every time I try to leave Chase, they pull me back in.

Unreal.  The wise investment right now?  The guys that make and replace bank signs.  Or the guys that turn old banks into Walgreens.  The world can always use another Walgreens, right?

[ybbodeus]

I wandered away from Walgreen's during the Eckerd's expansion, so now I'm a CVS guy.

Regardless, point well taken.

Fairways & greens this weekend, Mr. Lurch.

[Limey]

I wandered away from Walgreen's during the Eckerd's expansion, so now I'm a CVS guy.

How the hell do you tell the difference once inside?

[tophfar]

In case you missed it, McCain ditches Letterman and Dave goes off.  And again the next night.

What an egotistical douche.

[Lurch]

How the hell do you tell the difference once inside?

CVS is open the morning after.

[Limey]

What an egotistical douche.

Who?  McCain or Letterman?

Did you miss the part where McCain was happy to use Letterman as the vehicle to launch his Presidential bid?

[Rebel Jew]

Quite frankly, the idea of keeping people in houses they had no business buying and couldn't afford is more repulsive to me than bailing out the financiers (not that I have any great sympathy for them either).

white asshole snobbery

[Lurch]

white asshole snobbery

white?  really going there?

[BizidyDizidy]

He's an anklebiter - just ignore him.

[subnuclear]

The laws and regulations and formulas governing credit are so anti-consumer it's a wonder it took this long to get here.

Presumably, the people in these mortages don't have much equity in them (low down payments, low interest rates at first), so besides their credit rating getting vaporized, how else are they going to be hurt if they walk away from their house? 

 

[BizidyDizidy]

This is exactly right - and even if they did lose equity it's no different than anyone who loses money on an investment (and a highly levered investment at that). It's not like you have to become homeless - rent a place like the rest of us who can't afford a house.

[Jacksonian]

Presumably, the people in these mortages don't have much equity in them (low down payments, low interest rates at first), so besides their credit rating getting vaporized, how else are they going to be hurt if they walk away from their house? 

 

I wasn't limiting it to just this particular issue.  Shopping for the best rate of credit actually harms your credit.

[Rebel Jew]

white?  really going there?

yes.  calling people "repulsive" for buying a house they ultimately couldn't afford to pay the mortgage on is straight-up arrogant priveleged white boy bs.

[subnuclear]

I wasn't limiting it to just this particular issue.  Shopping for the best rate of credit actually harms your credit.

So when I filled out the form on lendingtree.com a couple of weeks ago I basically screwed myself? 

[Lurch]

yes.  calling people "repulsive" for buying a house they ultimately couldn't afford to pay the mortgage on is straight-up arrogant priveleged white boy bs.

He said repulsive was keeping them in such a home.  Regardless, that you think race has anything to do with this is sad.  Plenty of white people made the same stupid decisions, and I'm quite confident that minorities (not just white boys) are equally able to recognize that stupidity.  Or, would you like to argue otherwise?

[VirtualBob]

I've been incredibly obtuse upon rereading - here is the order of responsibility in my humble opinion:

1) Mortgage brokers who falsified papers without the homeowners knowledge.
2) People who bought homes they knowingly couldn't afford.
3) Mortgage brokers who legally pushed people to buy homes they couldn't afford.
4) People who purchased securitized mortgages
5) People who bought houses they could afford

The current plan protects 4 from insolvency (and avoids global financial meltdown) at the least expense to 5. I am just saying I have no sympathy for 2, would put 1 in jail and hopefully most of category 3 will be out of business soon.

Dammit, hit modify rather than quote on accident. Sorry, BD. -- Arky

This is a pretty good outline, but there are a few details gthat blur the lines.  First of all, it is not obvious where the line between #2 and #5 actually falls ... especialy because the sharpest members of #2 are pretty good at positioning themselves to look like they are poor maligned members of #5.

Another thing is that #4, while perhaps less obviously culpable than #1 or #3, generated the demand that kept this whole thing afloat this long.  These guys are no dummies, and some of them must have at least suspected that this was a looming disaster ... most of them just mistimed their exit.

Which leads to another point.  #'s 1, 3 & 4 are actually *businesses* and the businesses (including a bunch of completely innocent investors in categories with numbers greater than 5) are being wacked mercilessly.  But the individual sacm artists themselves, except to the extent that they are also shareholders, are getting off scot free, often with severance packages that would make Scott Bor-ass salivate.  I really had to shed a tear for the guy at Lehman Brothers whose net worth has recently plummeted.  The poor guy was only able to unload about $139mm of his stock position before the crash.  Really sad.

[VirtualBob]

He said repulsive was keeping them in such a home.  Regardless, that you think race has anything to do with this is sad.  Plenty of white people made the same stupid decisions, and I'm quite confident that minorities (not just white boys) are equally able to recognize that stupidity.  Or, would you like to argue otherwise?

Don't feed the bears.  I had let him out of the "ignore" cage, but never again.

[Jacksonian]

So when I filled out the form on lendingtree.com a couple of weeks ago I basically screwed myself? 

Part of the formula that determines your credit score is how often someone pulls your full credit report.  Essentially each time you have someone pull your credit, your score goes down.

[Savage]

Part of the formula that determines your credit score is how often someone pulls your full credit report.  Essentially each time you have someone pull your credit, your score goes down.

Though if you're doing a major purchase such as a house, they group those requests.  So if you talk to 3 different mortgage companies around the same time and they all pull your credit, it's more like 1 request than 3.

[Rebel Jew]

He said repulsive was keeping them in such a home.  Regardless, that you think race has anything to do with this is sad.  Plenty of white people made the same stupid decisions, and I'm quite confident that minorities (not just white boys) are equally able to recognize that stupidity.  Or, would you like to argue otherwise?

no, many people could not recognize their stupidity (which was probably actually ignorance in most cases), or they wouldn't have gotten into the loans in the first place. 

it's not race in the strict sense, but to call people "repulsive" for wanting to stay in their homes well represents the perspective of the proverbial 'arrogant priveleged white guy.'  this is the same perspective that would say something like "poor people are poor because they're lazy." 

obviously, not every situation fits the 'hard-working american family getting evicted by greedy financiers' cliche that politicians try to pass off so that it looks like they're in touch with the people, but i can personally think of two families i know in san francisco who do fit this scenario, and if they are evicted they really will have no place to go.  call them repulsive.

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm just glad you don't teach reading comprehension.

[Rebel Jew]

I'm just glad you don't teach reading comprehension.

then explain to me what this means:

quite frankly, the idea of keeping people in houses they had no business buying and couldn't afford is more repulsive to me than bailing out the financiers.

explain how this generalization isn't belittling and calling repulsive my friends who are in danger of losing their home.

[HudsonHawk]

then explain to me what this means:


explain how this generalization isn't belittling and calling repulsive my friends who are in danger of losing their home.

Well, if your friends bought a house they knew they couldn't afford, they are repulsive, and I have no sympathy for them.

[BizidyDizidy]

The idea of using state money to pay to keep people in homes they bought they couldn't afford is ridiculous to me. Unlike your repeated misinterpretation, I didn't say that about the people who bought the houses.

Again, there is no god given right to own a house (regardless of what politicians have been pushing). Losing a home you own does not equal homeless - rent a place you can afford like everyone else does.

[Rebel Jew]

Well, if your friends bought a house they knew they couldn't afford, they are repulsive, and I have no sympathy for them.

it's a big assumption to imply that everybody at risk of foreclosure deliberately tried to manipulate the system by buying a house they knowingly couldn't or wouldn't be able to afford.

[BizidyDizidy]

What is the subject of the sentence that has the predicate "is repulsive". Are you as dense as you seem Joey?

[HudsonHawk]

it's a big assumption to imply that everybody at risk of foreclosure deliberately tried to manipulate the system by buying a house they knowingly couldn't or wouldn't be able to afford.

I never said, nor even implied that was the case.  If they did, they are repulsive.  If they are the victim of circumstance, than the description doesn't apply, so I'm not sure what you're issue is, other than you  just want to rant.  However, the current "mortgage crisis" is directly a result of people who knowingly bought houses they could not afford. 

[BizidyDizidy]

I lived in the bay area from 02-06; plenty of people bought houses that made no sense because that's what everyone was doing. With no comment on how insane 120% neg-am no-doc mortgages where, I don't see why they shouldn't lose their investment like everyone else who makes a bad one. (And its worth noting that I feel the same way about bailing out people who bought mortgage securities by bailing them out at above market rates.)

[Rebel Jew]

The idea of using state money to pay to keep people in homes they bought they couldn't afford is ridiculous to me. Unlike your repeated misinterpretation, I didn't say that about the people who bought the houses.

I agree with you here for the most part, except that many people can't afford their homes because of gross manipulations of the market that they had nothing to do with and in many cases were duped into.  you have to account for that, especially since you are bailing out the financiers.

Again, there is no god given right to own a house (regardless of what politicians have been pushing). Losing a home you own does not equal homeless - rent a place you can afford like everyone else does.

losing a home does equal homeless in some cases.  one of the families i keep referencing is in danger of being evicted from a home they've been in for 15 years.  they were duped into a bad refinancing deal in order to fix a leaking roof.  they won't be out on the street, but will be forced to move to another city.  this is a single-parent family, with a mother who works two jobs to make ends meet.  her home is all she has.  she didn't know what she was getting into, she was just trying to get her roof fixed.

[HudsonHawk]

I agree with you here for the most part, except that many people can't afford their homes because of gross manipulations of the market that they had nothing to do with and in many cases were duped into.  you have to account for that,

You do account for that.  It's called stupidity, and people don't get a pass on it.

especially since you are bailing out the financiers.

You shouldn't be doing that either.

losing a home does equal homeless in some cases.  one of the families i keep referencing is in danger of being evicted from a home they've been in for 15 years.  they were duped into a bad refinancing deal in order to fix a leaking roof.  they won't be out on the street, but will be forced to move to another city.  this is a single-parent family, with a mother who works two jobs to make ends meet.  her home is all she has.  she didn't know what she was getting into, she was just trying to get her roof fixed.

Shit happens.  Life if tough.  It's not a God-given right to live in San Francisco either.  Move to somewhere that's more affordable.

[Lurch]

... many people can't afford their homes because of gross manipulations of the market that they had nothing to do with ...

Please explain.

[HudsonHawk]

Please explain.

It must have been the speculators buying up all the oil.

[Lurch]

It must have been the speculators buying up all the oil.

I'm thinking we may need to suggest Joey not sign up for a mortgage alone.  Just saying.

[BizidyDizidy]

I agree with you here for the most part, except that many people can't afford their homes because of gross manipulations of the market that they had nothing to do with and in many cases were duped into.  you have to account for that, especially since you are bailing out the financiers.

losing a home does equal homeless in some cases.  one of the families i keep referencing is in danger of being evicted from a home they've been in for 15 years.  they were duped into a bad refinancing deal in order to fix a leaking roof.  they won't be out on the street, but will be forced to move to another city.  this is a single-parent family, with a mother who works two jobs to make ends meet.  her home is all she has.  she didn't know what she was getting into, she was just trying to get her roof fixed.

Two comments -

1) I have repeatedly said I think mortgage brokers/salesman who defrauded anyone were the worst culprits in this entire thing, and should be thrown into jail. But saying people were just incapable of understanding things and shouldn't be held responsible is a dangerous road of paternalism to go down.

2) Living in the bay area is a lifestyle choice (and an expensive one at that). The reason I live in Texas now is that I could afford to live a much better life here than I could in the bay area (which otherwise I prefer). It sounds like there's a lot of other people who might have to make that decision.

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm thinking we may need to suggest Joey not sign up for a mortgage alone.  Just saying.

I'm mostly curious if he intends to apologize for calling me a white asshole snob based on his lack of reading comprehension. I'm not holding my breath.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm mostly curious if he intends to apologize for calling me a white asshole snob based on his lack of reading comprehension. I'm not holding my breath.

Right.  It's not his comprehension skill that makes you white, an asshole, or even a snob.

[BizidyDizidy]

Right.  It's not his comprehension skill that makes you white, an asshole, or even a snob.

I never denied the conclusion, only the premise.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I'm mostly curious if he intends to apologize for calling me a white asshole snob based on his lack of reading comprehension. I'm not holding my breath.

Talk about ankle biting. It takes two to tango and ya'll be dancin' 'round on stumps.

[Rebel Jew]

I lived in the bay area from 02-06; plenty of people bought houses that made no sense because that's what everyone was doing. With no comment on how insane 120% neg-am no-doc mortgages where, I don't see why they shouldn't lose their investment like everyone else who makes a bad one. (And its worth noting that I feel the same way about bailing out people who bought mortgage securities by bailing them out at above market rates.)

you lived in palo alto.  go to east palo alto and have this conversation.

i never said that individuals shouldn't be held accountable for their bad decisions, but what bothers me is calling people "repulsive" for wanting to stay in their homes, which is essentially what you and to a lesser extent hudson are saying.  in my opinion, this statement represents the type of arrogance that i suggested, and it callously ignores the realities that many good people are facing.  "just suck it up and rent" is what you guys are saying to these people.  again, go to east palo alto and tell that to people and see what their response is.

[Rebel Jew]

2) Living in the bay area is a lifestyle choice (and an expensive one at that). The reason I live in Texas now is that I could afford to live a much better life here than I could in the bay area (which otherwise I prefer). It sounds like there's a lot of other people who might have to make that decision.

bizidy, you're 24.  quit talking like you're 50.  live where you want, have fun, enjoy your life.

[loganck]

bizidy, you're 24.  quit talking like you're 50.  live where you want, have fun, enjoy your life.

How is age relevant?

[Dobro]

yes.  calling people "repulsive" for buying a house they ultimately couldn't afford to pay the mortgage on is straight-up arrogant priveleged white boy bs.

Fuck you, you fucking racist idiot.

[VirtualBob]

Fuck you, you fucking racist idiot.

Well said. 

[Limey]

it's a big assumption to imply that everybody at risk of foreclosure deliberately tried to manipulate the system by buying a house they knowingly couldn't or wouldn't be able to afford.

But it helps some people sleep at night.

[Limey]

I never said, nor even implied that was the case.  If they did, they are repulsive.  If they are the victim of circumstance, than the description doesn't apply, so I'm not sure what you're issue is, other than you  just want to rant.  However, the current "mortgage crisis" is directly a result of people who knowingly bought houses they could not afford. 

It's a little more nuanced than that.  There are people who got into mortgages that simply could never work, but I believe that's a small element of the at-risk mortgages.  The broad crisis was caused by people being sold mortgages that they could afford at the time, and using them to buy houses, or using them to withdraw equity from their homes, while choosing to, or being told that they could, ignore the back-loading in the mortgage because the house will appreciate in value and so it could be sold or the mortgage could be re-financed before the back-loading became a problem.

ARMs were being pushed by Greenspan as late as 2005.  They fueled the housing boom, which drove up house prices, which allowed people to use their homes as a credit card, which gave them money to spend, which drove the economy, which made Greenspan happy.

This didn't happen in a vacuum.  People didn't simply wake up one day and decide to force the banks to give them a seriously risky loan.  The banks made the money available, because they thought they couldn't lose.  People took that money because they thought they couldn't lose, due - in no small part - because that's what they were being told by everyone up to and including the Fed. Chairman.

[MusicMan]

The House, in their infinite wisdom, has rejected the bailout bill, promptly resulting in a 500 point drop of the Dow.

[Limey]

The House, in their infinite wisdom, has rejected the bailout bill, promptly resulting in a 500 point drop of the Dow.

Was just posting same.  Vote was 207-226 with one no vote.  Pelosi held the vote open waaaay past time, ensuring that the Democrats looked like complete tools.

[Jacksonian]

Was just posting same.  Vote was 207-226 with one no vote.  Pelosi held the vote open waaaay past time, ensuring that the Democrats looked like complete tools.

How many Dems voted against?

[BizidyDizidy]

How many Dems voted against?

Here you go

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

[MusicMan]

Here you go

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

No:
Jackson-Lee (TX)

Not surprising.

[Limey]

How many Dems voted against?

Vote actually was 205-228.   Dems:  140 for, 95 against.  Reps:  65 for, 133 against.

[Lurch]

This is may be one of history's great tests of a representative democracy.  How many representatives will be willing to vote for it believing it's the right thing for our country when their constituents clearly do not.  I've tried to keep up and don't have the foggiest idea if this is a wise decision or not.  I'm going to make the assumption that the vast majority of voters haven't a clue either.  This is a problem more complex than most of us are able to comprehend.  Not to degrade or insult us as a people, just a realistic view of society's intelligence in general.  We, the people, can not make this decision.  Can our elected officials?  I'm not sure.  We don't elect economists, scholars, historians or mathematicians.  We elect (generally) career politicians.  Most are certainly highly intelligent individuals, but often generalists in what they know, delegating to their subordinates the task of researching and proposing solutions.   Assuming they could fully understand this problem and decide this solution needs to be voted for, would they choose to do so, or vote the way their constituents want?  This is fucking scary, but fascinating as well.

[Lurch]

Vote actually was 205-228.   Dems:  140 for, 95 against.  Reps:  65 for, 133 against.

Something bad will have to occur (as some suggested would if this wasn't passed) in the next few days and it will come up for a vote again.  Hopefully, it will be a subtle change (new home loan freeze, recalls on line of credits, drop in credit card max, etc) and not a full scale market crash, giving time for another vote.  Again, as above, a great test.

[Limey]

This is may be one of history's great tests of a representative democracy.  How many representatives will be willing to vote for it believing it's the right thing for our country when their constituents clearly do not.  I've tried to keep up and don't have the foggiest idea if this is a wise decision or not.  I'm going to make the assumption that the vast majority of voters haven't a clue either.  This is a problem more complex than most of us are able to comprehend.  Not to degrade or insult us as a people, just a realistic view of society's intelligence in general.  We, the people, can not make this decision.  Can our elected officials?  I'm not sure.  We don't elect economists, scholars, historians or mathematicians.  We elect (generally) career politicians.  Most are certainly highly intelligent individuals, but often generalists in what they know, delegating to their subordinates the task of researching and proposing solutions.   Assuming they could fully understand this problem and decide this solution needs to be voted for, would they choose to do so, or vote the way their constituents want?  This is fucking scary, but fascinating as well.

If a top-down bailout won't work (at least in this form and, honestly, who really thought giving a Bush-appointee a $700bn slush fund was a rock-solid idea?), why not try a bottom-up bailout?  Feed the money into the bad mortgages by amending the loan contracts and compensating the lenders for the difference.  That way the value of the mortagage as an investment is preserved because the loan will now get repaid in full!

It's a much larger administrative undertaking, and obviously open to abuse.  But the individual amounts will be small enough such that no one example of abuse would take down the relief effort (unlike, say, giving one bank $100bn only for the thing to still go down the toilet).

[Lurch]

If a top-down bailout won't work (at least in this form and, honestly, who really thought giving a Bush-appointee a $700bn slush fund was a rock-solid idea?), why not try a bottom-up bailout?  Feed the money into the bad mortgages by amending the loan contracts and compensating the lenders for the difference.  That way the value of the mortagage as an investment is preserved because the loan will now get repaid in full!

It's a much larger administrative undertaking, and obviously open to abuse.  But the individual amounts will be small enough such that no one example of abuse would take down the relief effort (unlike, say, giving one bank $100bn only for the thing to still go down the toilet).

To my point, this is far above my pay-scale.  That said, in Limeyland, will the US Govt own a piece of the property we just paid part of the mortgage for?  Because we would in the legislation that just failed.

[Rebel Jew]

This is may be one of history's great tests of a representative democracy.  How many representatives will be willing to vote for it believing it's the right thing for our country when their constituents clearly do not.  I've tried to keep up and don't have the foggiest idea if this is a wise decision or not.  I'm going to make the assumption that the vast majority of voters haven't a clue either.  This is a problem more complex than most of us are able to comprehend.  Not to degrade or insult us as a people, just a realistic view of society's intelligence in general.  We, the people, can not make this decision.  Can our elected officials?  I'm not sure.  We don't elect economists, scholars, historians or mathematicians.  We elect (generally) career politicians.  Most are certainly highly intelligent individuals, but often generalists in what they know, delegating to their subordinates the task of researching and proposing solutions.   Assuming they could fully understand this problem and decide this solution needs to be voted for, would they choose to do so, or vote the way their constituents want?  This is fucking scary, but fascinating as well.

you give our elected officials too much credit.  their main personal dilemma is how to appear like they're standing up for their constituents in an election year while at the same time appearing like they're not responsible for a full-on economic meltdown if it occurs.

[jbm]

If a top-down bailout won't work (at least in this form and, honestly, who really thought giving a Bush-appointee a $700bn slush fund was a rock-solid idea?), why not try a bottom-up bailout?  Feed the money into the bad mortgages by amending the loan contracts and compensating the lenders for the difference.  That way the value of the mortagage as an investment is preserved because the loan will now get repaid in full!

Explain to me how this works.  If I bought a 400K house and can only really afford a 200K house, are you proposing to amend the contract by paying the lender 200K and have me pay for the house at 200K, leaving me, a winner in all this; are you proposing to amend the contract by paying the lender 200K and have me pay for the house at 200K, and forcing me to pay back the government 200K when I sell; or, are you proposing to amend the loan contract to dramatically increase the years on the mortgage, to where I can afford it, but will essentially be renting and the value of the house will remain with the lender.  Or maybe, something entirely different.

I am not really sure what people (you or the congress) are proposing related to "fixing the mortgages at an individual level." 

[Limey]

To my point, this is far above my pay-scale.  That said, in Limeyland, will the US Govt own a piece of the property we just paid part of the mortgage for?  Because we would in the legislation that just failed.

That's not something I'd thought of, so I dunno.  That's why I sit in the bleachers and criticise.  Maybe there would be ownership, with the option for the homeowner to buy out the govt at a later date, otherwise the govt gets a share of the proceeds if/when the house is ever sold.

[MusicMan]

Explain to me how this works.  If I bought a 400K house and can only really afford a 200K house, are you proposing to amend the contract by paying the lender 200K and have me pay for the house at 200K, leaving me, a winner in all this; are you proposing to amend the contract by paying the lender 200K and have me pay for the house at 200K, and forcing me to pay back the government 200K when I sell; or, are you proposing to amend the loan contract to dramatically increase the years on the mortgage, to where I can afford it, but will essentially be renting and the value of the house will remain with the lender.  Or maybe, something entirely different.

I am not really sure what people (you or the congress) are proposing related to "fixing the mortgages at an individual level." 

"Fixing the morgages" has been more associated with individuals who could only afford a $200K house, but bought a $400K house, only the housing bubble burst, and they now owe a $400K mortgage on a house worth $200K.  So the mortgage holder can take a $200K loss, either by renegotiating the note, or by selling at foreclosure.

[Limey]

Explain to me how this works.  If I bought a 400K house and can only really afford a 200K house, are you proposing to amend the contract by paying the lender 200K and have me pay for the house at 200K, leaving me, a winner in all this; are you proposing to amend the contract by paying the lender 200K and have me pay for the house at 200K, and forcing me to pay back the government 200K when I sell; or, are you proposing to amend the loan contract to dramatically increase the years on the mortgage, to where I can afford it, but will essentially be renting and the value of the house will remain with the lender.  Or maybe, something entirely different.

I am not really sure what people (you or the congress) are proposing related to "fixing the mortgages at an individual level." 

That's not what I'm proposing (or not what I think I'm proposing).  You have a 400k mortgage with payments of $2,000/month, most of which is interest.  You petition the govt to be accepted into the bailout scheme, and they amend your interest rate from 9% to 4%.  As your payment is almost all interest (because, as are all sub-prime loans, yours is quite a young mortgage), this cuts your payment in half, to an affordable $1,000/month.  The govt compensates the lender for their loss of income - not dollar-for-dollar - but on the basis of their cost of money plus overhead (i.e. no profit).  The mortgage can then run its natural course, the homeowner stays in the home and the lender's asset base just got bouyed up by moving a loan from the likely default column into the creditworthy column.

Lurch's point about govt getting a share in the home is valid.  Maybe the govt acrues proportional ownership at the same rate the homeowner would have if he'd kept up the payments.  I.e. the govt gets its share of the element of principle that's paid off every month.  Accounting/admin nightmare for sure.  But so it would be had the govt bought out all the bad loans under the now-scuppered Wall Street bailout plan.

ETA:  Because the homeowner gets to stay in the house - which I agree is unfair in many cases - the house is not sold or foreclosed upon.  This keeps it off the market, which helps the housing market recover to some level of normality.  By keeping these sub-primers in their homes, it helps maintain the value of yours.

[jbm]

"Fixing the morgages" has been more associated with individuals who could only afford a $200K house, but bought a $400K house, only the housing bubble burst, and they now owe a $400K mortgage on a house worth $200K.  So the mortgage holder can take a $200K loss, either by renegotiating the note, or by selling at foreclosure.

Where is the government intervention here?  If this is the case, I don't understand the sentiment that we are awarding bad behavior by the buyers.  The lender is taking the loss, and the buyer only really gets a value they can afford.

I'm just trying to understand the sentiment that we are rewarding bad behavior by homebuyers reaching beyond their means. 

[Limey]

Dow suffers biggest one-day drop in history.  777.68 points, and it closed at its low point on the day which suggests it'll open down tomorrow morning.  Could be back in the 9,000s by breakfast.

[MusicMan]

Where is the government intervention here?  If this is the case, I don't understand the sentiment that we are awarding bad behavior by the buyers.  The lender is taking the loss, and the buyer only really gets a value they can afford.

I'm just trying to understand the sentiment that we are rewarding bad behavior by homebuyers reaching beyond their means. 

The government intervention is to buy up the mortgages (or more accurately, the securities behind the mortgages) sitting on these banks' books.  Without doing so, the banks will not have access to additional credit, which means businesses and individuals will not have access to credit, which means our entire credit-driven economy is well and truly fucked.

[VirtualBob]

If a top-down bailout won't work (at least in this form and, honestly, who really thought giving a Bush-appointee a $700bn slush fund was a rock-solid idea?), why not try a bottom-up bailout?  Feed the money into the bad mortgages by amending the loan contracts and compensating the lenders for the difference.  That way the value of the mortagage as an investment is preserved because the loan will now get repaid in full!

It's a much larger administrative undertaking, and obviously open to abuse.  But the individual amounts will be small enough such that no one example of abuse would take down the relief effort (unlike, say, giving one bank $100bn only for the thing to still go down the toilet).

Can I get a bailout on my mortgage, too, or am I going to be punished for buying a house I could afford?

[jbm]

The government intervention is to buy up the mortgages (or more accurately, the securities behind the mortgages) sitting on these banks' books.  Without doing so, the banks will not have access to additional credit, which means businesses and individuals will not have access to credit, which means our entire credit-driven economy is well and truly fucked.

No, I understand that part, but it is not a bottom up solution mentioned by Limey and some in Congress, but the top down, bail out the lenders option.  I was just trying to understand the bottom up alternatives, in an effort to understand how the bottom up approaches address the credit crunch.

[mihoba]

I'm sure glad I built my own house without needing a mortgage. Sweat equity.

[MusicMan]

I'm sure glad I built my own house without needing a mortgage. Sweat equity.

You will be well served in the coming barter economy.

[Lurch]

you give our elected officials too much credit.  their main personal dilemma is how to appear like they're standing up for their constituents in an election year while at the same time appearing like they're not responsible for a full-on economic meltdown if it occurs.

Thus the test.  In a non-representative democracy, the uninformed masses might make a poor decision.  In a representative democracy (which we wanted because of the first point) we must deal with politicians wanting to keep their jobs.  The cynic would say they want to keep their jobs for selfish financial or egotistical reasons, but I think realistically most want to keep their jobs because they feel they personally can do best for their constituents' and their own beliefs.  Either way, there's a serious conflict of interest...make unpopular decision or keep job.  Thus the single term limit option which creates a potential for a perpetually inexperienced government.  

How often has our government been forced to make such a grossly unpopular (from both sides of the aisle) decision?  I can't think of any near this scale offhand.

[Lurch]

You will be well served in the coming barter economy.

Not sure how you're going to trade the roof for apples, though.

[jbm]

Thus the test.  In a non-representative democracy, the uninformed masses might make a poor decision.  In a representative democracy (which we wanted because of the first point) we must deal with politicians wanting to keep their jobs.  The cynic would say they want to keep their jobs for selfish financial or egotistical reasons, but I think realistically most want to keep their jobs because they feel they personally can do best for their constituents' and their own beliefs.  Either way, there's a serious conflict of interest...make unpopular decision or keep job.  Thus the single term limit option which creates a potential for a perpetually inexperienced government.  

How often has our government been forced to make such a grossly unpopular (from both sides of the aisle) decision?  I can't think of any near this scale offhand.

Well, if the economy tanks, that "no" vote might be a noose around their necks at election time.  Angry mobs are fickle.

[Bench]

Can I get a bailout on my mortgage, too, or am I going to be punished for buying a house I could afford?

Why do you think that's a punishment?

[Lurch]

Interesting read opposing the bailout plan.

[jbm]

Interesting read opposing the bailout plan.

I read that and my BS meter went off.  It seems to be common lately to blame fannie mae and freddie mac.  Sure, they were irresponsible and two of the guilty parties, but they were just two of many stupid lenders.  So, whenever I read something as simplistic as

"The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis."

I stop believing in the intelligence, or honesty, of the author, and generally discount their conclusions.  Many companies participated in bad loans and irresponsible management of risk.  Pinning all the stupid mistakes of other companies on the doings of FM and FM is absurd.  If one can't correctly identify the cause, why should I believe in their ability to identify the solution?

[Hornstros]

Many companies participated in bad loans and irresponsible management of risk.  Pinning all the stupid mistakes of other companies on the doings of FM and FM is absurd. 

That's just it.  Many companies were rewarding brokers with higher commisions if they issue loans that net the company higher interest payments over the life of the loan.   Even if this wasn't in the best interest of the individual taking on the loan.   Numerous unethical practices going on.  Those at fault need to be held accountable.  The writing was on the wall and the bubble has burst.   It's too tough to tell if the Gov't should bail them out or not.

Asia went through a real estate crisis fairly similar to this about a decade ago.   It takes as much time to get out of this over valuing of real estate as it took to get into it.  Get ready for the American people bitching about their current economic state to be a hot topic of conversation for the next 2,3 years or so

[Jacksonian]

I read that and my BS meter went off.  It seems to be common lately to blame fannie mae and freddie mac.  Sure, they were irresponsible and two of the guilty parties, but they were just two of many stupid lenders.  So, whenever I read something as simplistic as

"The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis."

I stop believing in the intelligence, or honesty, of the author, and generally discount their conclusions.  Many companies participated in bad loans and irresponsible management of risk.  Pinning all the stupid mistakes of other companies on the doings of FM and FM is absurd.  If one can't correctly identify the cause, why should I believe in their ability to identify the solution?

I am ignorant of much of this.  The talking heads keep saying that Fannie and Freddie bought much of the questionable loans.  The extention is that the other lenders would not have gone this route if the FM's hadn't been so willing to snap them up.  How wrong are those 2 sentences?

[BizidyDizidy]

I am ignorant of much of this.  The talking heads keep saying that Fannie and Freddie bought much of the questionable loans.  The extention is that the other lenders would not have gone this route if the FM's hadn't been so willing to snap them up.  How wrong are those 2 sentences?

I think they bought about 80% of loans.

A huge part of the problem was the idea that home ownership is something that's suited to a majority of Americans (Fannie and Freddie were a symptom of that). That's probably going to change.

[Nate in IA]

Can I get a bailout on my mortgage, too, or am I going to be punished for buying a house I could afford?

If you are not in trouble now, you surely will be by the time Treasury gets through 'printing' $700 bln of money with no backing.   Those of us who have our financial houses in order but are not at the top of the food chain are truly screwed.   The correction happening in the markets has needed to happen for quite a while.  The bubble is truly a monetary bubble and will have to be liquidated one way or another and the quicker the better.

[jbm]

I am ignorant of much of this.  The talking heads keep saying that Fannie and Freddie bought much of the questionable loans.  The extention is that the other lenders would not have gone this route if the FM's hadn't been so willing to snap them up.  How wrong are those 2 sentences?

Well, I am ignorant also.  I don't understand it well enough to support or reject the bailout stategy.  However, if I'm informed correctly, those bad loans were somehow bought up by banks and financiers and sold through other means.  FM and FM didn't put a gun to their head.  They did that willingly.  If they had not, I assume we would be facing a foreclosure "crisis" rather than a credit crunch.  The banks could have just laughed at the stupid decisions of FM and FM, but they wanted a piece of the action.  Their mistake and our loss.

[Limey]

If you are not in trouble now, you surely will be by the time Treasury gets through 'printing' $700 bln of money with no backing.   Those of us who have our financial houses in order but are not at the top of the food chain are truly screwed.   The correction happening in the markets has needed to happen for quite a while.  The bubble is truly a monetary bubble and will have to be liquidated one way or another and the quicker the better.

The problem isn't the write-down in valuations, the problem is credit.  No one is willing to lend anything to anyone, and if businesses can't have credit for expansion, they stagnate and fall into decline.  If individuals can't have credit to spread the cost of healthcare bills, or vacations or cars or whatever, they stop buying.  The money-go-round stops revolving, and the gyro topples.  Everyone loses, especially those like yourself.

The bailout isn't for Wall Street, it's for you.  That's why everyone agrees that it's unbelievably fucked up what those cunts did and they deserve nothing, but they've put us in the ditch and they can't get us out.  If we don't do something to fix their mess, we stay in the ditch.  If we wait for market forces to run their course, our financial muscles will atrophy and we'll never get out.

[Duman]

I don't have any debt.  None.  And I am all for natural and logical consequences but not at the expense of the well being of the national economy. However, I do want it to hurt some so that people can learn that living on credit is a bad choice. 

[Jacksonian]

The problem isn't the write-down in valuations, the problem is credit.  No one is willing to lend anything to anyone, and if businesses can't have credit for expansion, they stagnate and fall into decline.  If individuals can't have credit to spread the cost of healthcare bills, or vacations or cars or whatever, they stop buying.  The money-go-round stops revolving, and the gyro topples.  Everyone loses, especially those like yourself.

The bailout isn't for Wall Street, it's for you.  That's why everyone agrees that it's unbelievably fucked up what those cunts did and they deserve nothing, but they've put us in the ditch and they can't get us out.  If we don't do something to fix their mess, we stay in the ditch.  If we wait for market forces to run their course, our financial muscles will atrophy and we'll never get out.

Was the line that gave Paulson unchecked authority to do whatever he wanted with the money still in there?  If so, that's reason enough to kill it.

[Limey]

Was the line that gave Paulson unchecked authority to do whatever he wanted with the money still in there?  If so, that's reason enough to kill it.

Nope.  Oversight was added, as was control of golden parachutes for executives and protection for mortgage holders.  The only reason given for the revolt by House Republicans is that Pelosi gave a speech before the vote that they didn't like.  That's political cover, for sure, so the real reason remains lost in the labyrinthine halls of power in Washington.

[MusicMan]

A pox on both their houses.  It was an idiotic speech by Pelosi, and it's idioti for anyone to believe it was the reason Pubs changed their votes - and even if they had lost 11 votes that way, the measure still fails.

[Limey]

A pox on both their houses.  It was an idiotic speech by Pelosi, and it's idioti for anyone to believe it was the reason Pubs changed their votes - and even if they had lost 11 votes that way, the measure still fails.

Exactly.  Everyone seemed to hate the bill.  Everyone agreed that they needed - for the good of the country - to hold their noses and vote for the damned thing.  1/3rd of Democrats and 2/3rds of Republicans voted "nay".  Political grandstanding of the most disgusting form.

Ironically, the value wiped off Wall Street yesterday was about $1tn, nearly 50% more than cost of the proposed bailout.  Of course, as about 5% of the country owns bout 95% of the wealth, that $1tn was much more shaprly focused on the few, and not spread over the entire tax base.  I think we can expect that 5% to harvest numerous testicles over the coming days, and the bill will pass when Congress reconvenes on Thursday.

[MusicMan]

Telling factoid from MSNBC:

Of the 24 retiring House Republicans who are not on the ballot for anything in November, 19 voted for the bailout, four voted against, and one didn't vote.

In other words... those that didn't need to cover their own electoral ass knew that this thing needed to pass, and voted as such.

[Limey]

Telling factoid from MSNBC:

In other words... those that didn't need to over their own electoral ass knew that this thing needed to pass, and voted as such.

Country First.

[sporadic]

Telling factoid from MSNBC:

In other words... those that didn't need to over their own electoral ass knew that this thing needed to pass, and voted as such.

Reason #1 that I hate politics.  Country over all else, except job security

[MusicMan]

I keep coming bak to this: times like this are why we are a republic, not a demoracy.  Our leaders would do well to remember that.

"I was so busy keeping my job, that I forgot to do my job."

[Lurch]

Telling factoid from MSNBC:

In other words... those that didn't need to over their own electoral ass knew that this thing needed to pass, and voted as such.

If that's what happened, the system failed the test.  They voted for what their constituants wanted rather than what they believed was right for the country.

[Limey]

Reason #1 that I hate politics.  Country over all else, except job security

Here's a breakdown of the votes.  Basically, safe seats were split virtually 50/50, while vulnerable seats voted overwhelmingly against.

[MusicMan]

If that's what happened, the system failed the test.  They voted for what their constituants wanted rather than what they believed was right for the country.

Bullshit.  The system is fine.  The individuals failed.

[austro]

Bullshit.  The system is fine.  The individuals failed.

My wife's observation this morning was that there may very well be a backlash in the coming election, but it won't be a backlash against Democrats or Republicans, it will be a backlash against incumbents.

[Jacksonian]

I keep coming bak to this: times like this are why we are a republic, not a demoracy.  Our leaders would do well to remember that.

"I was so busy keeping my job, that I forgot to do my job."

As my old PoliSci professor taught, "A politicians first job is to get re-elected."

[Astroholic]

My wife's observation this morning was that there may very well be a backlash in the coming election, but it won't be a backlash against Democrats or Republicans, it will be a backlash against incumbents.

Amen.

[subnuclear]

My wife's observation this morning was that there may very well be a backlash in the coming election, but it won't be a backlash against Democrats or Republicans, it will be a backlash against incumbents.

When people say this, they generally mean every incumbent but the one in their district.   

[Astroholic]

When people say this, they generally mean every incumbent but the one in their district.   

nope..every incumbent for me.

[Gizzmonic]

Here's a breakdown of the votes.  Basically, safe seats were split virtually 50/50, while vulnerable seats voted overwhelmingly against.

The Democrats need to do a better job getting their party together.  It's no surprise that a lot of Republicans voted against it, but a lot of Democrats changed their votes at the last minute.  Barney Frank was on C-SPAN Sunday morning and he acted like it was a done deal.  Pelosi has failed miserably at maintaining party discipline.  Maybe the Dems should recruit Tom DeLay.

[pravata]

The Democrats need to do a better job getting their party together.  It's no surprise that a lot of Republicans voted against it, but a lot of Democrats changed their votes at the last minute.  Barney Frank was on C-SPAN Sunday morning and he acted like it was a done deal.  Pelosi has failed miserably at maintaining party discipline.  Maybe the Dems should recruit Tom DeLay.

Dems delivered the votes they said they were going to deliver.  As Boehner said they're the majority, they could pass the bill on their own.  Unfortunately they negotiated with the White House and the bill is not what all the Democrats want.  They should rewrite the thing, take out any concessions to the Republicans, and pass it.

[MusicMan]

According to the majority whip, it was the Republicans that feel short of their promised vote count.  Take that for what it's worth.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

According to the majority whip, it was the Republicans that feel short of their promised vote count.  Take that for what it's worth.

I believe their defense was "But Pelossi was mean to us just before the vote..."  As a self described conservative (please note, not "Republican" by any means) I found that offensive. 

[Limey]

The Democrats need to do a better job getting their party together.  It's no surprise that a lot of Republicans voted against it, but a lot of Democrats changed their votes at the last minute.  Barney Frank was on C-SPAN Sunday morning and he acted like it was a done deal.  Pelosi has failed miserably at maintaining party discipline.  Maybe the Dems should recruit Tom DeLay.

The bill was supported by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. (and Nominee for President) John McCain and House Minority Leader John Boehner, to name but a few powerful Republicans.  Yet, still, they failed to deliver the promised votes and all the crowing about McCain's leadership on the matter by himself and his surrogates turned to shit.

The Democrats delivered 2/3rds of their party's votes.  The Republicans only 1/3rd.

[Gizzmonic]

Dems delivered the votes they said they were going to deliver.  As Boehner said they're the majority, they could pass the bill on their own.  Unfortunately they negotiated with the White House and the bill is not what all the Democrats want.  They should rewrite the thing, take out any concessions to the Republicans, and pass it.

I guess they got caught up with Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush?

Anyway, it's still a major failure they couldn't get enough votes on their own side of the aisle, and the economy continues to suffer because of it.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I guess they got caught up with Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush?

Anyway, it's still a major failure they couldn't get enough votes on their own side of the aisle, and the economy continues to suffer because of it.

For a variety of reasons, the majority of the U.S. public is opposed to this "bail out".  They want someone else to suffer the consequences.  Of course, they fail to recognize it won't just be those "deserving of punishment" who take a bite of the turd sandwich.  We will all get to step up for a share.

[Limey]

I guess they got caught up with Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush?

Anyway, it's still a major failure they couldn't get enough votes on their own side of the aisle, and the economy continues to suffer because of it.

The bill was drafted by the current Republican administration.  The fact that you got any Democrats to support it at all, is a major compromise on their part.  This was not a failure of the House Democrats, this was the House Republicans looking to make political hay out of a major national and international crisis.

The only excuse they have offered for changing their votes is because Pelosi made a speech that criticised the current administration.

[tophfar]

The bill was drafted by the current Republican administration.  The fact that you got any Democrats to support it at all, is a major compromise on their part.  This was not a failure of the House Democrats, this was the House Republicans looking to make political hay out of a major national and international crisis.

The only excuse they have offered for changing their votes is because Pelosi made a speech that criticised the current administration.

That doesnt even make any sense considering that the majority of Democrats voted for the Bill. 

If it were so antithetical to Democrats to vote for a "Republican" written bill, then why did 60% of House Democrats for it?  And only 32% of House Republicans voted for it?

Do you really, really believe deep down that the entire RNC got together said, hey lets draft this bail out bill, get the Dems to agree to it, and the turn around and reject it to make them look stupid?

Seriously?  Hat, Tinfoil.  Get one.

[Bench]

That doesnt even make any sense considering that the majority of Democrats voted for the Bill. 

If it were so antithetical to Democrats to vote for a "Republican" written bill, then why did 60% of House Democrats for it?  And only 32% of House Republicans voted for it?

Do you really, really believe deep down that the entire RNC got together said, hey lets draft this bail out bill, get the Dems to agree to it, and the turn around and reject it to make them look stupid?

Seriously?  Hat, Tinfoil.  Get one.

You're completely missing the point. The bill was drafted by the Republican administration.  The Republican congressmen failed to fall in step with its own administration.  Saying this was a Democrat failure, when it was the Republican congressmen who failed to follow their own leader, is absurd.

[tophfar]

You're completely missing the point. The bill was drafted by the Republican administration.  The Republican congressmen failed to fall in step with its own administration.  Saying this was a Democrat failure, when it was the Republican congressmen who failed to follow their own leader, is absurd.

Or maybe they disagreed with the contents of said Bill.  The Dems could have passed this bill with no help from the Republicans if they wanted.  And yet they didnt.  A mere 5% of Democratic Representatives change their vote and the bill passes.

[MusicMan]

Or maybe they disagreed with the contents of said Bill.  The Dems could have passed this bill with no help from the Republicans if they wanted.  And yet they didnt.  A mere 5% of Democratic Representatives change their vote and the bill passes.

There is no doubt that the Democrats wanted the political cover of having this be a bipartisan agreement.

[Jacksonian]

There is no doubt that the Democrats wanted the political cover of having this be a bipartisan agreement.

It was bipartisan.  Both parties in the Senate approved it.  The Rep President would have signed it.  Plenty of people in the House voted for it.  Throwing in 12 more Dems in the House would not have made it look less bipartisan.

[jonbloozy]

I thought this was interesting

Pelosi's partisan speech has caused our members to go berserk and may cost us any remaining chance to pass the bill.

[MusicMan]

It was bipartisan.  Both parties in the Senate approved it.  The Rep President would have signed it.  Plenty of people in the House voted for it.  Throwing in 12 more Dems in the House would not have made it look less bipartisan.

Neither would 12 more Pubs.  As I said - a pox on both their houses; I was just referring to why the Dems didn't just try to pass it on their own.

[Rebel Jew]

Neither would 12 more Pubs.  As I said - a pox on both their houses; I was just referring to why the Dems didn't just try to pass it on their own.

i still don't understand what the rush is.  why can't everybody just wait a week or two to get at a sensible plan, and then sell that sensible plan to the public?  why does IT HAVE TO BE PASSED RIGHT NOW AND IF IT ISN'T PASSED NOW THEN DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM?

[MusicMan]

i still don't understand what the rush is. 

Sept. 14: BOA Buys Merrill Lnych for $29/share
Sept. 15: Lehman Bros. files for bankruptcy
Sept. 16: $85B emergeny loan to rescue AIG
Sept. 21: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley convert to Bank Holding Companies to allow them access to Fed discount loans
Sept. 26: WaMu fails
Sept. 29: Citigroup acquires Wacchovia

In other words, major financial institutions are going down at an almost daily rate, and with every failure, the credit market becomes exponentially tighter.  Any more delays on injecting capital into the credit market, and you will start seeing a series of business failures as companies cannot access credit lines necessary to meet payroll.  Once that starts happening, the bailout will be a moot point, because it's big-time recession time.

[Limey]

That doesnt even make any sense considering that the majority of Democrats voted for the Bill. 

If it were so antithetical to Democrats to vote for a "Republican" written bill, then why did 60% of House Democrats for it?  And only 32% of House Republicans voted for it?

Do you really, really believe deep down that the entire RNC got together said, hey lets draft this bail out bill, get the Dems to agree to it, and the turn around and reject it to make them look stupid?

Seriously?  Hat, Tinfoil.  Get one.

In what verse of Morissette's song did she think it was ironic to misunderstand a topic completely and then call someone else stupid?

[tophfar]

In what verse of Morissette's song did she think it was ironic to misunderstand a topic completely and then call someone else stupid?

Oh bullshit.

You are acting like it was some magnanimous effort by the Dems to even vote for this bill.  It wasn't.  The House Republicans were balking at this bill the entire time, while the House Dems were the ones pushing for this.  The fact that they thought they had enough GOP votes to support this bill was the major compromise. 

They could have passed it without any help from anyone and they still couldn't do it.  For a majority party to not push through legislation that they want is a massive failure on their part.  No if's and's or butt's about it.

The fact that you can characterize 60% of their party as

The fact that you got any Democrats to support it at all, is a major compromise on their part.

is patently absurd.

[pravata]

Neither would 12 more Pubs.  As I said - a pox on both their houses; I was just referring to why the Dems didn't just try to pass it on their own.

They now should.  And include bankruptcy/foreclosure protections, meaningful exec. comp. restrictions, taxes on financial transactions, etc, etc, etc.  If the Republicans want to sit on the sidelines with their discredited principles during the biggest financial legislation in, if not history, certainly in anyone's lifetime who is currently living, let them.

[Jacksonian]

Sept. 14: BOA Buys Merrill Lnych for $29/share
Sept. 15: Lehman Bros. files for bankruptcy
Sept. 16: $85B emergeny loan to rescue AIG
Sept. 21: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley convert to Bank Holding Companies to allow them access to Fed discount loans
Sept. 26: WaMu fails
Sept. 29: Citigroup acquires Wacchovia

In other words, major financial institutions are going down at an almost daily rate, and with every failure, the credit market becomes exponentially tighter.  Any more delays on injecting capital into the credit market, and you will start seeing a series of business failures as companies cannot access credit lines necessary to meet payroll.  Once that starts happening, the bailout will be a moot point, because it's big-time recession time.

Is Lou Dobbs at CNN a lefty or a righty?  He's hates the Bush Admin and the Congressional leadership.  He and his guests think this bailout package is wrong.

[Limey]

Oh bullshit.

You are acting like it was some magnanimous effort by the Dems to even vote for this bill.  It wasn't.  The House Republicans were balking at this bill the entire time, while the House Dems were the ones pushing for this.  The fact that they thought they had enough GOP votes to support this bill was the major compromise. 

They could have passed it without any help from anyone and they still couldn't do it.  For a majority party to not push through legislation that they want is a massive failure on their part.  No if's and's or butt's about it.

The fact that you can characterize 60% of their party as

is patently absurd.

How do you still not understand this?  The bill was authored by the Bush administration, and foisted on Congress with the tag line "you must pass this bill immediately or we all die a pauper's death".  Everyone outside the Bush administration hated the bill, but everyone agreed that fast action was required.  The Dems tried to fix the bill to get it to a point where enough of them and enough Republicans could brave the stench and vote for it.  John McCain spent the weekend phoning around the House Republicans to get them aboard.  On Monday, the leaders of both parties were so certain that, between them, they had the votes to pass this bill that they put it to the House.

The House Republicans then walked away in droves, the only excuse offered being that Nancy Pelosi is a harpy.

[MusicMan]

Is Lou Dobbs at CNN a lefty or a righty?  He's hates the Bush Admin and the Congressional leadership. 

Neither.  Lou Dobbs is a raving lunatic.

[Rebel Jew]

Sept. 14: BOA Buys Merrill Lnych for $29/share
Sept. 15: Lehman Bros. files for bankruptcy
Sept. 16: $85B emergeny loan to rescue AIG
Sept. 21: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley convert to Bank Holding Companies to allow them access to Fed discount loans
Sept. 26: WaMu fails
Sept. 29: Citigroup acquires Wacchovia

In other words, major financial institutions are going down at an almost daily rate, and with every failure, the credit market becomes exponentially tighter.  Any more delays on injecting capital into the credit market, and you will start seeing a series of business failures as companies cannot access credit lines necessary to meet payroll.  Once that starts happening, the bailout will be a moot point, because it's big-time recession time.

i don't believe that the difference between full-on economic failure and not is two weeks, especially if it means passing an ultimately unsuccessful plan.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

i still don't understand what the rush is.  why can't everybody just wait a week or two to get at a sensible plan, and then sell that sensible plan to the public?  why does IT HAVE TO BE PASSED RIGHT NOW AND IF IT ISN'T PASSED NOW THEN DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM?

This is probably a factor...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080930/lf_nm_life/us_financial_psychology

[austro]

This is probably a factor...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080930/lf_nm_life/us_financial_psychology

... Gregory Berns, a neuroeconomist at Emory University in Atlanta ...

Neuroeconomist? Really?

[tophfar]

How do you still not understand this?  The bill was authored by the Bush administration, and foisted on Congress with the tag line "you must pass this bill immediately or we all die a pauper's death".  Everyone outside the Bush administration hated the bill, but everyone agreed that fast action was required.  The Dems tried to fix the bill to get it to a point where enough of them and enough Republicans could brave the stench and vote for it.  John McCain spent the weekend phoning around the House Republicans to get them aboard.  On Monday, the leaders of both parties were so certain that, between them, they had the votes to pass this bill that they put it to the House.

The House Republicans then walked away in droves, the only excuse offered being that Nancy Pelosi is a harpy.

And in none of that changes the fact that they could have done it without them.  Where were the other 40% of the Democratic party?  It's not their failure?

If it were such a ubiquitous feeling that this fast action were required, how are they not at fault for not passing something that the Republicans COULD NOT STOP THEM FROM DOING.

And yet it still didn't pass, even though it was "everyone agreed that fast action was required".  Apparently, that everyone didn't include 40% of the Dems, and somehow the blame does not like with ANY of them.  5%.  That's all it would have taken.

Not to mention that, from any characterization, the fight was to get Republican's on board with this bill.  So the fact that "any GOP members voted for the bill" would be the major compromise, and not the other way around as you keep characterizing a 60% vote.

ETA:

the only excuse offered being that Nancy Pelosi is a harpy.

She is a harpy, but that is neither here nor there.  Except for the fact, that if you are going to scratch and claw for people to vote with you, how about you don't go out of your way to piss on their heads right at the moment you want them to do it? 

[MusicMan]

So you don't find it odd that the fight was to get Republicans on board with a Republican-sponsored bill?

[Jacksonian]

So you don't find it odd that the fight was to get Republicans on board with a Republican-sponsored bill?

What I find odd is the lack of discussion as to why more Dems weren't on board, especially in light of the House leadership wanting it done.  I know why some Reps didn't vote for it.

[jonbloozy]

So you don't find it odd that the fight was to get Republicans on board with a Republican-sponsored bill?

And the bill they proposed didn't have any provisions the Democrats wanted and Republicans didn't, right?  

[tophfar]

So you don't find it odd that the fight was to get Republicans on board with a Republican-sponsored bill?

Not really, the bail-out goes against a number of conservative principles, regardless of who sponsored the bill.  

Which still doesn't change the fact that it could have passed no matter what they did.

[Savage]

So you don't find it odd that the fight was to get Republicans on board with a Republican-sponsored bill?

House Republican ≠Administration Republican

[tophfar]

What I find odd is the lack of discussion as to why more Dems weren't on board

Well you see, it's a nuanced thing.

[MusicMan]

Republicans and Democrats alike voted against it for the same reason: they thought they would lose their jobs.  IT's a pretty sad reason, but it is what it is.

[jonbloozy]

Republicans and Democrats alike voted against it for the same reason: they thought they would lose their jobs.  IT's a pretty sad reason, but it is what it is.

Link?

[Limey]

Neuroeconomist? Really?

He uses his brain sparingly.

[MusicMan]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/30/1468362.aspx

"So while the "no" voters have tried to portray themselves as the courageous ones (and maybe they'll ultimately be proven right), it's interesting that some 90% of the members of Congress who are worried about the election hides -- either this November or in a GOP primary next cycle -- voted no. By our count, there appear to be, maybe, five potential profiles in courage (casting an unpopular vote with their constituents) with two members worth pointing out by name: Republican Jon Porter of Nevada, who is locked in an intense battle in Nevada's 3rd CD, and Democrat Jim Marshall, who never has an easy time at re-election in Georgia's 8th District. "

[Jacksonian]

Republicans and Democrats alike voted against it for the same reason: they thought they would lose their jobs.  IT's a pretty sad reason, but it is what it is.

Then why did you ask this question when you already knew the answer was "it's not odd at all"?

[juliogotay]

Republicans and Democrats alike voted against it for the same reason: they thought they would lose their jobs.  IT's a pretty sad reason, but it is what it is.

Exactly. Calls/e-mails were running 100-1 against from the taxpayers. Those up for re-election this November particularly voted nay.

[MusicMan]

Then why did you ask this question when you already knew the answer was "it's not odd at all"?

I've already stated very clearly that this was a bipartisan failure.  My question was intended to oppose the notion that this was something the Democrats were going to do on their own.

[Gizzmonic]

He uses his brain sparingly.

[applause]

[Limey]

I've already stated very clearly that this was a bipartisan failure.  My question was intended to oppose the notion that this was something the Democrats were going to do on their own.

The House Republicans are trying to stay on the side lines and let the Dems pass the bill, so that they can scream from the rooftops about Democratic largesse and socialism, from now until the end of time.

[MusicMan]

The House Republicans are trying to stay on the side lines and let the Dems pass the bill, so that they can scream from the rooftops about Democratic largesse and socialism, from now until the end of time.

Yep, and the Dems are doing their best to avoid this, and both sides are doing a bullshit political dance at a time when serious people need to be tackling serious issues.

[tophfar]

I've already stated very clearly that this was a bipartisan failure.  My question was intended to oppose the notion that this was something the Democrats were going to do on their own.

I agree with this, what I am saying is to hold the Democrats blameless, or to talk about how far backwards the Dems bent to even agree to such legislation, or to characterize this as somehow a Republican failure is absurd.

[Jacksonian]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/30/1468362.aspx

"So while the "no" voters have tried to portray themselves as the courageous ones (and maybe they'll ultimately be proven right), it's interesting that some 90% of the members of Congress who are worried about the election hides -- either this November or in a GOP primary next cycle -- voted no. By our count, there appear to be, maybe, five potential profiles in courage (casting an unpopular vote with their constituents) with two members worth pointing out by name: Republican Jon Porter of Nevada, who is locked in an intense battle in Nevada's 3rd CD, and Democrat Jim Marshall, who never has an easy time at re-election in Georgia's 8th District. "

That article also highlights for me why I think both candidates will be collosal failures as President.

[Jacksonian]

The House Republicans are trying to stay on the side lines and let the Dems pass the bill, so that they can scream from the rooftops about Democratic largesse and socialism, from now until the end of time.

That works in many of their districts.

[Gizzmonic]

That article also highlights for me why I think both candidates will be collosal failures as President.

I don't know about "colossal," but it definitely speaks to how bad they are at maintaining party discipline.  Although that is really on the whips/leaders for each party.  The candidates are busy campaigning.

[Jacksonian]

I don't know about "colossal," but it definitely speaks to how bad they are at maintaining party discipline.  Although that is really on the whips/leaders for each party.  The candidates are busy campaigning.

McCain was ineffectual.  If his party's elected officials don't listen now when he's up for the Presidency (and could help get him elected) they won't listen if he's President.

Obama stood on the sidelines, demonstrating no leadership, while too many of his earliest supporters voted nay.  If he wouldn't try to get them to go along with a bill he supports now I have no reason to think he won't stand on the sidelines as President when important things are happening in the world around him.

Getting bill support, IMO, is campaigning as this issue is front page everyday.

[Trey]

I don't know about "colossal," but it definitely speaks to how bad they are at maintaining party discipline.  Although that is really on the whips/leaders for each party.  The candidates are busy campaigning.

Saying this didn't pass because the House Dems didn't get a bigger majority is the equivalent of saying you lost a 1-0 game because your starting pitcher didn't hit two homeruns.  Would you have won if he did?  Sure.  But it's a much more reasonable expectation that the rest of the lineup do their fucking job and get a couple of runs on the board.

[MusicMan]

Saying this didn't pass because the House Dems didn't get a bigger majority is the equivalent of saying you lost a 1-0 game because your starting pitcher didn't hit two homeruns.  Would you have won if he did?  Sure.  But it's a much more reasonable expectation that the rest of the lineup do their fucking job and get a couple of runs on the board.

I'd say this whole thing is like Game 3 of the World Series.  A win was absolutely necessary, and everyone screwed up equally to come up with the loss.

[Trey]

I'd say this whole thing is like Game 3 of the World Series.  A win was absolutely necessary, and everyone screwed up equally to come up with the loss.

Fair enough.  It was a 4-2 game and you're pissed your pitcher didn't hit a bases loaded double or something.

I certainly wish more of the people that voted against it--Democrats and Republicans-- would throw out some more reasonable ideas instead of just saying, "We don't like this."

[austro]

That article also highlights for me why I think both candidates will be collosal failures as President.

So, a step forward?

[Trey]

Neither.  Lou Dobbs is a raving lunatic.

I bet myself $5 before I opened that link that Dobbs would find some way to blame this on illegal immigrants.  I lost today.  It's the first time in a long time I've lost that bet.

[MusicMan]

Amen.

My fear is that this will be put up for vote again, fail again, and then the Democrats will try some sort of bottom-up approach (like direct payments to those holding the bad loans) that will be more palatable to their consituency, but not as good economically.

[Lurch]

Fair enough.  It was a 4-2 game and you're pissed your pitcher didn't hit a bases loaded double or something.

I certainly wish more of the people that voted against it--Democrats and Republicans-- would throw out some more reasonable ideas instead of just saying, "We don't like this."

FWIW, I did see a Republican member of the House that rejected it on tv last night saying that many of his party felt there were more tools to be used (additional dropping of rates and adding more liquidity to the banking system) before this was needed.  Apparently the four hour debate discussed many such options, but that doesn't make for good sound bites.  He flatly denied that Pelosi had anything to do with his vote and that he was too busy trying to persuade others to vote against it during her speech to listen anyway.

[Jacksonian]

So, a step forward?

Sideways.

[Jacksonian]

FWIW, I did see a Republican member of the House that rejected it on tv last night saying that many of his party felt there were more tools to be used (additional dropping of rates and adding more liquidity to the banking system) before this was needed.  Apparently the four hour debate discussed many such options, but that doesn't make for good sound bites.  He flatly denied that Pelosi had anything to do with his vote and that he was too busy trying to persuade others to vote against it during her speech to listen anyway.

What channel?  And what time or during what show?  It's bound to be archived online.

[Lurch]

What channel?  And what time or during what show?  It's bound to be archived online.

I watch the DTV News Mix, so I'm not sure.  I've seen similar comments online.  I'll dig one out.

Some listed here.  Mark to market was a big talking point.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Neuroeconomist? Really?

Yes, I know the source is questionable.  But the "herd mentality" conclusion is less questionable, if you ask me...

[austro]

Yes, I know the source is questionable.  But the "herd mentality" conclusion is less questionable, if you ask me...

Oh, I don't doubt that. I was just taken aback to learn that economic specialization has reached such a level that a species known as "neuroeconomists" has arisen. Back when I was a boy, we had "macro" and "micro", and that was good enough for us, damn it!

[Bench]

What channel?  And what time or during what show?  It's bound to be archived online.

It was on CNN sometime between 7 and 7:30 last night.  I saw the same thing.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Oh, I don't doubt that. I was just taken aback to learn that economic specialization has reached such a level that a species known as "neuroeconomists" has arisen. Back when I was a boy, we had "macro" and "micro", and that was good enough for us, damn it!

As much as I hated Micro and Macro Economics, it's amazing how much of that information actually stuck and has given me the slightest bit of understanding in what the hell is going on.  While my credentials are no where near as impressive as Neuroeconomist, I'm in the same boat as the subject of the article.  I'm still buying, as insane as that may be to some.  Just trying to be very cautious in what I buy.  Anyone with some wise advice, please share.  Bonds?  Index funds? 

[MusicMan]

It all depends on your timeframe.  Everything is getting pummeled, and so if you have a long time horizon, now is a good time to buy just about anything in stocks.

[Jacksonian]

It was on CNN sometime between 7 and 7:30 last night.  I saw the same thing.

Great.  Campbell Brown.  I wrote phony Campbell Brown, then realized that applied to nearly all tv news personalities.  I can't find it on her area of CNN.com.  On the positive side I don't have to listen to her.

[Limey]

I bet myself $5 before I opened that link that Dobbs would find some way to blame this on illegal immigrants.  I lost today.  It's the first time in a long time I've lost that bet.

I didn't watch the clip, but Dobbs did (either here or elsewhere) lay the root cause of the sub-prime mess squarely on the Community Investment Act of 1977, which required banks to make loans to immigrants low and moderate income earners.  I think you can claw your fiver back.

[homer]

The bullshit about hurt feelings over Pelosi's speech was fantasy:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/30/gop-blame-pelosi/

I am puzzled as to why the Republicans decided to go with it in their press conference.

[Lurch]

The bullshit about hurt feelings over Pelosi's speech was fantasy:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/30/gop-blame-pelosi/

I am puzzled as to why the Republicans decided to go with it in their press conference.

I'm sure they were outraged at her approach, even if it didn't change any minds.  Not surprised they wanted to make sure it was covered by the press.  Dumb comment, regardless

[matadorph]

As much as I hated Micro and Macro Economics, it's amazing how much of that information actually stuck and has given me the slightest bit of understanding in what the hell is going on.  While my credentials are no where near as impressive as Neuroeconomist, I'm in the same boat as the subject of the article.  I'm still buying, as insane as that may be to some.  Just trying to be very cautious in what I buy.  Anyone with some wise advice, please share.  Bonds?  Index funds? 

Buy Big Oil and cigarettes.

[pravata]

Buy Big Oil and cigarettes.

and Campbell's Link Campbell's, the Official Soup of Depression II.

[austro]

More material to consider:

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2008/09/bailout-or-bonanza-part-1-what-do-you-do.html

[Arky Vaughan]

More material to consider:

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2008/09/bailout-or-bonanza-part-1-what-do-you-do.html

Useful and interesting explanation.

[Limey]

More material to consider:

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2008/09/bailout-or-bonanza-part-1-what-do-you-do.html

Which reminds me that I'm still waiting for someone to do a porn remake, with the same lead actress, of a movie that will be called "Girl with a Pearl Necklace".

[MusicMan]

The Britney sex tape will have to tide you over until then.

[austro]

Useful and interesting explanation.

Yes, I had failed to understand the relationship between the liquidity ratio and the offer of cold, hard cash that the government is making. Some of these bankers may not like the offer, but they may not have any choice (other than going out of business).

[Arky Vaughan]

Things are getting even messier. Still, it's probably not a bad time to buy into some bargains if you can weather the storm.

[Limey]

Things are getting even messier. Still, it's probably not a bad time to buy into some bargains if you can weather the storm.

"If you liked it at $50, you'll love it at $40!"
 - Jeff Skilling

[chuck]

Things are getting even messier. Still, it's probably not a bad time to buy into some bargains if you can weather the storm.

Yeah, going long with new money today and hoping to weather the storm involuntarily put the image in my head of that idiot in surfside with a kayak.

[BizidyDizidy]

Yeah, going long with new money today and hoping to weather the storm involuntarily put the image in my head of that idiot in surfside with a kayak.

If you're going to buy in, write your social security number on your arm.

[chuck]

If you're going to buy in, write your social security number on your arm.

Exactly. Go short and keep your bank account number handy.

[Limey]

If you're going to buy in, write your social security number on your arm.

Or, to make it easier, just email your SSN to that bloke from Nigeria.