Discriminations

John Rosenberg writes:

>>>"Oh, now I get it. Pelosian bi-partisanship means protecting her cowering Democratic members, who are unwilling to do what is “essential for the country” unless they are immune from Republican criticism."

No you don't get it. President George W. Bush is leaving office in a matter of months. He's the lamest duck I can remember. The Democrats aren't going to sign onto the largest bailout check in the history of the world without Republican co-signers-- particularly those who will be around past the current administration.

Apparently, the President, the House Democrats, Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans are mostly on board for this project. The House Republicans are the hold outs.

>>>"Lawmakers were meeting again today in Washington after some House Republicans, led by Virginia's Eric Cantor, said they wouldn't back a plan based on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's approach. A top Senate Republican said he is willing to delay any bailout package, and let markets open next week without a relief package in place.

``We need to get back to the drawing board,'' Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said in an interview. ``We need to consider this in a deliberate, linear fashion.''

The stalemate came after an unprecedented meeting at the White House with President George W. Bush, presidential nominees Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, congressional leaders and Cabinet officers."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alnOrNLYPTTU&refer=home

Now, to be fair, John...the ORIGINAL Paulson plan, to even a layman on economics (and I include myself in that category) looked like something a disreputable bail-bondsman from Jersey City would write...

>>>Section 8: "Decisions by the 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."

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paulsons-700-billion-bailout-wall/story.aspx?guid=%7BB01C634E-C8F5-4843-884C-E4F595D7D5E8%7D&dist=hppr

That was an absolute joke, and deserved all the criticism it received.

Negotiating a REAL, comprehensive measure for all of the American people is critical, IMHO. That there are conservative Republicans AND Democrats that are against bail-outs in principle is completely understandable to me.
I would prefer, howeverk that those against the revamped, amended plan would offer up a REAL workable solution on their part, instead of negativity, with specific details that can work to help solve this crisis.

John, demonizing Speaker Pelosi or Democrats for working to prevent the economic collapse of America is not only misplaced, but silly, IMHO, because it will be cold comfort to you should YOUR bank, credit cards, or 401K become the next victim of this human created tragedy.

--Cobra

You are spot on, John, spot on. Pelosi and the democrats are cowards by nature. They have no ideas of their own other than destroying the US' energy supply and leaving the nation open to attack by its enemies.

Nancy the coward and her cohorts. I believe that Oynklent Green has begun to take an interest in that cadre of corrupt comrades.

I vote for b). Much as partisan Democrats would rather the country lose a war than give Republicans any credit for winning it.

I am reminded by your post of a quip by Ronald Reagan (quoting from memory): "It's amazing how much you can get done when you don't care who gets the credit."

Cobra's verbose commentary is obviated by the simple fact that the Democrats have a substantial (233-202) majority in the House and do not need even one Republican vote to pass any bill.

Pretty much anything Cobra says is obviated by empirical evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure that his continued presence here is of any use. We know how stupid those of his ideological ilk are. Do we really need him to remind us on a daily basis?

ELC writes:

>>>"Cobra's verbose commentary is obviated by the simple fact that the Democrats have a substantial (233-202) majority in the House and do not need even one Republican vote to pass any bill."

ELC, you seem to think this is some kind of game, don't you?

The stakes are far too high this time. Perhaps you feel you are wealthy enough, with all your money tucked away in some mattress, that the collapse of major banks and financial institutions won't affect you at all.

Except, if Wall Street collapses, the economy collapses.

All sides have to have their signatures on this one, ELC. All hands on deck.

Am I mad at people who put us in this position? Hell yeah. But righteous indignation isn't going heat my home this winter if banks collapse, causing loss of business credit, generating huge job loses and general despair.

If the American Economy sinks, ALL of us will be left floating with the iceberg...Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Black Cartoonists and Anti-Affirmative Action types.

So can you put your hatred aside for a weekend to make sure your ATM card works next week? Hell, I'll give John Boehner a high five for coming to the table and getting something done.

--Cobra

LOL.

Simple really.
Democrats have discovered that faulting bipartisan negotiation,WITHOUT properly vetted deniability, while claiming credit right up until the point where the the imminent unintended consequences rear their ugly heads.

NINJA loans indeed.
Wasn't that a result of "community activism"?

Bundling(in the Microsoft sense)and repackaging. The ONLY way to spread out
the losses as a stop gap measure. Sadly, one of the lower blocks in the pyramid.

How many times have I heard "Voted FOR it, before they spoke AGAINST it?"

Damn, THAT bite in the ass MUST leave some lasting teeth marks.

Well, lookee there. The bill just failed in the House: 95 Democrats voted against it.

ELC,

>>>"Well, lookee there. The bill just failed in the House: 95 Democrats voted against it."

Yeah, and 133 Republicans, 67%, voted against it.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/29/bailout.rollcall.0929.pdf

>>>"The sheer size and scope of losses in the major stock markets left many investors stunned. The Standard & Poor's 500 index lost 8.4 percent of its value, the most in more than 20 years. The entire stock market lost more than $1 TRILLION of value just yesterday.

The 777.68-point drop in the Dow exceeded the benchmark index's previous single-day point decline set after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/30/market_takes_a_record_plunge/

Now, perhaps you're in the same financial position as some fo the millionaires of talk radio and cable news. Perhaps you're immune to having your 401K dissolve, your kid's 529 fizzle, or your nest egg evaporate.

Perhaps you aren't working for a small business that has to borrow money to make payroll, or a retailer that has to have a credit line to purchase goods for the Christmas season.

Perhaps you don't have to worry about student loans. Perhaps your car is fine and you have no need to purchase another, or you aren't digging out of a natural disaster that damaged your home.

I get it, ELC. You're a Republican first. Soak the American people. Party before Country. But you know what? Your GOP is in disarray. There is NO leadership.

The bailout was President George W. Bush's idea, and he was ignored like a petulant child by his OWN PARTY.

You have former Speaker Newt Gingrich running around knee-capping John Boehner off camera, while trying to look like a conciliator on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/report-gingrich-stabbed-b_n_130487.html

And John McCain?

...

John McCain is pondering suspending his campaign... AGAIN!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220826.php

I can't make this stuff up. I tried to draw a cartoon about this, but it's not even the least bit funny anymore.

--Cobra

I am not a Republican.

Funny, ain't it, how the bill would have passed if the members of the CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS who voted against the bill had voted for it.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260567

All the CBC's members are black; therefore, all of its thirteen (out of 43 total) members who voted against the bill are black.

I guess they need to let go of their hatred and their irrational commitment to the Republican Party, huh?

I heard an interesting take from Nick Guarino of the Wall Street Underground. He called the bailout bill the chance for Goldman Sachs executives to bail out their firm and secure their retirement on their yachts in the Bahamas while leaving the government and taxpayers holding the bag, and the financial system would STILL collapse (unless they can come up with $700 TRILLION to cover all the losses, which is several times more than all the money in the world). Here's how it would go down: Henry Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs and now Treasury Secretary, would decide who gets hired to determine what securities get bought. Any bets that Goldman Sachs traders would be heavily represented? Then guess whose worthless paper would be exchanged for cold hard cash? (Who says Goldman Sachs?) Then the bankers who get their hands on the money skip town before the securities bought by the Treasury are revealed to be worthless and everybody knows they left the taxpayer with the bag. It's NOT simply a temporary liquidity problem - the underlying mortgages cannot be paid back no matter how low the interest rate, and because the borrowers paid way more than the properties were worth. Therefore those who made the underlying loans made bad loans that lost money. And anyone who bought those mortgages all sliced and diced in mortgage backed securities, or collateralized debt obligations, or any other derivative, made the bank's loss into his own loss. Now the bankers are looking to make their losses on derivatives just like others that have wiped out into the government's and the taxpayers' losses.

ELC writes:

>>>"I am not a Republican."

What, you just play one on Discriminations?

ELC writes:

>>>"Funny, ain't it, how the bill would have passed if the members of the CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS who voted against the bill had voted for it."

And you inject race into this discussion for what matter? I guess that is the conservative playbook, as witnessed by other recent posts here. "Somehow, it has to be a black person's fault."

ELC writes:

>>>"I guess they need to let go of their hatred and their irrational commitment to the Republican Party, huh?"

Is that a question for the all-Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, or the Conservative House Republicans?

--Cobra

"Is that a question for the all-Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, or the Conservative House Republicans?" The rules of English grammar render your silly question moot.

Since you imply that you think I'm a liar, and you yourself are one mighty fine piece of work, I will happily ignore your bilge henceforth: life is too short, and time too precious, to waste any of it arguing with a block of wood.

But you have a nice life, though, okay?