Bailout Agreement

sometimes conversation takes a 180 and if I am not ready my brain slams into a wall.................LOL
 
Pelosi calls Republicans unpatriotic for not coming to the table...

So Nancy, when you adjourned Congress without allowing a vote on drilling, and went on a 5-week vacation so you could promote your stupidly failed book, did that make you a traitor?
 
I dont really know all the details, but from what I have heard, the bailout plan is frought with problems and risks. Risks that pretty much the taxpayer is only liable for.

I realize we need to do something. But after 7 years of GW, how much further in debt can our country go?

SJ-AD302_28LEDE_NS_20080926214835.gif


Let me float a thought.

What if we bought the bad mortages from these companies. ALL past due mortgages. We buy them for 80% of what the actual cost to the company is. Not interest, fees, etc... 80% of the actual cost.

Now... We put those mortgages into a holding company. We tell the mortgage holders their mortgage has just restarted for the amount they actually owe (again, no penalties, fees, etc) - and they have a 2% interest for 5 years, at which time the interest will go to a fixed amount - x points above prime, or whatever. Something reasonable.

Those properties that still end up in foreclosure, we sell to local municipalities for half the cost or something like that so they maintain them, redevelop them, whatever.

Now, im no economist or banking expert, but I would guess, if the federal govt did end up losing any money, it would be reletively minimal. In the meantime, local governments would benefit, money would be put back into the system, the companies wouldnt profit from their bad decisions and the people might just be able to keep their homes.

What am I missing here? There has to be something im missing.
 
Joey, the Republicans tried to introduce alternatives similar to yours. What you have to realize is that Nancy Pelussolini, Bush, Paulson, and Dingy Harry have tried to ramrod their own bill through with bullying tactics, the hell with any ideas from the Republicans. This strongarm tactic has backfired on them.
 
fossten I like you, again I don't know much about politics, but I learn alot from your posts you keep me informed on things I might have missed.
Thank you for that
 
fossten said:
Two thoughts:

1. Why aren't the Dem/libs on this forum outraged by the poison pills being inserted into the bill?

2. Obama is going to win the election due to voter fraud perpetrated on a massive scale by ACORN. But hey, whatever it takes, right?
Click to expand...


1) As Foxpaws noted, for every "Dems are poisoning it" story, there's a "Reps are poisoning it" one. Makes me believe that the gov and its corruption on both sides of the aisle is simply taking money from the taxpayers hand-over-fist. Dem or Rep, we're screwed in this deal, though one side might use lube.

2) So there is it, Obama wins; it's because he cheated.
 
TheDude said:
1) As Foxpaws noted, for every "Dems are poisoning it" story, there's a "Reps are poisoning it" one.
Click to expand...

Actually, her "proof" was nothing more then Democrat propaganda masarading as "news", and based more on speculation and spin then actual facts.

Weather you wanna face it or not, the only "poisining" of this bill is coming from the left, it just isn't getting covered by the MSM (by and large), as usual.

Not that the Republican's are on the side of the angels, but at least in recent history, for every incedent of republican corruption, you can find at least 10 incedents of democrat corruption. The big difference is how the MSM covers it. They are overly aggressive in holding Republican's feet to the fire, often exagurating and even manufacturing charges against Republicans (the Lott comment at Thurman's birthday, Valarie Plaime, Bush's National Guard History, etc., etc.). When the Democrats exhibit corruption and/or abuse their power, the media covers for them (William Jefferson, Clinton/Lewinsky, Kerry/Swiftboaters, Obama's Chicago political ties, etc., etc.).
 
MonsterMark said:
Here, let me further inform you.

Democrats are responsible for the bailout mess.
Click to expand...



The bailout compromise comes after House Republicans revolted against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's initial proposal, which they complained was too costly and would cede too much power to the government. Their opposition to the pact derailed what Democrats, the White House and Senate Republicans believed was a preliminary deal on Thursday, forcing the negotiations to begin anew.
Click to expand...


Thats from the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122257682963083173.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop


Your link means nothing since its a bunch of comments with no context.


.
 
Joeychgo said:
The bailout compromise comes after House Republicans revolted against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's initial proposal, which they complained was too costly and would cede too much power to the government. Their opposition to the pact derailed what Democrats, the White House and Senate Republicans believed was a preliminary deal on Thursday, forcing the negotiations to begin anew.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the Democrats and Obama himself who derailed that meeting...

When Sen. Barack Obama was given the floor to speak during White House negotiations, according to White House aides, he did so raising concerns about a House Republican alternative to the Paulson/Bernanke $700 billion bailout. But those concerns weren't necessarily his, as he was not aware of the GOP plan before reviewing notes provided him by Paulson loyalists in Treasury prior to entering the meeting.

According to an Obama campaign source, the notes were passed to Obama via senior aides traveling with him, who had been emailed the document via a current Goldman Sachs employee and Wall Street fundraiser for the Obama campaign. "It was made clear that the memo was from ‘friends' and was reliable," says the campaign source.

The memo allowed Obama and his fellow Democrats to box in Republican attendees and essentially took what President Bush had billed as a negotiating meeting off the rails.

"Paulson and his team have not acted in good faith for this President or the administration for which they serve," says a House Republican leader who was not present at the White House meeting, but who instead is part of the team hammering out the House GOP alternative. "We keep hearing about how Secretary Paulson is working with Democrats on this or that, yet he never seems to consider working with the party that essentially hired him. Perhaps he's auditioning for a Democratic administration job. Our proposal didn't just spring forth fully formed; we've been working on this for several days, and Treasury staff has known about it."
Click to expand...

This brief article sums up the fallacious and disenginuous smokescreen that the Democrats and the MSM have thrown up about this...

Democrats Blame McCain for Why Their Majority Can't Find a Majority of Votes

ABC News' interpretation of things:

Sen. John McCain may or may not have broken the bailout bill — and surely he didn't do so all by himself.

But he owns it now.

In the battle over perceptions, it really is this simple: There was a deal before McCain came back to Washington. There was not a deal by the time the evening ended. And now there might not be a bill — or a first presidential debate Friday in Mississippi.​
Wait a minute. The House Republicans were never on board. And you don't actually need their votes to pass this bill; the holdup is that the House Democrats are terrified of having sole responsibility for the bill.

What changed between yesterday afternoon and evening is that the Democrats position changed from "we're comfortable passing the bill without many House GOP votes" to "we're NOT comfortable passing the bill without many House GOP votes."

How is that John McCain's fault again?

Obama said McCain "injected presidential politics into delicate negotiations." How? By showing up to vote on legislation?

Notice that they never explain how John McCain, simply by arriving inside the Beltway, somehow broke up a consensus that was there earlier in the day. If McCain had come in and persuaded people to oppose the bill, it would be a different story. But the message of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Obama is, "McCain is here, so it must be his fault."
Click to expand...
 
shagdrum said:
Actually, her "proof" was nothing more then Democrat propaganda masarading as "news", and based more on speculation and spin then actual facts.

Weather you wanna face it or not, the only "poisining" of this bill is coming from the left, it just isn't getting covered by the MSM (by and large), as usual.

Not that the Republican's are on the side of the angels, but at least in recent history, for every incedent of republican corruption, you can find at least 10 incedents of democrat corruption. The big difference is how the MSM covers it. They are overly aggressive in holding Republican's feet to the fire, often exagurating and even manufacturing charges against Republicans (the Lott comment at Thurman's birthday, Valarie Plaime, Bush's National Guard History, etc., etc.). When the Democrats exhibit corruption and/or abuse their power, the media covers for them (William Jefferson, Clinton/Lewinsky, Kerry/Swiftboaters, Obama's Chicago political ties, etc., etc.).
Click to expand...

Her two links aren't they only ones.

Blame the MSM.

1 for every 10? Come on now, a little righteous there don't you think?
 
Needless to say – it does seem very reminiscent of FDR.

But, more importantly, doesn’t it seem like the Bush administration is trying really hard to cover something up by pushing this bill down every ones’ collective throats? They have their pit bull of the moment, Cheney, making calls. Heck, they don’t even seem too concerned that the Dems are dovetailing all sorts of crap on the backside.

Why would a Republican administration be pushing for ‘New Deal’ type legislation?

What aren’t they telling us?
 
TheDude said:
If they disagree with the Right, then they obviously aren't. Seems to be the trend in here.
Click to expand...

Another intentional mischaracterization.:rolleyes:

the MSM doesn't have much credibility at all when it comes to issues that breakdown along conservative/liberal lines.
 
TheDude said:
Her two links aren't they only ones.
Click to expand...

no, but most all the other articles parroting the same view are also based more on speculation and spin then actual facts, and effectively nothing more then echoing democrat propaganda.

Blame the MSM.
Click to expand...

Even though you love to downplay and ignore the role that the MSM plays, it has a profound effect. Republican's (especially at the national level) cannot get away with corruption due to the MSM while Democrats can due to the MSM.

It is accurate to blame the MSM for their blatant double standard.
 
foxpaws said:
Needless to say – it does seem very reminiscent of FDR.

But, more importantly, doesn’t it seem like the Bush administration is trying really hard to cover something up by pushing this bill down every ones’ collective throats? They have their pit bull of the moment, Cheney, making calls. Heck, they don’t even seem too concerned that the Dems are dovetailing all sorts of crap on the backside.

Why would a Republican administration be pushing for ‘New Deal’ type legislation?

What aren’t they telling us?
Click to expand...
I see several possibilities. Bush is not an ideologue - never has been. He's interested in one thing at this point: protecting his legacy for 3 more months.

The LA Times reports that a Treasury staffer this week admitted that they came up with the $700B number out of thin air, because they were just trying to think of a big number.

Congress is so infested with greedy partisans they can't see straight. They just can't help themselves, Rep or Dem, from trying to get what they can out of the bill. They hate each other so much they don't want to work together. And they're so ideologically apart that they can't agree on the best method to solve this problem, so they try to compromise, and what ends up is the same crap sandwich with some ketchup added.

Nancy Pelosi is, simply and utterly, incompetent. She has no conception of party discipline. She can't even control her own caucus. More Dems voted against this bill than Republicans. Back in the 90s the Reps had Tom Delay, who was nicknamed the Hammer. Whatever you thought of him, he was effective at getting the Reps whipped up to vote for passage. Nancy has no such ability. She's the worst Speaker of the House in history.

The Democrats voted against the bill because the polls oppose the bill and they don't want to be stuck holding the bag in an election year.

Putting all this together, I think if this was such an emergency, Congress would have gotten off its collective ass and done something. The fact that they fooled around like this indicates the trouble isn't as bad as they originally said it was. Time will tell.
 
Im not that political simply because of my backround of having to follow no matter what I felt. But it seems to me that its time to kill em all and start new. Just my .02.










gotta go now some secret service guy is here LMAO
 
I do know wall street may just be about to rip itself apart. I for one am stocking up for the chaos



Stocks were down more than 700 points after the announcement. Surprisingly, the bond market is holding steady, but that may soon change once the word spreads more.

This is the biggest drop since 9/17/2001, when the stock market reopened after the 9/11 attacks.
 
So, in some odd, roundabout way you are backing the Dems in this Foss - they aren't voting 'yes' because they aren't convinced it is the right thing to do (or are afraid of the polls - either way, same result, it didn't pass) - isn't that what you wanted Congress to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 189 (members: 0, guests: 189)
Back
Top