For those of you not yet cought up on the weekend's economic developments, Naked Capitalism has been doing a good job of covering the story. 

You should probably read every blog entry and comment on that site for the past week, but if you're pressed for time:
why the bill sucks, how much it will cost, and late-breaking Sunday updates to the bill.

(( For those of you saying "What bill?  No bill's been introduced!", well, of course not.  But Congress neither writes (nor even reads!) the bills.  They just vote on them.  The bills are written up well in advance, and typically leaked as trial balloons a few days before they're read into the record... ))

The Story So Far:

Wednesday, 17 Sep - $?500B? run on money market funds forces the hands of the governments.
Thursday, 18 Sep - UK bans short selling, rumors of RTC-like entity cause market to surge.
Friday, 19 Sep - US bans short selling in 799 financials, $50B money market insurance funds, confirms existence of "plan".
Saturday 20 Sep - The "plan" involves at least $700B of toxic debt on the part of the taxpayer, and is exempt from review by any (!) court of law.  It's worse than that, but that's the gist of it.
Sunday 21 Sep - Yeah, that's the "plan".  Expected to be passed by Congress by end of next week.  Meanwhile, as of a few hours ago, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are now "bank holding companies", instead of "investment banks".

This is a bad bill.  Near as I can tell, it's a way for the taxpayers to throw a $700B lifeline to the investment banks, who will then take on as much toxic debt as their balance sheets can stand, and then sell it at above-market prices (there are no market prices on this debt; it's that bad.) to the Treasury, and thereby cleanse their balance sheets of it.  International organizations' debt is probably part of the picture, too.  You name it, the taxpayer'll end up paying for it.  Theoretically, the government (and with it, the taxpayer) might have had some upside a'la the RTC, but that assumes that the government will be paying fair market value for it.  The catch-22 of it is that if the government only offers FMV for this debt, the banks have to eat the losses and go bankrupt.  The $700B is to artifiically prop up the value of the debt for as long as it takes to buy it all.  Apres that, le deluge.

Markets will be down slightly tomorrow, but will move +/-5% based on rumors as we get towards Friday's close, where we find out whether or not Congress is going to follow Paulson's marching orders or not.  If Congress does as it's been told, the markets will either rise (or decline) slightly until after the election, after which it's anybody's bet.  (My bet would be either massive inflation via Weimar-reupblic-esque currency devaulation, or slow deflation and depression a'la the Japanese economy of the 1990s). 

The other catch-22 is that Congress either passses the atrocious $700B bailout I've just ranted about, "Or it could go this way."  (Yaz, Situation (Deadline Remix).  If Congress doesn't pass Paulson's legislation, we could see a market crash as early as the week of October 3rd, when the (first round of?) bans on short selling expire (assuming they *do* expire), followed immediately by every remaining bank calling in every outstanding consumer loan.  Car loans, credit cards, paychecks.  All of it.

Anyhoo, the saga continues.  Stop reading my drivel and get thee to just about any other economic/financial/trading blog.

Either way, print out a copy of the comic book version of The Road To Serfdom, and keep it in a safe place. The real book is far better than the comic strip, but this is a month in which the rules will have changed in the hour it'll take to read the original text.

There's enough to spread around to ALL the politicians..from the ones-along with community groups yelling we need to throw money to people so they can experience the American Dream of home ownership and now with those who defaulted..WE PAY..


Can some 'penalty' be added for future transactions,(or is it too late), that anyone who fails on their loans will have to come up with 10% down for their next home purchase?
Sounds reasonable to assess something on them.



 

Where I'd most like to see money clawed back is the people & companies who sold unaffordable loans, got their commission then sold on the debt - they've made billions in total, been a major cause of global financial turmoil, yet seem to be unmentioned in all that's going on now.

Where I'd most like to see money clawed back is the people & companies who sold unaffordable loans, got their commission then sold on the debt - they've made billions in total, been a major cause of global financial turmoil, yet seem to be unmentioned in all that's going on now.


I could definitely buy that.  Of course the lawyers would have a field day and little of the proceeds would be left, but an attempt to claw back some of this money would conceptually appeal to me.

I remember when I bought my house, the banker immediately said "would you like a home equity loan?" and I said "no, the house I bought is nice, I don't need to fix it up."  They kept pushing me and pushing me, BUT I DID NOT NEED THE MONEY.  I can only imagine the temptation to somebody who did not have much money and could not resist the allure of "easy money".

I remember when I bought my house, the banker immediately said "would you like a home equity loan?" and I said "no, the house I bought is nice, I don't need to fix it up."  They kept pushing me and pushing me, BUT I DID NOT NEED THE MONEY.  I can only imagine the temptation to somebody who did not have much money and could not resist the allure of "easy money".


That's one of the nice things about owning a mobile home.  There isn't such thing as equity.  These things depreciate like cars. :D

Hey, we're all socialists now!

Think of how much healhcare the state  could have provided if we had only kept the banking laws in check!

Now, instead of coughing up food and shelter for the poor, you'te paying off people who made greedy decions!
::)

Republicans are against socialism except when it involves subsidizing the rich.

I'm not a fan of Obama or McCain on this topic, and the more I look at it, the more I realize I might as well vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader.

naomi klein's been hitting the circuit lately for a well-deserved round of i-told-you-so's.

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/now-time-resist-wall-streets-shock-doctrine

This is what my Senator, Bernie Sanders, had to ssay about this mess.


tp://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080923/OPINION03/809230312/1039/OPINION03

As usual, he makes a lot of sense.

This is what my Senator, Bernie Sanders, had to ssay about this mess.


tp://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080923/OPINION03/809230312/1039/OPINION03

As usual, he makes a lot of sense.



I'll help you out, My Love.  ;) :-* :-* :-*


http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080923/OPINION03/809230312/1039/OPINION03

Who will pay for bailout?

September 23, 2008

The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration. These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.

The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion dollars.

While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.

Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by insisting on four basic principles:

1. The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich once again avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.

Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:

# Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue.

# Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them.

# Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up.

2. There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.

3. Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive deregulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.

4. We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big too fail," that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation's largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation's largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.



Bernard Sanders, an independent, is U.S. senator from Vermont.



Cat

naomi klein's been hitting the circuit lately for a well-deserved round of i-told-you-so's.

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/now-time-resist-wall-streets-shock-doctrine



Aye aye, Nao! She's nailed it again.  This isn't a bail-out, it's a stick-up! 

Capital has failed us so it is time for a new New Deal.  Instead of handing a blank check to Paulson and all those Wall Street parasites, let's set up a government program (that's right, a government program, oh the horror! Up yours Uncle Miltie, your free market fantasies can't cut the mustard!) and parcel out the same $700 million millions to the debtors so they can pay off their mortgages...and let's not stop with mortgages, let's extend it to student loans, and medical debts.  Let's get the crushing debt off the backs of the American people so they can turn around and invest in our economy.  If we hand it to over to the scum-of-the-earth on Wall Street, we'll be fleeced and neither you nor I will see any benefit just higher taxes and MORE debt! 

The Reaganistas have pirated our nation.  Now it's time to make THEM walk the plank!
::)

The Reaganistas have pirated our nation.  Now it's time to make THEM walk the plank!


ARRRR!-wait, but that was September 19th! :)

Maybe the problem is that they weren't greedy enough

ARRRR!-wait, but that was September 19th! :)

Maybe the problem is that they weren't greedy enough

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know...It's just like my old pals in the Progressive Labor Party used to say, Soviet communism didn't work because they weren't communist enough.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!
:P

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know...It's just like my old pals in the Progressive Labor Party used to say, Soviet communism didn't work because they weren't communist enough.


Karma for that!

I've been thinking along the same lines for the past couple of weeks and waiting for someone to call me on it.  We free-marketeers finally came to understand what our former opposition must have felt like during the post-Reagan years!  Word for word, man, word for word.

So let me get this straight.  For years we have been told to trust in the free market and its gurus, like Paulson, and all would be well.  So  now, after the fall, we are again told to trust the same people who got us into this mess.  Yea, right!

McCain's been crowing about how they should postpone the debates tomorrow so that he can go to Washington to fix the problem

Might help if he actually reads the THREE PAGE bill he's supporting

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/_What_liberals_are_up_in_arms_about_this_morning_.html?showall

McCain's been crowing about how they should postpone the debates tomorrow so that he can go to Washington to fix the problem

Might help if he actually reads the THREE PAGE bill he's supporting

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/_What_liberals_are_up_in_arms_about_this_morning_.html?showall



I think he wants to postpone the debate indefinitely because he knows that Obama is going to wipe the floor with him.



Cat

He is an idiot for wanting to postpone.  It shows him backing away from conflict.  Yes the country is having problems, but if he wants to be president, he needs to be able to multi task.  There will never be a time that there isn't a problem in the country. 

Umm. Postpone and remove the short ban - so every hedge fund can SHORT the banks to Lehman-ville.  LOL

We need something or the market will crash 2000 points.  Credit must be unlocked and houses must be sold.

Again, this bailout is not a magic 100% cure.  Supoosedly, Finland had a similar plan in the 80s and it did NOT cost the Taxpayer anything.

Houses have to sell, which they are not doing.  We need temporarily low rates (like 4%) and low home prices (circa 2002 levels) to entice buyers.  Currently, home prices are at October 2005 levels, which is not low enough.

Again, this bailout is not a magic 100% cure.  Supoosedly, Finland had a similar plan in the 80s and it did NOT cost the Taxpayer anything.




We're not the Finns here.  We don't ride mass transit, drink little glasses of vodka, and keep to ourselves. 

I'M AN AMERICAN GADDAMIT!  I WANT MY CHEESY-FRIES AND MY FROZEN MUDSLIDE AND GUNS 'N' ROSES ON THE JUKEBOX!
:D

Alternate plan

Does this one make sense?  Discuss!

McCain's been crowing about how they should postpone the debates tomorrow so that he can go to Washington to fix the problem


To paraphrase St. Reagan -- Politics can't solve the problem.  Politics is the problem.

I think the bill's a raw deal for taxpayers, even in its modified form, which does not give Paulson the Imperial powers he originally sought.  The proposal on the table as of late this afternoon was around $700B in three tranches of approximately $250B.

Having said that, it's all a moot point. If (IF!) Paulson wasn't lying about the end of the world (and there are good cases for either side), McCain's politicking was what prompted Shelby(R) to throw a monkey wrench into it.  Shelby may not have just gored his own party's candidate for President, he may have screwed all of us. 

My bet is that Congress screws the taxpayer over the weekend.  Failing that, we'll see who's solvent this time next week.

Even $700B won't do much beyond postpone the collapse beyond the election.  That's something every Demopublican should be able to support, but there you have it.  The resets of option ARMs and alt-A paper is going to be comparable to the subprime crap that's already torpedoed the banks, and it hasn't even started yet.

If you want the short version:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2249/2046611673_621983d649.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/zeonzumdeikun/why_we_cant_have_nice_things.jpg

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-banker-cat.jpg

http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories/fun/imagedump/demotivational_posters/homeless.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/917/ronpaulwetoldyousocq5.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/917/ronpaulwetoldyousocq5.jpg


He's got my vote.  Smaller government FTW.  In fact, I'm adding that to my sig now.

Alternate plan

Does this one make sense?  Discuss!


I'll take that over the total bailout.  This is definitely an issue I agree more with the Republicans (other than Bush) on.  Still, I would prefer just letting the market clear itself even more.

Alternate plan

Does this one make sense?  Discuss!


Although I'd personally benefit from the capital gains tax "holiday" (although my gains on my long positions have shrunk every month :), it wouldn't solve the underlying problem.  Also, the power to order financial institutions to suspend their dividend is even more antithetical to the principle of free markets than the current ban (to be extended?  how should I know?) on short selling in 799 financial (oops, it's around 950 stocks now, including the auto company GM and the drugstore chain CVS) firms.

The most interesing proposal of late was the one from some fund manager named Hussman.  I'd be skeptical of it, but no more (or no less) skeptical than I am of the current plan before Congress. 

But it's too late for that.  The Hussman plan will be ignored.  As will the Cantor (and/or Shelby) plans.  There's only one proposal on the table, and it has 72 hours to be passed.

If Congress fails to pass the one of the only two plans (either the original "$700B, Paulson becomes Emperor" or the Democrats' revised "$700B, token oversight, maybe split into $150-250B tranches, and some slaps on the wrist for executives") that are on the table by Monday morning, it will have called Paulson's bluff.

If Paulson was lying/wrong, we survive another week.  If Paulson turns out to have been telling the truth (or even if he was just accidentally right), 290 million of the 300 million of us will be eating dog food by this time next Monday (October 6th), and we'll voting out every incumbent in November, assuming there's anyone left to bother tallying the votes.

It's a trillion-dollar game of poker, and we're not even the patsy.  We're the chips.

I can't make no sense of it nohow.  They keep talking about asshats:  Frozen asshats, liquid asshats, capital gains on asshats, toxic asshats, seized asshats, exempt asshats, bare asshats....

I dunno shinola from all this stuff!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/homework.gif

We're not the Finns here.  We don't ride mass transit, drink little glasses of vodka, and keep to ourselves. 

I'M AN AMERICAN GADDAMIT!  I WANT MY CHEESY-FRIES AND MY FROZEN MUDSLIDE AND GUNS 'N' ROSES ON THE JUKEBOX!
:D


I live like a Finn. I ride mass transit, and I'm depressed half the time. (Really, Finns are the most depressed people ever! That and they also banned Donald Duck comics...because he doesn't wear pants!)

Looks like the Deficit will be low for the next 20 years.

Although I'd personally benefit from the capital gains tax "holiday" (although my gains on my long positions have shrunk every month :), it wouldn't solve the underlying problem.  Also, the power to order financial institutions to suspend their dividend is even more antithetical to the principle of free markets than the current ban (to be extended?  how should I know?) on short selling in 799 financial (oops, it's around 950 stocks now, including the auto company GM and the drugstore chain CVS) firms.

The most interesing proposal of late was the one from some fund manager named Hussman.  I'd be skeptical of it, but no more (or no less) skeptical than I am of the current plan before Congress. 

But it's too late for that.  The Hussman plan will be ignored.  As will the Cantor (and/or Shelby) plans.  There's only one proposal on the table, and it has 72 hours to be passed.

If Congress fails to pass the one of the only two plans (either the original "$700B, Paulson becomes Emperor" or the Democrats' revised "$700B, token oversight, maybe split into $150-250B tranches, and some slaps on the wrist for executives") that are on the table by Monday morning, it will have called Paulson's bluff.

If Paulson was lying/wrong, we survive another week.  If Paulson turns out to have been telling the truth (or even if he was just accidentally right), 290 million of the 300 million of us will be eating dog food by this time next Monday (October 6th), and we'll voting out every incumbent in November, assuming there's anyone left to bother tallying the votes.

It's a trillion-dollar game of poker, and we're not even the patsy.  We're the chips.


IF THIS DEAL IS NOT DONE BY MONDAY MORNING - RUN FOR THE HILLS!  NATIONAL CITY AND WACHOVIA WILL BE ZERO (EVEN WITHOUT THE SHORTS).  NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF THE BANKS - LIKE CITIGROUP.

I agree that this is a big plan and should be analyzed, but these markets are ruthless.  And wait until the Rating Agency and Analyst downgrades start hitting Wachovia and National City.  Will be zero in one or two days IF NO PLAN.

There are some people to whom the answer to everything is a capital gains tax cut.  We need to give these people the bum's rush.  We should have done so 25 years ago!
::)

There are some people to whom the answer to everything is a capital gains tax cut.  We need to give these people the bum's rush.  We should have done so 25 years ago!
::)


Give them the bums rush?  Yeah, because for 25 years they have been giving us the bum f***. 

I am watching George Stephanopoulos and am beside myself.  During the round table Robert Reich pointed out that in 1980 the top 1% had 8% of the wealth.  Today the top 1% has 20% of the wealth, at which time Newt Gingrich said "so, what's your point. if you don't have purchasing power don't purchase"


that $%^YG*^&TTHT^%GO(*&HU(*IUY   

Gingrich is an idiot.  I can't believe they still give him airtime.  The same goes for William Kristol.

I am watching George Stephanopoulos and am beside myself.  During the round table Robert Reich pointed out that in 1980 the top 1% had 8% of the wealth.  Today the top 1% has 20% of the wealth, at which time Newt Gingrich said "so, what's your point. if you don't have purchasing power don't purchase"


that $%^YG*^&TTHT^%GO(*&HU(*IUY   


Does the term "third world nation" ring a bell? 

I am watching George Stephanopoulos and am beside myself.  During the round table Robert Reich pointed out that in 1980 the top 1% had 8% of the wealth.  Today the top 1% has 20% of the wealth, at which time Newt Gingrich said "so, what's your point. if you don't have purchasing power don't purchase"


that $%^YG*^&TTHT^%GO(*&HU(*IUY 


Reagan is still alive and well.  The problem with Newt's statement is he would prefer that the same people keep their money.  No taxation of the rich, no money moving in and out of the market.  White boy country club mentality where old money still rules.

Reich's ratio does not tell the whole story.  The top decile of the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans wield such an outrageous amount of political influence it negates democracy.  Reich understands this, of course, however, you don't get time to say it all on those shout shows.

Gingrich was one of the people to whom I was referring in the previous post regarding capital gains tax cuts.  It sure puzzles me why anybody listens to clownsl like Newt anymore.  They've got one answer for everything, which has demonstrated itself a failure time and again.  Now it has failed that smug "investor class" Newt and the boys lionized.  The party's over, now we have to clean up this mess and it ain't gonna be fun.  Bailout?  No way jose!  It's time to pull a Louis XVI on these piggies!
::)

This one really floored me. It seems that the McCain camp is blaming the failure to pass the bill on Obama-considering the majority who voted against it were REPUBLICANS!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_10


Am I the only one who is scratching my head over this??



Cat

He's probably hoping people won't check, they will just take his word for it.

This one really floored me. It seems that the McCain camp is blaming the failure to pass the bill on Obama-considering the majority who voted against it were REPUBLICANS!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_10


Am I the only one who is scratching my head over this??



Cat


No, you're not. The democrats promised x number of votes (120, I think) for it and got more. The republicans promised 100 and got like 16 or something.

The economy needs to collapse now so we can move on. This fail-out is postpwning the inevitable giant turd sandwich that we are all going to eat at some point.

Funny though, I haven't heard a single mention of Bush on the news in the past few weeks. Who's running the country? Oh yeah, same people that always have: special interests, big companies and foreign nationals.

Ant

On the other hand, I wonder how many of those princpled conservatives would have voted against the bailout if the spaghetti hit the fan in February of 2009 instead of September of 2008.  Just a thought that occurred to me.
???

This one really floored me. It seems that the McCain camp is blaming the failure to pass the bill on Obama-considering the majority who voted against it were REPUBLICANS!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_10


Am I the only one who is scratching my head over this??

Cat



I have heard more than one reference to "democrats unable to pass bailout".  I have heard interviews with some Republicans who have said they do not like some of the provisions, but the interviewer never says "what specific conditions do you not like?"  The media sucks.   >:(

I also heard that some Republicans changed their vote at the last minute cause of Pilosi's angry speech against Bush.  ;D  A speech by a Democratic majority leader is going to change a Republican's mind?  LoL. 

I also heard that some Republicans changed their vote at the last minute cause of Pilosi's angry speech against Bush.   ;D   A speech by a Democratic majority leader is going to change a Republican's mind?  LoL. 


Some said that, but I think it was pure B S.  The next question is, shouuld the house dems make it more palatable for the repugs or for  the liberal dems who voted against it?

Some said that, but I think it was pure B S.  The next question is, shouuld the house dems make it more palatable for the repugs or for  the liberal dems who voted against it?


To be truthful...I don't like Bush nor Pelosi! Bush didn't do anything about this panic and Pelosi just wants the Dems to have more power than they have right now!

I also heard that some Republicans changed their vote at the last minute cause of Pilosi's angry speech against Bush.   ;D   A speech by a Democratic majority leader is going to change a Republican's mind?  LoL. 

I don't know - I heard some of that, and read a transcript, and I can see a few noses being put out of joint by what she said.. it does take a pretty small-minded type to change how he's going to vote on something that important because of a speech like that, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4

this was all foretold by an episode of Duck Tales... it's a cartoon, so you think Bush would have at least been able to watch it

I remember that episode, the DuckTales dollar went the way of the Zimbabwe dollar :D

To be truthful...I don't like Bush nor Pelosi! Bush didn't do anything about this panic and Pelosi just wants the Dems to have more power than they have right now!


Of course she does, but that would be a good thing.  The right has wielded most of the power since the "Reagan revolution", which is how we got into this mess in the first place.  So it's about time the pendulum swung in the opposite direction.  As several legislators are saying, make the rich pay for this bail out and reregulate.

Of course she does, but that would be a good thing.  The right has wielded most of the power since the "Reagan revolution", which is how we got into this mess in the first place.  So it's about time the pendulum swung in the opposite direction.  As several legislators are saying, make the rich pay for this bail out and reregulate.


Well, between 1921-1933 The Republicans had a stronghold and it wasn't until FDR took over and for 20 years the Dems had power.

Between 1980 and 2006, we had a Republican Stronghold and now we are confused because we have a Republican President who has no legs to stand on and a Democratic Congress led by Pelosi.

And some of the rich are in California. Yes, let them pay for it too, since we have seen their crappy movies. 8-P

Well, between 1921-1933 The Republicans had a stronghold and it wasn't until FDR took over and for 20 years the Dems had power.

Between 1980 and 2006, we had a Republican Stronghold and now we are confused because we have a Republican President who has no legs to stand on and a Democratic Congress led by Pelosi.

And some of the rich are in California. Yes, let them pay for it too, since we have seen their crappy movies. 8-P


What'dya mean "have to"?  Are the Clockwork Orange cure people prying your eyes open and forcing you to watch "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanomo Bay"?  I saw it voluntarily, which is like being waterboarded voluntarily!
8-P

We are taught to think of the market as a perpetual motion supercomputer when the market is more akin to a puppy-dog.  If you give a pup an unlimited amount of food, he'll eat 'till he pukes and lap it back up!  If you let a pup nip at people, he might turn around nip you some day!  The market needs supervision and discipline.  It is not the best judge of what's good for society!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/dogrun.gif

What'dya mean "have to"?  Are the Clockwork Orange cure people prying your eyes open and forcing you to watch "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanomo Bay"?  I saw it voluntarily, which is like being waterboarded voluntarily!
8-P

We are taught to think of the market as a perpetual motion supercomputer when the market is more akin to a puppy-dog.  If you give a pup an unlimited amount of food, he'll eat 'till he pukes and lap it back up!  If you let a pup nip at people, he might turn around nip you some day!  The market needs supervision and discipline.  It is not the best judge of what's good for society!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/dogrun.gif



Someone had an opinion on Credit Cards. He said that it would be the downfall of America....And that was 40 years ago!

And that Clockwork Orange comment made me think of...http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000/mystery_science_theater_3000_image.jpg