REPRESENTATIVES DERAIL EXPECTED FREE MARKET INTERFERENCE! BAILOUT ACTION CANCELED! [BREAKING] (Trees And Things)

JimmyHavok: radicalizing effect

Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:16:35 EST

The owner of the minimart down the street is pretty conservative. I used to talk politics with her little brother when he was working, and she would always give us dirty looks, and occasionally she has made comments about things in the news to me.

Shy Elf: Re: Mark-to-Estimate Accounting Allowed (Breaking)

Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:58:32 EST

Without outside help, fractional-reserve banks have never been able to handle a bank run without at least temporarily not being to pay depositors. In a systemic bank crisis, there's nobody to sell the assets to. Everyone who would normally buy

wetkarma: Re: Excellent news

Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:08:42 EST

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are NOT agencies of the US government.

And you are making that argument based on what?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to have a status similar to the Federal Reserve. Now the government has acknowledged that t

pO157: Apparently sugar mixed with poop makes it good

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 21:03:31 EST

Spending bill passes house, attached to unrelated matter by a vote of 74 to 25. McCain, Obama and Biden vote aye. Observers credit the passage to

joshv: Re: Pelosi

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:00:18 EST

You might have followed the reference to the underlying OECD report. The source data for the chart is here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/56/33717459.xls .

The corporat

thefadd: Re: Right you are, Ken!

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:33:18 EST

The US Congress--failing up for over 200 years. Take a crap bill, put more crap into and *presto* enough everyone's are happy with it.

JimmyHavok: Re: Pelosi

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:21:44 EST

I have to wonder how that graph was calculated, since the maximum corporate profits tax rate for the US is 35%, but they show the mean income tax rate as 39%.

That math is beyond me.

MC Nally: Re: Excellent news

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:34:20 EST

But so did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- agencies of the US government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are NOT agencies of the US government.

pO157: Right you are, Ken!

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:37:31 EST

It's not only a bunch of bailouts and pork, but now they are adding completely random and tangential at best line riders.

At least in the coming e

thefadd: Re: Mark-to-Estimate Accounting Allowed (Breaking)

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:08:00 EST

Marketplace is pretty much the only show I listen to on NPR these days. They're generally pretty savvy and they've been talking about this change for a couple weeks now--but as if it were a good thing. It certainly seems like the classic quick fix that end

thefadd: Re: Senate Moves to Derail Bailout Interference!

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:58:36 EST

Man, cutting corners is always *so* awesome. There's a reason spending bills are supposed to originate in the house.

thefadd: Re: Excellent news

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:56:23 EST

The FDIC insurance is a joke in the first place given that there isn't enough in the fund to cover even a substantial percentage of existing deposits. That would be another bailout.

Shy Elf: Re: Excellent news

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:10:53 EST

I meant participation in standard practices of the sub-prime mortgage industry of the time. There's nothing in itself wrong with sub-prime mortgages.

gerrymander: Re: Excellent news

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:51:01 EST

Yes, I do consider mere participation in the sub-prime mortgage industry as corruption.

That's a rather harsh assessment of government-mandated behavior, don't you think?

Shy Elf: Re: Excellent news

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:02:40 EST

Yes, I do consider mere participation in the sub-prime mortgage industry as corruption. They bought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

Shy Elf: Mark-to-Estimate Accounting Allowed (Breaking)

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 06:36:16 EST

All we need to do is pretend the problem doesn't exist and everything will be solved, right? Now that, on the last day of

wetkarma: Re: Excellent news

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 04:06:57 EST

Just because Goldman Sachs was not a conservative bank (it has a long and proud history of being an agressive trading house), does not automatically mean that it was corrupt.

Did Goldman Sachs make a trade in sub-prime mortgages? Yes absolutely. But so

JimmyHavok: kudos

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 03:51:12 EST

I want to thank you for sharing your knowledge. It's very helpful to have someone with an insider's knowledge explaining things. It has certainly helped me in my efforts to figure this out.

JimmyHavok: Re: Pelosi

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 03:12:56 EST

one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

The book rate is high...the practical rate is very low, because it isn't an income tax, it is a profits tax, so business expenses are not taxed. For example, I recently calculated that Ex

Shy Elf: Watch the Credit Crunch

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 02:07:10 EST

This is the TED spread rate, the average risk premium banks demand for lending to other banks that

Shy Elf: Socialist!

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:40:07 EST

But, but, but... isn't Humpty Dumpty the entire US free market system? We can't get rid of him, just because of a few bad apples. Why do you have America?

joshv: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:40:37 EST

If these financial institutions return to profitability they will be taxed, at one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Is there some reason that rate should be even higher?

pO157: Senate Moves to Derail Bailout Interference!

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:03:57 EST

Vote as early as tomorrow (Wednesday PM).

The plan is to get around the requirement that spending bills originate in the House by paperclipping i

Shy Elf: Re: Excellent news

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:34:36 EST

The only way Goldman Sachs "made all the right moves" is that they weren't caught owning the houses of cards they were one of the major builders of. They're about as far as you can get from one of the conservative banks that just kept to its old-fash

JimmyHavok: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:03:43 EST

If the banks stay in business, they have income. That income can be taxed to pay back the bailout. If they fail, they have no income, and the economy goes into a dive.

I have no doubt that we would eventually recover from a crash, but it's g

joshv: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:33:03 EST

"Another item that was dropped was a tax on the financial firms themselves to help pay for the bailout. Heaven forbid they should pay!"

What kind of sense does it make to give money to someone and then turn around and take part of it back?

wetkarma: Re: Excellent news

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:55:32 EST

Laudable. But I suspect our fellow americans are not really too interested in facing a radical decline in their lifestyle (doing pushups for the failure of banks) just to drive home the issue of due diligence and ethics.

Corporations don't have any inhe

JimmyHavok: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:47:00 EST

One thing that was left out of the bill was the measure allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite the terms of mortgages.

They can rew

delete me: Re: Excellent news

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:03:00 EST

I fully expect that. I'm well acquainted with the concept of running laps or doing push-ups for someone else's failure. Perhaps such an event will drive home the importance for due diligence and ethics in the banking industry.

Steve Urkel: Re: Start from Scratch.

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:03:23 EST

I agree. I'm suspicious of Paulson's motives too. Even if we give his motives the benfit of the doubt, he can be biased for non-sinister reasons. It's hard to see how his background isn't skewing his judgment.

If they evaluated the other options a

profwhat: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:42:00 EST

What sort of "main street" things do you think there should have been in the bill? All the people with resetting ARMs will be taken care of with the $300 billion bailou

profwhat: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:38:34 EST

Not only have I considered that it was a bad bill, I believe it was a bad bill.

You have an excellent point about Republicans rejecting a proposal by the Bush administration. Bush also has little control over Republicans in Congress. But, then, no

JimmyHavok: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:24:44 EST

She lost them by leaving support for Main Street out of the bill, on the promise that the Republicans would deliver the votes to pass it.

So much for Republican promises.

We need a bill that Democrats can vote for, and let Republicans suck ass for vo

gerrymander: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:26:39 EST

Pelosi and Obama look bad for not being able to turn out more of their party, but what about Bush and McCain? Don't they look at least as bad?

Bad, yes. As bad, no. The bill failed by 12 votes. Democrat "no" votes included at five committee

PenitenziAgite: Re: REPRESENTATIVES DERAIL EXPECTED FREE MARKET IN

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:09:19 EST

With a dress like she had on there, in order to 'look down it', you'd have to have X-ray vision...

Shy Elf: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:00:39 EST

"I don't know what was so great about the depression."
"And how did it sneak up on us, so silently, almost on little cats' feet?"

This is pretty bad. It's not in a class with Palin, but it's still pretty bad. It's passing blame for the f

joshv: Re: JUST SAY "NO" TO SOCIALISM

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:34:06 EST

If you thought that was bad, wait to you see what they do with the toilet paper. Then they make you wait in day long lines for it.

profwhat: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:07:24 EST

Nancy Pelosi lost 40% of her own Democratic caucus in the most important economic vote--hell, the most important vote, period--that she has presided over. One fallout from this is that Pelosi now appears to be a much weaker leader than previou

pO157: Re: Pelosi

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:46:08 EST

I do not for a minute buy the line that Nancy Pelosi's speech is what sank the bill, or even the argument that Republicans who would have voted yea were justified in voting nay because of Pelosi's speech. But good Lord, what a fact-divorced tirad

pO157: Re: Start from Scratch.

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:33:16 EST
And yet the main response to people who saw this coming and tried to warn us has been a stream of personal attacks and questions about their sanity.
What is the mainstream, approved answer for getting us out of this whole we've dug ourselves into? Keep

Shy Elf: Re: REPRESENTATIVES DERAIL EXPECTED FREE MARKET IN

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:05:36 EST
We probably really don't want to go
Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:35:05 EST
The fact that whole wheat bread costs roughly three times as much has white bread despite using less wheat has always struck me as saying something very fundamental about our economic system. Perhaps your price gap is less, but mine is fully three ti

tomc: Re: JUST SAY "NO" TO SOCIALISM

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:51:40 EST
The SECOND thing they do is take away smooth peanut butter so if we want peanut butter we can only eat the crunchy kind.

JimmyHavok: Re: JUST SAY "NO" TO SOCIALISM

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:10:07 EST
That's the Royalist program.

pO157: Re: JUST SAY "NO" TO SOCIALISM

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:24:08 EST
I thought it was kill all the lawyers?

JimmyHavok: Re: The Republicans are not necessarily to blame.

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:47:47 EST
Gee, nice projection.

PhilWal: Re: most breathless headline ever

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:42:05 EST
There you go!
Taken from here.

tomc: JUST SAY "NO" TO SOCIALISM

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:18:43 EST
The FIRST thing they do is nationalize the banks.
Comrades.

pO157: Re: most breathless headline ever

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:52:46 EST
I don't think so. There is something classy about old timey

gerrymander: Re: most breathless headline ever

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:47:59 EST
I'm hoping for a GIF of a rotating red and blue dome light, myself.

Lou: most breathless headline ever

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:23:45 EST
Yikes...can't scoop do blinking letters?

Steve Urkel: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:04:07 EST
The Finance crowd's money already goes mostly to Democrats. I realize only donations to Republicans buy influence, so there is no signifigance to this.

Steve Urkel: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:48:30 EST
"The point of having a representative democracy is to allow those representatives to go against their constituents when their constituents don't understand the issues well enough to have an informed opinion."
Who are these representitives with "informed

gerrymander: Re: Pelosi

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:30:58 EST
But she doesn't point to any proposed-but-rejected regulations that would have stopped this
Of course not. The two most likely candidates in the "proposed-but-rejected" column are
Look, if you're a Republican in Congress this morning you've got two choices here. You either vote for the bill, o

joshv: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:08:40 EST
Wow, that is some convincing logic. Clearly all of the constituent correspondence against this bill is coming from mouth breathing, bible-thumping, young-earth believin', mouth breathers. Those idiots don't deserve to have the opinions represen

gerrymander: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:02:15 EST
The Republicans got a decent chunk of what they wanted, but instead of just taking that they demanded the whole cake.
Yeah, it's almost as if the Republicans knew they were being used as political cover. Funny, that.
Still, this kind of stunt

port1080: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:59:14 EST
I figure more than a few of those Reps are willing about losing their seats in a little over 4 weeks (see the quote in the subQ). I doubt much would mollify their constituents. I think this was larger than demands for a little extra in jobless benefits

profwhat: Pro-business != pro free-market

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:55:59 EST
I think we're seeing here the beginning of a realignment of business and finance money away from the Republicans and towards the Democrats....businesses will quickly come to realize that it's better to pay more taxes and have some more regulation than

port1080: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:54:46 EST
Halfwits? Try elected representatives whose phone lines, faxes, and email in-boxes are jammed with the correspondence of angry constituents who are dead set against the bill.
Ah yes, the same constituents who believe in young earth creation

port1080: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:54:04 EST
Do you honestly believe that if this bailout occurred that it would be the last? Do you think Wall Street would have woken up and said "Oh hai, I almost has giant FAIL" and avoided these types of shenanigans in the future? Really? Or is it more likely t

profwhat: Pelosi

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:48:05 EST
I do not for a minute buy the line that Nancy Pelosi's speech is what sank the bill, or even the argument that Republicans who wo

pO157: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:44:58 EST
A much more extreme plan may well have been able to pick up all 95 of those Democratic votes with no problems (and now I'm guessin that's exactly what we'll see).
I figure more than a few of those Reps are willing about losing their seats in a

delete me: Excellent news

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:41:13 EST
The incompetent and corrupt banks need to go down, allowing entry for new banks that may be smarter and more ethical. A bailout merely keeps unfit businesses operating. We bail them out now, we might as well raise taxes and put money aside for that time in

port1080: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:39:19 EST
The Democrats control the House and the Senate, President Bush has pretty much said he would sign any bill which came into his field of vision, but Democratic leadership still can't get 40% of their own members to vote for passing the bill. You think th

gerrymander: Re: The Republicans are not necessarily to blame.

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:37:41 EST
They wanted a bipartisan bill so that they could fade future heat from the bailout's possible failure on Republicans when/if President Obama and Democrat control of Congress extend the current crisis another two years. Period.

pO157: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:36:22 EST
Do you honestly believe that if this bailout occurred that it would be the last? Do you think Wall Street would have woken up and said "Oh hai, I almost has giant FAIL" and avoided these types of shenanigans in the future? Really? Or is it more likely that

gerrymander: Re: Is Congress retarded?

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:33:43 EST
Nuts to the extremists on both sides, but especially the Republicans, since the Democrats cut out a lot from their original bill to try to get bipartisan support for this.
From a