I'm not worthy to even get into the details of what's churning beneath this economic catastrophe looming ahead compared to the gurus we already have here discussing it.

But is it just me in thinking why are Repubs and some Dems in congess/ negotiations holding the US and world economy hostage just to save their political backsides.

As I understand it a massive meltdown like we've never seen in nearly a hundred years is only a step or 2 away, but we have Dems in Congress saying "no-no we can get this bailout plan launched ourselves but we want Repubs taking the plunge with us" and the we have Repubs acting like pussies because several hundred constituents are phoning opposing the plan - are the phone calls multiple calls from a few people, or do the hundreds of calls represent thousands saying 'no' to the plan.

Point is, in the face of a catastrophe shouldn't there be a realization to stave off the crisis at hand and later iron out the wrinkles.
I'm asking the gurus here -is this Global economy Russian Roulette of the worst kind?

So far today the market is showing meltdown fear over this bailout uncertainty.

So, your thread is really more about the politicization of the bailout plan...

I'd answer your question by suggesting that Dems have to have Reps onboard, otherwise, as the economy continues to implode, the Republicans could simply point the finger at the Dems and say "we warned you this would happen," even though the imploding had nothing to do with the bailout.

Political cover for both parties requires that they sign into law a bill that garners bi-lateral support.

I don't hold that against them. This is a crisis caused by many, not one party, or one faction. It requires that everyone get onboard and try to solve the crisis.

The one faction left out in all of this seems to be the average American citizen, however.

Yes- I definitely see that they each want to cover their political derrieres....
but isn't time of the absolute essence here - is this a time for them to be playing 'blink first' / 'chicken' etc.,
Things look like are getting very shakey and very fast on the financial markets.
I think citizens globally are going to get screwed if the powers that be play cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Dow down 770+ today.
Who wants to wake up tomorrow or wednesday morning?
10,000 jobs lost in Wall st. the last few weeks.
McCain towing the line for Repubs in Congress to holdout on not giving the bailout plan the green light.
Financial Gurus here please adivse.... what's the reality of disaster descending on us if things are held up much longer?

What do you base than on. McCain took a position on the bailout that i needed to happen, Obama did not.
You could just as easily say Obama failed to get the 40% of Democrat who voted against it, to get on board with the plan.


What really bothers me how little talk there has been to admit this $700 Billion would only be a start according to a lot of economist.

Pelosi's stupid speech just proves why I'm so scared over the idea of Obama being Pres. in a way I wouldn't have been concerned if it were Hillary.
For days there has been an overwhelming call to put aside partisan politics. Then right before the vote she turns the whole mess upside down with last minute finger pointing. The bill would have probably failed anyway but now it will be more of a struggle to get anything done.
I still don't understand why the house rushed this when the senate wouldn't have voted until Wednesday.

Actually there's alot of talk that the bailout plan is NO guarantee that it'll be the cureall for everything right away.
However, the world markets are praying the US market doesn't collapse -and are desiring any type of plan -part or whole to be agreed upon.If the world markets collapse then likely a bailout plan won't count for much
Time is of the essence.
Yes, a significant number of Dems voted today against the plan -from what I understand they did so because the majority of Repubs who were expected to vote yes suddenly had a change of heart due to their pissy-ness at Pelosi's anti-Repub rant speech just before the voting. Why would that be a reason to cast a vote of spite instead of common sense with so much at stake is pretty clueless imo.
Pretty sad seeing McCain holding a mini press conference yesterday evening for a 2 minute speech blaming Obama for the bailout plan's failure -is he losing it? Not hard to see why the gap is widening when he goes to those extremes to one-up his opponent.
Let's hope ALL the nimrods in the House get there act together for Thursday. It's easy to cry about not having a pretty package for a bailout plan, but what does Congress miss in that a potential world collapse of markets is at the gate and that their political antics can potentially crush the global masses.
You're more the financial gurus here- tell me if that potential's not true.

Interesting perspective on the wall street drop
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/putt...ist=SecMostRead
Largest point loss but not even close to largest percentage.


Then again there was this postive sign on Wall Street yesterday

ROFLMAO!!!

I thought Radar Magazine got this one about right when they wrote on their blog:

Mindful of the way that Minority Leader John Boehner's rationale for the Republican rejection of the bailout—they voted against it because a speech by Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings—makes them look like a bunch of gigantic pussies, House Republicans are clamoring to join the Not A Gigantic Pussy caucus.

That was in reference to a posting on Politico where claim Rep. John Shadegg said, "that he doesn't know of a single GOP vote that shifted because of the speech." Others are joining the pussy revolt.

Interesting to hear Andrea Mitchell's reporting on MSNBC that Newt Gingrich was backstabbing Boehner by working behind the scenes to have the measure defeated, yet he came out with a public statement backing the bailout. Here comes Newt '12! I wonder if he will be hiring any interns...

My question is what the hell is happening here? Has everyone gone completely loopy?

So does that mean you don't think Pelosi was stupid for going off on her little rant right before the vote?

I didn't see anyone put this in perspective last night.
What Boehner said was stupid, no doubt about it.
But you have to remember this is the guy who took the unpopular stance with other Republicans to get the bill passed, only to get slapped in the face by Pelosi right before the vote.
Sure people can play this up however they want but there was a number of Republicans who initially were going to vote for this bill even though....
They still had some doubts about it
They still wanted to continue the debate but were cut short.
I think there were several Republicans who probably were going to take a leap of faith with their vote because this was pushed to the floor with the idea it was now or never because of the crisis.
Well after Pelosi's little bitch feast, I think several Republicans decided against that leap of faith.

Look at Jim Clyburn (D) on the today show complaining how the deal fell through because of the Republicans an their laying blame an finger pointing. What the fuck? He was in the house,
Is he deaf? Did her not her Pelosi's little rank? Then has the never to talk about Republicans playing the blame game.

LOL Robert- that's priceless!
There should be something like that for Repubs/Dems in congress solely playing politics rather than their sincere convictions.



Pussy comparison is too good for them - at least pussies have claws!
I liked this recent quote in an editorial regarding the house; paraphrasing->
'Once again the Congress are living up to their 10% approval rating.'

The Congress approval rating dropped to the single digits today ( 9% )
The most unpopular congress in history yet 3 of the 4 people who are running for President are from the congress.
Maybe it's like work were they promote the guy who sucks just to get him out of the way.

Final irrefutable proof that all questions in life can be answered by Seinfeld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZRqH7sRyA

In all seriousness, lets remember what helped get us here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

LOL!

Okay, we have to keep all of this in perspective.

1) The group of us belong in that Seinfeld clip

2) Our political and financial system is not "ours."

3) Trying to affix blame is akin to pointing in a house of mirrors. Stop doing it.

4) Look forward, not back.

5) Remember to have fun.

Someone should have told that to Pelosi yesterday.
Here is what all the majority an minority leaders said right before the vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09...OTE-QUOTES.html
I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's strange that Pelosi freaked out just prior to the vote.
Luckily she hard Barny Rubble to come to her defense.

Remember how Bush got the blame for the housing subprime meltdown even though he called for more oversight and closer regulation of Fannie & Freedie in 2003 and 2004.
Here is a letter from all the top Democrats asking him not only to stop criticizing fannie and freddie but also called for him to recommend even more "inventive" types of loans.
http://financialservices.house.gov/LtrBushGSEs.pdf
I guess Pelosi forgot about this

It strikes me that you are engaging in a smoke and mirrors argument.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it appears as if you are continuing to try to pin blame for the current crisis on Democrats when it has really been all of Congress and President Bush. To top it off, you use false evidence to push a weak argument.

In 2004, home mortgages only accounted for 25% of the GSE's. EVERYONE was trying to boost credit so all sectors of the housing market could continue to grow at its blistering pace. Seeking additional credit for home finance was a worthy cause.

GSE's are hardly the evil you seemingly are trying to assert. Certainly, you are familiar with the long, successful history that GSE's have had in this country, at different times since they first came on the scene in the early 1900's they've been essential for pushing credit to regions of the country that were cash starved. Essential sectors such as farming, college loans, the automobile industry as well as home finance have all benefited from the flow of credit brought by the government's use of "government sponsored enterprises."

That letter you linked to starts with a KEY LINE:

We urge you to reconsider your Administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the "GSEs") and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs.

Later in the letter, they state very clearly:

We appeal to you to agree to work on legislative proposals that foster sound oversight and vigorous affordable housing efforts instead of mounting assaults in the press.

That strikes me as a sensible thing, arguing to strengthen the oversight of GSE's while focusing the credit on an overlooked sector. Isn't this the very root of the problem? There are those in the government who worked very hard (Gramm, McCain, et al) to eliminate oversight and regulation. That's the very thing that brought about this crisis.

Without the oversight, we had predatory lenders who pounced like vultures onto the low-income areas where first-time home buyers were easy prey. Additionally, thanks to lax oversight and regulation, those predatory lenders weren't concerned about properly evaluating assets as they could pass their risk on through credit swaps ... cough ... Gramm ... cough.

I'm all for government getting out of the way of private enterprise, but I sure as hell want government to continue GSE's so that our country can have access to credit when they need it. We just have to be sure that we are electing folks who are interested in proper levels of oversight so that the predators are driven from the system.

Sorry but when the regulators where going after Fannie an Freddie, the regulators where attacked by the Dems. The Dems were the ones who keep saying there was no problem while blaming Bush and McCain. Who where the ones saying there was a problem going all the way back to 2003 for Bush an 2005 for McCain. Both times the Democrats overwhelming said they were wrong, stating Fannie an Freddie were financially sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
0:40 Waters claiming there was no problem at F&F
1:04 Meeks pissed off that the regulators would even imply there anything wrong at F&F
1:34 Meeks saying there is nothing wrong with F&F, calling the regulator overseeing F&F as incompetent to claim there is a problem.
2:20 Clay calling the attack on Raines handling of Fannie a lynching. BTW he was found guilty of cooking the books so he would get a bigger bonus but to Dems that doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Big deal if he walked away will 90 Million, he paid his 3 million fine.
4:00 Davis complaining the regulator did to much.
4:50 Frank saying nothing is wrong at F&F
7:45 The CEO of Fannie saying the loans it holds are risk-less
etc.

This has little to do with Bush, if you disagree please explain what you think he did. I would agree many Republicans in congress are just a dirty as their Democrat counterparts. I would also agree that predatory lending played a SMALL part in this but not because of your claim of "cough ... Gramm ... cough."

Instead of picking two lines from the letter, read it as a whole an what it implies.
Remember the the oversight of F&F was the responsibly of different Congressional subcommittees.
Bush thought they were failing to do their job, they claim they weren't.
Who do you think was right based on the fact F&F did fail an the government had to take them over?

As of right now I'm 100% against the current bailout plan in the senate an also against any similar bill likely to come before the house.

OK, I'm a simple minded idiot...

The fact remains that if our elected officials did not use their power to create social engineering programs to buy votes we would not be in this mess.

Porkbelly spending, earmarks, whatever, just tax everyone and get re-elected what the hell it's not your money.

This is true in almost every aspect of politics, It's the political version of having a vendor buy you lunch

This is so far gone from a representive republic that it's scary.

I just want somone to stand up and say,

"The government as a whole let you the people down, we will figure out a logical way to get out of this mess and ensure it never happens again.
All of us elected officials did not do a good job accounting for the money that the citizens of this country lent us, and we foolishly let GSE's run amock and get into debt with the security and backing of your monies without proper stewardship.
We will look at accounting changes, low intrest loans and lines of credit from the fed, and any other avenue that will not put the burden on the american taxpayer. We will be pulling all of the best minds that saw our way thru the S&L crisis and we will ensure everyone on wall street that we will find a viabale solution.
Once the crisis is avoided we will appoint outside investigators to determine what went wrong."

Is this too damn much to ask.....

I really believe that either
the aboloshiment of the 2 party system
the Repeal of the 17th ammendment
the imposition of term limits
the Fair Tax
outlaw former house or senate reps for being foreign or domestic lobbiests

If these things do not happen we are in for a rocky road ahead....and not just because of this current crisis.

The system is bought and paid for by the highest bidder that can bring in the most votes, or monies while the rest of us are janitors left to clean up the messes and try to survive.

Frankly I'm just pissed off at everyone.

Blitz, have no fear- you're a genius compared to me in this thread.

Frankly I'm very nervous at a sudden collapse in the economy that these clowns in the House do not seem to fully grasp. Wall St. fragility is one thing, but mainstreet credit availability is an actuality in progress like rotten wood of a home's central pillar starting to spread.

Hamma
Since you think the cause was predatory lending. Then you may be interested in reading this article which says Fannie & Freddie fought tooth an nail to block state laws trying to stop or limit predatory lending.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151722/page/1

Great article.

I have to admit, I think Blitz has it about right.

I was reading today how the accounting firm Arthur Andersen was found to be responsible for the major accounting scandal at Freddie Mac. They cooked the books to hide $5 billion in profits.

Anyone remember Arthur Andersen? Gee, they were the firm that helped Enron executives cook their books. They also played a major role in the Worldcom scandal, among others. Gee, and they even managed to get the Supreme Court to let them off the hook on a technicality.

I'm starting to see one HUGE organized effort here to take as much money from Main Street as possible.

I was heavily involved in Wall Street back in the 80's. Back then, there were very few "average" Americans who were investing in stocks. Obviously, that all turned around in the 90's. I'm convinced that the explosive growth of Dotcoms really pissed off the Masters of the Universe, the Street's old guard, the ones who really control the levers of our society. Folks like AT&T absolutely hated that upstarts were now determining the market.

What happened next? We all felt the pain of the collapse of that bubble. Lots and lots of powerful and connected folks enriched themselves as they were systematically relieving the unwashed masses of their hard-earned investments. This was no average bank job, this was thievery at a grand scale.

Next up, the Enron-induced power failures in California. All the alternative energy companies were the very first to go belly up. Wiped out by Enron trickery. Once again, a bubble, an artificial increase in perceptive value proved to be the doom for many companies and investors.

This time, Enron got caught red handed and the evil-doers couldn't jump off the burning ship fast enough. Arthur Andersen was one of the key players. They cooked the books so American's retirement nest eggs could be fleeced.

So, after the dotcom crash and the Enron disaster, what happened to the money? The wise men figured out that bubbles have a terrific payday for those who are high enough in the food chain. Meanwhile, Main Street was enticed to move their money into real estate, encouraged by the very people who had learned the fine art of creating bubbles. The rest, as they say, is history.

Flipside thought;

If there was no economic crisis ; wouldn't whoever touted themselves as deregulators be glorifying themselves as patriot saints of a bubbly economy- wouldn't they be also casting stones at the anti-deregulators?

fine to blame wall St. but isn't it their natural instinct to weasel and take advantages where there are no regulations. Regulations are put up as a safeguard - without knowing if they will actually be exploit attempts made, but they are in place.

The blame should largely be with the politicians/deregulator fans who ignored the natural exploitive behaviours of Wall St. crowd.

So I'm not smart enough to understand the whole mess.. nor to I pretend to care enough to try. But what strikes me as strange is if this whole thing is of such great importance and it's a must do then why don't the democrats pass it? They don't need Repub help to pass the bill... All seems strange to me....

Because the politicians are hearing an incredible outcry of rage from the electorate. Main Street is angry. They've awakened the mob...

Found this article from September 30, 1999

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=1

Some quotes:

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

As though we needed any more proof, the debt clock just ran out of numbers.



On a bright note, they will update the clock next year by adding two more numbers.
That will allow us to track the US debt up to a quadrillion dollars.

Story

Robert, you've done so much research into the background of the financial crisis, I knew you'd be interested in seeing this breaking story from the AP - "Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign"

It goes into substantial detail on the behind the scenes maneuvers over Senator Chuck Hagel's failed 2005 Fannie/Freddie regulatory overhaul bill.

My favorite quote from the piece relates how Senate debate over the bill "was like bizarre-o-world," with the Republicans seemingly arguing for more regulation and the Democrats arguing for less. And, now the AP reveals that behind the scenes, a Republican lobbying group was being paid $2 million to kill the regulatory legislation by specifically targeting 17 Republican Senators.

This backs up my premise that the financial crisis has truly been brought to us by folks on both sides of the aisles. It is time to clean house in Washington!