PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Simple Question: If we have a deal, what's the hold-up?


Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:00 PM
I've been sitting back watching this financial crisis unfold, and I'm just wondering about some things...and trying to avoid the sort of knee-jerk responses that I've seen from so many folks.

We supposedly had a "deal" yesterday, that Congressional Dems say was a done deal. A "deal" which most polling I've seen, most Americans say they don't want.

Today, those same Dems have blamed McCain for first, playing politics with his "suspended campaign" and, second, for "blowing up" this supposed "deal."

Last I checked, Dems could pass, by majority vote, this proposal....since they have a majority. And since Bush supports the "deal," they don't need to worry about a veto.

Why don't they just tell the House Republicans and McCain to fugg themselves? (They don't seem to have difficulty doing that on other issues, energy, drilling for oil, suspending their summer recess....etc)

So, why don't they go ahead and pass the deal and have the President sign it? :shrug:

That way, they could really take all the credit for this "solution." So, what's the hold-up? :shrug:

Seriously. :hmmm:

J Diddy
09-26-2008, 02:01 PM
Everybody's waiting for their cut.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:02 PM
Because they want a total bi-partisan bill. The House Republicans are the only ones holding out. The Senate Republicans want to and have the votes. I think last night they said they had 40 who were going to vote yes.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:02 PM
Everybody's waiting for their cut.

Maybe. Something stinks about it though.

I'm more inclined to think that Pelosi and Reid have.....blinked. Again. :hmmm:

J Diddy
09-26-2008, 02:03 PM
Maybe. Something stinks about it though.

I'm more inclined to think that Pelosi and Reid have.....blinked. Again. :hmmm:

I have a theory that's far more conspiracist theory than yours....

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:03 PM
Because they want a total bi-partisan bill. The House Republicans are the only ones holding out. The Senate Republicans want to and have the votes. I think last night they said they had 40 who were going to vote yes.

SO, the House Republicans are seemingly listening to the American people....by not rushing into this thing, and yet they and McCain to blame for "blowing up" this "deal?"

Is that what we are saying here?

:shrug:

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:04 PM
I have a theory that's far more conspiracist theory than yours....

...and that would be??? :shrug:

RJ
09-26-2008, 02:05 PM
They all have to hold hands and jump out of the plane together.

Stinger
09-26-2008, 02:05 PM
Of this supposed deal I have heard a lot of McCain but yet to hear if Obama agreed or opposed it?

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 02:05 PM
I've been sitting back watching this financial crisis unfold, and I'm just wondering about some things...and trying to avoid the sort of knee-jerk responses that I've seen from so many folks.

We supposedly had a "deal" yesterday, that Congressional Dems say was a done deal. A "deal" which most polling I've seen, most Americans say they don't want.

Today, those same Dems have blamed McCain for first, playing politics with his "suspended campaign" and, second, for "blowing up" this supposed "deal."

Last I checked, Dems could pass, by majority vote, this proposal....since they have a majority. And since Bush supports the "deal," they don't need to worry about a veto.

Why don't they just tell the House Republicans and McCain to fugg themselves? (They don't seem to have difficulty doing that on other issues, energy, drilling for oil, suspending their summer recess....etc)

So, why don't they go ahead and pass the deal and have the President sign it? :shrug:

That way, they could really take all the credit for this "solution." So, what's the hold-up? :shrug:

Seriously. :hmmm:IMHO, they don't have a deal. Just my opinion.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:07 PM
IMHO, they don't have a deal. Just my opinion.

Okay, bunny....you can knock off the patronizing. I'm probably seeing THIS particular event/series of events from your perspective....so help me out here. Okay, bro?

;)

:hmmm:

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:07 PM
SO, the House Republicans are seemingly listening to the American people....by not rushing into this thing, and yet they and McCain to blame for "blowing up" this "deal?"

Is that what we are saying here?

:shrug:

I saw a poll last night that said over 65% of people want the bail out. People aren't happy about it obviously but there is really no other options. What is plan B except to do nothing?

Taco John
09-26-2008, 02:07 PM
Looks like Kotter is pre-disposed to defend the Republicans at all costs in the name of fairness as usual.

J Diddy
09-26-2008, 02:07 PM
...and that would be??? :shrug:


The dems pushed this thing to get done, after McCain said he was coming, before he got here so he wouldn't get any credit. Threatening to cancel the debate when there was no need it was already done. The GOP caught wind and started delaying therefore giving a reason to cancel the debate. They wanted their guy to look like the hero. After too much public scrutiny McCain has to have the debate or sink deeper in quick sand. GOP in too deep to pull back any of their delays.

Taco John
09-26-2008, 02:07 PM
What is plan B except to do nothing?


That's my favorite plan.

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 02:08 PM
They all have to hold hands and jump out of the plane together.
I would much prefer the Democrats jump out of the plane with George Bush. Remember, this was a BA plan put forth by Paulson. The Dems are on board because they love big government.

Change, baby. Here is a chance for the Democrats to take responsibility and lead. They don't need the Republicans to pass this.

Pass it, the Pres, your president, will sign it.


Change. You are married to him Democrats, eat your heart out.

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 02:08 PM
Of this supposed deal I have heard a lot of McCain but yet to hear if Obama agreed or opposed it?

What is it youve heard? Last I heard McCain hasnt even said if he is for it or against it.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:09 PM
Looks like Kotter is pre-disposed to defend the Republicans at all costs in the name of fairness as usual.


It's more like, I think....like MOST Americans, that this bail-out stinks to high heaven.

And, yet, we are seemingly attacking those who are "blowing up" this deal that most Americans oppose.

I don't get it, I guess.... :hmmm:

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:09 PM
That's my favorite plan.

So if the economy implodes and we go into a depression that is fine with you?

Both options suck but I sure don't want the latter.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:10 PM
I would much prefer the Democrats jump out of the plane with George Bush. Remember, this was a BA plan put forth by Paulson. The Dems are on board because they love big government.

Change, baby. Here is a chance for the Democrats to take responsibility and lead. They don't need the Republicans to pass this.

Pass it, the Pres, your president, will sign it.


Change. You are married to him Democrats, eat your heart out.

Yeah that is why 40 Republicans Senators are ready to vote yes for this.

But it is all the Dems fault right?

RJ
09-26-2008, 02:11 PM
It's more like, I think....like MOST Americans, that this bail-out stinks to high heaven.

And, yet, we are seemingly attacking those who are "blowing up" this deal that most Americans oppose.

I don't get it, I guess.... :hmmm:



Who is the "we" that is attacking them?

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:11 PM
I saw a poll last night that said over 65% of people want the bail out. People aren't happy about it obviously but there is really no other options. What is plan B except to do nothing?

That's at odds with the polling I'm seeing.

There seems to be a consensus that we need to move forward more carefully, than we are....and talk about this much, much more than we have....and work toward a better and more comprehensive plan, that is much, much better than the one currently on the table.

And, because Pelosi and Reid and Bush tell us we need to "act now," that.....that would be a bad idea?

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:14 PM
Who is the "we" that is attacking them?


If you've been watching the same media as I have the last 24 hours, the media has been pushing the "bail out" pretty clearly....and blaming McCain and the House Republicans for "playing politics."

It seems to me ALL SIDES could be blamed for playing politics with this, and yet....only McCain and House Republicans are really being criticized very much at all. It just seems that the media is all too anxious to listen to those pushing this "deal" and accepting their explanations without any questioning.

Chief Henry
09-26-2008, 02:14 PM
Maybe they were NOT close to a deal !!! Did you eve think that maybe the dems wanted it to look like a deal was imminent ... when in actuality it wasn't close to being completed at all. Maybe the dems were playing politics to try and not let John McCain in on any dealings.

Maybe the house Republicans will not go for 20% of the 700 Billion going to ACORN. I sure hope they don't cave into the dems to give 20% to that ****ing group known as ACORN.

Stinger
09-26-2008, 02:14 PM
What is it youve heard? Last I heard McCain hasnt even said if he is for it or against it.


According to Reid and the democratic leadership that the deal was done until McCain showed up. So I take it Obama was in support of the original bill?

Taco John
09-26-2008, 02:15 PM
It's more like, I think....like MOST Americans, that this bail-out stinks to high heaven.

And, yet, we are seemingly attacking those who are "blowing up" this deal that most Americans oppose.

I don't get it, I guess.... :hmmm:


That's because you're not willing to consider the base intention of those who ended up blowing up the deal. Bumbling and blowing up the deal is fine with me. But I'm not going to pretend that it was shrewd by any standard.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:15 PM
That's at odds with the polling I'm seeing.

There seems to be a consensus that we need to move forward more carefully, than we are....and talk about this much, much more than we have....and work toward a better and more comprehensive plan, that is much, much better than the one currently on the table.

And, because Pelosi and Reid and Bush tell us we need to "act now," that.....that would be a bad idea?

People don't want to do this but we are not hearing other options except doom.

Of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed in a national CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 62% said they think in general the government should step in to try to address the problems facing struggling financial institutions. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:17 PM
So if the economy implodes and we go into a depression that is fine with you?

Both options suck but I sure don't want the latter.

You don't honestly think it's an either/or option here, do you? Surely, there are more than two possible "solutions" to this complex problem. WHY are we so anxious to think that one....think about this David....

that a plan, supported by Pelosi, Reid, and George W.....a plan that all three are supporting, apparently, that we can't do any better?

I'm willing to give this thing a few more days, a week or two at least....to figure out if what they are proposing is the best way to "fix" this.

Is that really asking too much??? :shrug:

mlyonsd
09-26-2008, 02:18 PM
If the market hasn't folded by now I don't see what the big rush is.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:18 PM
According to Reid and the democratic leadership that the deal was done until McCain showed up. So I take it Obama was in support of the original bill?

Neither was in support of the original bill. They both knew that it needed to be modified. Obama was in support of the provisions that they had in place before it derailed.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:19 PM
That's because you're not willing to consider the base intention of those who ended up blowing up the deal. Bumbling and blowing up the deal is fine with me. But I'm not going to pretend that it was shrewd by any standard.


That's my point, Isaac. This deal is NOT blown up....Dems can pass it, and Bush will sign it.

Then, Dems can claim all the credit. And McCain and House Reps would really be screwed then, wouldn't they.

Why isn't that happening? I'm surprised it doesn't make you wonder. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:20 PM
If the market hasn't folded by now I don't see what the big rush is.

Exactly. What's the rush? Why not fine-tune the bill, more to the liking of average Americans....and, in the end, a better plan?

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:20 PM
You don't honestly think it's an either/or option here, do you? Surely, there are more than two possible "solutions" to this complex problem. WHY are we so anxious to think that one....think about this David....

that a plan, supported by Pelosi, Reid, and George W.....a plan that all three are supporting, apparently, that we can't do any better?

I'm willing to give this thing a few more days, a week or two at least....to figure out if what they are proposing is the best way to "fix" this.

Is that really asking too much??? :shrug:

Oh I agree Kotter. I think we need to hear more options and we aren't getting them.

Right now it is pass it or Great Depression 2.0 is coming

ROYC75
09-26-2008, 02:20 PM
SO, the House Republicans are seemingly listening to the American people....by not rushing into this thing, and yet they and McCain to blame for "blowing up" this "deal?"

Is that what we are saying here?

:shrug:

That is the story from the dems, liberals, and the media....... Has nothing to do with McCain other than smear for their own tactics.

The American people are smarter than the dems, liberals and media is giving them credit for.

Stinger
09-26-2008, 02:21 PM
Neither was in support of the original bill. They both knew that it needed to be modified. Obama was in support of the provisions that they had in place before it derailed.

Thank you for the clarification.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:23 PM
That's my point, Isaac. This deal is NOT blown up....Dems can pass it, and Bush will sign it.

Then, Dems can claim all the credit. And McCain and House Reps would really be screwed then, wouldn't they.

Why isn't that happening? I'm surprised it doesn't make you wonder. :shrug:

Because they want everyone to be on board and not to look like this was done by party vote.

I think it will get done it will just take until late into the weekend to get it accomplished.

ROYC75
09-26-2008, 02:28 PM
The dems pushed this thing to get done, after McCain said he was coming, before he got here so he wouldn't get any credit. Threatening to cancel the debate when there was no need it was already done. The GOP caught wind and started delaying therefore giving a reason to cancel the debate. They wanted their guy to look like the hero. After too much public scrutiny McCain has to have the debate or sink deeper in quick sand. GOP in too deep to pull back any of their delays.


This is B S ..... Political spin. There wasn't enough votes to pass it, McCain went to try and help, the republicans were going to vote against it to start with. Reid and Pelosi claimed they would find enough votes to pass it and move it along. That vote was going to fail , even if McCain had stayed away.

Obama couldn't change the vote count, he couldn't do anything, even by telephone. The wording within the bill was the hold up.......Plus the senate and house members were hearing from the people, another reason to delay it .

Dems and libs like to spin this any way they wish to defend their preference.... The American people are smarter than that , especially when 2/3 of the people are not stupid .

penguinz
09-26-2008, 02:28 PM
Right now it is pass it or Great Depression 2.0 is comingNo it isn't.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:30 PM
Oh I agree Kotter. I think we need to hear more options and we aren't getting them.

Right now it is pass it or Great Depression 2.0 is coming

So, there are other options.....

Why aren't we getting them? Any thoughts as to WHY we aren't getting them? :hmmm:

If we use fear to motivate people into supporting the war on terrorism, as critics suggested....and that was bad. Really, really bad.

Is using fear to motivate people into supporting a rushed bill and bail-out of a bunch of Wall Street crooks....somehow better? :shrug:

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:31 PM
No it isn't.

The point I was making is that those are our options according to everyone up in Washington. So basically we have no options except to do the bailout.

IMHO we need more options.

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 02:32 PM
According to Reid and the democratic leadership that the deal was done until McCain showed up. So I take it Obama was in support of the original bill?

Why would you take it that way? Obama said right away that the deal had no protection for tax payers. He said the tax payers should be treated as investors, since that is what they are being asked to do. He said there needs to be an independant panel for oversight. He listed many problems he had with the original proposal.
I am watching CNN at this very moment and the had a Republican on that was in on the negotiations, they asked him if he knew where McCain stands on the issue, he couldnt answer. He said you will have to ask Senator McCain, Wolf Blitzer said, we have, we cant get an answer from him either.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 02:33 PM
So, there are other options.....

Why aren't we getting them? Any thoughts as to WHY we aren't getting them? :hmmm:

If we use fear to motivate people into supporting the war on terrorism, as critics suggested....and that was bad. Really, really bad.

Is using fear to motivate people into supporting a rushed bill and bail-out of a bunch of Wall Street crooks....somehow better? :shrug:

I don't know if there any other options because they haven't said.

I definitely think it is fear to motivate people to support this bill. I think I heard someone on TV last night state that Bush's address reminded him of his we are going to war with Iraq address. Fear is a great motivator.

J Diddy
09-26-2008, 02:34 PM
This is B S ..... Political spin. There wasn't enough votes to pass it, McCain went to try and help, the republicans were going to vote against it to start with. Reid and Pelosi claimed they would find enough votes to pass it and move it along. That vote was going to fail , even if McCain had stayed away.

Obama could change the vote count, he couldn't do anything, even by telephone. The wording within the bill was the hold up.......Plus the senate and house members were hearing from the people, another reason to delay it .

Dems and libs like to spin this any way they wish to defend their preference.... The American people are smarter than that , especially when 2/3 of the people are not stupid .


So sayeth a representative from the remaining 1/3.....
According to my little conspiracy theory it is both sides not just one and it's all politics.
It's my theory, take it, leave it, or disprove it.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:35 PM
I don't know if there any other options because they haven't said.

I definitely think it is fear to motivate people to support this bill. I think I heard someone on TV last night state that Bush's address reminded him of his we are going to war with Iraq address. Fear is a great motivator.

So, it's okay to give into fear, as long as our "side" is the one engaged in using the tactic? :shrug:

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 02:40 PM
Exactly. What's the rush? Why not fine-tune the bill, more to the liking of average Americans....and, in the end, a better plan?

The market finished up because everyone is anticipating a bill coming together this weekend. If it doesn't Monday will be an absolute shitshow. I'm not sure the credit market can go another day or two with this uncertainty hanging around before it just blows up anyway.

RJ
09-26-2008, 02:42 PM
If the market hasn't folded by now I don't see what the big rush is.


I agree with that and probably so do most people. Paulson and Bushco tried really hard to push this through in a couple of days, which tells me that they're probably hiding something from us. This isn't the sort of decision making that should be done in a hurry.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:42 PM
The market finished up because everyone is anticipating a bill coming together this weekend. If it doesn't Monday will be an absolute shitshow. I'm not sure the credit market can go another day or two with this uncertainty hanging around before it just blows up anyway.

Sorry. I don't buy it. And if it does, would it really be that much worse than the havoc that will be wreaked by a $1 trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street crooks....and the sort of precedent that would set?

I'm asking; I'm not so sure though. :shake:

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 02:43 PM
I've been sitting back watching this financial crisis unfold, and I'm just wondering about some things...and trying to avoid the sort of knee-jerk responses that I've seen from so many folks.

We supposedly had a "deal" yesterday, that Congressional Dems say was a done deal. A "deal" which most polling I've seen, most Americans say they don't want.

Today, those same Dems have blamed McCain for first, playing politics with his "suspended campaign" and, second, for "blowing up" this supposed "deal."

Last I checked, Dems could pass, by majority vote, this proposal....since they have a majority. And since Bush supports the "deal," they don't need to worry about a veto.



They are too chickenshit to go it alone. They know they've been played and have walked WILLINGLY into a bad situation aka trap. The best thing for them to do is try to persuade as many as they can to jump on their sinking ship.

If anyone has ANY doubt why the delay has happened then they need only to see the polls which say less than 15% of Americans support the bailout and MORE IMPORTANTLY look at Kantor, Boehner, Blunt, and Ryan. The answer will be clear as day. :hmmm: :doh!:


Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing States!!!! VA, OH, MO, WI.

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 02:44 PM
Sorry. I don't buy it. And if it does, would it really be that much worse than the havoc that will be wreaked by a $1 trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street crooks....and the sort of precedent that would set?

I'm asking; I'm not so sure though. :shake:

You don't have to buy it, facts are facts. LIBOR/OIS is at an all-time high, CDS are at ridiculous levels, the largest thrift collapse in history happened last night and others are on the brink. We are literally at the edge of a cliff and looking down.

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 02:48 PM
You don't have to buy it, facts are facts. LIBOR/OIS is at an all-time high, CDS are at ridiculous levels, the largest thrift collapse in history happened last night and others are on the brink.

I dont doubt you, but why did they wait so long to bring it to the table? Lets say it crashes, we then inject 1 trillion dollars into it, whats the difference?

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:53 PM
I dont doubt you, but why did they wait so long to bring it to the table? Lets say it crashes, we then inject 1 trillion dollars into it, whats the difference?

Exactly. No difference, there would be no difference substantively speaking....other than the immediate ownership of a few firms who sink in the interim. I say, let the bastards sink, at this point.

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 02:54 PM
I dont doubt you, but why did they wait so long to bring it to the table? Lets say it crashes, we then inject 1 trillion dollars into it, whats the difference?

Because it's an unprecedented move, and they kept hoping that private money would get involved. But until now, private money is staying out of it, and the Treasury realizes that they need to do something big right now instead of sitting by watching banks get sucked down the drain one by one.

Listen, I completely understand why the large majority of America is against it. The problem is that Bernanke and Paulsen have not effectively communicated the plan to the general uninformed American public. Paulsen has focused only on Wall Street and has failed to accurately describe the ramifications for Main Street should we let certain Wall Street banks fail and not take control of these toxic assets. If he came out and simply said "hey, if you want to ever get a mortgage, a student loan, a car loan and you want to prevent 20-30% unemployment and a massive depression you should support this bill", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As a fiscal conservative, I understand why citizens do not want to burden tax payers with a potential liability down the road, but we need to focus on big picture and survival. The crisis of confidence continues to drag on otherwise healthy institutions, one need only look at 3 months treasury and the Libor spike to see that fear is driving action as banks hoard cash and lending tightens further.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:55 PM
They are too chickenshit to go it alone. They know they've been played and have walked WILLINGLY into a bad situation aka trap. The best thing for them to do is try to persuade as many as they can to jump on their sinking ship.

If anyone has ANY doubt why the delay has happened then they need only to see the polls which say less than 15% of Americans support the bailout and MORE IMPORTANTLY look at Kantor, Boehner, Blunt, and Ryan. The answer will be clear as day. :hmmm: :doh!:


Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing States!!!! VA, OH, MO, WI.

I sure hope those guys prevail in this then...whatever their motivation. Go Kantor, Boehner, Blunt, and Ryan.

:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 02:56 PM
Because it's an unprecedented move, and they kept hoping that private money would get involved. But until now, private money is staying out of it, and the Treasury realizes that they need to do something big right now instead of sitting by watching banks get sucked down the drain one by one.

Listen, I completely understand why the large majority of America is against it. The problem is that Bernanke and Paulsen have not effectively communicated the plan to the general uninformed American public. Paulsen has focused only on Wall Street and has failed to accurately describe the ramifications for Main Street should we let certain Wall Street banks fail and not take control of these toxic assets. If he came out and simply said "hey, if you want to ever get a mortgage, a student loan, a car loan and you want to prevent 20-30% unemployment and a massive depression you should support this bill", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As a fiscal conservative, I understand why citizens do not want to burden tax payers with a potential liability down the road, but we need to focus on big picture and survival. The crisis of confidence continues to drag on otherwise healthy institutions, one need only look at 3 months treasury and the Libor spike to see that fear is driving action as banks hoard cash and lending tightens further.


Just a guess here, and I mean no disrespect; but.....I suspect you are in/closely tied into the industry, aren't you? :shrug:

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 02:58 PM
Just a guess here, and I mean no disrespect; but.....I suspect you are in/closely tied into the industry, aren't you? :shrug:

You could say that.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:02 PM
If anyone has ANY doubt why the delay has happened then they need only to see the polls which say less than 15% of Americans support the bailout and MORE IMPORTANTLY look at Kantor, Boehner, Blunt, and Ryan. The answer will be clear as day. :hmmm: :doh!:


Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing States!!!! VA, OH, MO, WI.

That is wrong I just posted the poll that said 62% support it

Hoover
09-26-2008, 03:05 PM
Look the only time we pass bipartisan legislation is when one party doesn't want to to be wrong. Its bullshit. They put their name on the ballot, they told the people in their districts that they could make the tough decisions, so with their back against the wall and the support of the president they refuse to lead.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:06 PM
You could say that.

Well, if time/opportunity permits....please educate us further about this whole thing. A lot of us would be very indebted.

Is it as complex as I suspect....is it a mix of.....greed, bad government interventions and policies and regulation, poor decisions to deregulate specific areas of oversight, poor decisions and greed by Wall Street and other financiers, coupled with the problems of derivatives, subprime lending, and a real estate bubble bursting.....

Or is it only one or two, of those problems, and others....that have led to this?

Any insights or opinions would be very much appreciated. :hmmm:

Friendo
09-26-2008, 03:12 PM
Just a guess here, and I mean no disrespect; but.....I suspect you are in/closely tied into the industry, aren't you? :shrug:


just a guess here and I mean no disrespect, but I suspect you knew where you were going with this all along :hmmm:

SBK
09-26-2008, 03:13 PM
If you can do something great for the country and take all the credit for it you do. You can look good and make the opposition look bad.

Then again, if you're trying to pass something that isn't so good and would like to get the other side to look bad with you......

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 03:15 PM
Well, if time/opportunity permits....please educate us further about this whole thing. A lot of us would be very indebted.

Is it as complex as I suspect....is it a mix of.....greed, bad government interventions and policies and regulation, poor decisions to deregulate specific areas of oversight, poor decisions and greed by Wall Street and other financiers, coupled with the problems of derivatives, subprime lending, and a real estate bubble bursting.....

Or is it only one or two, of those problems, and others....that have led to this?

Any insights or opinions would be very much appreciated. :hmmm:

Your suspicions are correct. It all stems from greed - banks had predatory lending practices, the governement was pushing home ownerhsip on all Americans no matter how uncredit worthy they may be, and there was an extreme amount of exuberance on behalf of consumers. The writing was on the wall, but no one likes to end a good party.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:15 PM
just a guess here and I mean no disrespect, but I suspect you knew where you were going with this all along :hmmm:

:spock:

And where do you think, THAT....is?

Eh, I'm trying to find out....what someone with KNOWLEDGE and experience, I hope, in this industry and with these issues, THINKS about this whole mess?

Isn't that okay? :shrug:

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:17 PM
but no one likes to end a good party.

Who does? :)

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:18 PM
Your suspicions are correct. It all stems from greed - banks had predatory lending practices, the governement was pushing home ownerhsip on all Americans no matter how uncredit worthy they may be, and there was an extreme amount of exuberance on behalf of consumers. The writing was on the wall, but no one likes to end a good party.

Gosh. You mean Ron Paul could have saved us from all this, if we'd only have listened? :spock:

FTR, TIC....


Seriously, though.....what's the solution, IYHO then? :shrug:

Friendo
09-26-2008, 03:21 PM
:spock:

And where do you think, THAT....is?

Eh, I'm trying to find out....what someone with KNOWLEDGE and experience, I hope, in this industry and with these issues, THINKS about this whole mess?

Isn't that okay? :shrug:


well, judging from your posts, the notion that the Republicans referenced are operating in totally good faith on behalf of the people, and the Dems are simply playing politics.

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 03:22 PM
Yeah that is why 40 Republicans Senators are ready to vote yes for this.

But it is all the Dems fault right?
No, I am in no way saying that.

I am saying that the Dems don't need the Rep's votes for passage. They only need to have the courage to take responsibility for it's success or failure. Something they are in very short supply of.

You see, it is our turn to sit on the sidelines and cheer your side phugging something up for political expediency.

Stings like a bitch doesn't it? Get use to it.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:23 PM
well, judging from your posts, the notion that the Republicans referenced are operating in totally good faith on behalf of the people, and the Dems are simply playing politics.

You need to reread my earlier comments; I said BOTH sides were/are playing politics.

However, I don't believe the media is portraying it that way; they seemingly want to, IMHO wrongly, place the blame on McCain and the Republican side, when it's pretty clear to anyone watching closely....both sides are engaged in a political manipulation of the issue and events surrounding it. That is, certainly, one of the points I wanted to raise. Yes.

Look the only time we pass bipartisan legislation is when one party doesn't want to to be wrong. Its bullshit. They put their name on the ballot, they told the people in their districts that they could make the tough decisions, so with their back against the wall and the support of the president they refuse to lead.

I agree with you on this, Hoov. As a Dem, I've always known this....but this just goes to show, they are cowards. At least this group leading this.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-26-2008, 03:29 PM
Kotter reminds me of a reality show contestant who tries to play both sides of the rival factions, thinking that he's getting one over on both teams.

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 03:30 PM
Gosh. You mean Ron Paul could have saved us from all this, if we'd only have listened? :spock:

FTR, TIC....


Seriously, though.....what's the solution, IYHO then? :shrug:

Well obviously I think this plan needs to pass, as we need to get these MBS off the banks' balance sheets so they can stop the bleeding. US govt doesn't have to write them down, so they can hold on to them until housing rebounds and turn a tidy profit.

In addition, we desperately need to create a transparent market for MBS so we can accurately value this stuff (like we do for every other type of security) instead of just guessing and crushing any company that has a lot of these assets on their book, or else this will just happen again in a few years.

Just my 2 cents.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:31 PM
No, I am in no way saying that.

I am saying that the Dems don't need the Rep's votes for passage. They only need to have the courage to take responsibility for it's success or failure. Something they are in very short supply of.

You see, it is our turn to sit on the sidelines and cheer your side phugging something up for political expediency.

Stings like a bitch doesn't it? Get use to it.

They don't need the Reps votes to pass. They want the Rep's votes to signal bi-partisanship and to cover their own ass at the same time.

Also you tend to forget it is your boy that is still running the show in the WH. :)

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:32 PM
Well obviously I think this plan needs to pass, as we need to get these MBS off the banks' balance sheets so they can stop the bleeding. US govt doesn't have to write them down, so they can hold on to them until housing rebounds and turn a tidy profit.

In addition, we desperately need to create a transparent market for MBS so we can accurately value this stuff (like we do for every other type of security) instead of just guessing and crushing any company that has a lot of these assets on their book, or else this will just happen again in a few years.

Just my 2 cents.

Is there a fair chance that, given history, taxpayers could recoup a good return on this "investment?" I mean, when the real estate market rebounds, as almost assuredly....it will, on at least a modest level. :shrug:

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:32 PM
You need to reread my earlier comments; I said BOTH sides were/are playing politics.

However, I don't believe the media is portraying it that way; they seemingly want to, IMHO wrongly, place the blame on McCain and the Republican side, when it's pretty clear to anyone watching closely....both sides are engaged in a political manipulation of the issue and events surrounding it. That is, certainly, one of the points I wanted to raise. Yes.


.

Let's be fair and honest. There was NO playing politics until McCain decided to inject himself into this and make a big deal about it.

Both sides were working hard and keeping quiet.

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 03:35 PM
Let's be fair and honest. There was NO playing politics until McCain decided to inject himself into this and make a big deal about it.

Both sides were working hard and keeping quiet.

:clap:

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:36 PM
Let's be fair and honest. There was NO playing politics until McCain decided to inject himself into this and make a big deal about it.

Both sides were working hard and keeping quiet.


I disagree; I think Congressional Dems have been playing politics with the issue since it became apparent. Including during the entire last two years (all available in the Congressional Record, for those of you who are interested)....there have been proposals to "fix" some of these things during the last two years, yet.....we've seen a political version of the old North Carolina "four corners" stall tactic.

They refused to let ANY of those bills see the light of day. Why? :shrug:

SBK
09-26-2008, 03:37 PM
They don't need the Reps votes to pass. They want the Rep's votes to signal bi-partisanship and to cover their own ass at the same time.

Also you tend to forget it is your boy that is still running the show in the WH. :)

They don't want bi-partisanship, they want someone to join in taking the blame. And I'm sure they'd like the idea of getting the few conservatives in the House to compromise on their core values as a little bonus.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:37 PM
:clap:

How do we explain the Democratic leadership shooting down every proposal to "fix" this issue that has come up over the past two years?

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 03:38 PM
Is there a fair chance that, given history, taxpayers could recoup a good return on this "investment?" I mean, when the real estate market rebounds, as almost assuredly....it will, on at least a modest level. :shrug:

It's honestly difficult to imagine a scenario where the US government wouldn't profit on this deal in the long-term. Of course, the government isn't going to hand out checks to citizens, so most people don't seem to care.

Here is an article I posted from Bill Gross, an extremely respected investor on par with Buffett, explaining how Main Street would profit:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192447

SBK
09-26-2008, 03:38 PM
:clap:

You know Harry Reid called McCain and asked him to come to DC right?

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:40 PM
I disagree; I think Congressional Dems have been playing politics with the issue since it became apparent. Including during the entire last two years (all available in the Congressional Record, for those of you who are interested)....there have been proposals to "fix" some of these things during the last two years, yet.....we've seen a political version of the old North Carolina "four corners" stall tactic.

They refused to let ANY of those bills see the light of day. Why? :shrug:

I am not talking about in the past 2 years I am talking about in the past week to 10 days.

When this whole thing collapsed and Paulson and Bush made speeches everybody was committed to fixing the thing and there was no bitching publicly about it. The whole tenor changed when McCain decided to inject himself into this. Then it became a political circus. Since he has left haven't you noticed less bitching and political grand standing? Coincedence I think not..

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 03:42 PM
How do we explain the Democratic leadership shooting down every proposal to "fix" this issue that has come up over the past two years?

We werent explaining that. Were we?

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 03:43 PM
You know Harry Reid called McCain and asked him to come to DC right?

No, I didnt. Link?

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:44 PM
We werent explaining that. Were we?

Shouldn't we? :shrug:

Doesn't it make you wonder, why?

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:45 PM
I am not talking about in the past 2 years I am talking about in the past week to 10 days.

When this whole thing collapsed and Paulson and Bush made speeches everybody was committed to fixing the thing and there was no bitching publicly about it. The whole tenor changed when McCain decided to inject himself into this. Then it became a political circus. Since he has left haven't you noticed less bitching and political grand standing? Coincedence I think not..


So McCain and the Reps have been playing politics with this for 10 days; but, let's give a pass to a Congress who have been playing politics for 2 years???

Is that what you really want to say? :shrug:

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 03:46 PM
Shouldn't we? :shrug:

Doesn't it make you wonder, why?

Absolutely! But why only go back two years? Why not the previous six years that the Republicans were in complete control.
I am sure the blame game will start soon enough. Right now we need bipartisan solutions, which seemed to be happening until yesterday.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:47 PM
You know Harry Reid called McCain and asked him to come to DC right?

No he didn't

Fearing a political backlash against Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has told the White House that it must serve up support from Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) if it hopes to ensure bipartisan backing for a massive economic bailout package by week's end.
Reid made his position clear to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Monday night, as well as to his Democratic caucus, which shares many of the GOP's concerns that the $700 billion bailout has been drafted too hastily and is a risky remedy for an economy on the brink of crisis. Reid, according to Democratic Senate sources, also wants assurances from Senate Republican leaders that an evenly divided, bipartisan group of Senators will pass any legislative fix so his party isn't left with the burden of doing an unpopular White House's bidding again.


McCain holds the key to such a bipartisan vote, according to Reid, because Republicans are likely to defer to his position on a bill that holds political peril.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:47 PM
Absolutely! But why only go back two years? Why not the previous six years that the Republicans were in complete control.
I am sure the blame game will start soon enough. Right now we need bipartisan solutions, which seemed to be happening until yesterday.

Let's do it. And let the chips fall where they may. I'm all for that. :thumb:

Too bad it ain't likely to happen.

Taco John
09-26-2008, 03:48 PM
How do we explain the Democratic leadership shooting down every proposal to "fix" this issue that has come up over the past two years?

Such as?

chiefforlife
09-26-2008, 03:49 PM
No he didn't

Thank you for clarifying, Reid hates McCain, I couldnt imagine him calling McCain for anything.
Much like the McCain campaign, make stuff up to support the argument.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:49 PM
So McCain and the Reps have been playing politics with this for 10 days; but, let's give a pass to a Congress who have been playing politics for 2 years???

Is that what you really want to say? :shrug:

With this crisis no one has been playing politics publicly until Wednesday when McCain decided to pull his stunt. McCain should have just stayed away like Obama wanted to do because all it did was poison the process.

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 03:51 PM
Right now we need bipartisan solutions, which seemed to be happening until yesterday.

Yep. 100% agree.

Now that McCain is gone they are back to working and negoitating on this quietly.

Funny how that works.

Friendo
09-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Is there a fair chance that, given history, taxpayers could recoup a good return on this "investment?" I mean, when the real estate market rebounds, as almost assuredly....it will, on at least a modest level. :shrug:


I think the root problems of this go back much further than many are willing to admit/look at. Downsizing began in earnest in the late eighties/early nineties. Roughly the same time industry started moving out. Increased competition putting pressure on profitablility--then traditional benefits taken off the table--real wages/earning power decreased, BUT, we had two "bubbles", (or "parties" if you prefer) to mask our real economic problems. Basically, the foundation has been rotting, but we (EVERYONE--except maybe the Paul's and the Feingold's few as they were) were fine putting on a new coat of paint each year. So here we are, the party's over, gas is $4 a gallon, we're looking straight in the face of worldwide depression, and a few are attempting earnest resolution as best can be had. Buffett stepped up to the plate, and maybe I'm naive, but I trust the guy, and his vote of confidence in this is good enough for me. Wish I had the link, but NPR had a story yesterday that referenced Switzerland's similar mortgage crisis in the Nineties, and this model is based on that, which exceeded expectations. Not saying the two situations are the same, as our Country is obviously much larger, but I don't think this is simply another "Wall-Street bailout". I certainly understand and share the frustrations of the "man on the street", and I would like to see more Independent oversight enacted. FTR--I heard mentioned by a (dubious?) ex-FBI guy yesterday that Dodd wiil be in deep s**t if his involvement come to light--dont' know but I would like to have that light shined on all of the crooks in this thing, left or right. jmho.

Logical
09-26-2008, 03:55 PM
I've been sitting back watching this financial crisis unfold, and I'm just wondering about some things...and trying to avoid the sort of knee-jerk responses that I've seen from so many folks.

We supposedly had a "deal" yesterday, that Congressional Dems say was a done deal. A "deal" which most polling I've seen, most Americans say they don't want.

Today, those same Dems have blamed McCain for first, playing politics with his "suspended campaign" and, second, for "blowing up" this supposed "deal."

Last I checked, Dems could pass, by majority vote, this proposal....since they have a majority. And since Bush supports the "deal," they don't need to worry about a veto.

Why don't they just tell the House Republicans and McCain to fugg themselves? (They don't seem to have difficulty doing that on other issues, energy, drilling for oil, suspending their summer recess....etc)

So, why don't they go ahead and pass the deal and have the President sign it? :shrug:

That way, they could really take all the credit for this "solution." So, what's the hold-up? :shrug:

Seriously. :hmmm:Your not serious, I know better. You know as well as I do that no single party is going to pass any kind of deal. First it is not a good idea, bipartisan support, in fact strong bipartisan support is need if there is any hope of this working.

Second, and I know this is the reason you created this, to stir the pot, any solution with single party support is going to harm the opposition party politically. Politics is in rare cases put aside, but this won't be one of them.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 03:59 PM
Your not serious, I know better. You know as well as I do that no single party is going to pass any kind of deal. First it is not a good idea, bipartisan support, in fact strong bipartisan support is need if there is any hope of this working.

Second, and I know this is the reason you created this, to stir the pot, any solution with single party support is going to harm the opposition party politically. Politics is in rare cases put aside, but this won't be one of them.
Clinton did it with the 1993 Tax Hikes and Budget Act.....entirely Dems, with very few (if any) Republicans; was probably one of the best things he did.

If Bush signs it, and Senate Republicans support it....it's by definition, bipartisan. What would be "wrong" with that? Nothing. Dems could claim credit for their "victory." Unless, they they have some ulterior motive that is.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 04:01 PM
With this crisis no one has been playing politics publicly until Wednesday when McCain decided to pull his stunt. McCain should have just stayed away like Obama wanted to do because all it did was poison the process.

You have blinders on, if you don't think Dems are playing politics with this, every bit as much as the Republicans are. I agree, the Reps are playing politics to some extent here; but so are Dems. It's naive to suggest otherwise, IMHO.

Friendo
09-26-2008, 04:04 PM
You have blinders on, if you don't think Dems are playing politics with this, every bit as much as the Republicans are. I agree, the Reps are playing politics to some extent here; but so are Dems. It's naive to suggest otherwise, IMHO.

big whoop--Nancy Pelosi already came out with that

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 04:04 PM
Such as?

Why, YOU know...don't you? Your boy, Ron, has been behind a couple of 'em, hasn't he?
:hmmm:

big whoop--Nancy Pelosi already came out with that

The "big whoop" is in what, has thus far, been presented as a one-sided....blame game, IMHO.

Garcia Bronco
09-26-2008, 04:05 PM
The hold up is where the profits go. Democrats want to dump them into ACORN. Good luck with that.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 04:06 PM
The hold up is where the profits go. Democrats want to dump them into ACORN. Good luck with that.

And THAT should be a sticking point, if true; $140 million to those goons? :shake:

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:11 PM
Well, if time/opportunity permits....please educate us further about this whole thing. A lot of us would be very indebted.

Is it as complex as I suspect....is it a mix of.....greed, bad government interventions and policies and regulation, poor decisions to deregulate specific areas of oversight, poor decisions and greed by Wall Street and other financiers, coupled with the problems of derivatives, subprime lending, and a real estate bubble bursting.....

Or is it only one or two, of those problems, and others....that have led to this?

Any insights or opinions would be very much appreciated. :hmmm:The original bill was setting up a Czar of the Bailout. That person would have had authoritarian control. It could have never been passed. Many people including much of the media got excited prematurely with yesterdays agreement in principle. All that meant was the groundrules had been established. Bushco was pushing the idea it was ready to pass, because they still had hopes their Czar who would not even have to be subject to judiciary rulings regarding their choices. Thank the creator that they pulled away from that deal.

Friendo
09-26-2008, 04:12 PM
And THAT should be a sticking point.

agreed

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:13 PM
Clinton did it with the 1993 Tax Hikes and Budget Act.....entirely Dems, with very few (if any) Republicans; was probably one of the best things he did.

If Bush signs it, and Senate Republicans support it....it's by definition, bipartisan. What would be "wrong" with that? Nothing. Dems could claim credit for their "victory." Unless, they they have some ulterior motive that is.

Sorry I should have said with the Presidency on the line.

Nice Rob but I know you are not this politically stupid. Bush is the *****ing anti-christ to the American electorate. His sole support would doom any single parties chances at the Presidency. I know you know this, you are not DEnise, quit trying to be.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 04:13 PM
The original bill was setting up a Czar of the Bailout. That person would have had authoritarian control. It could have never been passed. Many people including much of the media got excited prematurely with yesterdays agreement in principle. All that meant was the groundrules had been established. Bushco was pushing the idea it was ready to pass, because they still had hopes their Czar who would not even have to be subject to judiciary rulings regarding their choices. Thank the creator that they pulled away from that deal.

My understanding is that the Bush would sign the "bill" the House Repubs want to reject. :shrug:

Sorry I should have said with the Presidency on the line.

I think there is more to it this time, than just that...I think they don't want to risk they are wrong, all alone. Which tells me all I need to know about this "solutiion." :hmmm:

Taco John
09-26-2008, 04:15 PM
Why, YOU know...don't you? Your boy, Ron, has been behind a couple of 'em, hasn't he?
:hmmm:



The Republicans had a majority for six years. What did they do with it?

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:18 PM
You have blinders on, if you don't think Dems are playing politics with this, every bit as much as the Republicans are. I agree, the Reps are playing politics to some extent here; but so are Dems. It's naive to suggest otherwise, IMHO.If this is the way you feel, why in hell are you arguing with me. This was exactly my point. Both sides know they cannot go it along politically. Don't give me the Bush point again, that is just ignorant.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 04:19 PM
The Republicans had a majority for six years. What did they do with it?

Not much. They certainly aren't blameless either--in retrospect they should have listened to Paul more. I have said, let the chips fall where they may. I don't have any partisan allegiances anymore, to be sure. If we wanted, this REALLY goes back well into the 90s....too. But it sure as heck hasn't "suddenly" become political only in the last 10 days. It's been "political" all along--on both sides.

If this is the way you feel, why in hell are you arguing with me. This was exactly my point. Both sides know they cannot go it along politically. Don't give me the Bush point again, that is just ignorant.

You started the "argument," not me. :p

The Republican Senators support is significant too.

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:19 PM
My understanding is that the Bush would sign the "bill" the House Repubs want to reject. :shrug:



I think there is more to it this time, than just that...I think they don't want to risk they are wrong, all alone. Which tells me all I need to know about this "solutiion." :hmmm:Does it, this is normal politics. Neither party wants to jump aboard like happened with Iraq. This one is going to take awhile. Right now they need to work on an interim solution.

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:22 PM
Not much. They certainly aren't blameless either--in retrospect they should have listened to Paul more. I have said, let the chips fall where they may. I don't have any partisan allegiances anymore, to be sure. If we wanted, this REALLY goes back well into the 90s....too. But it sure as heck hasn't "suddenly" become political only in the last 10 days. It's been "political" all along--on both sides.


Actually yes it has, the Republican had their heads buried in the sand until then (deregulation is good). The dems took advantage of it in a bad way by using law to force lenders towards bad loans. Both parties deserve a whoopin. Both are trying to avoid it.

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:25 PM
Actually I did not mean to start an argument, merely to point out that you knew better and this was just a shit stirring attempt.;)

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 04:28 PM
They don't need the Reps votes to pass. They want the Rep's votes to signal bi-partisanship and to cover their own ass at the same time.

Also you tend to forget it is your boy that is still running the show in the WH. :)
Really? The congress is vested, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with the power of the purse. They must appropriate the money, not Bush.

But of cousre, we cannot expect Democrats to be burdoned with little details like that. Bush is the President, this package is his fault. lmao. Like, the Congress could have moved on this crap months ago if they had any leadership whatsover, but they have none.

They could have forced Bush to veto it, then blamed him, but that is not where we are at.

We have the Dems trying to get fool republicans to jump of the cliff to cover their own asses. The Reps should let them jump by themself. Fug em.

Thanks for your support on the war bitches.

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 04:28 PM
That is wrong I just posted the poll that said 62% support it

Link please cuz I have spoken to at least 62 people regarding this issue and have yet to talk to one who supports it. The DEMS on this board notwithstanding...

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 04:30 PM
Link please cuz I have spoken to at least 62 people regarding this issue and have yet to talk to one who supports it. The DEMS on this board notwithstanding...

I did it was from CNN and should be on page 1 or 2

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 04:33 PM
You have blinders on, if you don't think Dems are playing politics with this, every bit as much as the Republicans are. I agree, the Reps are playing politics to some extent here; but so are Dems. It's naive to suggest otherwise, IMHO.

They were when McCain decided to show up. I give credit to both sides prior to then and after he left for not playing politics at least publicly.

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 04:34 PM
I did it was from CNN and should be on page 1 or 2

ROFL

The poll was conducted 9/19-9/21. I bet those numbers would be reversed today. The American people wised up in the last week.

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 04:36 PM
Does it, this is normal politics. Neither party wants to jump aboard like happened with Iraq. This one is going to take awhile. Right now they need to work on an interim solution.Why should the loyal opposition give a fug what the leadership wants to do?

Should we give a fug about our country?

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 04:36 PM
ROFL

The poll was conducted 9/19-9/21. I bet those numbers would be reversed today. The American people wised up in the last week.

Nothing has changed from 5 days ago

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 04:38 PM
Link please cuz I have spoken to at least 62 people regarding this issue and have yet to talk to one who supports it. The DEMS on this board notwithstanding...It is the Democrats RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROPRIATE, it is vested to them in the constitution.

They own the House and the Senate. LEAD already.

Bush has abdicated, he will phuggin sign anything the Democrats pass, just pass it already.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 04:39 PM
Nothing has changed from 5 days ago

Time was the enemy here. Five days ago things were made to seem dire. Two nights ago the POTUS spoke about the crisis and moved no one to his corner.

Now the CONS have a 'revolt' going and the majority of Americans who agree with them.

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 04:40 PM
It is the Democrats RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROPRIATE, it is vested to them in the constitution.

They own the House and the Senate. LEAD already.

Bush has abdicated, he will phuggin sign anything the Democrats pass, just pass it already.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The DEMS are too big pussies to do it without the CONS. They KNOW what will happen if they do.

Nice trap they've obediently marched into. ROFL

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 04:42 PM
Time was the enemy here. Five days ago things were made to seem dire. Two nights ago the POTUS spoke about the crisis and moved no one in his corner.

Now the CONS have a 'revolt' going and the majority of Americans who agree with them.

Time is still an enemy. They appear they want to get this done before Monday when the market opens.

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 04:44 PM
Time is still an enemy. They appear they want to get this done before Monday when the market opens.

Time is the enemy of the DEMS because MORE people will get in the line to revolt.

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:45 PM
Why should the loyal opposition give a fug what the leadership wants to do?

Should we give a fug about our country?Trust me, no permanent solution is going to be agreed to prior to the election.

Oh and DEnise I have not heard a single person supporting Obama supporting the President's solution. Please give me some specific posters.

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:47 PM
Really? The congress is vested, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with the power of the purse. They must appropriate the money, not Bush.

But of cousre, we cannot expect Democrats to be burdoned with little details like that. Bush is the President, this package is his fault. lmao. Like, the Congress could have moved on this crap months ago if they had any leadership whatsover, but they have none.

They could have forced Bush to veto it, then blamed him, but that is not where we are at.

We have the Dems trying to get fool republicans to jump of the cliff to cover their own asses. The Reps should let them jump by themself. Fug em.

Thanks for your support on the war bitches.

While I agree with many of your points, that would not put us in any better place today. Thanks for playing.

memyselfI
09-26-2008, 04:51 PM
Trust me, no permanent solution is going to be agreed to prior to the election.

Oh and DEnise I have not heard a single person supporting Obama supporting the President's solution. Please give me some specific posters.

They are voting present. :D

dirk digler
09-26-2008, 04:51 PM
Time is the enemy of the DEMS because MORE people will get in the line to revolt.

Every republican that was on tv the last 2 days were talking about getting this done prior to Monday.

But keeping blaming the Dems. IMO they are all at fault for screwing up.

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:56 PM
They are voting present. :DThat was, funny, but seriously do you have at least one specific supporter who supports the Bushco Plan?

Logical
09-26-2008, 04:58 PM
The DEMS are too big pussies to do it without the CONS. They KNOW what will happen if they do.

Nice trap they've obediently marched into. ROFLI don't see a trap, other than if they approved the President's/Paulson's original plan unchanged. Not voting without bipartisan support is smart politics.

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 05:01 PM
While I agree with many of your points, that would not put us in any better place today. Thanks for playing.In the spirit of bi partisanship, could you pretty please, enumerate specifically which points in my post you do agree with. I will stipulate to the fact that you did not support the war, how convenient.

Well this time, the Democrats will have to roll the dice and hope they hop a hard 6. Us Conservatives will be on the pass line.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 05:22 PM
Every republican that was on tv the last 2 days were talking about getting this done prior to Monday.

But keeping blaming the Dems. IMO they are all at fault for screwing up.

But Dems were the ones stumping yesterday, that the "deal" was "done"....when clearly it was not. Then they try to pass off blame, when there is PLENTY for both sides. That's one of the things that chaps me about this whole thing.

Adept Havelock
09-26-2008, 05:27 PM
Democrats will have to roll the dice and hope they hop a hard 6.

:hmmm:

:shrug:

Calcountry
09-26-2008, 05:38 PM
:hmmm:

:shrug:
I said, hop a hard 6, which is a little harder to do than to roll a hard six before a 7.

Adama don't know shit about dice.

Logical
09-26-2008, 06:12 PM
In the spirit of bi partisanship, could you pretty please, enumerate specifically which points in my post you do agree with. I will stipulate to the fact that you did not support the war, how convenient.

Well this time, the Democrats will have to roll the dice and hope they hop a hard 6. Us Conservatives will be on the pass line.

Sure, no problem.

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5056362#post5056362)
Really? The congress is vested, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with the power of the purse. They must appropriate the money, not Bush.

But of cousre, we cannot expect Democrats to be burdoned with little details like that. Bush is the President, this package is his fault. lmao. Like, the Congress could have moved on this crap months ago if they had any leadership whatsover, but they have none.

They could have forced Bush to veto it, then blamed him, but that is not where we are at.

We have the Dems trying to get fool republicans to jump of the cliff to cover their own asses. The Reps should let them jump by themself. Fug em.

Thanks for your support on the war bitches.


I agree with the following statements.

Really? The Congress is vested, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with the power of the purse. They must appropriate the money, not Bush.

Congress is all parties.

Like, the Congress could have moved on this crap months ago if they had any leadership whatsover, but they have none.

They could have forced Bush to veto it, then blamed him, but that is not where we are at.

I agree with these statements, but as I said we would be no better off 10 days ago if that had happened.

We have the Dems trying to get fool republicans to jump of the cliff to cover their own asses. The Reps should let them jump by themself. Fug em.

I also don't agree with this statement but you know that.

tiptap
09-26-2008, 06:28 PM
The priorities of this bailout are not those of Democrats. It is not Democrats wish to forgo their wishes for expenditures so that they can support a overall group of people who are in want of nothing of the basics. This isn't their base they are supporting. And a large part of the Democratic base are holding their nose in considering this bailout. Forced into a corner (was it planned?) they looked to move toward a solution. But if the Republicans are then going to vote against it and run on that vote in this election cycle.. it erodes the confidence in the legislation by dividing the Democratic base from its leaders. You can't afford that and be able to govern. Therefore that requires that the Republicans offer good support as well.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2008, 09:12 PM
The priorities of this bailout are not those of Democrats. It is not Democrats wish to forgo their wishes for expenditures so that they can support a overall group of people who are in want of nothing of the basics. This isn't their base they are supporting. And a large part of the Democratic base are holding their nose in considering this bailout. Forced into a corner (was it planned?) they looked to move toward a solution. But if the Republicans are then going to vote against it and run on that vote in this election cycle.. it erodes the confidence in the legislation by dividing the Democratic base from its leaders. You can't afford that and be able to govern. Therefore that requires that the Republicans offer good support as well.

That answer makes the most sense of anything I've seen presented here.

So what's the next move, for either side IYHO? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
09-26-2008, 09:42 PM
I'm glad someone is holding this up. I hope the Rs show some real spine and go against this. People are missing the boat on this. It's about the nationalization of the financial sector with the oversight, which really means badgering firms to make political investments like their favorite projects. This is a bad bill. Bad for America. And it won't mean the end of the world if this is left to correct on it's own. Just some fiscal tightening, but we'd be far better off then what will happen if it goes through. NY in 1975 had a default and the same doomsday was predicted and it didn't happen. I think Goldman Sacs is hiding something toxic. As anyone noticed how many former CEO's of GS's have been Democrats?