People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.
The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates... How about we stuff a rat in a duck, in a chicken, in a turkey, and in these researchers, and deep fry them?
#1
Is Soylent Green the next step for Britain? When the Govt. starts rationing you food, not because it is in short supply, but because the want to its time to take up your gun and join the mob.
Here is documentation that irrefutably chains Barack Obama to the most odious leftist movements in the United States today. Furthermore, it presents conclusive evidence that Obama not only knows of, but has participated in promotion of the Left's apocalyptic strategy of destruction for the United States: the Cloward-Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis. Don't miss the flow chart!
In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
#4
You know better than that, lotp. Remember your friends in the U.S. military. We don't have any better friends--and those who wish our country ill, be they foreign or domestic, have no worse enemy. We'll come through this and be stronger for the experience.
To use a science fiction term, think Butlerian Jihad. It may be a hell of a fight but when it's over there will be no hiding for the enemy. They've been hiding in plain sight for decades. That's coming to an end.
#5
The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" is the kind of thing that starts a Rwanda style massacre. The far left WILL drive us to ruin if they are not subdued. I cannot believe that ~50% or more of the country stands ready to make it happen on Nov. 4th. Truly astonishing.
#6
ACORN is very, very busy working their voter strategy in the highly contested states. The early "absentee" program, concentrated on college students in Ohio may reap a hundred thousand votes for The Messiah.
If there's still room under the bus where Barack Obama throws his discards - his white granny, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and even Hillary Clinton - that's the right place for Nancy Pelosi.
The congressional bailout of Wall Street, as unpopular as it is, was nevertheless headed for grudging acceptance Monday until Mzz Pelosi, the dowager queen of the San Francisco Democrats (where there are many queens), killed it with a particularly mean-spirited attack on the Republicans whom the Democrats were counting on to join them for just this one bipartisan vote.
"$700 billion is a staggering number," she told her caucus just before the vote was taken, "but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country." If only she had waited until the vote was safely taken before she began biting the ankles of the Republicans she needed, there might have been a successful vote, and no record 700-point tanking of the market on Wall Street.
This morning, millions of Americans could have taken a half-breath as everyone moved a half-step back from the edge of the abyss.
Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, whose state is perhaps the most crucial of the must-win states for both John McCain and Barack Obama, was disbelieving after the vote: "I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House." Mzz Pelosi "poisoned the debate," the House Republican leader said.
Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the chief Republican whip, said many of his colleagues were ready to find a clothespin to hold their noses while voting "aye," but not after Mzz Pelosi's bizarre remarks. There were no clothespins big enough to repel the speaker's partisan stink.
Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, one of the Republicans hustling bailout votes, said her speech "set the partisan tone and cost us votes." About a third of the Republicans finally joined the 60 percent of the Democrats who voted for the measure, which had been worked out over the kind of desperate weekend Washington hadn't seen since, well, nobody remembered when. Pearl Harbor?
Mzz Pelosi's near-death experience didn't teach her much. After the vote, she said merely that the bailout package had been written on "a bipartisan basis" - indeed correct - and that she had produced the Democratic votes, just not enough of them. What she didn't say was that there were probably enough Republican votes to save the day but for her insistence on taking victory laps before a victory.
Sarah Palin
Perhaps her tantrum was not a tantrum at all, but a carefully orchestrated two-step to pay back John McCain for his attempt to get Barack Obama back to Washington, even if it meant postponing the Ole Miss debate (that neither man won), where together they could have twisted enough Republican and Democratic arms to win passage of the bailout that nobody wanted and nearly everybody agreed was necessary. If Mr. Obama had made common cause with Mr. McCain even after the debate in Mississippi, there might still have been enough time to make the difference.
Maybe that's what the Obama campaign wanted to avoid. The tears the Anointed One shed after the vote looked a lot like the tears of a crocodile. He even tried to be lighthearted, to show a little insouciance if not actual wit. (An insouciant Barack Obama? Who knew?) He's "confident" of a "solution," but "it's sort of like flying into Denver. You know you're going to land, but it's not always fun going over those mountains."
This sets up an opportunity, maybe the last good one, for John McCain to start burning barns. Who better to start it than Sarah Palin, the stubborn mom with true grit who so terrifies the Democratic left, to debate - in her own voice, unrestrained by the Nervous Nellies and Willie Wimps of the McCain camp who don't understand her Everywoman appeal - Joe Biden about what's real, about the prospect not of a recession but a depression, and the tough decisions ahead and the need for a maverick president with the experience of persuading partisan foes of making painful decisions.
Merely voting "present" won't do it. The people in all 57 states, clinging bitterly to God, guns and now to their life's savings, deserve nothing less.
Lending money to people who probably won't pay it back isn't good business. If you wrap crummy loans in a clever package, they're still crummy loans.
Your typical Wal Mart shopper understands this. But the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in Washington evidently didn't.
There are a lot of people to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis. The Federal Reserve Board under Chairman Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) pursued what seems in hindsight clearly to have been way too loose a monetary policy. Banks were awash with money to lend, and got careless in how they lent it.
Ostensibly to aid the poor, the Clinton administration and Congress encouraged lenders to give mortgages to poor credit risks. The combination of easy money and the expansion of the number of borrowers by extending loans to poor credit risks sent housing prices through the roof, creating the bubble whose bursting has led to this crisis.
Congress in 1999 repealed the law (the Glass-Steagall Act) that established a bright line between commercial and investment banks. This meant bad investments by banks could jeopardize depositors. Wall Street created "derivatives" which multiplied profits in good times, but which also multiplied risk if there were defaults.
Most important was corruption and mismanagement at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), which together controlled 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market.
Once your bank has lent you money to buy a house, it can't lend the money again until you pay it back. But if your bank sells your mortgage, it can make another loan right away. Without the secondary market, most of the funds for home mortgages would dry up.
Fannie and Freddie went broke because they had bought billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae.
Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe.
President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003, but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster. When the bill was reintroduced in this Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, the new Democratic chairman of Banking Committee, refused even to hold a hearing on it.
Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told the New York Times when the Bush bill was introduced. "The more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Democrats and some Republicans opposed reform because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998, and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.
The principal recipient of Fannie Mae's largesse was Sen. Dodd. Number two was Barack Hussein Obama.
Sen. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide's PAC and its employees. The number one senator on Countrywide's list?
Barack Hussein Obama.
Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was forced to resign in December, 2004, because of "accounting irregularities." The Washington Post reported July 16 the Obama campaign has called Mr. Raines "seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Sen. Obama appointed Mr. Raines' predecessor, James Johnson, as head of his vice presidential search committee, until he was also implicated in "accounting irregularities," and it was revealed he'd received cut rate loans from Countrywide.
Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, chairman of Sen. Obama's finance committee, cooked the books to conceal losses from subprime mortgages at her now defunct Superior bank. The holding company her family owned collected $200 million in dividends on phony profits.
The trouble with crony capitalism isn't capitalism. It's the cronies.
Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
#1
Dow is up 350 points and climbing today at 2 p.m. So much for all the pin-headed economists. Is it possible the economy is correcting itself? I may have to add economists to the list of the reviled--along with Congresscritters, lawyers, MSM, investment bankers.
#2
Meh. I suspect this is one-half people expecting a passed bill via the Republican hold-outs crawling back or a partisan Democratic version with all the ACORN bennies et all included, and the other half automated purchases by trade-bots buying 'deals' based on obsolete percentage-drop scripting.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/30/2008 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
Let me go on the record today with an opinion I've held for a while, but hadn't yet expressed publicly: Nancy Pelosi needs to go as Speaker of the House.
Some Republicans suggested yesterday that her highly partisan speech just before the bailout vote was the reason the bill failed - because it offended some GOP members so much that they switched their "yes" votes to "no." This is absurd, of course, as no one was going to base a decision on this historic, monumentally important issue at a moment of national crisis on whether Nancy Pelosi had irritated them that day. Pelosi's speech had nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of the bill.
However, the speech was incredibly inappropriate. At a moment when the Speaker should have been rallying the entire membership of the House to pull together as Americans and solve the crisis before them, Pelosi chose instead to use her pulpit to lay blame and point fingers. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, and some finger pointing is going to have to occur as we decide what specific mistakes were made and how we can avoid repeating them. But yesterday was not the time.
Yesterday was a time for statesmanship and gravitas, qualities that are critical in the individual who is only a few degrees away from the presidency, and who is vested with representing the entire body of the House of Representatives. In our two party system, there is no way to leave partisan politics out of the Speaker's role, but Pelosi acts more like a House majority or minority leader, or a whip - or even like the DNC Chair - than she does like the great Speakers of yore, like Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neill. . . .
It demeans the role of Speaker for Pelosi to use her position to take every possible opportunity to aggressively bash the GOP, no matter how inappropriate the setting or context. And I say this as a voter who likely agrees with Pelosi on specific policy issues 95% of the time.
If Americans really want change in Washington, and improvement in the mean-spirited and debilitating partisan malaise that seems to have settled over our Congress, then we need to start with working to get rid of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Our House of Representatives - and we - deserve better.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/30/2008 12:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
AGREED.......Fire the BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She should have never been put in that position
#3
Very "unbiased" article. I am as conservative as they come, but c'mon...
Watch Palin's interview with Katie Couric. Honestly, she's as smart as Quayle. It's wise to limit her exposure to the press. I fear what will happen this Thursday
On Friday's "Hardball," Chris Matthews interviewed a number of student members of the group Concerned Youth of America.
One of those students -- Caroline -- is his daughter, a student at the University of Pennsylvania. Did Matthews disclose that fact as he interviewed her?
Nancy Pelosi must be the most ineffective House Speaker of modern times. The Democrats have achieved virtually nothing since taking control of the House and Senate in 2006, and have consistently avoided the responsibility that goes with being the majority party. Which may explain why, until very recently, most Americans were unaware that the Democrats were actually in control of Congress.
Pelosi's ineffectiveness has been due, in part, to her unrelenting and strident partisanship, which brings us to today's vote on the bailout bill: suspicion is growing that Pelosi and the Democrats made no serious effort to pass the bill, and that it failed at least in part because Pelosi tried to misuse it for political advantage.
Everyone has heard about the weirdly partisan and inaccurate rant which Pelosi contributed to the debate on the bailout bill. But that speech did not take place in a vacuum. Public opinion is running strongly against the bill, and it required political courage to vote for it. If you look at the list of those who voted "No" in both parties, it is mostly members who are engaged in tough re-election campaigns. This is true on both sides of the aisle.
That being the case, and given the fact that the legislation was in fact a negotiated, bipartisan compromise, the first duty of the majority party is to line up its members to support the majority's bill. But evidence is growing that the Democrats did no such thing.
As of yesterday, the Democrats' House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn't even begun "whipping" Democratic representatives, and wouldn't do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was "whipped" on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top.
This is a classic Charlie Brown and the football maneuver. Pelosi gives a speech that frames the issue, falsely, as the result of bad Republican policies, then allows her own threatened representatives to do the popular thing while expecting Republicans to take one for the team by casting an unpopular vote. Which, of course, their Democratic opponents would use against them, thereby increasing the Democratic majority in the House.
If this was Pelosi's plan it failed, in part, perhaps, because her over-the-top partisan diatribe tipped off Republicans as to what was afoot. If, as it now appears, it's true that the Democrats made no serious effort to pass the bailout bill, it is just one more example of the failure of leadership we have seen since they took control of Congress.
#2
Of course, the flip side wins the Occam's Razor theory. That is, Bush and Karl Rove set up the Democrats to make a hugely unpopular effort to give money to the rich.
I mean, look what it could cost Bush. He could lose his re-election bid. Ahem. However, it puts the Republican congressmen square beside the typical American. Except the Republican leaders who supported the bill. But they all come from safe districts.
The zinger is that there was no real reason for this vote in the first place, as the Department of the Treasury let slip yesterday that they already have the authority to give the bailout.
#3
Department of the Treasury let slip yesterday that they already have the authority to give the bailout.
WTH?
Where are you getting that?
Anyway... what I wanted to say was that my take on this article is that this is such a debacle that they are getting ready to throw Nancy under the bus. The idea of her eyes bugging out further creeps me out EVEN more than those children singing to Dear Leader Obama.
Anyhoo. I think that the dems are finally getting called on their blatant raids on taxpayer money. As the light switches onto their activities and the connections are being made, I think we will seem them scrambling like cockroaches on linoleum. And not just the dems, but the republicans who are equally involved.
I just have a feelilng that what we are seeing here is a mutiny. Forget the news, forget the polls, those are all bogus crap. The dems are falling apart and the media can no longer cover for their corrupt theft of our tax dollars.
I predict a landslide in NOV - despite the greatest turnout of dead in the history of mankind.
There is a guy named Dave Ramsey out of Nashville. He does a kind of a layman's approach to the economy. He has posted some simple guidelines to straighten out the economy. He has on his website a way to send the following pdf file to your Congressman. He does not take credit for this approach. He says he has culled this approach from people like Mike Huckaby and others. Ramsey appears on Fox as a economic commentator. Kind of like a Ben Stein of from the South. What do Rantburgers think of this approach? Reasonable or overly simple and naive?
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following threestep Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance.
Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the
world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a
6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or
the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borroweragain limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they dont do their jobs.
c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billiona small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III
bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banksand it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendousand immediateliquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down.
This is not a time for envy, and its not a time for politics. Its time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.
#5
Congress also needs to repeal the Community Re-investment Act (Or at least the 1995 amendments).
(See the "Burning Down the House" video)
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/30/2008 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Insurance is the same as bailout.
Re-writing the loan provisions will do nothing unless loan balances are reduced or mortgage rates reduced to below market. The core problem in subprime is that people bought homes who couldn't afford them. After Freddie and Fannnie lending rules were loosened up home ownership rates in the U.S. went from 64% to 68%. Those last four percent of U.S. households cannot afford their homes. I don't have any problems re-writing their loans as long as the lenders bear the cost. Taxpayers shouldn't.
Eliminating the mark to market rule is good, but needs to include all mortagages. Even if mark to market is eliminatd for subprime, accounting rules (and common sense) require that they be marked down when they become delinquent. Eliminating mark to market for prime loans and non-delinquent loans is much more important because they are a bigger part of the market and their market values are being hurt by the flight to quality. Moving them back to amortized cost would restore many balance sheets and capital positions.
Waiving capital gains taxes is a good idea. That could be expanded beyond mortgages and offered to purchasers of new equity in financial firms. Many will need to be recapitalized to be able to begin lending again.
#7
DoDo is correct. Insuring the mortgages is won't be cheap, either. At it will cost a helluvalot more than 50 billion.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/30/2008 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes."
um, these would be the folks who bought homes they couldn't afford? Explain again why we need to save them from their own cupidity?
#2
Who's we, white man? The government would do almost all of us ordinary people a favor if it merely refrained from what it's been doing for the past few weeks, and simply let badly managed firms go bankrupt. Capitalism is supposed to be a profit-and-loss system. Too bad the so-called capitalists and their lackeys in the government don't believe in capitalism.
#3
I've suggested that we do a quick analysis of our corporations. Those that deal in real products and services should be protected. Those that deal mostly with leverage and derivatives should be on their own.
But like drug dealers, a priority of bad companies is to buy up good companies, both of them with the intent to launder and protect their assets.
#5
Isn't one Great Depression in living memory enough? No more leverage. That includes no margin accounts, no 20:1 margined futures trading, no 30:1 margined derivatives trading. Operate in the market as one does with their IRA or 401K account. If you don't have the money then don't buy.
Posted by: ed ||
09/30/2008 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A libertarian webmagazine finds five random libertarian economists I've never heard of to endorse the hard-libertarian hate-on for the bailout.
I'm badly split on the subject, but this article is white noise.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/30/2008 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Suspend the Mark-to-Market accounting rule.
Doing so would allow financial institutions to assert whatever they damn well pleased, more or less, as their balance sheet values. You really trust those guys to give sober assessments of their portfolio values? When lending ratios are based on them?
If you want to slow down the positive feedback loops involved either in bubbles or in negative bubbles i.e. crashes, mandate that for derivatives book value be a rolling average over a couple days or so. But suspending MtoM would have some pretty perverse impacts over time.
#8
But suspending MtoM would have some pretty perverse impacts over time.
How did we live without it for so long?
If a security is to be held to maturity it should be carried at historical value. If it is to be traded M2M is fine. But banks should not be trading securities. That is the problem with repealing Glass-Steagal and adopting M2M for bank loans on bank books.
#9
How did we live without it so long? We didn't have 24 hour markets with computerized trading of esoteric financial instruments 2 or 3 times removed from underlying assets.
#10
And yet, some of the earlier versions of those derivatives helped to fund major entrepreneurial-led economic growth that advanced prosperity across the board in the US and in many other places as well.
However, NS, there's no such thing as holding a derivative without intent to sell or at least without intent to be able to sell when advantageous.
#11
And yet, some of the earlier versions of those derivatives helped to fund major entrepreneurial-led economic growth that advanced prosperity across the board in the US and in many other places as well.
Enlighten me, please.
there's no such thing as holding a derivative without intent to sell or at least without intent to be able to sell when advantageous.
And that's why derivatives shouldn't be on bank balance sheets.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards Board have just made an announcement that, dry as it sounds, may mean a great deal: "When an active market for a security does not exist, the use of management estimates that incorporate current market participant expectations of future cash flows, and include appropriate risk premiums, is acceptable."
#13
Senate to vote on bailout Wednesday
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 09/30/08 07:55 PM [ET]
Senate leaders Tuesday night announced a Wednesday evening vote on the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan rejected Monday in the House of Representatives.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced the agreement in a joint appearance on the Senate floor just after 7 p.m. Agreements are in place for a voting procedure and the vote itself is expected sometime after sundown, to respect the Jewish holiday, both leadersâ offices said.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (Ill.) will return to Washington for the vote.
The agreement came together after a daylong effort that involved as many as nine conversations between Reid and McConnell and their lieutenants, as well as calls back and forth from Capitol Hill to the White House.
Tax legislation will be attached to the Senate financial rescue package, which will be considered just two days after the House rejected a bill, causing markets to plunge.
The tax bill would create and extend incentives for renewable energy and will include a one-year patch of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would otherwise hit about 20 million Americans next year.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus the tax incentives would ensure that the bill focused more on "Main Street" and not just Wall Street.
"Adding this tax relief will ensure that regular working Americans get the financial help they need in this time of crisis," Baucus said in a statement.
The bill faces an uncertain path in the House, and Democratic leaders in that chamber gave the Senate news a cool reception.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) both issued statements that pointedly omit any words of support for the plan, although they didn't state opposition either.
The stock market plunged 777 points after Monday's 205-228 vote in the House, sending leaders from both parties scrambling on Tuesday to head off any more political and financial fallout. The bill is believed to enjoy a wide margin of support in the Senate, usually the more difficult of Congress's two chambers for controversial legislation.
"It has been determined, in our judgment, this is the best thing to move forward," Reid said. "This is good for the country."
McConnell called the announcement "one of the finer moments in the Senate."
"We have come together on a bipartisan [basis] and structured a way forward on an important rescue package for our country," he said. "This is an important accomplishment and a way forward to get a result that we need to achieve for the American people."
Reid's office said the final agreement came together very quickly late Tuesday.
Usually, constitutional issues prevent the Senate from acting on legislation that involves tax issues â any such bill must originate in the House. However, the Senate can circumvent the the rules by taking up a pending House bill, stripping it and putting in place substitute language. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) had cast doubt on that scenario after Monday's failed House vote, saying it would only "compound" the situation, but others, such as senior Banking Committee member Robert Bennett (R-Utah), confirmed it was a leading idea.
"Anything that's within the realm of the rules is within the realm of possibility," Bennett said.
Some observers said a successful Senate vote could be an important tool in persuading wavering House members who may be considering changing their vote.
I had thought the argument that Nancy Pelosi and various other Democrats tanked the bill because they think they'll benefit from the horrific economic consequences of inaction were too far-fetched, too conspiratorial, to put much stock in. These people aren't quite so cynical to push for a deep, lengthy recession to gain a few extra House seats, would they?
A Campaign for America's Future release that quotes Bob Borosage saying:
The bail out will take place simply to avoid that depression. But depressions have some salutary effects - the scoundrels go belly up, the weakest get purged. And, in the wake of the disaster, people demand strict regulation of the money lenders to keep their greed in check, and government spends money on the real economy to put people back to work.
These people are gleeful over widespread economic misery if they can get some agenda items enacted. This is who you're about to give power to, America.
(Ezra Klein disapproves of Borosage; but in the comments, one of the first responses is, "Let the whole damned system burn to the ground. Whatever their ideological leanings, left or right or in between, the elites of our society have proven themselves corrupt, craven, foolish, brutal, heartless, anti-democratic, and anti-human. Yes, let the whole damned society burn to the ground, sweep away the pathetic ashes of the malevolent, disgusting, warped edifice the elites have erected to imprison the people, and build a new, better America atop the grave.")
I'm reminded of that line from The Dark Knight:; "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Posted by: Mike ||
09/30/2008 14:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Geraghty is a little overwrought and so much of a Bush fanboy that he would swallow socialism if it emerged from Bush's lips. The reality is as these liberals have stated - business failure teaches prudence. Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Liberals hope for all kinds of things all of the time. We had the worst recession since the Great Depression during Reagan's era. Did that result in the enactment of a new New Deal or Great Society? No. Reagan cut taxes and deregulated America.
#3
The axiom of a shakedown is correct, but the means to reform the system is not. We might be in for a humdinger of a correction, but the biggest purge should be in government itself--and that's the irony.
The Democrats always assume that it takes a legion of bureaucrats and a gawdawfully huge government to make and enforce a rule. It doesn't. A small handful of SEC personnel can enforce strict derivative and leverage controls on the market.
But the government itself must to a great extent be reduced to both a surplus budget and constitutional size. Doing that one thing will solve the vast majority of our economic problems.
DES MOINES, Iowa - Republican presidential nominee John McCain is urging the Treasury Department to intervene aggressively to limit damage from the financial meltdown, action that McCain says President Bush can take with the stroke of a pen.
Opening a business round-table Tuesday in Des Moines, Iowa, McCain said he has urged the Treasury to use its exchange stabilization fund "as creatively as possible" to backstop the market crisis. He says officials also should use the authority granted in a housing bill to purchase up to a trillion dollars in mortgages.
McCain decried the defeat of the financial bailout measure in the House, and he warned that the nation's political leaders will have to take risks even though solutions to the crisis may be unpopular.
it's not the majority opinion here, I know, but I'm with McCain on this myself. I really think people aren't in touch with how far south our economy and the global economy can go if this tips over into a full credit crunch.
#1
I can't wait to see Obama inaugurated so we can see McCain back in the Senate where he belongs. Carter was just like Obama. Was Carter able to set up a new New Deal or Great Society? No. Our finances just weren't in any shape for it back then. And we weren't running record deficits at the time or borrowing from China either. I am sick and tired of McCain's dictatorial tendencies. This guy's a maverick in the sense that he thinks we work for him and not the other way around.
#2
On a separate note, if this handout bill actually materializes, buy gold. Note that gold used to be worth $25 an ounce. Until the dollar got the heck inflated out of it during and after WWII. If you have any savings at all, you need to prepare for the dollar to be worth 1/4 what it's worth today two decades from now. Not quite hyper-inflation, but not a lot different from what happened from the 40's till the 70's.
#3
You're with McCain for what, LOTP? Yesterday's bill? Tomorrow's bill? Any bill? Action now? I'm pretty sure these guys don't know what they're doing. I'm pretty sure FDR, et. al.'s meddling made the Depression far worse than it need have been and that we are still paying for their intemperate actions.
You'll need to convince me that their actions won't do more harm than good. Because I'm pretty sure there is a world of hurt coming down the pike with or without the plan, whichever one it is. And government action will only make it worse because they don't know what they're doing.
#5
Khomeini accepted a peace treaty with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. He could have continued fighting until martyrdom. But he did not. These guys talk a good game but always back down in the face of superior firepower. The stuff about nukes against nukes is right. Iran's leadership won't survive a nuclear attack against this country. And let's face it - the best time for the Soviets to launch a first strike was probably against Carter. But they never did. Because payback would have been a bitch - even under Carter. Remember, Muhammad said defeat the infidels. He never said get your people exterminated while trying to defeat the infidels.
#7
As big of an asshole as Carter was, he had a couple of things going for him. First off, he had military experience. Secondly, he had some executive experience as a governor. Thirdly, he had a hostile Congress full of neo-con Democrats like Scoop Jackson and Moynihan to stymie him at every turn.
As many and manifold were Carter's faults - pathological liar, moralizing blue-nose, raging anti-Semite, purblind, infantile, incompetent as a commander-in-chief - he still wasn't the worst of all possible presidents. He wasn't a coward; he wasn't a Marxist; he wasn't a community organizer.
If we're lucky, Obama will just crawl into a hole on January 20th and refuse to come out & commit himself until the storm passes. Three and a half years later, there should still be some semblance of a country left for the 45th president to start re-building.
If we're not lucky, the polls will be staffed by Obamajungend in 2012.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/30/2008 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Khomeini didn't have nukes, we had. That is why he recoiled; thanks to Obama Ahlmedinad will. Or more exactly thanks to you.
You're not making a lot of sense here. During the Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini had two choices - he could fight on until he defeated the Iraqis, which he had the option of doing, or he could sue for peace. He did the latter. He was not under any kind of nuclear threat from the Iraqis. But he opted to go for a peace treaty - in a war that Iraq started.
Note Bush has had plenty of opportunities to prevent Iraq from going nuclear. We have enough infrastructure in place to completely destroy the Iranian military's physical plant. And yet Bush has not acted. Why do you think McCain would do any different? The fact is that Republicans have decided that a bombing campaign in Iran isn't worth the political flak.
#1
Put Fannie and Freddie out of business. The government took the attitude that everyone is supposed to own a house right now. There is such a thing as "rental" and saving for a house. That is not a given in this country. We have the "right to pursue happiness" and are not "guaranteed happiness" according to our Constitution. Such a thing cannot be guaranteed anyway. We are not entitled to a welfare state where all our basic needs are guaranteed.
#2
I'd like to apologize to all for my language. I'm just so mad I cannot see straight, and now McCain is pushing "W" and the treasury to....just forget the congressional vote and their constitents and FUND IT!
#2
How many houses out there are really in or about to go into default? Is this number known? How much are they worth? Housing (Fannie and Freddie) is where all this stuff started.
If this isn't known, it is just fuzzy math from fuzzy heads in D.C.
Worth isn't intrinsic. It's what people are willing to pay for them, which is very much a function of what credit is available, how well employers are doing etc.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come. Signers at the link.
In this exclusive 10-part series, IBD takes a hard look at Jimmy Carter's administration and compares it to that of "W", which Carter has called the worst ever.
This is something you should read whjen you say that an Obama presidencyy would be no big deal Look at the damage made by Carter and multiply it by two or theree. Also, about your answer yeasterday Khomeini didn't continue on terrorism becaus at this time it was his chemical explosives against our nukes. Now it would be nukes against nukes.
#2
Khomeini accepted a peace treaty with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. He could have continued fighting until martyrdom. But he did not. These guys talk a good game but always back down in the face of superior firepower. The stuff about nukes against nukes is right. Iran's leadership won't survive a nuclear attack against this country. And let's face it - the best time for the Soviets to launch a first strike was probably against Carter. But they never did. Because payback would have been a bitch - even under Carter. Remember, Muhammad said defeat the infidels. He never said get your people exterminated while trying to defeat the infidels.
#3
Khomeini accepted a peace treaty with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. He could have continued fighting until martyrdom. But he did not. These guys talk a good game but always back down in the face of superior firepower
Highly doubtful on the 'martyrdom', though they did lose about half a million. Iran was in a stalemate; its economy was faltering, and its population becoming more and more disenchanted with the war.
However, it's interesting to note that Khomeini accepted a cease-fire shortly after Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down.
#4
But 1988 Iran was broke and losing the war. Oil revenues collapsed due to Iraqi raids and Saudi dumping. Their much of the Shah's equipment and almost all their armor was used up, to the extent there were no heavy units between the front lines and Tehran. Iraq on the other had was brimming with new Soviet, Chinese and French weapons.
The last several battles were decisive losses for Iran and casualties were very heavy, including by chem weapons. Iraq recaptured the territory it lost at the beginning of the was and was raiding into Iran at will.
Khomenei signed a cease fire to preserve his regime.
Posted by: ed ||
09/30/2008 22:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Khomenei had a do or die decision presented before him in 1988. The UN sanctions were a convenient excuse. On the other hand, the last two administrations have not presented a fait accompli to the mullahs. Instead, Bush has immeasurably strengthened the hand of the mullahs.
Posted by: ed ||
09/30/2008 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
Peter, I always enjoy hearing Burke's admonition that a member of parliament owes his constituents his judgment rather than a spasmodic jerk to the latest opinion poll. But isn't it the case that we're in this mess because US politicians previously subordinated "the general reason of the whole" to "local interests" and "local prejudices"? That's to say, with their usual casual destructiveness dressed up in the baby talk of "diversity", they chose to turn the mortgage industry into just another branch of the affirmative-action racket. The United States government in effect decreed credit a human right rather than a privilege judiciously granted by one independent contractor to another.
Do those legislators understand the damage they did to "the general interest"? One of my problems with the "bailout" is the way it's presented not as an emergency measure to correct the stupidity of previous political interference but as evidence of the flawed nature of the market, and thus a justification for more must-pass "emergency" measures ahead. Exhibit A - President Sarkozy rejoicing in the end of "Anglo-American capitalism":
The idea of an all-powerful market without any rules and any political intervention is mad. Self-regulation is finished. Laissez faire is finished. The all-powerful market that is always right is finished.
As a general proposition, when told by unanimous elites that a particular course of action is urgent and necessary to avoid disaster, there's a lot to be said for going fishing*. If the entire global economy is so vulnerable that only the stalwart action of Barney Frank stands between it and ten years of soup kitchens, can it, in fact, be saved? Or look at it the other way round: Given any reasonable estimate of the number of headless chickens running around, was the five per cent fall in Asian markets and seven per cent "plummet" on the Dow in reaction to the House vote really the catastrophe some of my pals round here seem to think it was? If fear of seven per cent falls is enough to justify massive unprecedented government intrusion into the private sector, we might as well cut to the chase and go for the big Soviet command economy.
At times like these, it helps to remember the sage words of Boy George: Calmer, calmer, calmer, calmer, calmer, chameleon. You come and go. The market is forever.
[*See, e.g., global warming:
The four major agencies tracking Earths temperature, including NASAs Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
Any "crisis" here seems to be the opposite of the one we were told we needed to act against. Odd that.]
It seems to me that the real problem with her speech was its illogic. She stridently attacked George Bush's "failed economic policies" and then, in the same breath, implored members to support his most controversial, unprecedented policy, yet.
So, her message was George Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for 8 years. He hasn't gotten one thing right and has plunged America into an economic black hole. But in this case, we need to trust him. Why? Because she says so? They had a huddle?
On what political goodwill was she drawing? The public strongly disapproves of the bailout bill. And to make legislative matters worse, voters have a lower opinion of Congress than a used car dealership. Congressional approval ratings have never been lower.
After eight years of relentless partisan attacks on George Bush, Democrats have not only succeeded in sowing distrust of the administration, but of their own judgment, as well. So, now, when our leaders tell us that we have a genuine crisis, they have no credibility to lead us out. Such are the wages of blind, partisanship. We don't trust what they tell us they see.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/30/2008 07:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Illogical? or conniving? You decide. Nancy destroys.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/30/2008 8:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In response to his support for the bailout, Fox Noise asked Mac this morning what he thought of the massive outpouring of voter disdain for the MOAB. He responded by saying he voted for "The Surge" which was not popular with anyone either.
He appears to never miss an opportunity... to miss an opportunity.
Intentional, I think. The last thing she wants is for a solution to happen that a) is remotely connected to McCain and b) that doesn't entail massive flow of monies to Dem voters.
#6
I just went to this link and let the old girl know just exactly how I felt about her speech. I didn't write anything that would get the FBI after me but if anybody ever bothers to read it they will know that I am unhappy with her.
#9
ed and tu are probably right. It's a form on a web page and the form did require my zip code and that would be the tip off that I don't live in her district. But if enough people send their comments anyway it might at least inconvenience them.
From the outset, the Democrats have failed what I like to call the "Reynolds test" -- "I'll believe that there's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." If you listen to the Democrats, then you might think we're on the verge of another Great Depression. But if you look at what they do, not what they say, then the hysteria fades a bit.
When the bailout package was first being kicked around, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to sneak into law an extension of the ban on developing shale oil. He was hoping that no one would be paying attention to a very innocuously-worded amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
Then, when the bill itself was being crafted, Democrats tried to write in a subsidy to groups like ACORN and help even more people who probably shouldn't buy houses buy houses. Paying off one's allies is a time-honored partisan tradition, the kind of thing that really ought to be set aside when there is a real crisis.
Also, the House Democrats pretty much pissed all over the Republican minority at every opportunity. They set up a meeting to work out details for the bailout package, but pointedly excluded the Republicans from the meeting. Then they denounced them for not showing up to a meeting where they were not invited.
That was the kind of thing that led to John McCain getting personally involved. He inserted himself into the negotiations process and demanded that the House Republicans be given a seat at the table. That led to a lot of compromises (including the ACORN provision that had me -- and a lot of others -- infuriated), and everyone thought would pass.
And then, just before the vote, Nancy Pelosi couldn't control herself. She gave a speech on the House floor and laid the whole blame for the current financial problems on the Republicans, lock, stock, and barrel.
At that point, apparently, enough Republicans said "screw this, we ain't going along if we're gonna keep getting pissed all over" and chose to vote against it.
So, to me, it seems abundantly clear that the Democrats don't see the current situation as a crisis, and are acting like everything is business as usual. To me, that says -- far more clearly than their words -- that they don't think things are anywhere as bad as they say they are.
And that is what convinces me that things are far worse than they think.
Because the Democrats have been consistently wrong on the whole situation, and have been for years. There is no end of videos of leading Democrats praising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's stability, of their performance, defending the leaders (most notably Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson), and thoroughly denouncing and scuttling numerous attempts to head off the problems that have started to come to a head in the past month or so.
It's a kind of negative evidence, but it's persuasive to me: the Democrats have a solidly established record of being utterly and completely wrong on the whole mess. They are now acting as if the situation isn't so bad, and are still far more interested in playing their run-of-the-mill political games with the whole process. If they are still wrong (and the odds are highly in favor of that conclusion), then we are in real trouble and the bailout that they don't seem to care about whether or not it passes is probably a necessary evil.
Thanks, Democrats. You've saved me at least a couple years of thorough study of macroeconomics and high finance and the nuances of our financial system (which I find incredibly tedious -- serious MEGO territory for me, almost as bad as polling) before I could render a truly informed and educated opinion.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/30/2008 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am happy that the bailout bill failed.
I do not agree with the contrarian viewpoint expressed in the article - that if the dems think everything is ok then everything is NOT ok.
However, the "look at what they do, not what they say" point is a good one. So I looked at the dems who voted no and their positions. I was motivated to do this by an audio clip I heard from Carl Rove.
Look at this list:
Filner D CA legislator No chairman veterans affairs
Sanchez D CA legislator No friend of Nancy Pelosi
Sanchez D CA legislator No friend of Nancy Pelosi
Woolsey D CA legislator No friend of Nancy Pelosi
Stark D CA legislator No number 2 on Ways and Means
Jackson D IL legislator No Co-Chair Obama?
Costello D IL legislator No senior democrat
Conyers D MI legislator No committee chairman judiciary
Peterson D MN legislator No chairman agriculture
Clay D MO legislator No senior democrat
Thompson D MS legislator No homeland security
DeFazio D OR legislator No senior democrat
Herseth D SD legislator No friend of Nancy Pelosi
Green D TX legislator No ethics commission?
Jackson-Lee D TX legislator No friend of Nancy Pelosi
Ortiz D TX legislator No senior democrat
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
09/30/2008 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Add Delahunt, Tierney and Lynch from Massachusett to the list, and the whole thing takes on a vile odor.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
09/30/2008 7:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
From NRO this morning David Brooks in the New Yuk Times is blaming the House Republicans for the bill's defeat. THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS, for heaven's sake! Hasn't this fool noticed who has been in control of Congress for the last two years?
The Dems have no one but themselves to blame for this. Screw them and the donkey they rode in on. Meanwhile, I'm glad the bailout was voted down. That means the dollar will continue to be worth slightly more than an equivalent-sized sheet of Charmin bathroom tissue.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Here is documentation that irrefutably chains Barack Obama to the most odious leftist movements in the United States today. Furthermore, it presents conclusive evidence that Obama not only knows of, but has participated in promotion of the Left's apocalyptic strategy of destruction for the United States: the Cloward-Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis. Don't miss the flow chart!
If there's still room under the bus where Barack Obama throws his discards - his white granny, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and even Hillary Clinton - that's the right place for Nancy Pelosi. 
Katie Allison Granju, knoxnews.com
