Reply With Quote
Sorry, got my wires crossed. It lost 90% of its value, its worse day was double percentagewise what we lost today.
not to mention that banks will now be informing business owners that they'll need to personally guarantee their exsisting notes, regardless of a bailout.
Sorry, got my wires crossed. It lost 90% of its value, its worse day was double percentagewise what we lost today.
If it is a plot to get rid of her it is definitely politics, good politics...but I wasn't talking exclusively about the Republicans there...I was talking about some of the Democrats as well.
You need to lay off that weed...
Whottt I'm obviously voting for Obama because of I prefer Biden's s to Palins.
I've addressed this. Please keep up.
The solution is to let the companies in crisis fail. Let the remaining good ones handle the business. I also implicitly said that the better solution is to have the government back the loans of these good lenders. The government just takes the place as backing the loan rather than a corrupt larger corporation.
But you're still buying into stocks, right? They're cheaper now. I hope you are.
S'all I'm sayin'. Investors will back them....it's ridiculous.
Uh. Mike Pence took full credit for sinking this bill? He made the claim that House COnservatives proudly stood their ground. SO what do you make of that?
All I'm seeing on the news is Pelosi, Paulson, etc. blame everything that happened today, from the vote failing to the stock market tanking 777 points, on the Republicans.
I'm proud the conservatives said no to this bill, 'bout time someone in D.C. got a ing clue and listened to their cons uents.
So Paulson and Pelosi were right in claiming the GOP was responsible for this falling short.
I'm with Newt on this...no 700 Billion...suspend the mark to market accounting rules immediately (the plan gives the authority to consider suspending them)...changing the rules will free up liquidity immediately without injecting cash into the system.
According to a small but powerful group of America's financial decision-makers—mostly supply-siders and those in their thrall—the chief cause of the credit market meltdown is not folly, or reckless lending, or the demise of America's financial management. It's an accounting rule.
"Mark-to-market" is a seemingly innocuous term for the requirement that companies, banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, and the like report the market price of the financial instruments they hold and trade. (Here's some good background from Morningstar.) Mutual funds that own stocks make such a report every day. Publicly held firms like Bear Stearns must do so at the end of every quarter, and hedge funds must do so on a rolling basis to reassure their creditors that the assets they've put up for collateral are still worth something. Mark-to-market is thus crucial to the functioning of transparent markets.....
When credit started to go bad, market participants had to write down the value of such assets. For ins utions holding onto bank loans—an asset for which there is an active secondary market—marking to market was relatively simple. If markets priced bank debt of companies with a particular credit rating at 85 cents on the dollar, banks had to write down 15 cents of the value of each dollar of the loan. This process helped drive the massive write-downs seen at banks like UBS and Citigroup.
But for the complex new financial instruments, the valuations became far more unstable. Many hedge funds and financial ins utions had borrowed huge sums of money to buy assets for which there wasn't an active market. When that debt started to go bad, it triggered a chain of unfortunate events. In many instances, funds were forced to sell assets to meet margin calls. Occasionally, creditors would seize assets and sell them. (That's what happened to the Bear Stearns hedge funds that failed last year.) This spiraling activity had the effect of further depressing prices for such instruments. In some instances, buyers disappeared entirely. The valuations of these new instruments also plummeted because of market psychology. In establishing value for assets, funds and banks often relied on newly created indices, such as the Markit ABX indices. Since those indices are actively traded by investors, they can be driven up and down (mostly down) by speculation and fear. The end result: The banks and funds holding subprime bonds (which is to say, pretty much the entire global financial complex) have been forced to massively cut the mark-to-market value of their holdings because those values are based on the incredibly pessimistic indices.
In recent weeks, some have been arguing that just as Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a time of war, perhaps regulators should suspend mark-to-market in this time of crisis. Paul Craig Roberts, a veteran supply-sider and former Reagan administration official, wrote on March 11 that the mark-to-market rule "is imploding the U.S. financial system by requiring financial ins utions to value subprime mortgages at their current market values." His solution: Suspend the rule, let financial ins utions "keep the troubled instruments at book value, or 85-90 percent of book value, until a market forms that can sort out values, and allow financial ins utions to write down the subprime mortgages and other troubled instruments over time." In other words, let's assign an imaginary happy value to these assets until the seas grow calmer. Steve Forbes echoed the sentiment in his column in Forbes, calling for a 12-month suspension of mark-to-market in "exotic financial instruments (primarily packages of subprime mortgages)." The reason: "It's preposterous to try to guess what these new instruments are worth in a time of panic."
http://www.slate.com/id/2187880/
he's still waiting for the call.
When the Senate votes on the bill. Your joke would have been funny had it not been based on complete idiocy.
God damn the board Republicans are some ignorant mother ers.
Obama is in the SENATE.
Here is the thing about this post:
If the situation had been reversed, and Obama was saying he was in the thick of this, and McCain appeared to be hanging back, you would be saying exactly the opposite. Your position has more to do with scoring cheap political points than any honest evaluation of responses.
I know it, you know it, and everyond here knows it.
The factual problem you have is that McCain was phoning it in from another state entirely, just like Obama, even as he was criticising Obama for not being there.
The funny thing is that the Republicans on the board started parroting the party line as soon as that idiot claimed that there were Republicans that switched votes just because they got their feelings hurt.
They started aping that without realizing the rather nasty implication of that statement:
This is essentially an admission that there are Republicans in congress who thought they were doing the right thing in voting for the bill, but put their feelings over doing what they thought was right. Party over country.
So where's your criticism of Pelosi? Hypocrites as usual.
So, Obama really rallied his troops to get behind this bailout, right?
140 - Yes
95 - No
Hmmmm.
He got 2/3 of the Democrats to support a bill endorsed by a Republican President. I'd say he did OK.
McCain failed to get his House Republicans in line, thus the bill failed.
I think people fail to realize that no one liked this bill. Democrats and republicans alike didn't want to pass it. But democrats were able to get over 60% of their caucus to vote for it (and yes it was a Republican President's bill). The republicans couldn't even get 40% of their caucus.
I guess it takes a hypocrite...
Fine. Pelosi probably should have passed on the opportunity to blame Bush. It was silly.
Now will you PLEASE point out the 12 Republicans that decided their feelings where hurt and decided to change their votes?
Once again, Obama is in the Senate.
Once again, neither McCain nor Obama are part of the leadership of either wing of congress.
I don't hold McSame to the fire for the failure of the GOP members of congress to get in line, as that would be just as silly as your lame-ass attempt to do the same for Obama.
I do find it sad and pathetic that McCain started claiming credit for the passage of the thing before it failed.
Before this election season, I really had some fair respect for McCain. That vanished when the Straight Talk express was replaced by a Bush/Cheney style No Talk Express.
Any McCain legitimate claim to being a "maverick" vanished a while back. when he started hiring and getting advice from the ing same GOP hacks that have ed this country up in the first place.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-30-2008 at 04:18 PM.
A conservative would not vote YES on this bill.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
