You see what can be done when partisanship is put aside and we work together? That is what I'm talking about!!
Why can't Barack Obama give praise to Reagan without being called out on it? Why is McCain criticized for working with Ted Kennedy?
Stimulus package deal struck
Partisanship is a misnomer. Partisanship = compromise of ones
principles. Dimm-o-crap partisanship usually means give me
my way or the highway. And then they cry the Republicans wont
work with them.
We don't need partisanship. We need leadership. We have
none on either side of the aisle.
Even the best leader can't get things done when members of congress cannot work together. Repugnant partisanship usually means give me my way or the highway and then they cry that Democrats won't work with them.
Compromising does not always have to be viewed as you do. Compromising can get things done. Are you saying you've never compromised to get something done?
A true leader can get people with different ideas and views to work together. That to me is true leadership. That is why I feel Obama can get more things done than Hillary. , you yourself can't stand her and the repugnants will not want to work with her. And that is what America is sick of.
Ronald Reagan was a leader, who got things done with
Congress, because he had the support of the people and
went directly to them to make Congress move.
Illegal immigration is a great example of the Prez and
Congress feeling the heat and doing what the people
wanted not what special interest groups wanted. Both
sides of the aisle and the prez got the message.
So you are saying Bush is a bad leader? You are seeing the light!!!
Son I saw the light when he was a Governor. And we have
another one worst than him as Governor now. Mr. Perry.
A dimm-o-crap calling himself a Republican to get elected.
One of these days I may get to vote for someone, instead
of against someone.
so, he got things done with Congress you say?
just moments ago, in another thread, you blamed Congress when Reagan was prez.
don't forget to take your pills
Perry isn't so much a dimm-o-crap as he is a loyal and productive Cintra employee.
Reagan didn't mind compromising with Democrats, because he figured he was getting half of what he wanted right away, and would get the other half soon enough. He could do that because he was an effective leader, with both political capital and the a en to use it.
Bush can't do that because he is wildly ineffective as a leader, has zero political capital left, and barely has enough a en to tie his own shoes.
Compromise? What compromise?
We got tax breaks. Conservatives support any tax break you can get...always have, always will. Demo's dont.
What compromise?
Conservatives are right...liberals are wrong. Libs have to compromise with conservatives to be right. The only time Conservatives compromise with libs, is when they are...wrong.
sig
It's because conservatives don't want to compromise on their principles. Unfortunately they pick their principles over their country's welfare (no pun inrtended).
Read what I said, not what you thought I said. Okay?
He has enough "a en" to put it to the dimm-o-crap
Congress. They just failed to override his veto of
SCHIP. You may not have seen it, it was buried on
page, upteen, small two inch article, in this mornings
E-N. For outoftowners San Antonio Express News.
But he is not the leader we need and he failed to
even try on Domestic issues until this congress. Which
I hated. It affected how people felt on his foreign
issues/policy.
Amen my brother!
yeah he's a .
I say this with apprehension. Because it may cause you
to have the big one. But I agree!
^Everyone I know can't stand Perry and Hillary; what's that tell us?
Can anybody find anyone not party to createing the pkg who seriously thinks this package is going to work as advertized?
What are the measurements for success? After all, this is the "MBA" Whitehouse, right?
Will it stop the reset of ARM rates in 2M homes in 08/09?
Will it fix the broken financial system? Will it increase regulation so the capitalists don't us up again with more of the same "free market" ?
That they both suck?^Everyone I know can't stand Perry and Hillary; what's that tell us?
Nope - putting more money out into an already bloated economy that needs a correction pretty ing hard is only a fix in the terms of a drug addict.
January 24, 2008
Next on the Worry List: Shaky Insurers of Bonds
By VIKAS BAJAJ and JENNY ANDERSON
Even as stocks ended five days of losses with a surprising recovery on Wednesday, officials began moving to defuse another potential time bomb in the markets: the weakened condition of two large insurance companies that have guaranteed buyers against losses on more than $1 trillion of bonds.
Regulators fear a possible chain of events in which the troubled bond insurers, MBIA and Ambac, might be unable to keep their promise to pay investors if borrowers default on their debt.
That could leave the buyers of the bonds — including many banks and pension funds — on the hook for untold billions of dollars in losses, shaking confidence in the financial system.
To avoid a possible crisis, insurance regulators met with representatives of about a dozen banks on Wednesday to discuss ways to shore up the insurers by injecting fresh capital, much as Wall Street firms have turned to outside investors recently after suffering steep losses related to subprime mortgages.
( just get some capital from the Chineses or Arabs! WTF is is the problem?)
While it is unclear what steps, if any, the banks and regulators may ultimately take, the talks focused on raising as much as $15 billion for the companies, according to several people briefed on the discussion who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
The notion that the failure of even one big bond insurer might touch off a chain reaction of losses across the financial world has unnerved Wall Street and Washington. It was a factor in the Federal Reserve’s decision on Tuesday to calm investors by reducing interest rates by three-quarters of a point, to 3.5 percent.
News of Wednesday’s meeting helped rally stocks, which had been down as much as 3 percent but ended up about 2 percent. Shares of MBIA jumped by nearly a third and Ambac jumped 72 percent, although they both remain far below their levels before the extent of the mortgage debacle became known.
( man, I shudda bought low!! but I'm not an insider )
Traditionally, bond insurance has been a low-risk business. State and municipal bonds rarely defaulted, so the insurers paid out few claims for such debt. But in recent years the bond insurers increasingly have guaranteed debt related to subprime mortgages, a business that they thought was safe but has turned out to be risky.
Now, as many subprime borrowers are defaulting, insurers could be obligated to cover some of the losses on securities backed by these loans.
Eric R. Dinallo, the New York insurance superintendent who regulates MBIA, called Wall Street executives on Tuesday to set up the meeting at his office in Lower Manhattan. He led the session on Wednesday and suggested that the group move in as little as 48 hours to get a deal done ahead of any downgrading of the bond guarantors by credit ratings firms.
According to two people, Mr. Dinallo said he would talk with the bankers one on one and reconvene the group — which included executives from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch — on Thursday or Friday. Neither federal officials nor executives of the two insurers attended the meeting.
“Regulators are furiously trying to come up with a plan,” said Rob Haines, an analyst at CreditSights, a research firm, who was not at the meeting.
( I thought the Repugs fired all the regulators? WTF good is the "free market" good for, if we still need business regualtors and regulations? )
Mr. Dinallo could face resistance from banks that do not have significant exposure to the guarantors and thus have less incentive to put up money. It is also unclear how executives and shareholders of the companies would react to the plan and the prospect of ceding control.
Sean Dilweg, the commissioner of insurance in Wisconsin, which regulates Ambac, sat in on the meeting but said he would be working with Ambac directly. Mr. Dilweg said he met separately on Tuesday with executives at Ambac, which is based in New York but chartered in Wisconsin.
“Eric is looking at the overall issue, but I am pretty confident that we will work through Ambac’s specific issues,” Mr. Dilweg said in a telephone interview. “They are a stable and well-capitalized company but they have some choices to make.”
Other options open to the banks include providing lines of credit and other backup financing to the guarantors. A chief goal of any rescue would be to help the companies regain or keep triple-A credit ratings, which are seen as vital to their business.
Late last year, Mr. Dinallo encouraged Berkshire Hathaway, the company controlled by Warren E. Buffett, to enter the bond insurance business. At the time, Mr. Buffett said he did not want to invest in existing guarantors because of their financial problems, and he started his own firm instead.
Since then, the troubles have worsened. Last week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Ambac’s credit ratings to double-A, from triple-A. MBIA still has a triple-A rating from the three agencies; the others are Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service.
While $15 billion might seem like a large amount of money for banks to commit to bond guarantors at a time when many investors have lost faith in them, Mr. Haines said it would be smaller than the billions the banks might have to write down if the companies lost their top ratings or incurred major losses.
“It’s a calculated kind of risk,” he said.
A spokesman for Ambac did not return calls seeking comment. A spokeswoman for MBIA declined to comment.
Analysts say it is unclear how much money would be needed to capitalize the companies adequately. Ratings agencies have changed their requirements several times already as they update their assumptions of defaults and losses on mortgage securities.
“What is needed to do the job is to solidify the market perception of a triple-A rating,” said Sean Egan, founder of Egan-Jones Ratings, a firm that says the companies may need to raise as much as $30 billion.
( if we withdraw from Iraq now, that will save $200B. Will that help?)
A recent effort by some banks to help a smaller bond insurer, ACA Capital, has not gone smoothly. The banks have twice agreed to give the company, which was downgraded to triple-C from single-A, more time to come up with an acceptable plan.
State regulators are under pressure to help solve a problem that many critics say could have been avoided with closer supervision. The insurers’ problems are also spilling over into the municipal bond market, making it harder for cities, counties and states to raise money for projects.
On Wednesday, for instance, some short-term insured municipal bonds, which typically trade at a premium to other bonds, were trading at a discount of as much as 1.5 percentage points to similar uninsured bonds, said Michael S. Downing, an account manager at Thomson Financial.
The companies have defended their assumptions. They also note that losses on the bonds that they insure would have to rise substantially before they would have to pay claims, and even then they would make interest and principal payments over the life of the bond, not all at once.
MBIA has estimated that in the worst case, which it described as a one in 10,000 event, it expects to incur losses of $10 billion, a fraction of the $673 billion it has insured.
Still, losses of that magnitude could strain the company’s finances, and the difficulties continue to mount. On Wednesday, Moody’s said it was considering downgrading a company, Channel Re, that reinsures more than $40 billion of insurance contracts written by MBIA. If the reinsurer is downgraded, MBIA, which owns more than 17 percent of Channel, would have to acknowledge fresh losses.
“If you are a bond insurer or bank you can never really eliminate the risk that you originated in entirety, unless you sell it,” said Edward J. Grebeck, chief executive of Tempus Advisors.
Julie Creswell contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/bu...gewanted=print
This rebate deal is going to do jack and to help our economy in the long run. But hey, now everyone in D.C. gets to say they put a little something in everyone's pockets in an election year.
ing stupid.
This is why we should stop having kids. Because no matter who you are or where you're from, 99% of the kids born will be idiots who buy into this political bull or are oblivious to it and thus just as guilty.
Anyone who says we shouldn't get more of our tax money back...is an idiot.
I don't care if you think it helps the economy or not...any rebate/tax cut/spending cut (yeah, right )...is a good thing.
Govt should stay out of trying to pump-up, slow-down, or interfere with the economy in any way. Cuz they have no ing clue what they are doing. Tax cuts are always good...always. Even when idiots in DC think they are effecting the economy...it's still good.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
