Thinking Right

By hillbilly ragger

September 22, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Jim, it’d be so much better if your Dear Leader could simply rule by decree, no pesky elected representatives to deal with.

You had a whole weekend to think this over and this is what you cough up? Wow.

By Peter

September 22, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

Jim the Political HACK wants to bring in Congress and the Democrates with our Economic Mess !

Gee Jim with Bush in Power for now 8 years the country is with out doubt in the worse shape since the depression….

THANK YOU GEORGE BUSH !

The Republicans in Congress has stopped legislation so many times so Bush would not have to VETO what he didn’t like, and in the mean time BUSH added 700 Billion to the DEFICIT.

THE anti Christ’s live Currently in the White House, and our Deficit will be so large with out doubt Jim, YOUR Grand Kids will be paying the BILLS of YOUR PARTY !

Pleaze rename you column……”Thinking Right Not Wrong. Not Left. Right. Common sense conservativism.”

This is a Lie Jim…. How large is the US deficit today ?

Is spending like a drunken Sailor Conservative ?

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 22, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Now let me see if I understand this.

Initially, we sent our troops into battle with less than adequate equipment and in less than sufficient numbers. We were fighting the war to preserve our way of life “on the cheap.”

We have spent millions of dollars to insure the rights of mass murderer, Bryan Williams. Before his trial is over, we will have spent more millions of dollars. Likely, we will keep him in prison, for the next 40 or 50 years, at taxpayer expense; that is, of course, unless the very intelligent jury selected to hear this case finds him not guilty by reason of racism.

We are about to spend billions of dollars (ultimately, maybe even trillions) to bailout the Corporatists who have wrecked our financial institutions and are now walking away with their multi-million dollar parachute severance packages. But we, very carefully, are going to be sure to leave out any of those nasty and greedy home buyers, who dared to purchase homes and acquire mortgages that they should have known they could not afford…despicable people!!!

And by the Prophet Jebidiah, we are going to crucify that consortium of 50 school systems, who are trying to acquire an equitable amount of educational resources in this state, largely because those stupid fools in Atlanta can’t get it right.

Sure is great to know that our priorities are in the right place. It is a great life, if you don’t weaken.

Don’t re-elect anyone!

By Peter

September 22, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

Here is more good news Jim…….we have sent over 8 Billion dollars of Tax payers money to Pakistan in mhe last 8 years…..most of the money is NOT ACCOUNTED for…..

Here is the REWARD the american people GET FOR THE WONDERFUL fLEECING WE RECIEVED….

Pakistani troops and tribesmen opened fire on U.S. helicopters in Pakistani airspace forcing them to go back into Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said Monday.

Local intelligence officials in Pakistan’s tribal belt told reporters that troops and tribesmen opened fire on two U.S. helicopters that crossed into Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area Sunday night.

The Pakistan and U.S. military have not confirmed the claim, but Pakistani political observers have warned it could happen. There has been uproar in Pakistan over a U.S. commando raid on a Pakistani village earlier this month.

After that attack, which killed a number of civilians, Pakistan’s army chief vowed to defend the country’s sovereignty at all cost. It isn’t clear if that’s what his soldiers were trying to do, or if the claim they opened fire on U.S. aircraft is inaccurate and is, in fact, an attempt to play to the Pakistani public’s anti-American sentiments.

REPUBLICANS NO ZERO ABOUT FOREIGH POLICY !

By Maniac is accurate

September 22, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

Pete, it’s well known the seeds of this crisis were sown in the Clinton administration with full cooperation of both Republicans and Democrats. There’s crap all over everybody on this one.

By BS Aplenty

September 22, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Why Obama Should Not be President

To know a man is to understand the gods to which he kneels.

A man’s speech may be used to inform or misinform others but his worship seeks to edify his own soul – rarely is there need for deception. Any journey then to understand the candidate Barack Obama must pass through his place of worship, the Trinity United Church of Christ - a congregation where he worshipped for twenty years. A congregation where he also found a life’s mentor in the person of TUCC’s erstwhile minister, Jeremiah Wright.

TUCC is a numerically significant and unique church among the United Churches of Christ. How unique? Unique in that it alone has adopted as doctrine the teachings of one James H. Cone, the theologian who systematized black liberation theology. And it is in the doctrine of Cone where one finds candidate Obama’s genuine worship. To many Americans that doctrine would differ markedly from what they view as Christian worship. In fact, one wonders what this archaic, racist doctrine has to do with Christianity at all as demonstrated in a doctrinal passage from Cone’s A Theology of Black Liberation:

This understanding of blackness can be seen as the most adequate symbol of the dimensions of divine activity in America. And insofar as the country is seeking to make whiteness the dominating power throughout the world, whiteness is the symbol of the Antichrist. Whiteness characterizes the activity of deranged individuals intrigued by their own image of themselves, and thus unable to see that they are what is wrong with the world. Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so to prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action.

In passing, it may be worthwhile to point out that whites are in no position whatever to question the legitimacy of black theology. Questions like “Do you think theology is black?” or “What about others who suffer?” are the product of minds incapable of black thinking. It is not surprising that those who reject blackness in theology are usually whites who do not question the blue-eyed white Christ. It is hard to believe that whites are worried about black theology on account of its alleged alienation of other sufferers. Oppressors are not genuinely concerned about any oppressed group. It would seem rather that white rejection of black theology stems from a recognition of the revolutionary implications in its very name: a rejection of whiteness, an unwillingness to live under it, and an identification of whiteness with evil and blackness with good. [7-8]

It seems that for non-black Americans to know the soul of candidate Obama, that is, to understand what he thinks is soul-edifying for himself, his wife, his children, one must slog through a racist doctrine of yester-year. The candidate’s ‘Change You Can Believe In’ sloganeering now reveals a politician all-too-comfortable with standard deceptive politics as usual. Obama’s genuine worship reveals him as wed to an archaic racist doctrine wherein little tolerance for the larger American community.

The candidate then seems easy enough to parse, but what are we to make of his avid supporters who well-know the philosophical background of his church, who cheer on their candidate even with his well-known acceptance of racist thought like Cone’s? What are we to infer about an American media that seems decidedly negligent in reporting this to the voters? I’ll leave that to you good people.

Did I mention this guy wants to be president of the United States?

By Tombre de la Tombre

September 22, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

“Pakistani troops and tribesmen opened fire on U.S. helicopters in Pakistani airspace forcing them to go back into Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said Monday.”

Didn’t Bush say we would make no distinction between terrorists and regimes that harbor terrorists? Are we not obligated to now invade Pakistan?

By zeke

September 22, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I do not know what the nuts that have responded already are smoking or snorting, but, it has their minds somewhere off in oblivion! Most if not all of the problems now coming to light including the mess with September 11, 2001 and the Islamic extremest were laid in the Clinton years of liberalism, anti military, anti intelligence services and anti law enforcement! Too bad the average joe in the population cannot be heard over the constant crap from the liberals and the media! It is pretty well noted that Congress has a 6% to 9% approval rating! These nuts, especially the dem political hacks, could not fix their own coffee without halp, how can they fix important national priority items?? CANNOT!!!

By Dennis

September 22, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, you can forget about trying to blame Democrats. This is clearly caused by deregulation, which is a mantra of Republicans.

And you can bet that GWB is willing, able and ready to toss the ball to the Democrats.

After all, this is just another in a long series of his lifetime failures, and this time, his daddy can’t bail him out of it.

“Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight [of the bailout program], protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation.”

Bring it on!

As every intelligent person knows and is saying, what this bailout will do it to “privatize profits and socialize loses”.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Churchill

September 22, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Today’s Palin colume

On the Palin-McCain Ticket, Palin Is Still Under Wraps No, that was not a typo. These big crowds really seem to be going to Sarah Palin’s head. As Jonathan noted, she actually referred to “a Palin and McCain administration” in a speech last week.

But Palin’s high opinion of herself is clearly not shared by the people running John McCain’s campaign. Funny that the McCain folks agreed to a wide-open format for the presidential debates but insisted on strict rules for the vice presidential encounter. That way, Palin won’t have to offer long answers. Little sound-bites will do. As Bob Kaiser put it in The Post this morning, “In the negotiations, Republicans wanted to limit the amount of time available for their neophyte candidate, Palin, to be questioned on a single topic.” No kidding. Once again, the McCain campaign is admitting that Palin’s knowledge is as thin as a single-sheet press release.

Then there is the fact that Palin has been kept away from any serious or challenging questioning since her interview with Charlie Gibson. In Grand Rapids, Mich., where I visited this week, Palin did participate in a “town hall” meeting with McCain, but she did so before a carefully controlled crowd of Republican loyalists that was not about to ask her a question that might stump or stretch her. The Post editorial board put matters gently but firmly today: “Mr. McCain’s selection of an inexperienced and relatively unknown figure was unsettling, and the campaign’s decision to keep her sequestered from serious interchanges with reporters and voters serves only to deepen the unease.”

Finally, there is the stonewalling of the Alaska investigation into what has become known as “trooperagte.” Here is how an Associated Press story filed on Saturday described where matters stand:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Until three weeks ago, only Alaskans and a few hard-core political junkies in the rest of the country cared about the obscure scandal known here as Troopergate.

A legislative committee had ordered an investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power to settle a vendetta against her sister’s ex-husband. She didn’t seem too worried. Broadly popular, she adopted a bring-it-on attitude, saying: “Hold me accountable. … I don’t have anything to hide.”

But the bravado regarding allegations that she dismissed the state’s top law enforcement official when he wouldn’t fire Palin’s former brother-in-law from his state trooper’s job disappeared on Aug. 29.

Suddenly, Palin was the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

Suddenly, aided by McCain campaign operatives, she began stonewalling.

Over the next several weeks, Palin and her team withheld the investigation’s most important witnesses _ herself, her husband Todd, and a host of key administration aides. Palin also continued to withhold potentially key evidence _ the contents of a plethora of e-mails among the governor, her husband and key state government officials.

If Palin thinks she’s on firm ground, why all this stonewalling? If this is not a cover-up, what is it?

McCain figured he could prop Palin up – and keep her locked away — until Election Day. But that is looking more and more like an iffy proposition. Of course, given Palin’s unguarded take on the actual order of this ticket, maybe Palin will dump McCain before this is done.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Both sides should be outraged on the this fraud and call your reps and tell them, if they vote yes we vote no for them.

This was a self made disaster and they are paying the ones that made it to make it again.

It is insane. They do not even know it will work.

By BubbaGump

September 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

“THE anti Christ’s live Currently in the White House”

“REPUBLICANS NO ZERO ABOUT FOREIGH POLICY !”

Peter, careful, your education level is showing…

By Churchill

September 22, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

As usual Jim writting as a REPUBLICAN rather than a CONSERVATIVE.. This what a conservative thinks..

A Fine Mess

By WILLIAM KRISTOL Published: September 21, 2008 A friend serving in the Bush administration called Sunday to try to talk me out of my doubts about the $700 billion financial bailout the administration was asking Congress to approve. I picked up the phone, and made the mistake of good-naturedly remarking, in my best imitation of Oliver Hardy, “Well, this is a fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”

People who’ve been working 18-hour days trying to avert a meltdown are entitled to bristle at jocular comments from those of us not in public office. So he bristled. He then tried to persuade me that the only responsible course of action was to support the administration’s request.

I’m not convinced.

It’s not that I don’t believe the situation is dire. It’s not that I want to insist on some sort of ideological purity or free-market fastidiousness. I will stipulate that this is an emergency, and is a time for pragmatic problem-solving, perhaps even for violating some cherished economic or political principles. (What are cherished principles for but to be violated in emergencies?)

And I acknowledge that there are serious people who think the situation too urgent and the day too late to allow for a real public and Congressional debate on what should be done. But — based on conversations with economists, Wall Street types, businessmen and public officials — I’m doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury.

A huge speculative housing bubble has collapsed. We’re going to have a recession. Unemployment will go up. Credit is going to be tighter. The challenge is to contain the damage to a “normal” recession — and to prevent a devastating series of bank runs, a collapse of the credit markets and a full-bore depression.

Everyone seems to agree on the need for a big and comprehensive plan, and that the markets have to have some confidence that help is on the way. Funds need to be supplied, trading markets need to be stabilized, solvent institutions needs to be protected, and insolvent institutions need to be put on the path to a deliberate liquidation or reorganization.

But is the administration’s proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

And I’ve been shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts I’ve spoken with who aren’t at all confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right — or who think that the plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

But will political leaders dare oppose it? Barack Obama called Sunday for more accountability, and I imagine he’ll support the efforts of the Democratic Congressional leadership to try to add to the legislation a host of liberal spending provisions. He probably won’t want to run the risk of actually opposing it, or even of raising big questions and causing significant delay — lest he be attacked for risking the possible meltdown of the global financial system.

What about John McCain? He could play it safe, going along with whatever the Bush administration and the Congress are able to negotiate.

If he wants to be critical, but concludes that Congress has to pass something quickly lest the markets fall apart again, and that he can’t reasonably insist that Congress come up with something fundamentally better, he could propose various amendments insisting on much more accountability and transparency in how Treasury handles this amazing grant of power.

Comments by McCain on Sunday suggest he might propose an amendment along the lines of one I received in an e-mail message from a fellow semi-populist conservative: “Any institution selling securities under this legislation to the Treasury Department shall not be allowed to compensate any officer or employee with a higher salary next year than that paid the president of the United States.” This would punish overpaid Wall Streeters and, more important, limit participation in the bailout to institutions really in trouble.

Or McCain — more of a gambler than Obama — could take a big risk. While assuring the public and the financial markets that his administration will act forcefully and swiftly to deal with the crisis, he could decide that he must oppose the bailout as the panicked product of a discredited administration, an irresponsible Congress, and a feckless financial establishment, all of which got us into this fine mess.

Critics would charge that in opposing the bailout, in standing against an apparent bipartisan consensus, McCain was being irresponsible.

Or would this be an act of responsibility and courage?

By BubbaGump

September 22, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

“THE anti Christ’s live Currently in the White House”

“REPUBLICANS NO ZERO ABOUT FOREIGH POLICY !”

Peter, careful, your education level is showing…

By Patriot Acting

September 22, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

They need to just leave it alone, I don’t have stock for a reason. You should not trust other people with your money. Let them bail themselves out. But I’m sure it is hard to think clearly with the sun getting in their eyes all the time while sitting on the deck of their yacht. God forbid if they were to sell thier yacht and put the money back in the pot themselves. No let’s give them more money to lose from the deck.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

“Fury at $2.5bn Lehman bonus”

“STAFF at Lehman’s New York office who helped to cause the world’s biggest corporate bankruptcy are to share in a $2.5 billion bonanza.

This is how they walk away with no accountability.

Of course, Jim is a failed American, a ideologue, partisan hack, that should retire and knows his party is a disaster but you can call your reps and tell them hell no.

It is your kids stuck with this bill.

By squid pro quo

September 22, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

It looks like they are closing in on the savage that hacked Palin’s Yahoo email. The son of a Democrat figure. Go figure. Lock the bum up and melt down the key for some US warship construction.

The FBI is stepping up its investigation into the possibility that a University of Tennessee student hacked into the personal e-mail of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

A person who identified himself as a witness tells 10 News that agents with the FBI served a federal search warrant at the Fort Sanders residence of David Kernell early Sunday morning. Kernell lives in the Commons apartment complex at 1115 Highland Ave.

David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, a Democratic state representative from Memphis.*

By Kiljoy

September 22, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

Can you say socialist?

There should be no bailout of any kind!

Does this farce remind anyone else of the run up to the Iraq war? The public is being kept in the dark except to be told that the situation is a graving and growing crisis; this is exactly what happened before we invaded Iraq. The president is pressing Congress to vote now with scant information about what they are voting on and without knowing if this will even solve the “crisis.”

If you want to know what this country will look like after this bill passes Congress visit Venezula where a socialist dictator runs everything.

By Ray

September 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Interesting U Tube video of the past CEO of Fannie Mae,, Daniel ?, addressing the Congressional Black Caucus on how joined at the hip that organization was with Fannie Mae. He stated that the caucus and all of the black community were “in the Fannie Mae family” and that “loans to the underprivileged and unfortunate” would continue to be underwritten by his organization to show how committed Fannie Mae was to them and their cause. The caucus, Maxine Waters, John Lewis et al., all sat smugly on the stage, applauding at every chance and soaking it up.
At the end of the video the main recipients of Fannie Mae political contributions were listed…. l. Christopher Dodd, Head of the Senate Banking, Housing Affairs Committee…2. Mr. Wonderful, yours and my good old candidate for president…. 3. John Kerry, need I say more. Each of these stalwart leaders accepted over 100K in political contributions from Fannie Mae. Also listed in the same video was our old butt buster, Barney Frank, that paragon of virtue who just got outed for soliciting sex with a male prostitute for $80. Barney has been “concerned” about the compensation that past execs of Fannie Mae have been receiving. Three past executives listed as Fannie Mae employees were also awarded multi million dollar golden parachutes were all Democrats. One is on the Annointed One’s campaign staff as an economic advisor. Yeah, you heard right. Makes you kind of sick, huh? Took the money and ran while they still could. And it’s a Republican problem? Yeah, right!!

By Peter

September 22, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Hey Bubba…..and ALL Wrong wingers……

Please tell us what PALIN did with the Money from the “Bridge to No Where”……after is wasn’t built ?

Hey Bubba tell me what Socialism looks like ?

Hey Bubba tell me what the CURRENT US Defict is ?

Let’s see about YOUR EDUCATION !

By TW

September 22, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Darn it, Jim. After a weekend that saw even the likes of George Will apologize for being wrong, you had the perfect opportunity this morning to crawl back up onto the deck of credibility.

Missed opportunity.

God I miss the real Republicans.

By Chris

September 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Neither the Repulicans nor the Democrats want to do what most Americans would hate to happen… I say most because there are some good people out there.

We as a nation have over spent - over leveraged - over aided - over extended. Jim what does conservative mean to you? To conserve would not by any means be what both parties have done - and with this bailout and yet another bonus check for those over extenders we call our neighbors and friends… they continue to dodge the real issue at heart.

Any human on this planet having lived the life our nation has to this point - would be destitute. Our miltary has been beaten into bad shape, our manufacturing is gone, our money is backed with miles of bad debt, we feel entitled to programs which funds for have been stolen for programs that served out lower taxes which in turn fed more over spending.

Its time to allow the market to contract - for wall street to go broke, for the entitlements to stop, for Congress to be taught a lesson in good finances and for the constitution to be ammended to take away the blank checks and debt extension powers from Congress. This will not break America - but save it. We depend on other faith in our country - how can we project a good image people believe in - when that image is of a child, grown fat and lazy from feeding off the candy in the candy store… all the while promising to pay with money which does not exist.

If you took out a mortage for more house than you needed - shame on you - that risk was yours - not mine. If you bet your retirement on investments backed by those… shame on your - its your bad paper not mine. I pay taxes for the future of this country - not for your present creature comforts which I myself choose not to enjoy if they have to be backed by debt.

Congress needs to step up to the plate and tell the President - for once - hell no you cannot have what you want - and then turn to themselves and say, we need to be an example and change our ways.

God bless America may soon become God save America… makes me sad to think.

By Redneck Convert

September 22, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Well, if the libruls is so dead set that we have to elect one of Those People as President, why does it have to be this Osama, the Islamic terrist? He’s only half of one of Those People anyhow. Why don’t they support a whole one of Those People like Master Gee. He’s not no Islamic terrist. Plus, as everbody knows, he’s “goin’ down in his-to-ry as the baddest brother there ever could be.” That’s my nickel’s worth. Buy more beer and have a good day everybody.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

“The New York Times reports this evening that “foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the [Wall Street bailout] plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.”

The Times further reports that two of the biggest foreign banks in need of such relief are Barclays and UBS. In fact, my understanding is that UBS is more on the line here than any other foreign bank.

Let’s add this up.

John McCain’s top economics advisor, who is widely believed to be his choice for Treasury Secretary, should he win in November, is former Sen. Phil Gramm. (Indeed, just last night his spokesman refused to say Gramm wouldn’t be McCain’s choice for Treasury Secretary.)

Gramm is both vice chairman of UBS’s US division and a lobbyist for UBS.

If UBS successfully lobbied over the weekend to get in on the bailout, what was Gramm’s role in the lobbying?”

Unbelievable. This election is over.

McCain and Gramm should retire in disgrace.

By Lynnie Gal

September 22, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Amazing that conservative republicans try to pin the blame on liberals now that the economy is collaping. It’s like they believe the American Socialist party has been in charge of the White House for 8 years, and Congress for 14 years. (Democrats have held a slight majority in Congress for 20 months in comparison.) Now, they say they don’t know who just knocked Americans over the head and is taking their money. Just TRUST US!! The great fleecing of Americans continue, and the hate on the right, who have been in charge of EVERYTHING, just grows. If Americans put these thugs back in power, they deserve what they get. We’ll all be standing in bread lines together.

By Dutchman

September 22, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

This is what happens when you pass the buck.

The local bank makes a home loan(regardless of status or ability to pay), takes their fees and sells it to Freddie or Fannie and it is off their books.

Sounds like a good deal, too good to be true. It was and now we all pay.

Gee, where did Freddie and Fannie come from?

Wasn’t Barney Franks the chairman of that over site committee?

Wasn’t it the social programs that allowed the “poorer” members of society a chance at home ownership?

Who brought in the idea of no SSN needed to get a home loan?

Sounds like Congress’ chickens are coming home to roost.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

Early voting starts.

Perfect timing and think about this gop greed and your children stuck with the bill and their future.

By findog

September 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

I think George Will said it best; no individual should be entrusted with $700 billion, which included not only the executive but also the legislative branch. I always love the clean bill requests. The two parties have gotten so bitter with each other that the only way to pass one sides needs is to negotiate with the other sides equal supply of wants. The post 9-11 country-first wave of patriotism was washed away with the scandalous 2002 congressional election season.

Mid-South @ 8:30 We are spending millions on Williams because one of the families, just one, insisted on a death sentence. This thing could have already been over except for one family wanting closure.

Peter @ 8:34 You missed the billions spent by Carter, Reagan, and Bush I to create the USSR’s Vietnam in Afghanistan via Pakistan. Bush II’s advisors completely blew it at the start of the global war on Islamic-Fascism by out sourcing Tora Bora. That entire region of the world has been at war for more than a thousand years by tribes that are nothing more than the hired thugs you would find in the mafia, for sale to the most recent bidder.

Zeke @ 9:01 Your canard is much like the pre-Clinton litany of woe prescribed to FDR and LBJ. Problem is that for three-fourths of Clinton’s time the opposition had control of congress. Now that President Bush II is out socializing our country beyond the wildest expectations of the communist party all you can do is blame Bill. Man up and accept some responsibility if you want any type of recognition for intellect.

By Donna P.

September 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

No way do I trust Congress with this bailout. They are the ones who 15 years ago wanted more minorities to receive home loans. Thus started the “no document and no down payment loan” ideas. I’m sure some congressmen and women will tack on unnecessary earmarks to make sure we have to pay even more. Homeowners who can’t pay their mortgages should be the ones to pay for the bailouts not me. I am the responsible one who got a mortgage based on my salary and my ability to pay each month. Who gives a mortgage to someone making $30,000 a year on a $500,000 house?

By hillbilly ragger

September 22, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Riiiight, Dutchman. It’s Barney Franks’ fault.

That meme’s bound to work wonders.

By Redneck Convert

September 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Well, far be it from me to crittersize My President.

But all I got to say is the next time I go on a bender and gamble all the fambly’s money away, the guvmint better come thru with a bailout for me too.

If us tax payers are going to have to go a trillion bucks in debt to save a bunch of banks that won’t help me anyway, I figure a extra thousand or so for me won’t hurt.

Up at Billy Bob’s Saturday night my buddy Jim Earl explained what the banks done to get into this mess. Best I can make out, Bank A loaned a customer enough money to buy a house. Then Bank A took its profit from the loan and sold the loan to Bank B. Bank B put the loan together with a ton of other loans and sold the the whole shebang to Bank C. Meantime all the customers stopped paying on the loans, but that didn’t bother the banks none. They kept selling the bunch of loans to other banks. By the time it was all over some sucker pension fund was stuck with shares of a bunch of worthless house loans and everybody else had took their profit.

Now if I pulled a stunt like that I would be buried under a jail for life. But not banks. No sir. They get bailed out by the guvmint and put back on their feet.

Anyhow, all I got to say is when it’s time for me to get bailed out, Uncle Sam better be there at my trailer with his pocketbook out.

Have a good day everybody and a tip of the hat to that other Redneck Convert.

By Dutchman

September 22, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

hillbilly ragger,

Are you answering my questions or are you jumping to conclusions?

I asked questions and it seems you are alluding to facts not in evidence.

Regarding Mr Franks, if he was the chair of that committee, what was he doing? Was he exercising proper over-site or just being a political hack?

By Dusty

September 22, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Well, Jim Wooten,

I cannot see letting the financial institutions explode or implode. That’s like letting a Katrina sticken New Orleans go floating away in the debris. We don’t sit and watch people drown.

A few are going to drown anyway. But the thought of pensions, retirement funds, life savings being washed away without raising a finger does not appeal to me.

Bush’s plan is the only plan I have heard that sounds feasible. Republicans and Democrats in Congress better put up the fight for their lives if they want to stay alive. The country is already sick of Congress under the laughable “leadership” of Democrats.

There is not a “poor” person in Congress and they better not forget those who are. I’m not talking about poverty, but the people who have taken care of themselves, saved and worked and paid taxes and now will get shafted by bad business and a crybaby congress.

As far as I am concerned, Congress better act sensibly and quickly. Plenty of fast discussion, patriotic moves (to save this country) and the ability to move as an institution to carry out their duty as the voice and protection of the people.

Bush has given them something with which to work. Now it is up to Congress and THEY BETTER GET GOING.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

PELLEY: In 1999 you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?

McCAIN: No, I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.

Pathetic.

Ya’ll have gas?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Of course “trust Congress,” but verify (that they cure the problem without creating more problems) before voting in November. The causes of the mortgage problem are (1) liberal money policy by the Fed, (2) taxpayer subsidy for housing through FNMA and FHLMC, (3) statutory obligation to make loans to less qualified borrowers – Community Reinvestment Act, and to a lesser extent HMDA and Equal Credit Opportunity.

Seemingly the entire focus of the “cure” in on item #2. Congressional failure to stand behind the prior-authorized taxpayer guarantees for lousy loans would worsen the problem, and give the US government a reputation as a deadbeat. We thus cannot allow the holders of FNMA or FHLMC customer paper to take a loss, although peculiarly that may not be as true of some of the direct obligations, specifically the subordinated debentures.

Of course, Ms. Pelosi’s insistence on “independent oversight” of the bailout program is perversely comic. It is precisely the same preclusion of Executive Department oversight of FNMA and FHLMC that allowed the blob to grow. One should assume Ms. Pelosi’s wish to throw money at the problem rather than offer a change in the way business has been done.

The “protection for homeowners” should be limited to a guaranteed 30-days notice before foreclosure. Such thoughtfulness for home buyers is at the heart of the problem we face now.

“Constraints on executive compensation” – why not? No skin off my nose, and presumably there are no contravening shareholder interests. Caveat – if this is a condition precedent to redemption of a FNMA or FHLMC moral obligation, I think that condition would be inappropriate.

By Goldie

September 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Wooten— This “bail out” of Wall Street is showing just how W’s policies have those chickens coming home to roost.

Running America into a ditch has been W’s final MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, correct???

God, please help us get through these last 4 months of W and his disastrous Party…

By Condorcet

September 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Maybe had we “politicized” (read: Regulated) the investment banking industry 4 years ago, we (by we I mean China) wouldn’t have to spend $700 Billion fixing this mess.

This is the end of the line for laissez-faire economics. Never again should business interests be allowed to decide what’s best for our economy.

By Jason

September 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

So we’re bailing out these institutions to “loosen up the credit market,” I’ve heard. Aren’t we in this mess because no one can pay back the debt they already owe? Should we really make it easier for individuals and businesses to borrow more money, when they’re already leveraged to the hilt? Seems counterintuitive and likely only to exacerbate the problem.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

The markets are fine, credit is shaky buy no reason to rush this thru except to get it off the media.

It is death for the gop.

Like the drill, dril, drill, bill the gop wants to vote after the election.

I say debate the bailout bill and vote for it after the election too.

Perfect timing for early voting to start.

Obama is going to win this cycle.

By SaveOurRepublic

September 22, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Peter @ 8:28 AM - Good analogy to the Neocons & their “spending like a drunken sailor”. That’s one of the key differences between phoney “conservatives”/Neocons & real conservatives/paleoconservatives…the massive spending (plus amnesty/open borders, Globalism & an Interventionist/Chickenhawk foreign policy.

Churchill @ 9:13 AM - Be careful of William Kristol, as he’s one of the chief Neocons & was an author of the 2000 Rebuilding America’s Defenses report from PNAC calling for a “New Pearl Harbor”(ie - the foreshadowing of the 9/11 false flag attack). He’s also the spawn of Neocon “father” (& Trotskyite) Irving Kristol.

By Jeff

September 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

“So this is how democracy dies - with thunderous applause” - Senator Amidala, played by Natalie Portman, Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones

Truer words have never been spoken, particularly at a time such as this.

If they have a D or a R next to their name, it is in John Q. Public’s best interest to make sure they LOSE election for any office they are running for.

The only hope for LIBERTY in this country is in the party that named itself based on the principle.

LIBERTARIAN ‘08

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!!” - Patrick Henry of Virginia, March 25, 1775

By AmVet

September 22, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Goldie, I agree, Mission Accomplished.

If the mission was to fleece the middle class American taxpayer yet again.

I said at least six months ago that I believed BushCo had at least one more major debacle up their sleeve.

And I predicted that they would have, BY FAR, the lowest approval ratings in American history.

And though perhaps entirely blaming the economic woes we now face on them is not completely accurate, I can think of nobody better to hold up as the poster boys of corrupt incompetence than Bush/Cheney.

I still contend that by the time they leave office, nearly 90% of all rational Americans will view their time in office as a major setback for the United States of America.

01-20-09 The End of an Error

Among Americans registered to vote, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 18% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 78% disapprove.

By Jim is a caveman

September 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

So, what are you saying Jim? Should Congress have no say in the matter? Should the president be given the proverbial blank check to resolve it his way? Should nothing be done? Or do you just want to take shots at the Democratic Congress with no real solution or idea of what to do in your own mind? The administration is the entity determined to push this through as soon as possible. Given their track record, it seems like a little debate (politization) in Congress might be just what the taxpayer ordered.

By Curious Observer

September 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

If Congress could give the President the authority to conduct war against anybody, however and whenever he sees fit, I fail to see why Congress cannot also give the President the keys to the printing press to spend as much money as he wants, however and whenever he sees fit. Make sure we have an economic version of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Don’t ask the banks what they are going to do with all that money, and don’t tell anyone about the big campaign contributions that the banks will be making to the politicians who put in the fix.

For God’s sake, don’t load up the bailout with a single dollar to help consumers. They are nothing but spendthrift bums. Direct all the funding to big banks. The banks aren’t greedy crooks willing to pull any stunt to make a buck and a big annual bonus. They’re—they’re—why, they’re pillars of capitalism, is what they are. It’s the Republican way.

P.S. to Congress: please use Vaseline or KY jelly.

By martha allen

September 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

If we have to do this, please don’t let the fat cats walk away with a ton of money with no oversight. This is horrible that the tax payers are going to bail out all these rich people when this administration continues to ruin our government and put us in more debt than ever. Don’t make deals with the devil; put in strong safe guards to oversee these idiots..thank you

By AmVet

September 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Like him or not, there is no denying that Rush Limberger is one cunning and shrewd talking (pin?) head.

I can’t say for sure, but it certainly feels as if it is a calculated ploy on his part to denigrate McCain in order for the centrists, independents and moderates to lean toward the RINO even harder.

You know, the vast majority of Americans who think EIB stands for Excessive Inane Bullshiite

My guess is that the large pill-popper knows that for the most part, the “maverick” already has the unquestioning sheep in the “base” locked up…

Rush Limbaugh wishes John McCain’s economic proposals would stop bashing Wall Street, thinks the Arizona senator is running against the wrong people, and deplores his demand that SEC Chairman Chris Cox be fired — and he wants everybody to know it.

By Ga Values

September 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

As a conservative Republican I do not trust anything that the Bush Bunch recommend but then I trust congress even less. I do not like the position our economy is in & do not trust this solution. I made a bunch of money on the RTC & am sure that there will be BILLIONS stolen from the taxpayer by this 3 page document. Saxby’s son Bo will get really rich off this mess.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Lets get real.

If this was a dem proposal the gop would scream socialism and walk out.

This is gop socialism.Period.

Admit it.

By Mike K.

September 22, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

I think there is enough blame to go around for everyone here much like the Katrina debacle. A friend of mine summarized it nicely:

Here’s my take and it’s bipartisan.

First, the Republican Congress relaxed the laws on the amount of cash equivalents institutions were allowed to carry. They were allowed to carry considerably less liquid assets, while growing their portfolios.

Second, the Democrat Congress then set guidelines that encouraged those institutions to provide loans to less creditworthy individuals and companies. They enacted tax penalties for not meeting quotas in underrepresented areas.

Third, the administration’s employees, many of which are career bureaucrats didn’t adapt their oversight to these changes. Companies had been rolling along in a prosperous market for so long that the regulators weren’t looking at the downside of the marriage of those two changes.

Fourth, the companies themselves weren’t servicing their customers properly. Instead of protecting both themselves and their customers by using more secure loans for less dollars, they maximized the dollars, but used riskier vehicles - say, a $120K ARM with low (or no) downpayment versus a $100K fixed with conventional downpayment.

Fifth, the Fed finally lit the fuse. They had held rates down for a long time. But as soon as they started raising rates to ‘slow’ the economy and the ARMs began readjusting, while decent rate loans for new purchases became scarcer in an overbuilt market…

…defaults and foreclosures occurred that turned properties back to banks that were expecting cash flow, instead ownership of undervalued properties they couldn’t move and didn’t have the cash on hand to carry until the market stabilized.

By Captain Freedom

September 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

THE Captain finds himself standing abreast of the ample Dusty as she supports Our Best of All Possible Presidents and his Best of All Possible Bailout Plans.

Indeed, THE Captain is literally tumescent at the language put forth in Commissar Paulson’s proposal, to wit:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency”

This is stunning in its simplicity and effectiveness. Commissar Paulson (and his soon-to-be successor, UBS lobbyist Phil Gramm) will be granted the authority to dispose of 700,000,000,000 dollars in any way he sees fit, and there is nothing the Islamunisto anticaptialists of the Congress or judicial branch can do to stop him. THE Captain is indeed proud to be an American today.

Further, Commissar Paulson has promised the American people that this plan will actually, magically, end up turning a profit for the American taxpayer. This is the kind of sober stewardship America deserves, and is reminiscent of the promises of Commissar Wolfowitz et al who assured us that the War in Iraq would more than pay for itself. Yes, indeed!!!

THE Captain falls to bended knee to thank Our Lord Saviour and Maker for His benevolence and sustenenance of the brave and long-suffering bankers and investors who shall be spared by the Mercy of Our Leader and His Commissar.

And to hell with the whining pikers who can’t keep up with their mortgage notes. They don’t have multiple homes, Rolex watches, and pill-popping wives to maintain. That’s why John McCain is THE Man to take over stewardship of this crisis. Like the grandees of Wall Street, He is just a regular guy who understands.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Point of order, a peculiarly large number of our leftists blame “deregulation” for the mortgage meltdown. Surely you all mean “lack of new regulation” rather than deregulation – I can think of nothing in the industry that has been deregulated in the past 30 years. I have separately written that I think that view is in error – I can conceive no regulation that would have made any difference, save reining in FNMA and FHLMC, and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank blocked that repeatedly. So my question to our leftist friends, (1) what regulation(s) would you have enacted and (2) how would said regulation have made any difference? Note merely saying, “we should have regulated mortgage companies” is not an answer, although such a simple statement appeals to the cultists among us. I wish to know what “regulation” you would pass that might have made a difference, what rule that everyone had to follow.

Dear Churchill @ 9:13, I may have misjudged you. Are you pushing for McCain to support Kristol’s path?

Dear Getalife @ 9:22, well-preached but wrong on the fundamentals. Lehman did not get government money.

Dear Lynnie Mae @ 10:09, the leftists are the ones who protected FNMA and FHLMC from Executive Oversight. The leftists are the ones who pushed for ever-higher lending limits (“jumbo loans”) on the individual mortgages, thus pushing the taxpayer more firmly onto the hook. The leftists are the one who passed and preserved against reform and repeal the Community Reinvestment Act. So far as I can tell, President Bush is merely the hapless bum who has to clean up the leftist mess. So just whom are you suggesting should be prevented from steering the ship?

By hotlanta

September 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

What rocket scientist came up with the idea to charge people who bad credit the highest rates on loans and servicee. If they hadn’t paid anybody else what makes you think that they are gonna pay you. This country should never live on one’s credit the way that things are. Why can’t we all pay the same low sensible rate like in the good ole days.

By Dutchman

September 22, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

Ragnar Danneskjöld,

To your post, an article in Bloomberg does have the time line for this melt down

Link Here

All warnings were ignored, all fundamental practices were ignored.

“…in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said.We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.” “

II know three years is not enough time for Congress to act, unless it is a pay raise, but it really does come down to Congress not acting or acting badly.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Dear Dutchman @ 11:46, thanks for the link, good argument. Of course, I already believed.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Dear Hotlanta @ 11:35, I did. And I’m raising yours again.

By Hypocrisy101

September 22, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Hey Wooten…why don’t you write a piece on this tomorrow:

Loan titans paid McCain aide nearly $2 million

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

Mr. McCain has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing.

Last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.

Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.

Maverick??? Just more of the same…..

By CommunistAJC

September 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn’t. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it’s hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission’s chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie’s position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page” of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a “world-class regulator” that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan’s Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn’t be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said.We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.”

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

By Jason

September 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Mike K. @ 11:22,

If only that were the extent of this mess, our economy would be in relatively decent shape. The lethal blow was the securitization of subprime mortgages, which investment banks then sold to investors or used as collateral to borrow money to buy more risky loans; some banks were leveraged at 30-to-one. To make matters worse, credit default swaps (which I don’t completely understand) were sold on the derivatives market as a type of insurance against all these mortgages. Way too much risk.

By Jason

September 22, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

“I can think of nothing in the industry that has been deregulated in the past 30 years.”

Glass-Steagall was repealed.

By Jim is a caveman

September 22, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

BS, you left off the little end to that piece:Hasett is an economic adviser to Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own, and presumably those of Sen. McCain. Nice piece of campaign propaganda. You guys are pathetic.

By Copyleft

September 22, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

The only good that’ll come out of this is that the Reagan-era notion that “government is the problem, trust the market” is finally dead and buried.

By Dutchman

September 22, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Copyleft ,

Actually, just the opposite. It will end the Clinton era policies of letting everyone qualify for a home loan.

The liberal left wing ideas of zero down and no documentation needed for a home loan will be over.

Only thing left is to start raising the key interest rates 1/2 point. It is coming.

By SaveOurRepublic

September 22, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Jeff @ 11:03 AM - Well said sir! I fully agree in supporting 3rd party candidates…given that the GOP & DNC are two sides of the same (Globalist Elite controlled) coin! The Demoncraps & Republicruds serve the Internationalist agenda & have given a collective middle finger to our Constitutional Republic & Middle Class! I’m personally supporting Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin (whose platform in nearly identical to patriot Ron Paul’s), but Bob Barr is solid on defending the BoR & 10x better than Globalist pawns “Juan McAmnasty” & “Bacrock Obumma”!!!

By BS Aplenty

September 22, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Ray @ 9:38

I’m in general agreement with your analysis and certain special interest groups in the mortgage market. I’m afraid, however, the food chain in the Fannie/Freddie mortgage market debacle is considerably longer.

Notably absent in your, no doubt, accurate assessment about some special interest groups are other culprits in this food chain. To wit: Land Developers, Land Speculators, Land Owners, Contractors and Subcontractors of Every Trade including electrians, plumbers, carpenters, HVAC, Real Estate Brokers, Agents, Appraisers, etc. - you get the idea. The list of special interest groups who desire EASY credit terms in the residential mortgage market is LENGTHY.

Get the government out and the problem goes away. But then the government wouldn’t be able to stimulate the economy (and you thought the Fed was the only one responsible for that!). My conclusion is the government will NOT leave the residential home mortgage market - it’s too important to the economy. We’ll learn from our mistakes and we’ll carry on as usual.

By reader110

September 22, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Every taxpayer should read this:

What Wall Street Should Do To Get Its Blank Check By Robert Reich - September 21, 2008, 1:48PM

The frame has been set, the dye cast. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, presumably representing the Bush administration but indirectly representing Wall Street, and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, want a blank check from Congress for $700 billion or possibly a trillion dollars or more to take bad debt off Wall Street’s balance sheets. Never before in the history of American capitalism has so much been asked of so many for (at least in the first instance) so few.

Put yourself in the shoes of a member of Congress, including our two presidential candidates. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair have told you this is necessary to save the economy. If you don’t agree, you risk a meltdown of the entire global financial system. Your own constituents’ savings could go down with it. An election is six weeks away. Besides, in the last two days of trading, since rumors spread that the Treasury and the Fed were planning something of this sort, stock prices revived.

Now - quick — what do you do? You have no choice but to say yes.

But you might also set some conditions on Wall Street.

The public doesn’t like a blank check. They think this whole bailout idea is nuts. They see fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in zillions for years, now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity. Wall Street’s request for a blank check comes at the same time most of the public is worried about their jobs and declining wages, and having enough money to pay for gas and food and health insurance, meet their car payments and mortgage payments, and save for their retirement and childrens’ college education. And so the public is asking: Why should Wall Street get bailed out by me when I’m getting screwed?

So if you are a member of Congress, you just might be in a position to demand from Wall Street certain conditions in return for the blank check.

My five nominees:

Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. Well, you should tell them that the public doesn’t like the idea of bailing out Wall Street. So if Wall Street doesn’t accept these conditions, it doesn’t get the blank check.

By findog

September 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Churchill @ 9:13, Point of order, “Democratic Congressional leadership to try to add to the legislation a host of liberal spending provisions,” the entire bill will be liberal based on the accepted use of the L-word in politics.

John McCain should oppose it, “Big-Time,” that way when the economy tanks only the rich will be able to drive to the polls. Victory is assured.

By Fred

September 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

This is a big damn deal, one that won’t get hashed out in time for the election. It took decades of shortsighted policy on both parties’ parts to get to this point, and a perfect storm of high fuel prices and dropping home prices to trigger it.

Blaming it all on the GOP is to deny that two years ago McCain (all by his lonesome it seems) was calling for the reform of Fannie & Freddie to avoid this exact scenario and was rebuffed by Barney Frank (a big recipient of campaign dollars from F&F, btw) seeking to protect loans for ‘affordable housing’… ie, untenable loans for those who couldn’t pay it back. It all sounded nice and made sense in the short (political) term, but, well, here we are.

By Ray

September 22, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Term limits for senators and congressmen would eliminate a lot of this hoopla. If only concerned with one re-election attempt, perhaps they would not be so concerned with perpetuating their legacy and get on with the business of the people. Oversight is a special duty delegated to certain people in the Congress whose job it is to avoid problems like this. With their focus on pleasing the voters and pandering to their voting base, the result is obvious, money under the table, overlooking important signs to please PAC contributors, depending on the American taxpayer for the necessary funds to cover their bad decisions. Why should they get rewarded with another term anymore than a fat cat Wall Street jerk can expect a golden parachute? America will remember the Barney Franks, the Christopher Dodds and others who helped perpetrate this mess, at least we hope they do.

By Ga Values

September 22, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Dutchman

September 22, 2008 11:46 AM

I read your link with interest but you left out the punch line. I uderstand that the Democrats a lot of the problem but W has been in office for nearly 8 years mostly with a Republican congress. Until we are able to get control on LOBBYIST our government Democrat/Republican is simply for sale. Saxby Chambliss has recievedover $1,332,000 Banks & insurance companies as well as $641,000 from Lawyers & Individual Lobbyist. Looks like they got & are getting their money worth. If you find something that was not written by a McCain or Obama partison please post it. Again I know that Clinton’s appointees were crooks but they were driven out before this got serious.Here’s the Bloombets disclaimer:….

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

By Copyleft

September 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Yes, we should all admire John “The Deregulator” McCain and his trusty economic advisor, Phil “Whiny Americans” Gramm.

Deregulation is dead, thankfully. America doesn’t want any more bailouts, and the only way to avoid bailouts is to control reckless corporate behavior through regulation.

By Shawny

September 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Trust Congress? They told us that they are now entertaining opening up territories for oil and gas exploration, but not really.

Trust them, indeed.

By CommunistAJC

September 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, So what you’re saying is government should be the answer to all of lifes problems? Good luck with that one. Then again, I bet you think Cuba has a better health care system than that of the USA.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

I agree Fred but McCain and Gramm did lead on deregulations. It is a fact no matter the spin.

Why the rush? Because it is bad for the gop and election time.

They should hold hearings, debate, regulate and hold them accountable.

Vote after the election like the drill bill.

By NothingButHypocrites

September 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Bad decisions were made when people took those adjustable rate mortgages, thinking they would be able to get a better fixed rate in the future. I wouldn’t say they were unqualified, because the mortgages were being met, by most - until the rate adjusted.

However, when other economic issues started arising, those adjustable rates became fewer and fewer, then it was even harder to get a fixed rate.

I have heard many people in foreclosure recount how they tried to work with the BANKS and Mortgages companies to continue paying the prior mortgage rates, but the Banks and Mortgage companies would NOT agree to this. IT WAS ALL OR NOTHING…..

The Government couldn’t FORCE the Banks and Mortgage companies to CONTINUE accepting the prior rates, but I BET COUNTRYWIDE and others, would be in a better place had they been willing to renegotiate a better fix or adjustable RATE to those who were nearing or in FORECLOSURE.

I tried to help many in FORECLOSURE, with their banks and mortgage companies, but it continues to be a HELPLESS cause.

MOST can continue to pay the OLD Rates, but can’t afford the new monthly payments.

NOW we have all kinds of “I’ll HELP YOU GET OUT OF THIS, MORTGAGE FRAUD”.

By Copyleft

September 22, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Commie: “Government” means control by, and accountability to, the public.

What exactly is wrong with that—especially seeing what a total LACK of accountability and control has gotten us?

By findog

September 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Ah Rangar my good friend @ 10:37 As a veteran I got my first mortgage with little down. I paid an insurance premium, I think it was two-percent. Of course that was put in the loan, but don’t all loans for more than 85% of the value pay that premium? What happened to that insurance for over leveraged mortgages?

Further, as more homes are foreclosed they lay vacant for far too long thus depressing the value of those of us who live within our means. At some point do we not all end up better if those homes remain occupied until this crisis abates? Should the US as the new landlord consider a deferment program for these properties where unemployment or medical malady placed the American Dream out of reach? I would of course want anyone who should never have qualified for a loan to find an apartment within 30-days.

As far as foreign investor’s I seam to recall in the early 80’s when all the business types were studying the art of war because Japan was eating our lunch that they over extended in commercial American real estate. I missed us stepping in to save them. There should be absolutely no one in line ahead of the “individual” American taxpayer.

By George

September 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

“Trust this Administration on bailout?”

“Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight [of the bailout program], protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation.”

I am no Democrat or Republican but giving this Administration more unchecked power, money, & control should scare even the most ardent Republican shills for this Administration. Even you Jim.

I don’t believe this “toxic” bill should pass, but since it going to, there should be some oversight provisions built in even if they are only window dressing. At least make them kiss us (the taxpayers) first before you allow them to you know what us Jim!

By George

September 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

“Trust this Administration on bailout?”

“Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight [of the bailout program], protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation.”

I am no Democrat or Republican but giving this Administration more unchecked power, money, & control should scare even the most ardent Republican shills for this Administration. Even you Jim.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., whose support is pivotal as he’s the senior Republican on the Banking Committee, said he is “unconvinced that Treasury’s proposal strikes a balance between the interests of the taxpayer and the economy.”

I don’t believe this “toxic” bill should pass, but since it going to, there should be some oversight provisions built in even if they are only window dressing. At least make them kiss us (the taxpayers) first before you allow them to you know what us Jim!

By Clint

September 22, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Did I hear…”Phil Gramm”?? Now there’s the absolute epitome of the republican Party. those handsome looks. That voice and its delivery. That mind. The entire package is a thing to behold. Add Caribou Barbie, and you have something only Geesussa could create! Be proud.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Dear Jason @ 12:10, while I agree that portions of “Glass-Steagall’ were repealed – not all, remember FDIC was a portion of Glass-Steagall, and I think that was split out – note that nothing in that repeal deregulated anything limiting the asset side of banks. Deposits were deregulated, and bank holding companies are now permitted to run brokerage houses with appropriate firewalls. But try to buy car insurance from your neighborhood bank. Nothing in the “repeal” of Glass-Steagall deregulated anything that affects mortgages or anything under discussion here today. Or, I would respectfully ask you to enlighten me.

Dear Caveman @ 12:11, do you have any critique other than the identity of the speaker – the usual leftist cultism - or can you not handle the truth from one in the opposing camp?

By Glen

September 22, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

…just another “amBUSH”…first the savings and loan bail out by the “father” and now the mortgage bail out by the “son”…how can I get a bail out for my “irresponsible and risky”behavior?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

Dear reader 110 @ 12:30, I can support all of Reich’s desires except the last one. There is no reason the prudent lender should be penalized for his prudence by the bankruptcy courts.

Dear Findog @ 1:02, I do not doubt that your mortgage lender financed a premium paid to an insurance company, as the mortgage lender is precluded by law from self-insuring. I suspect you are aware of the sad financial condition of the mortgage guarantors now. Back in the good old days, when banks made all of the mortgage loans and the oxymorons “mortgage banker” and “investment banker” did not exist, a bank would make a 95% loan to a good customer and would refuse to make a 50% loan to a bad customer. Now everything above 80% has mortgage insurance (when one can find an underwriter,) and a customer with a lousy credit history will sue the banker for refusing to make a loan. And that suits the lawyers in the Congress just fine.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

They want to rush it thru because it is bad for the gop at election time.

The Dems should say the Paulson (Mr. China) proposal looks like China’s socialism and unacceptable.

Have hearings, reinstall regulations to stop it happening again, hold them accountable, debate, then vote after the election.

This administration can’t be trusted. Period.

Vote early and fire the gop

By getalife

September 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Damn, Obama is attacking McCain like a Clinton.

Nice speech Obama.

Vote early and fire the gop

By Copyleft

September 22, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Hassett’s article does a fair job of reminding us that even the Democrats have gotten too friendly with corporate interests. The Clinton “third way” was a surrender to corporate lobbyists, and it’s at least partly to blame for our current mess.

I hope the next Democratic administration will take a harder stance against corporatism and do more for actual Americans. Clinton pandering to the deregulation loonies was a huge step backward for sane, liberal policymaking.

By RR77

September 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Some people know how to tell it like it is —

The American Spectator By Andrew Cline

“Believe it or not, entering the final quarter of the eighth year of the George W. Bush presidency, Republicans are ascending in popularity, Politico.com reported yesterday…I think the answer is pretty clear: The Democratic leadership in Congress took the golden opportunity it was given in 2006 and p** it away on petty partisanship — just like the Republicans who preceded them did.”

The Motley Fool is no fool when it comes to laying blame on one of those responsible for the Fannie and Freddie collapse:

The House Financial Services Committee chairman and Democratic congressman from Massachusetts has long been a proponent of both Fannie and Freddie, assuring the public that their mission to encourage home ownership outweighed the distortive risks they brought to the market, and that the federal government was not, in fact, on the hook for their liabilities. In fact, it seems clear now that Frank had no idea of just how poor a grasp Fannie and Freddie had on their lines of business. As recently as Aug. 25 he told Money magazine, “Fannie and Freddie are better off than the market thinks. … Part of the problem is rumormongering by short-sellers.”

What’s more, though Frank will blame past political opponents for failing to further regulate the mortgage market by banning products such as subprime loans, the fact of the matter is that the very presence of Fannie and Freddie incentivized brokers to overstate the creditworthiness of borrowers and then pass on that risk to the federal government, all while being cheered for helping more people “realize the American Dream.” While we can all agree (I hope) that mortgage markets only function when — as Frank told Money, banks “do not lend money to people who can’t pay it back” — Frank’s ideology in this case blinded him for decades to the realities of the marketplace and the operations at these companies, leading him to stonewall realistic [Bush Administration] reform efforts that might have helped us avoid the current calamity.

By Bill M from NJ

September 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Democrats can’t even count so if the Republicans go home and it all comes down we can (1) Get new candidates for President as neither at the moment are up to snuff and then replace them with Bloomberg or the Pimco guy —-at least they can count past 15!!

By williebkind

September 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

During the McCain/Palin administration we will get the leadership not the whiner-ship that is needed to get our country back on track. Remember Americans! You must vote out the liberals at all levels to protect our country. Failing to vote conservative will cost our freedom, our families, our beliefs, our way of life, and our country. Say NO to liberals and vote McCain/Palin…The great state of Georgia will!!!

By SaveOurRepublic

September 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

getalife @ 1:27 PM - You’re mostly correct, except you should’ve added that the next Administration (be it “Juan McAmnasty” or “Bacrock Obumma”) should not be trusted either. Like Skull & Bonesman & Neocon “Jorge Boosh”, the next Admin will also fully serve the Globalist Elite!

DNC & GOP = 2 sides of the same coin! Vote 3rd party (Consititution or Libertarian)!!!

By findog

September 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

CommunistAJC @ 12:02, It was impossible for a party-line vote of democrats to have stalled a house committee between 1995 and 2006. As far as the Republican Greenspan’s warnings his pronouncements were such that one had to have the secret decoder ring to get to his meaning. Too bad plain spoken truth escaped his grasp at nearly every turn, remember how it would be bad to have kept paying off our debt so we ended up with a tax code based on a bubble without the means to counter act that speculative policy of President Bush’s first year?

Ragnar, As one on the inside of these transaction what is the percentage of the bad sub-prime mortgages in FNMA/FHLMC versus the other paper hangers we are now be asked to save? As to your point of order I think the regulation would have been to have mortgage-lending institutions held to the standards of the banking industry. My insufficient understanding of the quasi-deregulation theorists argument is that the simulated banking institutions aka brokerages were indeed of the exact character of the sub-prime loan seekers who just kept looking for someone to say yes as these houses sought a status with low enough regulation to allow their near fraud on the taxpayers. Of course that is a run-on sentence that talked in circles but since I mentioned Saint Greenspan I thought I needed to go there…

Further, as more homes are foreclosed they lay vacant for far too long thus depressing the value of those of us who live within our means. At some point do we not all end up better if those homes remain occupied until this crisis abates? Should the US as the new landlord consider a deferment program for these properties where unemployment or medical malady placed the American Dream out of reach? I would of course want anyone who should never have qualified for a loan to find an apartment within 30-days.

As far as foreign investor’s I seam to recall in the early 80’s when all the business types were studying the art of war because Japan was eating our lunch that they over extended in commercial American real estate. I missed us stepping in to save them. There should be absolutely no one in line ahead of the “individual” American taxpayer.

By Jason

September 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

“Nothing in the ‘repeal’ of Glass-Steagall deregulated anything that affects mortgages or anything under discussion here today. Or, I would respectfully ask you to enlighten me.”

It allowed commercial banks to once again engage in the underwriting and trading of securities like CDOs. In other words, financial institutions could use deposits made by retail banking customers for the purpose of high-risk speculative investing.

By williebkind

September 22, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

During the McCain/Palin administration we will get the leadership not the whiner-ship that is needed to get our country back on track. Remember Americans! You must vote out the liberals at all levels to protect our country. Failing to vote conservative will cost our freedom, our families, our beliefs, our way of life, and our country. Say NO to liberals and vote McCain/Palin…The great state of Georgia will!!!

By getalife

September 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Obama: On Economy, McCain Has Had An “Election-Time Conversion”

Check out the attacks on McCain. I am impressed and yes he is going after lobbyists. Finally, somebody is addressing the problem of lobbying.

Obama can smell it and going after it.

By fearless fosdik

September 22, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

By williebkind

September 22, 2008 1:52 PM

I think you have it backwards…

As I understand it from the horses own mouth (that being Palin) It’s now the Palin/McCain ticket!

By @@

September 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Lawd-a-mercy Jim, I need HELP to sort this all out!

The President’s three-page proposal will be fleshed out during a presidential election cycle by by Democrats who control Congress. The elements could not be worse.

I’m just now finding out that “Hank-er-chief” Paulson is a liberal at heart. When Bush appointed him, conservatives were waving a red flag, warning Bush that this guy was a socialist mole, not unlike “The Mole” on OBlahMa’s nose.

I’m sooooo confused!

Anyhoo, I go over to Bookman’s and he’s about to pop his cork over all these bailouts. He gets into a discussion with our AJC/DNC Mgmt. claiming that it’s not just the lower-income homeowners who have contributed to this mess —that foreclosures in high priced neighborhoods, specifically NYC and Florida have fallen victim to foreclosures. I have a question though……..

How does mortgage fraudsters figure into this mess? Until I began a personal pursuit of one here in Clayton County, nobody knew what he was up to. Buying some of the higher-priced homes at above-market appraisals for out-of-state investors, with an agreement that the seller were pay him the difference between asking price and appraisal price upon closing. 37 such transactions whereby he rented the properties without maintaining them. The properties became so delapidated that he was unable to rent.

I contacted everyone from the county attorney to the GBI to the FBI. No one was interested in hearing my complaint. It was only when I contacted the “lowly” code enforcement agency in my county that attention to him was focused. The guy has been deported back to Haiti, but why, I don’t know? All but two of his properties sit empty behind a stand of weeds. Who’s paying the mortgages?

How was this guy able to run this scam for five years without anyone taking notice?

I give up!

By ron

September 22, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon Jim, et al,A computer problem has held me silent today.I’ve had time to think.The answer is AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!.

Now we politicize.The Dems extract their vengeance.Pelosi and Reid.A pair made in H—e double hockey sticks.

Acccording to John Lott,25% of the houses sold during this mess were sold to speculators.No word on how many wound up in foreclosure.The speculators could purchase with no down payment,thus no risk.Up goes the price,sell,nice profit.Wonder how many got left holding the bag when the prices started falling?

Anyway,sometime,maybe,legislation is coming to further muddy the already murky waters.

I just read where a victim had to pay back a thief after some insane judge ruled in the thief’s favor.I’m sure the boys on Wall Street will do much better financially than the rest of us.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

They should resign in disgrace.

Oil up 18 bucks, dollar tanking, food up.

Get these criminals out of our country or lock em up.

Damn. Fire these a-ssholes.

By Conservative Amusements

September 22, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

The Pope: a Dogma Whisperer?

Well, the Pope couldn’t have been more persuasive than the chicken littles who are soliciting bipartisan agreement on an unaffordable bailout. Why did our representatives believe the sky is falling so easily. We better review that cartoon again and find out what’s really happening.

An Editorial stolen from the New York Times and Greenspan’s book: The banning of short selling is dangerous. The only path to clear valuation of securities is short selling, (Greenspan), and without it, then an artificial bubble could occur.(NY times)

The underlying worthlessness (sic) of the bad debt instraments has not changed with this bailout.

Determining the true asset value of each block of bad debt is nearly impossible.

This is more a conspiracy to hoard the wealth in this new war of the haves and the half-wits. (sic)

I know what’s coming, for I have climbed the corporate ladder and I have looked over the glass ceiling, and I have SEEN the market’s top. I’ve SEEN the intrinsic value of our greed, and it has a tail and horns and prances around drunk in a crotchless red body stocking and a cape…..(hic)

Palin 08: America goes to H..E..Double Hockey Sticks.

McCain 08: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

By getalife

September 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

The Dems should submit this counter proposal:

All resign in disgrace and lawyer up for the investigations.

Pelosi bring in the Clinton team and fix this mess.

By Conservative Amusements

September 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Obama/Biden 08: Maybe politics does make strange bedfellows, but wouldn’t it be get-down funky to have a chocolate on the pillow?

By Conservative Amusements

September 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Palin/McCain 08: If Politics makes for strage bedfellows, then America just got short-sheeted.

Obama/Biden 08: Maybe politics DOES make strange bedfellows, but wouldn’t it be nice to have chocolate on the pillows?

What’s Left of America is right for America.

Palin 08: America goes to H..E..Double Hockey Sticks.

By Disgusted

September 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Let’s look on the bright side. If the federal government takes ownership of all those defaulted mortgages, it can go after the speculators and liars who engaged in the transactions that produced the bad debt in the first place. Right now, the government has the power to capture tax refunds and even to garnish wages to secure money individuals owe to it. I wouldn’t mind being amused when a few million deadbeats suddenly discover that getting off the hook isn’t as easy as ceasing to make mortgage payments.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Dear Findog @ 1:50, Mickey Mantle once was called to testify before a Congressional committee reviewing baseball’s antitrust exemption. He was to follow Casey Stengel, who spoke for 90 minutes and mostly left the solons scratching their heads. When asked what he thought about baseball’s need for antitrust exemption, Mick advised, “I agree with everything Casey said.” I ought to take the same tack as the Mick, because I broadly agree with your arguments.

Percentage of subprimes at FHLMC/FNMA vs private – the honest answer is “I don’t know and neither does anyone else,” but I won’t let that stop me. Technically the government corporations did not purchase and they do not hold “subprime” mortgages, as they define “subprime.” However, FHLMC and FNMA facilitated markets in adjustable rate mortgages, which are technically not inherently “subprime.” The subprime paper – by my pull it out of the air numbers – are around 10% of the troubled mortgages.

The vast majority of the troubled mortgages are the quasi-legitimate adjustable rate mortgages, which were always predicated on growth in asset values and resale of the houses; that did not work out. There is an element of immorality in the origination of those debts, as greedy buyers, seeking to make a big hit, bought more house than they could afford and mortgage bankers looked the other way as they pocketed the fees.

Could the government regulate private mortgages? Probably not. If Grandma wants to sell her house and take back a note, and move to Florida for her golden years, the government cannot and should not regulate her terms of sale nor the quality of her review of loan documentation. However, if FNMA or FHLMC had been charged with evaluating collateral and documentation before putting the taxpayer on the hook, this would all have turned out differently. Of course, McCain and the republicans had such a restrictive proposal lined up, but could not get it to the floor in the face of the threatened democrat filibuster. Obviously FNMA and FHLMC could not have grown so much and so fast, and they would not have been efficient enough to pay big salaries to their top dogs, who contributed so much money to politicians with such regulation.

As to your argument on the economic fundamental – too many houses, too few buyers – I think you accurately analyze the economic consequences: prices will fall, and new supply will contract until the old supply is diminished. I understand your emotional concern; my neighbor across the street abandoned his house, so I am keeping some of the grass cut. I am not particularly concerned with “property values” as I am not planning to sell, but it just seemed like a right thing to do.

Dear Jason @ 1:51, “through an adequately capitalized subsidiary.” FDIC still requires a firewall as a condition of keeping deposit insurance. Banks still cannot use deposits to underwrite securities, and that has nothing to do with the failure of the mortgage securities markets anyway. If anything, it is exclusively non-bank securities firms, especially FNMA and FHLMC, that brokered the collapse of the mortgage lending market, not the banks. If you ever hear of a bank underwriting high risk derivatives, contact your local regulator. It does not happen in the US. And in any event, even if you had a hypothetical basis for your argument, you are arguing that Bank of America should not have been allowed to purchase Merrill Lynch. Are you sure that would have made things better?

Dear @@ @ 2:15, “How does mortgage fraudsters figure into this mess?” Not significantly, not in the sense that you ask the question. FBI does not care – they are unable, for manpower reasons, to pursue anything smaller than $500,000, unless there is a suggestion of involvement of a republican politician.

By getalife

September 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Proposal:

“DECISIONS BY THE SECRETARY… ARE NON-REVIEWABLE … AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY COURT OF LAW OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY”

Counter proposal:

Resign.

By Dutchman

September 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

getalife,

We agree - Congress’ plan is garbage.

Congress created Fannie and Freddie, they regulated them, they funded them, Congress wanting to stuff the bailout bill with mountains of pork, let’s have Congress try to rescue them -

Talk about your fox in the hen house -

By The Forgotten Mesiah

September 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Midsouth Philosopher: Rumsfeld’s Transformation Army was a cause celebre at the pentagon. It was time to prove that a slim, trim army was the way to go. The reason Rummy failed was because after he got the Transformation Army he wanted, he had the nerve to say, “You go with the army you have, not the one you want.”

He wanted and got that army. He’s a fool.

So the point to you is: Rummy didn’t go in on the cheap, he went in with an army transformed into a lean mean fighting machine that was designed for soviet tanks on the plains, not urban insurgency.

What I’m saying is that the premise to your comment is wrong, and thus, that necessarily makes you a moron. (hey, I minored in psyche).

By YouAreRight

September 22, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

It’s a huge stretch to put this on Congress and the “minority” homeowners.

1) The Treasury (part of the Republican administration) came up with the “bail out”

2) The bailout is for financial firms on wall street…not homeowners. Besides, why don’t you do some research to find the percentage of foreclosures attributable to minorities. I’ll bet my bottom dollar there are more ‘whites’ foreclosing than minorities. Can’t deny that huh.

Face it. The Republicans are suppose to be ‘free market capitalists’; that’s until the free market actually begans to take over. Come out of the closet conservatives…you don’t REALLY want the markets to be completely free…at least that’s what this bailout says. Guess it’s time to update the ‘ol “it’s Clinton’s fault” distraction.

By YouAreRight

September 22, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

It’s a huge stretch to put this on Congress and the “minority” homeowners.

1) The Treasury (part of the Republican administration) came up with the “bail out”

2) The bailout is for financial firms on wall street…not homeowners. Besides, why don’t you do some research to find the percentage of foreclosures attributable to minorities. I’ll bet my bottom dollar there are more ‘whites’ foreclosing than minorities. Can’t deny that huh.

Face it. The Republicans are suppose to be ‘free market capitalist’; that’s until the free market actually begans to take over. Come out of the closet conservatives…you don’t REALLY want the markets to be completely free…at least that’s what this bailout says. Guess it’s time to update the ‘ol “it’s Clinton’s fault” distraction.

By TeaTime

September 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

The Forgotten Messiah talks about the Bailout:

The Forgotton Sermon

By the Forgotten Messiah

Today’s sermon is about revenge: Don’t. Forgive instead. B quick 2 4give.

B quick 2 4give. You don’t know all the facts. You could be the wronging party.

Look at the AIG bailout. Congress must forgive the corrupt, the bankrupt, and the abruptly inept. They must look past the Liar Loans, the Ninja Loans, the Pirate Loans, and the people at every level of the transaction who committed and then fell victim to fraud, perjury, deception, and greed. Confess, America, and for your penance, you must say “no” to two credit card offers, three no- money-down auto leases, and then drive past 5 ATM machines without withdrawing any cash. Now go and sign no more.

B quick 2 4give. History is full of unnecessary revenge.

Look at the Garden of Eden. The snake could simply have been a grocer trying to market the apple. He going to say whatever it takes to sell that apple. “Oh, you’ll be a genius if you eat this apple, you wont die, au contraire mon frere, an apple a day keeps the doctor away. It’s good for you.” Forgive the snake, even if he offered terms or discount coupons to Eve.

The snake could also have been a student who was trying to impress his teacher, Eve. Eve was the first snake whisperer, perhaps.

Forgive the snake, even though Christian lore has the Virgin Mary crushing the snake with her heel at some point in the ecclesiastical fulfillments of supernatural prophesy… I guess she couldn’t forgive the snake. Perhaps Mary was the first dog(ma) whisperer. (sorry).

No, my brethren, in a word, B quick 2 4give.

By Dutchman

September 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

getalife,

will you Get A Life after Todd and Sarah move into the VP House at the Naval Observatory?

There are times that your ignorant rantings wear thin, but I must say, you do give me a chuckle at your inane ideas.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would have loved you and the other far lefites.

By SaveOurRepublic

September 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

YouAreRight @ 3:26 PM - Bingo! The bailout is indeed for Wall $treet & their smoke & mirrors Ponzi scheme (largely based on the fiat dollar). Also correct on the Neocons not being for total free market, thus their constant push for & utilization of corporate welfare. Again, this is another major point that the phoney “conservatives”/Neocons part from us real conservatives/paleoconservatives!

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

September 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

You don’t want any oversight Jim? Just let the Republinazis steal everything they want? They’ve already bankrupted the country and now you want to give them more? You want the taxpayers to take on this debt and not hold the recipients of the money responsible at all? Remember Jim, George W. Hitler comes from a long line of thieves. Remember Silverado Savings and Loan? If you don’t mind we’d like some oversight! Ten billion a month is being poured down the rathole that is the Iraq War and no bids were taken on the contracts that were awarded to Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root and others. They have made billions while providing shoddy food, equipment and service. You in favor of that sort of thing Jim? How much does the Republinazi Party pay you for your for writing insipid crap?

By Shawny

September 22, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

In case it hasn’t been posted enough, here is a GREAT piece that speaks to the effort to control Fannie and Freddie, and which party stood in the way

Excerpt:”But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years. “

By Bill M from NJ

September 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Democrats can’t even count so if the Republicans go home and it all comes down we can (1) Get new candidates for President as neither at the moment are up to snuff and then replace them with Bloomberg or the Pimco guy —-at least they can count past 15!!

By Ga Values

September 22, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

We are in REALLY deep throuble Senator Johnny Bail Out The Banks(RHINO, Ga) is on the radio saying this bail out could be a “good deal for taxpayers”. We are going to make a profit off this deal. I am not making this up luckly he is in Atlanta not Washington. I have known Johnny for over 40 years & he has got to be on DOPE. How can anyone get this stupid & only be in Washington 4 years? Professional Investors won’t buy this toxic junk but the taxpayer is going to make money on it.

By Churchill

September 22, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon: “[T]he events of the last week are the most momentous events of the Bush era in terms of defining what kind of country we are and how we function — and before this week, the last eight years have been quite momentous, so that is saying a lot… .

“What is more intrinsically corrupt than allowing people to engage in high-reward/no-risk capitalism — where they reap tens of millions of dollars and more every year while their reckless gambles are paying off only to then have the Government shift their losses to the citizenry at large once their schemes collapse? We’ve retroactively created a win-only system where the wealthiest corporations and their shareholders are free to gamble for as long as they win and then force others who have no upside to pay for their losses… .

“If there is any ‘pitchfork moment’ — an episode that understandably would send people into the streets in mass outrage — it would be this.”

And yet, Greenwald writes: “The way it works is that Bush officials decree how things will be, and then everyone — from Congressional Democrats to the Serious Pundits — jump uncritically and obediently on board, even if they were on board with the complete opposite approach just days earlier, and then all real dissent vanishes.”

By AmVet

September 22, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

It is inarguable that most Americans, perhaps 80%, hold this administration in VERY low esteem. And with d@mn good reason.

Yet a sizable, though dwindling, percentage of registered Republicans still thinking BushCo is doing a good job.

While the rest of the nation recoils from one debacle after the next.

But IMHO it is a failure of leadership by the GOP “leadership” that may hurt this country the most.

America is amazingly resilient and strong. She has withstood tremendous challenges. And will again. And she will recover from even this disastrous administration.

But I sense that after Bush/Cheney et al, most Americans no longer really believe in the integrity of their elected leaders.

Kind of a Nixon/Agnew redux.

And that damage is far more harmful and will take many years to undo.

The GOP will not likely recover for a LONG time…

By ButtHead

September 22, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

I read these blogs and ask myself, are these people that stupid? And the answer must be yes. The treasury department is NOT owned by the republicans, where does that come from? Public schools? Left wing nut websites? Hitler blamed the Jewish people for all the ills that their society was facing, sure seems like the Bush hating left wingers like to blame republicans for all of their problems. Greenspan warned congress 4 years ago about this but the Dumacrats shot it down, put the blame where it belongs… Losers.

By TeaTime

September 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

All I need to know about the bailout I learned in the cub scouts.

Once, I forged my mother’s signature on one of the merit badge applications for the bear ranking in cub scouts, and I kept erasing it and trying to make it more real, and the funny part was that I was using a pen, with one of those pen erasers, and by the time I turned the paper in, it was a shredded mess. So, the den mother called my mother and asked if she had signed it. Later, my mother and the den mother came to me with the forgery and asked if I was responsible. I looked at the total mess and then tried to pretend like I was inspecting it to be sure, and said, “no”. I wish you could have seen the exchange of looks those two gave each other. Fortunately they both laughed, and gave me a lecture about lies and dishonesty and not earning your merit badges. I put both of my index fingers in my ears and went, “La la la la la” during the entire diatribe, believe you me.

Ditto the transactioneers in the mortgages for the past ten years. Forged proof of income, forged resumes, forgery and lies and deceit and when more cautious sensible financiers talk, congress puts their fingers in their ears and go, “la la la la “.

This bailout cant work. it only transfers wealth to the haves, from the half-witted.

This bailout is the largest transfer of wealth in world history.

And I only wanted a merit badge in cub scouts.

By Gee whizzer

September 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

The Dumacrats controlled congress four years ago? The Dumacrats were against oversight of the financial industry, and were only interested in mandating “personal responsibility” for individuals, but not for coporations whose actions affect thousands, if not millions? Thanks for the history lesson BUTTHEAD!

By Ga Values

September 22, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Draft & updates of the Bail out….

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1354&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS

By TeaTime

September 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Stay tuned for an episode of “The SnowWitch”.

By findog

September 22, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

Rangar @ 3:12 Something else we have in common. Should we get a tax credit for mowing our former neighbor’s lawns? I think I am finally appreciating the F&F part of this crisis, they provided cover for the more reasonable mortgages so that more money would be available that made its way to less than stellar contracts…

By TeaTime

September 22, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

The SnowWitch.

The snow witch had been planning a real speech for some time; the old fashioned kind, where you say more than one word.

She practiced in front of a mirror. She gesticulated wildly for emphasis. She paused at critical points for drama. She varied her tone and at some parts would yell out at the top of her lungs. She would be ready.

The day of her speech arrived and she stood before the throngs, silent. She didn’t move, or say anything for a few minutes. The tension grew quickly as the seconds passed and she just stood there looking at her audience, who were on pins and needles. More seconds passed, another minute, how long would she wait. The electricity was unbearable. Then, unexpectedly, she took a drink of water. That broke some of the tension and murmurs of remarks could barely be heard, but it was soon as quiet as a tomb again and still the SnowWitch did not flinch or say a word.

The agony of silence was broken anticlimaticly when the SnowWitch uttered in a barely audible, low voice….”Ladies and Gentlemen, Pointy heads, Fellow Pundits, Bloggers, Council Members, members of the army, members of the gentry, and of course, the rabble…..”

She started in such a low volume that the pointy heads were leaning forward in their seats to try to glean some phrase or every other word or something….

The Snow Witch then spoke at times in normal tones at normal volume, and at other times in shrieks of outrage and dissent, and the pointy heads settled back, totally absorbed in the main body of the SnowWitch’s address……and when the speech was finished, the Pointy Heads had their scapegoat, a group who had previously gone under the radar, a group who was most certainly responsible for all that had gone wrong in the past…..

it took the SnowWitch to see it, and to point it out to the pointy heads who lived in the land of the pundits…..

and they believed…..

By @@

September 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

Ragnar:

Dear @@ @ 2:15, “How does mortgage fraudsters figure into this mess?” Not significantly

I don’t know if I just want to, or really need to understand this. So please explain, in the simplest terms possible, how cases such as these

Were mortgage loans never made through lending institutions in those cases which cite millions of dollars in fraud?

Economically challenged, @@.

By Jim is a caveman

September 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

The market was down 373 points today. Now what?

McCain is slipping behind in the polls. The Palin bounce has turned into an auger, digging that hole a little deeper every day. I’m guessing Jim is already writing tomorrow’s column trying to boost little Sarah’s confidence by accusing the Democrats of looking the wrong way at her or performing the Vulcan mind meld to prevent her from thinking and speaking clearly.

By Dusty

September 22, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Oh baloney…which is what comes to mind when I read AmVet. 4:27

He writes American will never believe in the integrity of their elected leaders after Bush and Cheney.

Well, we got over no-morals Clinton and Clueless Carter, didn’t we?

We got over being fearful of terrorists because Bush saw to it that we stayed safe.

Americans are now worried because a do nothing Congress traumatized by the Pelosi Reid extrapolations is unable to function even in a financial crisis. Even now, Democrats want to ADD to the new plan the privilege of giving loans to people who cannot repay them! Another Democratic repeat insuring that financial failure continues.

America lives even with liberals. Rise above it with Republicans. That is the hope.

PS..Did you see where they have traced the illegal break-ins of Palin’s intermet messages to the son of a DEMOCRATIC politician? I am sure that will be headlines at AJC. Uh huh..

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

Dear Findog @ 4:47, its a conservative thing - not speaking “politically,” that’s just the way we are. I assess more blame for F&F than you - after all, they are holding a lot of adjustables that will never be able to adjust, and a lot of 95% fixed whose “margin” - since eroded to make them 125% effectively - is protected only by broke insurors, as the borrowers walked. It was conceptually a bad idea to have taxpayers on the hook, to improve the credit rating of the security.

By Cal

September 22, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Thanks, CommunistAJC @12:02. This explanation is what I have heard all day today and looked on the internet to verify. The Democrats are always wanting to point fingers at the Republicans but this is all their fault. Maybe they should look at Obama’s economic advisers. Maybe they should ask Obama to ask Raines to give back the 50 million he earned while in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Maybe they should ask Obama to give back the $125,000 he made off this deal. Maybe they should check out Obama’s dealings with ACORN and NACA during these past years.

McCain did indeed try to pass that bill in May of 2006 but it was opposed by the democrats. Greenspan did try to warn everyone of this disaster in 2005 but nobody listened. At least McCain had the foresight to see it coming. Where was Obama? He was busy working on his books and getting elected.

By MustBeCrazy

September 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing how dumb “some” of the Conservatives are on this blog. They blame the poor or minorities for taking out a loan for a house with “adjustable mortgages”, but they don’t think Greedy Bankers, Lenders, Realtors, Builders, etc…….were the true culprits to this ENORMOUS Breakdown in the financial industry.

If the taxpayers are going to bail out $700 Billion in Bad Mortgage Debt, wouldn’t it be fair to convert all the (adjustable-rate) mortgages into 30-year fixed-rate loans and let the market reboot itself? It doesn’t make sense to reward the establishment that placed so many into ARM loans and then ask those with ARM loans or who just lost their homes to spend upwards of $700 billion to save the robbers.

If I lend money, I “—-” well make sure I can get it back. The real problem was that they were so busy selling off those ARM Loans, in most instances, as fast as the closing on the house. It’s amazing, that so many people in foreclosure are not dealing with the same mortgage company or brokers who original negotiated the LOAN.

They were like thieves in the night……with a truck loaded up out back, so that as soon as you stepped into the house, they were out the back door.

I watched from 2005 - 2007 as this came to a head, it was bound to happen. But, I think the War, gas prices and DENIAL…. PUSHED THIS PROBLEM INTO THE LIGHT.

Some of you are still in DENIAL…

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Dear @@ @ 4:53, mortgage frauds such as the cases you cite are actually pretty sophisticated. I can give you a simple time line that shows how it works.

You are an honest seller, and my friend Findog and I are clever schemers who plan to run one of these frauds. You sell your ghetto house on January 1 to Findog for $75,000, who gets $55,000 financing at Bank of America. Then Findog sells me the same house 30 days later for $200,000, but I need only 80% financing, so I get a loan for $160,000 at SunTrust. Findog and I pay off the $55,000, and run with the $105,000, sticking SunTrust with the bad loan.

As I said, this is a sophisticated operation. There are two other predicate players: (1) a corrupt appraiser, who overvalues the property, and (2) a corrupt attorney, who in checking title notices the sale 30 days earlier at a much smaller price, but keeps quiet.

You can generally pull off this type scam when prices are rising quickly.

There is a theoretical opposite, that could work in a falling market, but it would require Bankruptcy reform along the lines suggested by Reich in the post around 1 PM today. If/when bankruptcy judges are allowed to quash down values,one could work the same scam by buying high and filing bankruptcy.

By jm

September 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

I wonder what percentage of the “failed” mortgages were sub-prime versus how many of them were ARMs. It would also be interesting to know how many of the “failed” mortgages were homes that people bought to live in versus how many were bought for “speculation” and investment purposes.

The size and scope of this tells me that it is not just “unqualified” home buyers defaulting on their mortgages - the number just don’t add up.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 22, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

Dear jm @ 5:28, I agree. My pull it out of the air number is a 10/90 ratio, subprime vs adjustable lousy, but most of the bad loans were pure speculation.

A friend and I waded through this around a year ago. Somebody who has nothing wants to make some money on fast rising real estate. Buys a new $400,000 home from a seller who wants to sell, through a realtor who wants the 5% ($20,000), gets a loan from a mortgage broker who adds back the 3% origination fee on the no doc loan, wherein the borrower lies about his income and capacity to service the debt. The mortgage company sells the loan to FNMA and walks away. The buyer lives free in the house six months, never makes a payment, moves out when the value of the house drops. Everyone is happy except whoever bought the security, and since it is guaranteed by taxpayers, they are not too torn up.

By Jim

September 22, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

Things to look forward to 1st – Democratic President
2nd - Democratic Senate
3rd - Democratic House
4th - Republican Bush tried for war crimes
5th - ummmmm

By MustBeCrazy

September 22, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

Ragnar D.

The truth of the matter is that the house was never worth $400,000. It was all a scam - from the builder, the banker, the realtor, the buyer and the appraiser.

Oh, and most were not house in the $400,000 market - but were single family homes with actual families living in them.

Also, the truth of the matter was that whomever purchased the security was the HAPPIEST of the BUNCH. They were the biggest GAME Players, who made the most MONEY. The GAME just ran out….

Most would have kept playing had their Monopoly Money stopped coming in.

By MustBeCrazy

September 22, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Ragnar D.

The truth of the matter is that the house was never worth $400,000. It was all a scam - from the builder, the banker, the realtor, the buyer and the appraiser.

Oh, and most were not house in the $400,000 market - but were single family homes with actual families living in them.

Also, the truth of the matter was that whomever purchased the security was the HAPPIEST of the BUNCH. They were the biggest GAME Players, who made the most MONEY. The GAME just ran out….

Most would have kept playing had their Monopoly Money stopped coming in.

By @@

September 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this

Well Ragnar?

Dear @@ @ 4:53, mortgage frauds such as the cases you cite are actually pretty sophisticated.

The word “sophisticated” provoked a mental block. (ISH)

It still sounds like a lending institution got stuck holding the bag. Whether that bag folds into the greater problem and by what percentage of that problem is still unclear to me.

There are things I can easily comprehend (children and how they learn) and then there are things I can’t (financial matters).

I’ll stick with the kids; they have an inspiring effect. They bring joy to my life. Material things don’t.

Thanks Ragnar.

By Willis

September 23, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

As has been said by Dear Leader: Wall Street got drunk.

As has been said: Dear Leader has been the bartender.

By GOPs got to go

September 23, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Wait just a dog gone minute here. Yes there are numerous issues, and I do not claim to be a economics major, but how does Paulson get away with demanding no Judicial or Congressional scrutiny for his bail out proposal? You know what, maybe these hen house guarding foxes NEED a little scrutiny from SOMEBODY. No freaking bonus money should be handed out to anyone. If I killed someone in the ER I doubt my hospital would be giving me a bonus before I was fired. Just who are these people and why are the rules so different for them? I’m ready to yell out my window “I’m mad as he11 and I’m not going to take it any more!” Come on Americans, you do not have to be form one party or the other to be aghast at this ridiculous proposal.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Dear @@ @ 6:13 last night, you are correct, a financial institution gets stuck on a criminal mortgage fraud, but the mortgage frauds in your link are a comparatively small amount of the current problem. There were so many legal ways to defraud the taxpayer, few bothered with the complex effort to defraud banks.

By Van

September 23, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

To Mustbecrazy…

“The truth of the matter is that the house was never worth $400,000. It was all a scam - from the builder, the banker, the realtor, the buyer and the appraiser.”

Why would a buyer scam themselves into paying $400k for a property that is not worth that much?

By jm

September 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

to Van - so that they can flip that property for $425,000 or $450,000. I have a friend who lives in Phoenix. There are houses in her community that were sold 2 or 3 times before they were even finished being built - many are sitting empty because the lost owner could not sell it or rent it (or walked away from the loan).

By Georgia Blue

September 23, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Watching a crowd of Republicans applaud their candidate’s speech about how “We need regulations to stop the greed, excess, and corruption of Wall Street” is like watching an AA meeting! Look at them clap and cheer! Yes, NOW they say, “Drunkeness is bad; we’re against it!”

But these are the same people who’ve been dragging us down to the Monkey’s Uncle every week, ordering pitchers of margaritas like there’s no tomorrow, and leaving us all with an ugly mess to clean up. We want to believe them when they say they’ve changed, but look around the room. How many Republicans, if given yet another second chance, will be swilling the taps dry again, trashing everyone and everything around them? Keep going to those meetings y’all! But don’t expect any more second chances this year.

By Churchill

September 23, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

You want CHANGE? Look at Clayton County. You want more CHANGE?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Morning funny: Dr. Sowell’s analysis of FNMA and FHLMC can be summarized by his opening: Who was it who said, “crack-brained meddling by the authorities” can “aggravate an existing crisis”? Hard to tell where he stands when he pulls his punches like that.

By misterearl

September 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

No Contest

Barack Obama is more thoughtful, more analytical and miles more intelligent than silver-spoon fed John McCain, without a doubt.

The problem is that Obama is not “one of us”

“Forget the country, let’s go have a beer together dude”

(Boycott Cox)

By DT

October 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

I think the worst thing to do is to vote for the bailout. Our contry is hurting enough from years of bad running by congress. It is not really the presidents fault because the house and congress have the finally say. look what they are trying to do now. To cover there stupid rich tails. The public has spoken. We do not eant the bailout. Let it fall. At least we will not be hurting our future generations as we would with the bailout. The rich just want to get richer and the poor(who are not trying) just want a handout, while us real americans (middle class) who by teh way really keep the us going. I think there needs to be an investigation. That is why congress wants it to pass so there will not be an investigation. On who erally has there fingers in the money(obama) included. I also think we are in trouble if we let the likes of Obama get into our presidency. He already thinks he is God.