McCain/Obama debate, debate (heh)

[westkoast]

Did anyone else see the last episode of Jim Cramer? He talked about the bailout in some depth, and he seemed to make some sense to me. Granted he spent NO TIME assigning blame, but did make a couple of points that stuck with me.

1. The bailout needs to unwind these financial "papers" down to individual loans, if that happens, it will work. It will keep people who deserve help from losing their homes, but won't reward the institutions and borrowers who made ridiculous transactions.

2. The 700 billion is not falling into some bottomless abyss. The money spent will be purchasing financial instruments backed by real assets (homes with some market value, that is). Whether these assets are valued as highly as they were when the initial transaction was made is one thing, but then again, the bailout agency is not going to be paying original value on these instruments either.

I know Cramer is part of the Wall Street establishment, but he seems to at least have the individual investor's interest in mind. Personally, I do not yet understand the situation well enough to come out for or against the bailout. And besides, it seems like it is going to happen whether I like it or not; so, it now seems more important to figure out how I can get through it in good shape rather than figure out who to blame: Jesus, Mohammed, Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barney Frank. By the way, who the heck is Barney Frank?

While I totally understand why Skander is upset (and I am too as well) I feel the same way that you do.  Even though I do not want to pitch in for the bail out it seems like it will happen regardless of what I want.  I read something online from one republican's office that the calls against the bail out were 90 to 1 in who was against/for the whole deal itself.  Yet the bill still looks like it's getting passed.  Even more frustrating then the price each person will be pitching in is the fact that it really seems like it doesn't matter what we want when it comes to matters like this.  Personally I don't know nearly as much as the rest of the board when it comes to this topic but I do know that I don't have that kind of money to toss around.  If I did I would pay off my car, you know, something I actually got myself into.

Barney Frank is a sheriff in Maybury I believe 

[Lurker]

Did anyone else see the last episode of Jim Cramer? He talked about the bailout in some depth, and he seemed to make some sense to me. Granted he spent NO TIME assigning blame, but did make a couple of points that stuck with me.

1. The bailout needs to unwind these financial "papers" down to individual loans, if that happens, it will work. It will keep people who deserve help from losing their homes, but won't reward the institutions and borrowers who made ridiculous transactions.

2. The 700 billion is not falling into some bottomless abyss. The money spent will be purchasing financial instruments backed by real assets (homes with some market value, that is). Whether these assets are valued as highly as they were when the initial transaction was made is one thing, but then again, the bailout agency is not going to be paying original value on these instruments either.

This is part of the poroblem I have with the bailout.  Paulson & Bernanke keep talking about buying the paper at "future cash flow value".  Or what they think they can collect in cash over the life of the loans.  The financial sector has already written over $500 billion off as bad debt (reserves).  So basically the ex-Wall Streeters want to give Wall Street back the profits.

By the way, who the heck is Barney Frank?

He's the deputy on Mayberry RFD.

Seriously, he is the head of the House Banking Committee.

[Lurker]

Barney Frank is a sheriff in Maybury I believe 

Sheriff Taylor and Deputy Barney.

[jemagee]

Barney Frank is also I believe the first openly gay member of Congress.

[Lurker]

House votes down the bailout...228 against and 203 for.

House rejects $700 billion financial bailout

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House rejected on Monday a proposed $700 billion financial bailout package supported by the Bush administration, the Federal Reserve and the congressional leadership of both parties. The vote was 205 for and 228 against. The rejection of the plan could mean disruption in financial markets and another attempt by officials to craft a compromise plan that will get a majority vote. The administration had been pushing for quick movement on the bailout, which officials have warned is necessary to avert serious consequences for markets and the economy. Some critics said the plan was a giveaway to the very companies that created the crisis, while others said it amounted to socialism

[jemagee]

Does this do any damage to Pelosis credibility as speaker of the house?

I do hope so

[westkoast]

Does this do any damage to Pelosis credibility as speaker of the house?

I do hope so

Why would it?

I actually don't have a problem with them rejecting it considering it was 228 against from both sides...

Just rushing this through doesn't seem like the smart way to go.  Again this is coming from someone who doesn't quite know as much as everyone else on this board.  I just don't have much faith in our government getting it right in a little over a week..

[jemagee]

Why would it?

Just wondering, if Pelosi was one of the people talking about this being a good deal and then unable to get it through the house it would reflect badly on her 'power' as the speaker I would think...I just don't like her.

[westkoast]

Why would it?

Just wondering, if Pelosi was one of the people talking about this being a good deal and then unable to get it through the house it would reflect badly on her 'power' as the speaker I would think...I just don't like her.

Of course you do...she's from California

[ziggy]

Why would it?

Just wondering, if Pelosi was one of the people talking about this being a good deal and then unable to get it through the house it would reflect badly on her 'power' as the speaker I would think...I just don't like her.

Just got this from my FX guy.

The House votes are in and they have voted down the Bailout package.

Vote was 228-205

Democrats   140 for           95 Against
Republican  65 for            133 Against

Equities are reflecting no vote with large drops but have come off lows.

There are attempts being made to work out a re-vote.

Pelosi couldn't even get 60% of the Democratic caucus.  I don't see anyway that this is a good situation for Pelosi.  If things tank then she gets blamed because she couldn't get near unanimity of her own caucus, and if things turn out OK, then she is seen as trying to force the vote through when it wasn't necessary.

This could hurt the Republicans, but it could also help them, only time will tell.  If things really tank this will hurt the Republicans, but if the dire predictions don't come to pass then it will help them.

[Lurker]

But McCain was the leader that was bringing the house republicans into the deal.  He should have delivered them.  I guess his leadership isn't as sound as he thinks...

Basically the fiscal conservatives shot this down.  There are the Blue Dogs...a group of 50 dems with strong fiscal conservatism...that questioned a lot of this.  Same for most of the house republicans who have been against it from the beginning...they have strong fiscal standards.  (At least they all do except when it comes to earmarks for their districts.)  Also having to face voters that seem to be running 75-90% against the bailout in 4 weeks has a lot of congressmen rethinking their positions.

[Joe Vancil]

FINALLY - a bit of sense from at least 228 of our politicians!

Here's the roll call vote, for those of you who are interested.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

I'm pleased to say that the Representative for Skander, Caleb, and me - Kenny Hulshof - voted AGAINST.  He's running for Governor of Missouri (trailing Democrat Jay Nixon, who I plan to vote for), and knew that Missourians would never go for this deal.

Unfortunately, the Representative from the Bootheel, where my mom and brother live, Republican Jo Ann Emerson, voted *FOR* this travesty.  One more indicator that she's been there too long.  She's got to go.

ALSO - anyone whose name appears in the AYES for this bill has just committed political suicide as far as I'm concerned.  I will NOT vote for them FOR ANY OFFICE, FOR ANY REASON, regardless of what they do in the future or how things progress from here.  I'll take my chances with the fall-out, and leave the blame on the greedy companies, where it belongs.  And I'll hold the folks who voted for this accountable for their vote.

I recommend everyone else do the same.

[jemagee]

Well, I suppose, if everyone where you and you were allowed to vote in every election and your vote held more power than anyone elses that would be a pretty severe threat.  But, I doubt you speak for a majority of voters in a majority of states,

For instance, my congresswoman, Lois Capps, voted Aye, and since she's been elected repeatedly when her only qualification was that her husband was a front running candidate when he died (and a much beloved professor at UCSB) I doubt this vote will have much if any impact on her being re-elected.

Course, doesn't help that I"m almost sure she's running unopposed...or if she has an opponent they have a VERY (non existent) small advertising budget.

Besides, voting for or against of a candidate because of one vote makes as much sense as deciding on your candidate because of where they stand on something like abortion, or affirmative action, or any other SINGLE issue...it's lazy voting.

Which is lucky for many politicians that most americans are lazy voters

[Joe Vancil]

Jemagee,

Well, I only get one vote, and only for my particular Representative, but I do get to voice my opinion to anyone who will listen, and encourage them to use their vote the same way.

And I believe that holding the "suicide vote" over a politician's head based on one vote on one issue isn't irresponsible, but is rather, in fact, the ONLY way we will ever make sure that our Representatives and Senators are returned to the general population often enough to prevent them from losing touch with us.  Forget "term limits," because no one believes they will work, anyway.  Declare things that are important to you as "suicide votes."  Stick to that, and you'll assure that your politician will be returned to you often enough to prevent folks like your Lois Capps or our Jo Ann Emerson (who is another Congressional-widow-turned-Congresswoman).

If you want real change in Congress, refuse to vote for incumbents who vote in ways you oppose, and encourage others to do the same.

[ziggy]

But McCain was the leader that was bringing the house republicans into the deal.  He should have delivered them.  I guess his leadership isn't as sound as he thinks...

Basically the fiscal conservatives shot this down.  There are the Blue Dogs...a group of 50 dems with strong fiscal conservatism...that questioned a lot of this.  Same for most of the house republicans who have been against it from the beginning...they have strong fiscal standards.  (At least they all do except when it comes to earmarks for their districts.)  Also having to face voters that seem to be running 75-90% against the bailout in 4 weeks has a lot of congressmen rethinking their positions.

I agree Lurker, this doesn't help McCain.  He staked a lot on this, and it going down does not help him at all.  Of the Oregon delegation we have one Republican, and four Dems. 
The Republican is a solid conservative, and he voted Yes. 
One Dem is not running again, and she was the most moderate of the 4 in a moderately conservative district, and she voted Yes.
The 3 very liberal representatives all voted No.