Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on September 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
“Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.
Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.
Congress has an obligation to perform oversight…
Who is going to do oversight? How much transparency is there going to be? We still haven’t seen the report which led to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is ‘secret’. Is our $700 billion going to be spent in ‘secret’ too? In practical terms, will a bill be written in public so people can analyze it? Or will it be written in a closed room by the very people who have been collecting money from the institutions they are now going to use our money to bail out?”
***
“If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight. Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.”
***
“Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can’t be any ‘add ons,’ or addition provisions. F*** that. I don’t really want to trigger a world wide depression (that’s not hyperbole, that’s a distinct possibility), but I’m not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother f***ers.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
They [Congress] ran home, again, when things heated up, so screw ‘em.
Neo on September 21, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Text of the proposed bill is here: Bailout.
This section, for me, is completely unacceptable. Viz.:
No, some type of outside administrative oversight is essential.
Men are not angels, Mr. Secretary.
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:07 PM
The Wall Street Examiner: The government has in turn taken us from the the brink of financial system collapse and added to that the threat of financial collapse of the government itself, a fate which I would suggest is far worse than allowing Wall Street to collapse and money market funds to break the buck. No question, that’s a bad thing, but a loss of faith in the financial system is one thing, a loss of faith in the government’s ability to pay its bills and protect the public is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. If this program is passed by Congress, I fear that our fate will have been sealed.
I have no hope that this can be stopped in the House. Let’s hope that enough of our Senators are wise enough and courageous enough to stop this madness before it destroys our beloved Republic.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I appreciate Newt’s perspective on this.
Democratic courage. Hold them for me!
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2008 at 10:09 PM
VOTE THEM OUT
Ugly on September 21, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Ahhh… who am I kidding. We have no vote anymore.
Ugly on September 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Now they worry about oversight?
Where were they on their oversight before all this happened?
If they had done their freaking jobs we might not be in this position.
Now here we are and considering the fact that Paulson had to force the Democratic leadership just to stay in town and deal with the situation…I don’t think they need to be worrying too much about oversight. Left to them banks would probably be shutting down.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Newt rocks, er I should say, Newt still rocks. That man needs to be involved because he has a great intellect and no fear of calling people out. The media hated him, and successfully framed in with the general public to a degree, but I for one would love to see the Newt Phoenix rise from the ashes of the Contract With America. It wasn’t the premise that was bad, it was the fakers like Duke Cunningham who disappointed us so. I hope Sarah Palin is so bold as to reach out to this great conservative. I don’t harbor any illusions about McCain doing so.
rhodeymark on September 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Here’s Gary North:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/4040.cfm
Dear Mrs. Palin: Please Oppose the Big Bank Bailout
Has McCain voices support for this?
ninjapirate on September 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Sounds like that could be the preamble to the constitution of the old USSR or Nazi Germany.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Welcome to the Do-Nothing again Congress. Whatever, they all suck. GO SKINS! GO PACKERS!
bryan2369 on September 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Tomorrow should be interesting day.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Well, we have $80 trillion in unfunded obligations to SS and Medicare. I can’t see how adding $700 billion to our debt will break the government in light of those obligations.
Second, one of the reasons the market took off late last week was the confidence (rightly or not) that the US government was going to back up these loans.
We’re close to maxing out our credit card; but this bailout won’t do it.
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Steve:
I saw a reference to that at Instapundit by Glenn Reynolds, he says it is preety standard and is intended to stop litigation.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Question: Was McCain being sarcastic (I hope) when he suggested Andrew Cuomo should head the SEC?
Connie on September 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Terrye:
I can see the justification for that.
As to the “other administrative review”, I’m less sure of that justification.
I’m quite sure that Congress will add some type of oversight to the legislation. Whether that’s good or bad is another matter.
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:15 PM
This is what Glenn Reynolds actually said:
Sec. 8. Review.
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.
Such provisions aren’t unprecedented, and have long been included in federal legislation where there’s concern that litigation might gum things up. They’re generally upheld by courts, though not so much where the claims are constitutional in nature. That’s not to say that it’s a good idea here, necessarily, just that it’s not some sort of unprecedented power-grab in and of itself.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:16 PM
“Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.”
Earmarks. Whoever said that has a psychosis.
Dr. Dog on September 21, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Steve:
In truth I would think Congress should have some oversight, but I just do not think the Feds trust them with it at this point.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Who’s that third quote? That may be a Democrat I can actually like.
BJ* on September 21, 2008 at 10:18 PM
You know, it’s troubling – but, the more I read “Allahpundit” and the more I look at his source (like “Open Left”), the more I realize one thing:
He’s REALLY IS a GOOD SPY for The Daily Kos!
…..and I wonder what he’s doing posting on THIS site!
grtflmark on September 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Two words, one phrase: Anarcho-Capitalism.
It’s the way to go, my friends.
The
roofeconomy is on fire, let the mother fumper burn. Burn, mother jumper, burn.VolMagic on September 21, 2008 at 10:20 PM
The reason that the market “took off” for all of two days, it is down almost 15% for the year, is because riverboat gambling and greed for all the money being thrown around took over again, at least for those 2 days, from prudent FEAR as to the House of Cards that America’s economy and particularly it’s financial system have become.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM
I posted this last night, but I’m posting it again just in case McCain wasn’t being funny.
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie
Connie on September 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/587-The-Mother-Of-All-Frauds.html
ninjapirate on September 21, 2008 at 10:22 PM
“…look at his sources…..”
sorry for my mistype – and, while I’m at it, Allahpundit adds NOTHING by increasing the SHRILLNESS of the political discourse like this……
Just because you SWEAR while making your point – that does NOT increase the VALIDITY of it!
grtflmark on September 21, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I know the Republicans gotta get home to do their reelection b.s., but if doing something about high oil prices is enough to make a show of like they did in August — doesn’t this warrant the same kind of show or even a bigger show.
What did that little dog and pony show in August accomplish? As far as I can tell it really helped their chances of being reelected, but didn’t actually produce any other results.
This is the second time in two months that the Democrats have adjourned Congress at a time of impending national crisis.
If they can’t make hay out of this then they’re just stupid.
rockhead on September 21, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Yes, There are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress.
————————————————————
Paulsen and congressional Republicans,or the few that will
actually vote,for this,
(“MOST WILL BE UNWILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLICIES”)
————————————————————
Just like I said in a thread,a few days ago,the only good
news,is how Nancy,”It just might take a women to clean
the House” Pelosi will find a way to blame the Republicans!
canopfor on September 21, 2008 at 10:23 PM
This really should be scaring the living sh*t out of all of us.
There is NO WAY a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to agree to this blatant ass-saving of Wall Street without some serious goodies for the Little People. And even though I’m a conservative I have a hard time disagreeing with that. I’m real glad I’m not an industry lobbyist anymore, because they are going to get their butts handed to them – bankruptcy review of mortgages, blanket loan modifications, severe restrictions on subprime lending and payments to mortgage brokers — basically, everything we fought against for the last 2 years after the Dems took contrl.
Hell, I’ll bet they could even tack a repeal of NAFTA on to this turkey and it would pass. Why not throw in the Card Check bill for good measure.
Nancy’s gonna call Hank Paulson’s bluff on this one, and if I were in her shoes I would too.
rockmom on September 21, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Part of the beauty of all this is that one reason that house prices went up so high is because of the deduction that allows you to avoid paying taxes. So the taxes needed to pay for this bailout will make houses more valuable and that will help stop the market slide. Poor renters.
pedestrian on September 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I don’t think he’s said either way. I think he should come out against it as well.
At the very least, McCain should say that the heads of the committees should step down and resign their seat in the senate. Then say that Pelosi and Reid should step down as well – for the inability to lead in the face of a real crisis.
Follow Newt’s advice and demand that Sarbanes-Oxley get repealed. Demand that Glass-Steagall be but back into force.
Actually, just follow all of Newt’s advice LOL.
lorien1973 on September 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM
No, the reason it took off is the confidence that most investors still have in the US economy.
Most stock markets worldwide also rose greatly after the announcement.
For all of our problems, the US is still the best place to invest your money. Which probably says as much about other country’s economies than it does ours.
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Newt makes sense, as usual. Obama’s an idiot. And I wonder who the congressman is that supposedly wrote that last statement?
CP on September 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Is Allahpundit a Kos planted hero
Or maybe just a fiddling conservative Nero?
But he sure has spunk
Oh bunk!
The man’s a turncoat lout!
No, he’s just not one to with the talking points shout
The secret simply will not keep
For Hotair’s losing sleep
It’s time to break the spell
Won’t someone bloody tell?
Who is Allahpundit?
Tav on September 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM
This was just posted over at FR in re: my question about Cuomo.
Cuomo apparently DID do some investigating on Freddie/Fannie
Connie on September 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM
If the republicans cave in on this it won’t matter which party wins the white house, it will be another eight years of democrat obstruction.
If McCain can’t rally the people to the cause of real reform under these circumstances, he never will.
rockhauler on September 21, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Kent:
The market has gained about 40% in the last ten years. Believe it or not markets are not supposed to always go up, but the trick is to make sure they do not go down too much too fast.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I surly don’t know what I was thinking. I plum forgot that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. I must have momentarily slipped back into one of those whiny mental recession psychosis.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:36 PM
And Kent, this country is responsible for almost half of the world’s profit…if we go down we take a lot of people with us. This economy is not a house of cards, in fact it is huge. But the problem was with the credit system, not the whole economy.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM
You can’t fight a forest fire by committee. That’s what we have here.
Unfortunately, the flames had to be at the door before Congress would even consider pulling a fire alarm for this mess, but now that they finally look like they’ll act, it has to be done now and fast.
RBMN on September 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Okay, why did the market go up here and across the world?
Because, according to you, our economy is so dreadful that no sane person would want to invest here. Nothing that the Treasury would do would change those fundamentals.
In fact, it should have tanked. Instead of picking up 300 and 400 points, it should have dropped twice that much.
You do know, I hope, that there’s a middle ground between saying everything is great and everything is awful?
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM
to all those against the bailout remember this: Depressions and hard economic times give rise to socialist and facists regines. One word sums up what can and usally does happen in a depression: Hitler. Yes it was the depression that gave rise to Hitler, To mussilioni. It was hard economic times that gave rise to Lenin, to the Clerics of Iran. To Chevez and even to Putin. hard economic times give rise to dictators the world over and yes to Kim jong and Sadamn and yes even to FDR (4 terms as president was the closest we have ever come to rule of a dictator). If we allow our economy through fear and lack of understanding to slide into a depression Obama will win in a landslide and He has all the makings of a dictator. From surpressing of free speech, the ego of a mad man, a group of thugs that worship him. It is all there for anyone to see the connections.
Stop with all this crap talk about “socialism invading” with this bailout. If we do not bailout our economy socialism will not only iunvade but conquer our country.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Terrye:
Do you know how much cumulative inflation has been over the last ten years? The published rate? The real rate? Do you know that when companies fail they are removed form the indices?
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I’m just going to throw this out…but what if the productive citizens of the USA quit paying for the non-productive?
What would happen if the treasury didn’t have any income to give?
Would they come after us?
How would they come after us?
jukin on September 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Kent:
During the Great Depression there was deflations, mortgage foreclosures were almost 30% {not 6%} and unemployment was over 24%. My grandparents were Okies who lost a farm in the Dust Bowl to go to California to pick fruit as migrant workers. My father in law grew up in Ohio during the Depression and they used to steal coal off of moving trains so that they would not freeze in the winter. That was a sick economy.
You just want to see things in as bad a light as possible because you have a political bone to pick is all.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I’m skimming through the Constitution and I can’t seem to find the place where it says that Congress has the obligation to do any of these things. Heck, I can’t even anything giving it the authority to do them.
29Victor on September 21, 2008 at 10:44 PM
eight years of democratic obstruction.
rockhauler on Sept 21,2008 at 10:35PM.
rockhauler: You are right,the truth be known,the death
of working together,a Republican hand extended
to across the ilse,died when President Bush
came into office,and the Democrats turned their
backs on bi-partisanship,all the while the
Liberals kept bull-sh#tting the American voter
as to how willing they were to work with the
Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
canopfor on September 21, 2008 at 10:44 PM
You sure don’t know much about stock markets. I respectfully suggest that you check out some market web sites.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Do VP’s have a chief of staff?
If so, couldn’t Sarah pick Newt?
Sapwolf on September 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Kent:
The real rate of inflation? You know something? When I got married in 1971, my lightbill was about $10 a month. My water bill was a whopping $2.00. In 1973 at the ripe old age of 21 and 22 my ex and I bought an 80 acre farm in Indiana on contract for $20,000. I know about inflation.
I also know that people today are living in houses that would have been considered mansions when I was kid. I can actually remember tar paper shacks and kids who did not have a good winter coat. Say what you will about WalMart, even a poor kid can afford a decent pair of shoes and a winter coat.
So don’t lecture me about the realities of the world.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:47 PM
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Basing economic policy on the market is like basing your budget on the slot machines. the Market’s daily moves are controlled by two things. fear and Greed. Nothing else. Fundementals mean nothing in the short term. Stocks trade at 10 -30 times forward earnings. Alot of stocks trade with no dividend. This means that if you buy a stock today it would take you ten to 30 years of earnings to get the company to book vaule. Those with no divs are even worse because they have no vaule but what someone else is willing to pay for it. Therefore when the numbers are good the price goes up because more people are willing to pay for it thinking there will be others likewise minded, when the news is bad the stock goes down because less people are willing to pay for it. The stock market sank Mon and Wed because of massive fear. The stocks advanced Thurs and Fri because of Greed. The market is really that simple. Fear and greed. It is knowing how to measure the fear and greed within the market, within certain sectors, and within individuals companies that make a good stock trader.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Kent:
I respectfully submit that you did not answer the man’s question. At the end of the week the world saw the largest two day market rally in history.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Sorry, on Thursday and Friday the stock markets in Japan, Great Britain and other European capitals all had major gains as a result of the reported bailout by the Treasury.
If these stock markets believed that the US economy was as bad as you think it is, they would have dimissed the reported bailout as too little too late.
Look, your view of our economy may be right. But lots of investers around the world think otherwise.
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:49 PM
How can a Constitutional Convention be called to address the political power grab that this plan is?
Any Constitution scholars on HA that can answer that?
Sapwolf on September 21, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Don’t try to psychoanalysis me and I won’t try to psychoanalysis you. That way neither of us will be libel for practicing without a licence. I believe that there is another occasional commenter around here who handles the psychobabble stuff.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I’m skimming through the Constitution and I can’t seem to find the place where it says that Congress has the obligation to do any of these things. Heck, I can’t even anything giving it the authority to do them.
29Victor on September 21, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Check the commerce clause. the clause that gives Congress the power to regualte interstate trade, also check the clause that gives Congress the power to set tarrifs and to provide for the genral welfare of its people, to raise taxes etc.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Surely you’re not saying that the reports of the Treasury bailout had no effect on the uptick?
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM
You’re right. The US Constitution does not direct the US Government to protect the country from economic depressions. But it also doesn’t say they can’t try to prevent economic depressions. And since the federal government was very involved in creating this crisis, with incentives for banks to loan money recklessly, it might be nice if they also try to limit the overall pain, if they can.
RBMN on September 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM
unseen:
To some extent that is true, but the markets went up because there was a sense of security that the credit market was not going to seize up after all. If it had we would have been looking at bank runs.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Wasn’t it just last summer, the summer before last I mean, when conservatives rallied to stop Congress from pushing through an unacceptable comprehensive immigration reform bill? Somehow when it comes to this kind of stuff though, we just sort of throw up our hands and let them stick it to us.
Maybe it’s too complicated or too confusing so we just meekly accept what we’re told. But I find it unforgivable that Congress is going to push through some big bail out with no hearings, no investigations, no clear explanations about what needs to happen and why. Oh, it’s such an emergency, we can’t wait, blah blah blah. I call B.S. on that.
Bennett on September 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Has it occurred to you that a lot of those buyers may be already back out of the market? Also, have you ever heard the term “stopped out” as applied to short sellers and what that causes?
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Surely you’re not saying that the reports of the Treasury bailout had no effect on the uptick?
SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM
The reports of the bailout changed the mood from fear to greed. no longer where people afraid of losing their money they were afraid of missing out on the rally. Thus they started buying and will keep buying until once again the news changes to make them afraid again.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM
To some extent that is true, but the markets went up because there was a sense of security that the credit market was not going to seize up after all. If it had we would have been looking at bank runs.
Terrye on September 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
correct. Sense of secrity = lack of fear. Lack of fear turns into greed of profit. basic human nature. Once the sotrm is over its time to go out and rebuild.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Video surfaced with Obama admitting he doesn’t understand the stock market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjaoJuAYnaI
powerpro on September 21, 2008 at 10:56 PM
should be storm not sotrm…fingers as always typing to fast.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Bennett on September 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
maybe because we all don’t want to stand in soup lines…not a real good way to spend a day..
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Finally someone on this web site who knows more about all this than I do, which doesn’t take all that much, it’s just that it’s all relative, who can maybe educate some folks here.
Take over man. I’m “out a here”.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Someone needs to put the blame for this squarely where it belongs if Paulson hasn’t done so yet in private. FannieMae, Freddie Mac, run by Clinton cronies,Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, Clinton policies in forcing banks to accept low income home loans, and congressional corruption and protection of this extortion racket have brought the financial institutions to the brink. The perpetrators in the Democrat party must not be allowed to pin this on the Republicans or add another 700 Billion in social programs and income redistribution to this. They will if the blame is not placed at their door where it belongs
dhunter on September 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Ronan Tynan singing God Bless America at Yankee Stadium on ESPN
QUICK!!!!!!
Sapwolf on September 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Go over to LGF and check this out. Looks like there may be a “story” breaking out in a little while.
Pianobuff on September 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM
The issue is not new at all. The Bush Administration was trying to get some kind of lid on this big pile of risky assets five years ago. Not enough of Congress was interested. People knew this was an accident waiting to happen for about five or six years now. What’s new is the willingness for everyone to act, because its gotten to the point of meltdown.
RBMN on September 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I traded on the floor for years and never heard the term “stopped out” applied to short-sellers. “Stopped out” means that a stop-order was executed and has nothing to do with short-sellers.
Now, if you are trying to discuss the ban on short-selling that is another thing. But the term “stopped out” has nothing to do with it.
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM
It is not the people’s fault they have been conditioned to think of the market as some great insitution and over the course of decades it is. But day to day the stock market in nothing but a huge casino. That is why every offer for investment states that you can lose all of your money. they don’t need to place that above a casino’s door because people understand what they are getting into when they go play blackjack. Wall Street has been able to fool the people into thinking it is something it isn’t due to its longterm (decades return)
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Well I do disagree with you on that, as I think we have clearly had a fair amount of “socialism” already and are now getting a lot more. But I suppose it’s all relative and you think that more “socialism” now will prevent even more later and you may be right on that.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Now, if you are trying to discuss the ban on short-selling that is another thing. But the term “stopped out” has nothing to do with it.
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM
you can be stopped out on a short sale if the stock goes up past your stop point. different names but the same principle of a stop loss order to the downside
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Yuval Levin over at The Corner brings up a good point too:
eucher on September 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Good. So, does the left have any notion as to what brought the American economy to this pass?
flenser on September 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 11:05 PM
the only reason I think that is because history proves it. Any time human society has been faced with hard economic times they have embraced dictators and communists regimes. Something about hunger, homelessness, no hope that makes people hope that someone or something can solve this problem for them. america did the same thing and embraced FDR. The fact that FDR was a beniegn type of dictator does not change the fact he was one. And He order more americians to their deaths then any other president in our history. His rise was a direct result of a depression the same as Hitlers was.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:10 PM
I turned on This Week and they had Chris Dodd on talking about the whole bailout situation. Chris Dodd. It was almost like I was in bizarro world, which seems to be happening a lot this election season.
Can anyone recommend a good article or set of articles that really explains the basics of this whole problem? If it’s been posted in another thread just redirect me there and I’ll find it. Thanks!
hump1201 on September 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Good. So, does the left have any notion as to what brought the American economy to this pass?
flenser on September 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Again you are confusing the economy with wall street. They are not the same. Both effect each other but both are independent of each other.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Barney Frank in charge of oversight? Chris Dodd? Ted Stevens?
er, no thanks.
You know, I was driving around Friday and they actually interviewed Barney Frank about this mess, with absolutely no indication that he was a primary force in starting it to begin with. I was shocked … some kind of weird MSM attempt to put him on offense so he won’t end up on defense?
funky chicken on September 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM
hump1201 on September 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Mark Levin has a good primer on it.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Stop orders are stop orders. They are nothing but orders that are activated at a price point. It doesn’t matter if they are buy orders or sell orders and has nothing to do with short selling. I was just trying to understand what the heck KentAllard thought he was talking about.
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I probably used the wrong term. I am thinking of where someone is betting that a stock will go down/keep going down and then things turn up, maybe because of the supposed nonexistent PPT, and they then have to “cover” that, by buying the stock themselves, and they then help to drive the stock further up. What is that called?
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:14 PM
oh ok…
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM
It’s called a “short squeeze”.
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM
short squeeze
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM
you owe me a beer
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:18 PM
unseen, I had lunch with my Dad today. He’s a CPA and very sharp. He seemed to think this bailout was not a bad thing if indeed the gvmt got to buy (??-I’m a biologist) things really cheap. He explained that bad debt packages would basically be up for gvmt bid, and the gvmt would agree to buy the ones that were sold cheapest, etc. He did offer the caveat that the gvmt shouldn’t pay any more than 40 cents on the dollar, and sadly since it’s gvmt they may screw it up, but…
He’s no liberal, and has successfully run his own small business for 30 + years, so his approval made me feel better about the whole thing.
I shoulda taken notes, but am I kinda in the ballpark?
funky chicken on September 21, 2008 at 11:18 PM
But a ban on shorting is not the same as a short-squeeze. A ban just disallows new shorting.
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:18 PM
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Ah, yes. The Commerce Clause. That magical section of the Constitution that has been morphed by a power-hungry Federal government to say that Congress can do pretty much anything that it wants. Well, here it is:
The Commerce Clause is about leveling taxes and taking debt and making sure that all of the states get a fair and equal shake from the Fed. government.
What Congress is doing now, I can assure you, is not what the Framers meant by “general Welfare” any more than they meant that Congress should give everyone a house, horse and wife.
RBMN on September 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM
It also doesn’t say that they can’t nationalize the banking, healthcare and oil industries. Congress doing things like ensuring that poor people who can’t afford homes get home helped get us into this mess in the first place.
29Victor on September 21, 2008 at 11:19 PM
“…maybe because we all don’t want to stand in soup lines…not a real good way to spend a day.”
Oh please. You’re drinking the government kool-aid. You have no idea if there are going to be soup lines because you don’t even know if what we’re being told is the truth. Nobody does. We’re just told that it’s super-serious and really bad and geesh, Congress better get something done this weekend. No need to answer any questions, no need for scrutiny, just push it through and send the American people the bill.
This is what they count on, the sheeple passively lining up to get sheared.
Bennett on September 21, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Heh. Gladly, unseen.
progressoverpeace on September 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM
That is what I meant.
That is not what I meant.
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 11:24 PM
funky chicken on September 21, 2008 at 11:18 PM
yes. The government is by difinetion the borrower of last resort. Therefore whenever the gov buys something it gets a very good deal. Aig was “bought” for 8.5cents on the dollar. the S&l bailout and chreslyer bailout bith made the gov money.
I don’t think the gov will buy the ebt for 40cents on the dollar because the gov’s main purpose is to save the banks. the banks can only be saved by protecting thier balance sheets. therefore the gov wants to pay as high as a price it can for the bad debt but at the same time aviod moral hazard and spread the pain somewhat for to the banks. therefore I’m thinking about 70-85cents on the dollar. This will give room for inflation to occur instead of the devalution we are currently in. this will also stabilze the banks, pump capital into the markets and free up the short term commercial paper markets. aloowing companies to due short term borrowing agains and allow them to meet payroll, continue to fund credit card transactiuons, and car loans etc.
the problem that I see is that the bailout only solves the present problem. There are still millions of homes that are going to go into forclosure. Basically all loans made in the last 2 years are very suspect by investors.
However at 70-80cents on the dollar the gov could turn a small profit or a low loss on the deal.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:25 PM
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
the above gives Congress all the power it needs to do what it wants as far as money is concerned. Congress is basically inflating the money supply, it is providing and protecting the genral welfare of the people, it is raising taxes and setting duties fo the bankers on the street. Denying that fact is like denying the fact that the 2nd amendment says we have a right to a gun.
unseen on September 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM
64 dollar question? Where do you have you $$$ now?
KentAllard on September 21, 2008 at 11:32 PM
In the 1930′s in America, and in the 1990′s in Japan, they tried the tight credit method for restoring confidence. It didn’t work well. It just prolonged the pain.
RBMN on September 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM
But the point he was trying to make is still valid, that a significant contributing factor to the rally last week was the result of traders covering their short positions.
FloatingRock on September 21, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Bush, and the GOPs in congress, notably John McCain, have been sending up flares for several years now, yet the Dims wouldn’t hear it.
Still, the general consensus seems to be that congress will lean just as heavily to the left after the elections as it does now, if not more so. What am I missing?
pugwriter on September 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »