Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Gingrich: Kill the Paulson bailout plan; Update: Reid to GOP: Vote with us or we won’t pass it; Update: 57% support bailout, says Pew

posted at 3:30 pm on September 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Like Ross Douthat, I’m wholly unqualified to comment intelligently on this subject so I humbly offer a few links to those of you who are. Here’s the report of Newt’s presser this morning stressing that the sky is not, in fact, falling and that Paulson’s plan will be seen as such a loser in six weeks that McCain should come out hard against it now and pin it to Obama. There’s some logic in that — the public is notably cool to it — but needless to say, if the plan doesn’t pass and the market crashes, that’ll put Maverick (among others) in a bit of a spot. Any reason to believe that a crash is really possible? Yes indeed if you believe Paulson and Bernanke, who spent last week putting the fear of God into congressional Democrats and this morning doing the same to House Republicans. Newt offered his own plan over the weekend at the Corner, but I’d recommend reading these two posts by Megan McArdle before jumping boots first into the ideologically pure “let ‘em fail” position. In a strange way, this reminds me of the Iraq debate in reverse: We’re faced with what may or may not be a looming threat of mass destruction, except this time conservatives are willing to chance it rather than take costly, aggressive preemptive action. Maybe they’re right; as I say, my ignorance on this leaves me unable to judge. But here’s your exit quotation from McArdle, emphasizing that we’re looking at a nuclear scenario if they’re wrong: “There is no benefit from a ‘tough love’ strategy for anyone that even begins to approach the catastrophic consequences, for everyone, of a massive and rapid contraction.”

Update: Democrats worry that McCain will take Newt’s advice:

Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain will “demagogue” the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration’s deeply unpopular proposal.

A Democratic congressional leadership source says that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain “won’t be a problem” — in other words that McCain will vote for the proposal.

Update: Further to the last update, Reid’s not going to let the left take the rap the Bush administration’s foray into socialism:

“This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”

Reid is essentially calling the Republican bluff on a political gambit. There’s a growing chorus of Republicans in both chambers _ especially House conservatives _ who would love to yell about the bailout and vote against it knowing it will pass. In this strategy, Republicans will be able to hit the campaign trail and boast about how they’ve voted against the Bush administration and Democratic Congress while protecting Main Street.

But Democrats aren’t going to let that strategy fly.

House Minority Whip James Clyburn says his leaders are not going to push through a bill that only passes with Democratic votes either…

“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.”

Update: The Democrats are refining their position further to protect Obama from being outflanked: McCain has to vote with them or else the bill’s dead.

Update: Good luck squaring this with the Rasmussen poll I linked above, but Pew has no less than 57 percent of the public onboard with the Paulson plan. And guess which party’s membership is most gung ho.

If McCain and House Republicans needed an extra little prod to sign on with Paulson and Reid, there it is. Although from what Richard Shelby and Jim Bunning — and Sherrod Brown — told Paulson and Bernanke today, I wouldn’t expect passage by an overwhelming majority.


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 ... 3 4 5 6

God I hope this thing goes down in flames! I am also sick of hearing how freedom, capitalism and thus Democracy has failed! This past spring, some stupid bureaucrat was releasing figures about declining food production in the US, or something related to that,,, I cannot remember his name or title,, something I heard on the car radio,,, after he gave his statistics,, he then followed with, “And this proves that the ‘food for profit’ system in the US has failed!” I was shocked and disgusted!
There seems to be an all out rapid assault to use any problem at all to attack capitalism.
I never ever thought I would live to see anything like this in America!

JellyToast on September 23, 2008 at 6:23 PM

You’re on the ball…

TheBigOldDog on September 23, 2008 at 6:19 PM

I have to be. I’ve been sitting on some cash taking some dips in volatility plays til the market decides a direction. This might signal it.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:24 PM

What shall we do?

Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 6:13 PM

I already answered that question. Buy booze. Unless you are Janos, then just whine some more.

MB4 on September 23, 2008 at 6:24 PM

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM

That is very true.

Spirit of 1776 on September 23, 2008 at 6:24 PM

With that PEW figure: I would almost venture to guess that 57% of the population couldn’t find their butt with two hands and a spotlight either…

SkinnerVic on September 23, 2008 at 6:25 PM

I wonder if Buffett has information we don’t have?

genso

…maybe…maybe not…sure has money we don’t…

…well…multibillionaires on this list notwithstanding, he sure has money I don’t…

…’cause if I’d've had $500Bil to bail out Goldman, I’d've spent it all already on a weekend in Cancun with a platoon of perky Russian lady tennis players and a swimming pool full of Wesson oil…

…say…anybody got $500Bil ’til payday?

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM

I wanna repeat this from the previous page. No one makes this point.

Commonly, they say that republicans were in charge during this. No they were not.

In 1999, NYT posted an article bringing to light the possible problem.

In 2000, Bush takes office. Republican majority in house and senate (I believe)

In 2001, Jumping Jim Jeffords gave control of the senate to the democrats.

In 2003, Bush realized the problem, but couldn’t do anything. Democrats stymied any action.

In 2005, McCain warned of the problem.

In 2007, again, everyone knew it was gonna blow up. Democrats – now having both houses, still did nothing.

And its a republican mess? Bull-sh!t.

Partially republicans, yes. No doubt. The in 1999, it was known that the legistlation could pose a problem. Democrats chose to ignore it, while -repeatedly- republicans tried to fix the matter. Maybe half-heartedly, maybe not. Who knows. Still.

Government created the problem. Now we have to pay $2500 for every man woman and child to fix it? Hell no.

lorien1973 on September 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Reuters

Goldman Sachs Group Inc on Tuesday said it will receive a $5 billion investment from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Berkshire will buy $5 billion of perpetual preferred stock that carries a 10 percent dividend. It also will receive warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock at $115 per share, exercisable within five years.

GS just turned itself into a commercial bank from a brokerage in a deal with the Fed on Sunday. That makes it essentially like any other bank, eligible to borrow at the Fed window, take FDIC insured deposits, etc, and is subject to a different regulatory body and different rules re. leverage etc. In other words, it saved itself as an independent entity. It may even have the opportunity to offload toxic crap onto the taxpayer. A nice deal.

Along comes Buffett who gets 10% preferred, and options for 5 billion more at 115 when the stock closed at 125 today.

Now why in the hell does he get this sweet deal? Goldman and Buffett benefit. Will the US taxpayer end up paying anything to help GS?

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM

…’cause if I’d’ve had $500Bil to bail out Goldman, I’d’ve spent it all already on a weekend in Cancun with a platoon of perky Russian lady tennis players and a swimming pool full of Wesson oil…

…say…anybody got $500Bil ’til payday?

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Dude, if you had that kind of money, it’d be olive oil.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Now we have to pay $2500 for every man woman and child to fix it disguise it?

lorien1973 on September 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM

There ya go!

Limerick on September 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Now why in the hell does he get this sweet deal? Goldman and Buffett benefit. Will the US taxpayer end up paying anything to help GS?

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Why do you think Buffett was motivated to make this move?

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM

There ya go!

Limerick on September 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Thanks. Sorry about that!

You are right, unless sarbones-oxley is repealed and glass-steagall but back into force, among some other things, it’s gonna happen again.

lorien1973 on September 23, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Why do you think Buffett was motivated to make this move?

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM

Same reason he was motivated to buy stock in a brazilian oil company, cuz he knew democrats wouldn’t allow drilling?

lorien1973 on September 23, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:13 PM

I agree that federal regulations promoting high risk mortgages have to be repealed. If the lenders want to make such loans, let them make them without federal insurance if they fail. I’d like to see that in the bailout, but don’t know if a bailout can pass with that in it. And Bailout passage seems a higher priority to me.

I thought oil prices had been going down, but started up again only after doubts about passage of the bailout started circulating. Perhaps I am wrong.

If we do nothing or not enough to remedy this crisis, and our country loses a massive percentage of market liquidity & value, that will not be good for anybody with market investments or the need to borrow to create or expand businesses and jobs. However, it will be great for those sitting on vast amounts of essential commodities, like oil, most of whom are overseas.

I also want our oil resources to be used, for both economic and national security reasons. I don’t think it’s necessary to tie this to the bailout, and the best benefits of freeing US oil for development will take place in 5 to 10 years, not immediately. However, in time, greatly expanded US oil production will improve our balance of payments and increase tax revenues through economic growth. The big sucking sound from a bailout could generate even further support for drilling here.

Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Actually, I believe the question is inaccurate. The Government is not investing… that is something you do with your own money.

I think the results would be drastically different if we injected a little more information…

Question wording: “As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try to keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?”

Question wording: “As you may know, the government is potentially redirecting hundreds of billions of your taxpayer dollars to keep corporations secure after passing and enforcing laws requiring them to take on risky loans. Do you think this is the constitutional thing for the government to be doing?”

dominigan on September 23, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Elizabeth Dole said on a local station she isn’t prepared to vote for the bill. Maybe they did deliver that message to her I sent!

SouthernGent on September 23, 2008 at 6:33 PM

That is very true.

Spirit of 1776 on September 23, 2008 at 6:24 PM

And it will expose people’s true feeling about Obama and McCain–to themselves. It’s no longer an abstraction about who you’d like to lead you in a moment of danger.

It’s been said here before, but the Presidency is ready to be taken by the person bold enough to lead. Obama can’t. McCain now shows his hand.

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:34 PM

The market believes the Buffett deal is a signal. Banks, financials and home builders all up in the afterhours.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:35 PM

With that PEW figure: I would almost venture to guess that 57% of the population couldn’t find their butt with two hands and a spotlight either…

SkinnerVic

…and a faithful Indian guide, no doubt….

The thinking of a goodly portion of the aformentioned 57% goes like this:

1) The news guys — who must know what they’re talking about or they wouldn’t be on TV — say that the economy is tanking and it’s somebody’s fault — these same news guys can’t agree who that is.

2) Economy tanking is bad, ’cause I’ve got retirement stuff out there being pilfered by my union/company/kids, and if there isn’t any retirement stuff, they’ll begin pilfering my paycheck.

3) Throwing money at the tanking — so say the news guys, and the even smarter guys the news guys rely on to fill time on air — will fix the problem.

4) Guys who don’t like the idea of throwing money at the problem seem to want people to get in trouble for breaking the economy. I don’t want anyone to get in trouble. That’s not nice.

5) Throw money at the problem. I can’t quite figure it out, but at least it’ll have the news guys complaining about something else.

I’m not saying that my fellow peasants are stupid, and the principles of the problem are actually quite simple…but with the regulatory weenies asleep at the switch, the money moguls on the take, politicians not wanting to kill the fatted calf by killing low-income home loans for their ass-out-of-britches peasant constituencies, and the election season turning every national radar blip up to “11″…well, it tends to complicate everything so’s you need at least a Doctor of the Church to figure out the economic theology of it all.

57% of a bewildered and lied-to populace is 57% of nothing.

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Why do you think Buffett was motivated to make this move?

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM

In my mind, for all intents and purposes, banks are gov’t guaranteed. GS has a marquee name, was the last of the bunch still standing, and now has virtually no chance of failure. I can easily understand Buffett buying at 115. In this environment of deep distrust, I guess Goldman was buying Buffet’s name, and vice-versa.

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Watch what happens when the deal looks like it will happen–market surges–and when the dolts in Congress open their pie holes–market plummets. Depression is not just a ghost tale. It can happen when banks freeze up.

RBMN on September 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Oil is tied to US Dollar, If we print more money the US Dollar gets weaker.. Thus Oil will go up automatically.. it’s not rocket science.

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM

The market believes the Buffett deal is a signal. Banks, financials and home builders all up in the afterhours.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I’m guessing that would be a mistake. Goldman may thrive. I don’t see what that has to do with the others.

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:41 PM

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM

No guestion. But, to me, while everyone here is still debating whether this bailout is going to happen, I see Buffett’s move as an assurance that it will happen. I will invest tomorrow accordingly.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:42 PM

No Bailout. Let dog eat dog capitalism bite the world in the ass. Lessons need to be learned or it’s more of the same.

Chimpy on September 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Ok What did Buffet do? I have no clue, no TV and would like to know. Expalin to this peon please!

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Now why in the hell does he get this sweet deal? Goldman and Buffett benefit.

JiangxiDad

…and, a’propos of nothing…who-whom-who’all does Mr. Buffett support this election cycle?

(Wikipedia): Has endorsed Barack Obama for president and intimated that John McCain’s views on social justice were so far from his own that McCain would need a “lobotomy” for Buffett to change his endorsement.

…inquiring minds go “hmmmmmmmmmm”…social justice…hmmmmmmmmmm…so much for my Mom telling me that “the Republicans are the party of the rich folks”….

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Oil is tied to US Dollar, If we print more money the US Dollar gets weaker.. Thus Oil will go up automatically.. it’s not rocket science.

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM

And what happens to the US dollar if the markets continue to fall?

Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Ok What did Buffet do? I have no clue, no TV and would like to know. Expalin to this peon please!

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Reuters

Goldman Sachs Group Inc on Tuesday said it will receive a $5 billion investment from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Berkshire will buy $5 billion of perpetual preferred stock that carries a 10 percent dividend. It also will receive warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock at $115 per share, exercisable within five years.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM

lorien1973 on September 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM

The government created the problem they should come up with a solution, and NOT pass off the problem ALL the BLAME and burden to the citizens and tax payers..

I have the part of the plan on page 4 toward the bottom.

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM

And what happens to the US dollar if the markets continue to fall?

Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 6:44 PM

The market don’t need 700Billion to stabilize it.. look at page 4 toward the bottom.

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM

No Bailout. Let dog eat dog capitalism bite the world in the ass. Lessons need to be learned or it’s more of the same.

Chimpy on September 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Capitalism doesn’t work when no capital is available.

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 6:49 PM

I will invest tomorrow accordingly.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:42 PM

LOL. And I’m assuming that means get in on the big upswing in stocks, and then get out before the bill comes due. You’re not one of those thinking there won’t be a bill?

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:50 PM

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Well I am not impressed. Buffet lost quit a bit on stocks lately…

But buying this makes me sudduer… via wiki:

Recently Goldman Sachs has been increasingly involved in both advising and brokering deals to privatize major highways by selling them off to foreign investors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

What Foreign Investors? If Buffet wants to own the world.. he is one step closer.

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM

The market don’t need 700Billion to stabilize it.. look at page 4 toward the bottom.

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Dude, buying 700B worth of securities doesn’t mean spending 700B. The government will be buying assets for which, in the current panic, there is no market and gradually selling them off in an orderly fashion. They may very well only spend the 150B-175B which you have set as your ceiling. Or they might make 100B.

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM

LOL. And I’m assuming that means get in on the big upswing in stocks, and then get out before the bill comes due. You’re not one of those thinking there won’t be a bill?

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Oh, no…I’ll get out. I’m not real long til home sales turns around. But, this will be the start of the fall rally. IMHO.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:44 PM

yeah, I stopped being a fan of the populist Oracle when he opposed the sharing of fees for the air traffic control system between airlines and private jets simply because he owned a fractional jet leasing co.

He’s all for homespun fairness, until money gets in the way. He’s a lib. Frankly, I don’t get him.

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:54 PM

JustTruth101 on September 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Spirit of 1776 on September 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Romney gave some of his thoughts on Beck’s program. Here’s the transcript:

Romney talks bailout

Not a whole lot of detail but he indicates that he’s supportive of a bailout (he doesn’t really say to what monetary level however). Like Spirit said, he may not be saying too much if he’s going to advise McCain on the matter in the near future.

batter on September 23, 2008 at 6:55 PM

What Foreign Investors? If Buffet wants to own the world.. he is one step closer.

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Buffett should be feared as a globalist just like Soros. That said, you have to follow his lead when he makes this kind of play.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:56 PM

Oh, no…I’ll get out. I’m not real long til home sales turns around. But, this will be the start of the fall rally. IMHO.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Of course I hope for the best, but I’m not really confident.

JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 6:58 PM

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:56 PM

All it makes me want to do is go bury my money in the back yard.

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Oil is tied to US Dollar, If we print more money the US Dollar gets weaker.. Thus Oil will go up automatically.. it’s not rocket science.
Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM

My greater concern is on the overall (not just oil) inflationary impacts of all this.

batter on September 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM

All it makes me want to do is go bury my money in the back yard.

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:58 PM

LOL. Yeah, but I’ve been reading your posts for a while now. You’re smarter than I am.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:00 PM

All it makes me want to do is go bury my money in the back yard.

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 6:58 PM

At least you have guns to protect yourself from the marauders. We city folk are going to have to fashion homemade weapons to defend ourselves. :)

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 7:01 PM

My greater concern is on the overall (not just oil) inflationary impacts of all this.

batter on September 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Deflation is the concern. When money supply contract it can lead to a deflationary spiral. Financial Assets, homes, other consumer cyclcials, etc. have been deflating for a while now. Commodities and their immediate derivatives were the only thing that has really been inflating in the last year. And commodities have been coming down for a few months. Bubbles in a liquid market, when they burst, don’t go straight down. But the commodity bubble has burst and the trend is down. Inflation often lasts halfway through a slowdown only to disappear thereafter. The risk we have with the proverbial run on the banks, the evaporation of credit, is a downward deflationary spiral. That is what must be prevented.

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM

U.S. Postal service announces 2.5b loss. How did UPS, FedEx and DHL do?

Limerick on September 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Shock Forced Paulson’s Hand
A Black Wednesday on Credit Markets; ‘Heaven Help Us All’

By DEBORAH SOLOMON, LIZ RAPPAPORT, DAMIAN PALETTA and JON HILSENRATH.

When government officials surveyed the flailing American financial system this week, they didn’t see only a collapsed investment bank or the surrender of a giant insurance firm. They saw the circulatory system of the U.S. economy — credit markets — starting to fail.

Huddled in his office Wednesday with top advisers, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson watched his financial-data terminal with alarm as one market after another began go haywire. Investors were fleeing money-market mutual funds, long considered ultra-safe. The market froze for the short-term loans that banks rely on to fund their day-to-day business. Without such mechanisms, the economy would grind to a halt. Companies would be unable to fund their daily operations. Soon, consumers would panic.

For at least a month, Mr. Paulson and Treasury officials had discussed the option of jump-starting markets by having the government absorb the rotten assets — mainly financial instruments tied to subprime mortgages — at the heart of the crisis. The concept, dubbed Balance Sheet Relief, was seen at Treasury as a blunt instrument, something to be used in only the direst of circumstances.

One day later, Mr. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sped to Congress to seek approval for the biggest government intervention in financial markets since the 1930s. In a private meeting with lawmakers, according to a person present, one asked what would happen if the bill failed.

“If it doesn’t pass, then heaven help us all,” responded Mr. Paulson, according to several people familiar with the matter.

Accounts of the events surrounding this week’s unprecedented federal interventions are based on interviews with Bush administration and Congressional officials, as well as investors.

In the past two weeks, the relationship between government and the markets has been redefined. The Bush administration has become responsible for a major chunk of the U.S. housing market through its seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It has entered the insurance business in a big way after taking control of American International Group Inc. Regulators allowed one investment bank to fail and helped usher another into a fast merger. And on Friday, Mr. Paulson announced plans for the largest intervention yet — a federal plan to purge financial institutions of their bad assets, with a likely price tag of “hundreds of billions” of dollars.

‘Out of Control’

The panic had formed quickly. On Monday morning, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection. On Tuesday, the government took control of AIG. It was by far the worst disruption investors and policymakers had seen since the credit crisis gripped world markets last summer, and threatened the most dire market malfunction, some worried, since the crashes of 1929 and 1987. The tailspin threatened to put an already stumbling economy deep into recession.

“These markets are unhinged,” T.J. Marta, fixed-income strategist at RBC Capital Markets said Wednesday afternoon. “This is like a fire that has burnt out of control.”

For some assets, there were no buyers at any price. The weekend’s tumult set off a cascade of fear among investors who buy bonds of all stripes, crucially those who buy the shortest-term obligations of companies and financial institutions, called commercial paper. This market feeds borrowers’ most immediate needs for working capital.
Though U.S. authorities were alarmed, the situation they were facing didn’t yet resemble that of the 1930s. For one thing, easy credit from the Fed had helped keep the economy afloat; in the early 1930s, the Fed kept credit tight. “Nothing in the New Deal relies on monetary policy the way we’re relying on it today,” said David Hamilton, a New Deal historian at the University of Kentucky. Indeed, the Fed’s mistakes back then — in tightening, not loosening monetary policy — are considered a key reason for the depth and severity of the consequent depression.

Reuters

Treasury Secretary Paulson pauses as he speaks about the U.S. government plan to attack financial market weakness by buying up risky loans at a news conference at the Treasury Department in Washington on Friday.

The current turmoil is also more contained, noted Colin Gordon, a professor of 20th-century American history at the University of Iowa. “At least for the moment…the crisis is confined to the large New York houses,” he said. “You don’t have panic on Wall Street resulting in banks closing in Iowa City.”

On Monday and Tuesday, nonetheless, many investors were gripped by fear. Markets such as those for credit-default swaps — in which investors buy and sell protection against default on a borrower’s debt — were paralyzed by questions about how the Lehman bankruptcy would hurt their business. Stock investors pummeled the share prices of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the two remaining big stand-alone Wall Street investment firms. Participants in the credit-default-swap market, who need a trading partner for every transaction, didn’t know whom to trust.
Flooding to Treasurys

“The market was signaling that the stand-alone investment banking model doesn’t work,” says Tad Rivelle, chief investment officer at Metropolitan West Asset Management, which manages $26 billion in fixed-income assets. “We were on the verge of putting every Wall Street firm out of business.”

Instead, investors flooded the safest investment they could find, short-term government debt. This drove the yields of short-term Treasury bonds to zero, meaning investors were willing to accept no return on their investment if they could guarantee getting their money back.

On Tuesday, the once-$62.6 billion Reserve Primary Fund, a money-market fund, saw its value fall below $1 a share because of its investments in Lehman’s short-term debt. Money-market funds, which yield a bit more than basic cash accounts by buying safe, short-term debt instruments, strive to keep their share prices at exactly $1 — and “breaking the buck” isn’t supposed to happen.
Money-market funds are where corporate treasurers put rainy-day funds, where sovereign wealth funds park their excess dollars and where Mom-and-Pop investors stash savings. Now, money-market funds were selling what they could and hoarding cash to meet what they thought might be extraordinary levels of redemptions from investors, said one commercial trading desk head.

Treating the Symptoms

On a Tuesday conference call, staff from Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Bank of New York hashed out the plan to bail out AIG. But they also began to discuss what more could be done to stem the broader fallout. Some Fed officials saw the AIG takeover not as a potential turning point for the market — as the rescue of Bear Stearns Cos. had seemed to be in March — but as the beginning of a bigger and worsening problem.

“We’re treating the symptoms and we need to treat the cause,” one Treasury staffer told colleagues.

Mr. Paulson agreed. “Confidence is so low we’re going to need a fiscal response,” he told staff. In other words, the government’s usual monetary policy tools, such as interest rates, wouldn’t be enough. It would have to pony up some money.

Wild Week

Listen to a Wall Street Journal Radio report on the financial sector’s wild week:

Mr. Paulson spoke with Mr. Bernanke and Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner to discuss a systematic approach. The three agreed that buying distressed assets, such as residential and commercial mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, from financial companies could offer some relief.

Trust in financial institutions evaporated Wednesday when investors stampeded out of money-market funds. Putnam Prime Money Market Fund said it had shut down after a surge of requests for redemptions.

In three days, the Fed had pumped hundreds of billions of additional cash into the financial system. But instead of calming markets and helping to suppress interest rates, short-term interest rates had gone haywire. Most strikingly to some Fed staff, its own federal-funds rate, an interbank lending rate managed directly by the central bank, repeatedly shot up in the morning as banks sat on cash. The financial system was behaving like a patient losing blood pressure.

Bracing for Redemptions

Fed staff discovered that one reason the federal-funds rate was behaving so abnormally was because money-market funds were building up cash in preparation for redemptions, leaving hoards of cash at their banks that the banks wouldn’t invest.

U.S. depositary institutions on average held excess reserves of $90 billion each day this week, estimates Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. This is cash the banks hold on the sidelines that does not earn any interest. That compares with an average of $2 billion, he says, noting he estimates banks held $190 billion in excess cash on Thursday, as they feared they’d have to meet many obligations at the same time.

Through Wednesday, money-market fund investors — including institutional investors such as corporate treasurers, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds — pulled out a record $144.5 billion, according to AMG Data Services. The industry had $7.1 billion in redemptions the week before.
Without these funds’ participation, the $1.7 trillion commercial-paper market, which finances automakers’ lending arms or banks credit-card units, faced higher costs. The commercial-paper market shrank by $52.1 billion in the week ended Wednesday, according to data from the Federal Reserve, the largest weekly decline since December.
Without commercial paper, “factories would have to shut down, people would lose their jobs and there would be an effect on the real economy,” says Paul Schott Stevens, president of the Investment Company Institute mutual-fund trade group.

Officials also watched as the market for mortgage-backed securities disappeared. The government’s seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they had hoped, would reinstill confidence in this market. But yields on mortgage-backed bonds were rising as trading evaporated, nearing levels reached before the government’s takeover, which would likely translate into higher mortgage rates for consumers. Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages, meanwhile, were in trouble: The cost of many such loans is based on Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, which had soared as banks stopped lending to one another.

On Wednesday in Mr. Paulson’s office, with its photographs of birds and other wildlife taken during family trips, top advisers stayed close at hand. Watching market quotes, they participated in an ongoing conference call via speakerphone with the Federal Reserve and New York Fed.

Root of the Problem

Mr. Paulson wanted Congress to bless a plan that would allow Treasury to create a new facility to hold auctions and buy up distressed assets from financial institutions headquartered in the U.S. Without Congressional approval, Treasury could expand programs to buy mortgage-backed securities through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but that wouldn’t be enough to address the broadening problems.

The Fed, meanwhile, was supposed to be a lender of last resort to banks. It wasn’t built to fix all these problems, and the snowballing crisis worried Fed officials.

“This financial episode is one where a huge part of the problem is outside of the banking system,” said Frederic Mishkin, a Columbia University professor who recently left the Federal Reserve as a governor. “We’re in a whole new ball game.”

On Thursday, Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke decided to ask Congress for authority to buy up hundreds of billions of dollars of assets. In the afternoon, Mr. Paulson, Mr. Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox briefed President Bush for 45 minutes.
Mr. Paulson told Mr. Bush that markets were frozen and many different types of assets had become illiquid, or untradeable. Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke told the president that the situation was “extraordinarily serious,” according to a senior administration official.

“We need to do what it takes to solve this problem,” Mr. Bush replied.

That evening, during the meeting with Congressional leaders, Mr. Bernanke gave a “chilling” description of current conditions, according to one person present. He described the frozen credit markets, busted commercial-paper markets and attacks on investment banks. The financial condition of some major institutions was “uncertain,” he said.

‘Uncertain Fate’

“If we don’t do this, we risk an uncertain fate,” Mr. Bernanke added. He said that if the problem wasn’t corrected, the U.S. economy could enter a deep, multi-year recession akin to Japan’s lost decade of the 1990s, or what Sweden endured in the early 1990s when a surge in bad loans plagued the economy and sent unemployment to 12%.
One lawmaker asked whether the solution will prevent bank failures. Mr. Paulson said it will stabilize markets. “But we’ll still see banks fail in the normal course,” he said.
On Friday, Mr. Paulson announced plans for a sweeping program to take over troubled mortgage assets. “The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy,” he said at a press conference. He said he would work with Congress over the weekend to get legislation in place next week.
During a round of briefings on Friday, Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson chilled lawmakers with their dire warnings about the cost of inaction. They had already taken additional steps, including new measures to unfreeze money-market mutual funds and an SEC plan to temporarily ban short-selling.

Speaking that afternoon, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, tagged the rescue of AIG as the tipping point. “It didn’t have the broader calming effect,” Rep. Frank said. “They tried it the free-market way, they tried it the big intervention way — and the result was on Wednesday, the world was falling in on everybody’s ears.”

Shirotayama on September 23, 2008 at 7:11 PM

FBI investigating freddie fannie aig and leman just reported on fox for the love of gawd.

tee866 on September 23, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Breaking News: FBI is investigating Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman and AIG.

carbon_footprint on September 23, 2008 at 7:12 PM

U.S. Postal service announces 2.5b loss. How did UPS, FedEx and DHL do?

Limerick on September 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM

No losses on their last reports but they took a hit on their earning. UPS and FedEx…don’t know about DHL

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:13 PM

From AP via Fox News: FBI investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, and AIG. No further details.

KSgop on September 23, 2008 at 7:13 PM

opps preview is your friend sorry bout not putting in the comma’s and such.

tee866 on September 23, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Has anyone else had this Obama, Fannie Mae video forwarded to them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Dr Evil on September 23, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Fraud for all of the companies including the Ceo’s

tee866 on September 23, 2008 at 7:16 PM

It turns out the FBI is investigating Freddie & Fannie….. Lets hope they end up on the doorstep of congressional Democrats, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.

RobertCSampson on September 23, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Oh Joy:

The United States Postal Service will announce a $2.5 billion dollar yearly loss tomorrow…Postal service officials say the loss this year, and the year before, was due largely to a Congressional mandate requiring the Postal Service to pre-pay $5 billion in retirement benefits for postal workers.

RushBaby on September 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM

From AP:

FBI investigating companies at heart of meltdown

By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration.

Two law enforcement officials said the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and insurer American International Group Inc.

A senior law enforcement official says the inquiries, still in preliminary stages, will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them.

Officials say the new inquiries brings the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the last year to 26.

26!! And yet not nearly enough.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:31 PM

Simple two words: DON’T DO IT
Oh, and one more: STOP

foxone on September 23, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Sheets, three words, sorry

foxone on September 23, 2008 at 7:33 PM

26!! And yet not nearly enough.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:31 PM

They are still counting though… just slow on the uptake.

upinak on September 23, 2008 at 7:33 PM

I wonder if any Congressmen will get thrown under the bus by these execs?

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Whatever this costs the individual taxpayer in my income bracket, I’m deducting it from my taxes. No way I’m supporting this socialist shit.

Failure is reality’s way of telling you….you failed.

Deal with it. Prosecute if necessary.

LimeyGeek on September 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM

No guestion. But, to me, while everyone here is still debating whether this bailout is going to happen, I see Buffett’s move as an assurance that it will happen. I will invest tomorrow accordingly.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Or just maybe Buffett is buying into Goldman because he thinks that this beaucoup bailout extravaganza is not going to pass, and least not in full, or isn’t going to work that well, and he thinks that Goldman will be one of the last firms standing and will have the cash to buy up other wasted companies for pennies on the dollar.

MB4 on September 23, 2008 at 7:47 PM

I was watching Brit Hume this evening and Charles Krauthammer said there is not a Plan B, Plan B is collapse. He also made the point that Paulson has no desire to be a Czar, he won’t even be here in a few months.

Fred Barnes said there was not a strong sense of crisis about this on Capitol Hill.

People can talk about this thing like it is a gift to the fatcats and a rip off of the taxpayer all they want, but if the market collapses and the economy contracts and we go into a depression or a steep recession with job losses and more forclosures, people will blame the Republicans in particular and the government in general for not doing anything to stop it. Their anger over the word bailout will long be forgotten when replaced by the new words unemployed and homeless.

People who do not support this had better hope they are right, that this is all just some scam to rip them off because if they are wrong and the analysts are right..we are in for a very bumpy ride.

Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Or just maybe Buffett is buying into Goldman because he thinks that this beaucoup bailout extravaganza is not going to pass, and least not in full, or isn’t going to work that well, and he thinks that Goldman will be one of the last firms standing and will have the cash to buy up other wasted companies for pennies on the dollar.

MB4 on September 23, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Perhaps. But, Goldman looked pretty weak last week and was certainly on the way to being taken down along with Morgan. Makes you wonder why the former CEO of Goldman was suddenly spurred into action with a bailout, doesn’t it?

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:52 PM

And there is nothing socialist about this. We need to do things like regulating insurance companies and mortgage companies with one set of rules, not just state by state.

You know I think people have gotten too far away from the Great Depression. They forget what a real depression is like. They think there is something noble about going head first off a cliff in the name of some kind of laissez faire capitalism that does not and has not existed in this world for decades.

Like I said, anyone opposing this bailout had better either be right or be prepared for what comes next. I do not know what will happen. I don’t have that kind of knowledge, but I don’t want to chance it myself.

Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 7:54 PM

And there is nothing socialist about this

It is most quintessentially socialistic. Government asserting authority to transfer wealth between private individuals.

If that’s not socialism, my bollocks will star on Broadway.

LimeyGeek on September 23, 2008 at 8:02 PM

gingrich gave some of the best advice to mccain. mccain should NOT vote for it. thats reform on wasteful spending. how could anyone justify voting for a 700 billion dollar blank check without knowing exactly whats in it? its suicide. the disasterous details will emerge as we get closer to election.

hopefully mccain votes against it and obama votes FOR it. likely, obama will just vote present anyways.

venicesurfer on September 23, 2008 at 8:02 PM

You know I think people have gotten too far away from the Great Depression

What’s the difference between a “depression” and a “great depression” ?

Gubmint.

LimeyGeek on September 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM

What’s the difference between a “depression” and a “great depression” ?

Gubmint.

LimeyGeek on September 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Actually a think “contracting credit” or “contract money supply” is a better answer. Last time that was the Fed’s fault. This time it will be the fault of the folks who just found laissez faire religion after allowing the government to create the conditions that brought about this crisis for the last couple of decades.

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 8:10 PM

dems are trying to trick mccain into voting for this wasteful bill so that they can attack him on it.

venicesurfer on September 23, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Actually a I think “contracting credit” or “contract money supply” is a better answer. Last time that was the Fed’s fault. This time it will be the fault of the folks who just found laissez faire religion after allowing the government to create the conditions that brought about this crisis for the last couple of decades.

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 8:10 PM

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Ugh…(sigh)…

This is real simple: Corporatism + Central gov’t = Fascism

Last time that was the Fed’s fault. This time it will be the fault of the folks who just found laissez faire religion after allowing the government to create the conditions that brought about this crisis for the last couple of decades.

phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Spot on. “Fool me once…” and all that.

Harpazo on September 23, 2008 at 8:41 PM

You do realize that if the GOP goes against this then it’s Hello President Obama and the Democratic House and Senate. But I’m sure some will go with that to “teach them a lesson” again…even though we know full well it wasn’t the GOP using Freddie & Fannie as a piggy bank.

Haunchie on September 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Maybe time for McCain to announce a “blue ribbon” group,headed by Romney and with a couple maybe a dem or two, to study this issue.
A “bi-partisan” panel, that will make an informed decision. Made up of educated, successful financial businessmen and women.
But first dump Cos, Franks, and Dodd…they must resign in disgrace…

right2bright on September 23, 2008 at 8:49 PM

I’m not Totally Against the Bail OUT, I’m against 700 Billion!

I think that it could be MUCH Cheaper!($150-$200 Billion)

This bad news could be turned into good news and force congress into working together towards energy independence, this would create jobs, get us off of foreign oil, more investment in our economy and make more revenue.

no need to panic, turn a negative into a positive, make the best out of the worst.

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Lower Corporate Tax bigtime(create new business and jobs, and attract new investments from home and abroad)

Lower Capitol gains taxes(increase investment, and increase revenues)

All of the Above Plan on energy including ANWR.(to Offset the $150-200 Billion bail out that will cause the strength of dollar to to go down)

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 9:02 PM

I wonder if any Congressmen will get thrown under the bus by these execs?

genso on September 23, 2008 at 7:34 PM

NO, unfortunately Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are exempt from prosecution, as they are sitting congressmen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 23, 2008 at 9:24 PM

No deals for CEO’s? Okay. No bailouts on mortgage foreclosures of Illegal Alien chuntes and their Anchor Babies! Is that a Deal?

DfDeportation on September 23, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Capitalism doesn’t work when no capital is available.
phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Is “central planning” the answer then?

Chimpy on September 23, 2008 at 10:21 PM

People can talk about this thing like it is a gift to the fatcats and a rip off of the taxpayer all they want, but if the market collapses and the economy contracts and we go into a depression or a steep recession with job losses and more forclosures, people will blame the Republicans in particular and the government in general for not doing anything to stop it. Their anger over the word bailout will long be forgotten when replaced by the new words unemployed and homeless.

Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Perhaps, but why is the only plan to infuse liquidity by buying up other folks’ mistakes? Why not infuse capital directly into the market at negative interest rates? If we’re going to lose up to $700 billion, why not do so by lending out $2 trillion and getting back $1.8 trillion instead of buying $5 trillion of bad debt over time and selling it for $4.3 trillion?

Paulson thinks that rescuing the banks will stabilize the housing market by bringing “fence sitters” into the market. I think he thinks recovery in the housing market means prices going up and bank losses from foreclosure going down. I don’t think anything but stable prices can come of this because prices are returning to normal multiples of income. Thus, the losses in MBS paper will be staggering.

I also think that there is no guarantee that money exchanged for this bad debt goes into new mortgages or even stays in this country. Why lend money to buy a depreciating asset? Why not just take that newfound liquidity and buy MBS paper from entities not part of the bailout plan at half what Paulson will give you for them?

shuzilla on September 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM

DfDeportation on September 23, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Exactly we are bailing out morons that Got NINJA loans!(who goes out and gets a loan without a job? come on, do we NOT hold people responsible anymore?)

And we are bailing out Morons that were pushing the NINJA LOANS.. (these are like bars knowingly selling excessive alcohol to alcoholics, or knowingly forcing poor people with gambling addiction into a casino and giving them free drinks)

And were are bailing out the Banks, that Ate the loans up like candy, knowing that the government would buy with tax payer money out IF they defaulted.. (This is the scam).

Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 11:00 PM

To put it bluntly, what has happened to our economy (in which a housing crash took down the stock market too) is likely so outside even Paulson’s and Bernanke’s economic models that they have no idea how to correct it.

What we are about to do, in firefighting terms, is to take the water from 10 engine companies and turn it loose on a blaze which may range in size from a flambeaux up to a office building. Nobody has any way to measure the size of the blaze, so the chiefs want to just turn all that water loose in order to make sure the blaze is put out.

The problem (again sticking to firefighting terms) is water damage. We have to assure somehow that all that water actually puts out the fire without causing excessive water damage.

Back to housing, stocks, etc.

Now, do I have any sympathy for a guy who bought a house at 6x his monthly income using his savings so he could flip it in three-six months? Nope. Do I have sympathy for a woman who tried to buy a house for her family and her loan officer fudged his numbers so she’d qualify (after all, in a month or two, that loan would be bundled and the loan officer’s institution wouldn’t need to deal with any fallout, and the officer would have his commission in hand…). I have quite a bit of sympathy — for the woman, not for the loan officer or the institution.

What has happened is that freddie and fannie invented the marketplace where flipping homes became profitable, drove up housing prices to the point where our children could not afford to buy our homes, and the prices are now adjusting themselves so our children can afford to buy our homes. The losers are those who bet that the rise was real and would keep on going — the housing equivalent of engaging in unprotected sex. Who’s going to cover the lost equity, and the loans that have inverted suddenly due to houses in the neighborhood going for peanuts? I sure don’t want to cover the losers, since I didn’t flip homes and make all the money that those guys did early on. Why should I pay to allow them to keep the results of their risky behavior?

How do we make sure the water goes where it should, and doesn’t get sucked up by those who can afford lobbyists?

I think the answer is sort of obvious. Don’t give them a dime — loan it. It’s what they would do in a natural disaster, so lets treat this economic disaster the same. Loan it at a rate tagged to the prime, and eventually we’ll get most of it back.

unclesmrgol on September 23, 2008 at 11:23 PM

Fire Paulson and Bernanke yesterday

No Bail Out

Kini on September 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM

You do realize that if the GOP goes against this then it’s Hello President Obama and the Democratic House and Senate. But I’m sure some will go with that to “teach them a lesson” again…even though we know full well it wasn’t the GOP using Freddie & Fannie as a piggy bank.

Haunchie on September 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM

So, in order for McCain/Palin to have a fighting chance in the election, we need to kick 700 billion into the big black hole in Washington where dollar bills just seem to stick to the side of the funnel? Is that what you’re sayin’? It just feels a little strange, y’know, to be doing it for that reason. Is there a word for it?

a capella on September 24, 2008 at 12:27 AM

The bailout is probably going to end up as an extended federal headache, part Resolution Trust Corp. after the Savings & Loan debacle of the late 80s, and part Conrail, after the federal government had to take over the bankrupt PennCentral in 1971 and basically nationalize the northeaster rail system to keep the freight operations going (the junk part of the system, as far as profits go, was turned into the basis of Amtrak).

Conrail eventually was sold off at a profit to CSX, while the RTC was stuck with thousands of properties (seemingly all located near Lake Ray Hubbard east of Dallas) that couldn’t make their cost back in the late 80s, but finally did become viable about 8-10 years later. Not a good situation, but the problem with Gingrich’s plan is it sounds as though he’s offering up the same answers he used in previous economic battles — which might in the long run be the best course, but from a PR standpoint, sounds like he has nothing new to offer in a situation where everyone’s saying we’ve never been here before.

jon1979 on September 24, 2008 at 12:28 AM

I wonder if Buffett has information we don’t have?

genso

Count on it

MB4 on September 24, 2008 at 1:03 AM

We are GOING to have a depression. Bailout or no bailout. You kool aid drinkers trusting the screeching CNBC cheerleaders simply want to put off the inevitable. The fact is our financial system with its fiat currency and fractional reserve lending and loads of greedy people is simply unsustainable and is now insolvent.

full circle on September 24, 2008 at 1:39 AM

Bail-Out

22% STRONGLY SUPPORT
24% STRONGLY OPPOSE

30% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT
14% SOMEWHAT OPPOSE

**

22 bail-out vs. 24 face up and get real
AT LEAST there are a bit more facing reality than ruining the system. What is the percent of Americans doing the bankrupt route and foreclosure; how much of that 22 strongly for the bail-out are the LEACHES themselves?

Fence sitting with the “good intention” breeze wafting, the SOMEWHAT chickens roost. Wake up and smell the coffee. Being election time, the 30% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT BAIL-OUT seem to be a mixed lot comprising those leaches working the system against propriety but debating whether to commit themselves with the foreclosure clique figuring at this point there’s no shame in corrupting the system since ‘everyone is doing it’. There are bound to be a population of SOMEWHAT SUPPORT BAIL-OUTS who don’t realize what they are about to swallow, but feel comfortable following their politician’s lead, and feel uncomfortable actually taking a stand against the Feds.

The lesson to never forget: when a salesman insists on closing the deal immediately with no time to contemplate logistics, JUST SAY NO!

maverick muse on September 24, 2008 at 3:07 AM

Obama always Newspeaks.

Bail-Out Hussein Obama

maverick muse on September 24, 2008 at 3:12 AM

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.

Kill the Act.

maverick muse on September 24, 2008 at 3:18 AM

One Democrat Senator said the calls his office are getting are UNIVERSALLY OPPOSED… not favoring opposed… not heavily opposed… UNIVERSALLY OPPOSED. His words.

This is a fundamental choice. Do not do this.
CC

CapedConservative on September 24, 2008 at 6:35 AM

…’cause if I’d've had $500Bil to bail out Goldman, I’d've spent it all already on a weekend in Cancun with a platoon of perky Russian lady tennis players and a swimming pool full of Wesson oil…

…say…anybody got $500Bil ’til payday?

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Dude, if you had that kind of money, it’d be olive oil.

genso on September 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Really?? Wow. I just never understood what Popeye saw in her; the perky tennis players sound a lot better to me, but to each his own….

RegularJoe on September 24, 2008 at 8:26 AM

57% of a bewildered and lied-to populace is 57% of nothing.

Puritan1648 on September 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Well said, Puritan.

Ernest on September 24, 2008 at 8:38 AM

I’m so dumb I can’t figure out how you can print up a trillion dollars without tanking the dollars value?

Ernest on September 24, 2008 at 8:41 AM

NO, unfortunately Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are exempt from prosecution, as they are sitting Democrat congressmen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 23, 2008 at 9:24 PM

Fixed.

fossten on September 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Warren Buffets $5 billion is a drop in the bucket. It may help Goldman Sachs and all his liberal buddies that infect the place, but means nothing in the overall picture of $700 billion.

What I want to know is, where does Paulson and Bernanke have THEIR money?

roninacreage on September 24, 2008 at 8:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6


You must be logged in to post a comment.