Speaker Pelosi is blaming the GOP for failure to pass the bailout for the robber baron Democrats. She gave the “OK” for 5 committee chairs and allowed a dozen or more Democrats up for reelection to vote against the bill to scam their constituents back home into believing they voted against a stinking bailout that harms the hardworking taxpayers.

The Congressional Black, Progressive and Hispanic Caucus’ plus 94 other Democrats voted against the robber baron bailout because $500 million to ACORN and $200 million to La Raza was stripped from the bill and the Progressives wanted to nationalize the failed institutions. The Speaker conveniently leaves these turncoats out of the equation.

I believe the Speaker is speaking in forked tongues. We know John McCain co-sponsored the Reform Act S-190 in 2005 that would have prevented this very situation from happening. Barney Frank, chair of finance, Chris Dodd, chair of banking, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Senator Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats receiving political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac blocked it.

“We the People…” have well known experts in business, economics, taxes, banking, finance and law who could be selected to form a committee. The committee should be comprised of an equal number of members from each political discipline with no political or investment connections who can save the economy and the taxpayers.

This is the link to “Directive 51” that gives authority to the President to declare “Martial Law” to recover from a national emergency. It should stop the hemorrhaging on Wall Street and Main Street until the correct formula is applied by experts and not by politicians.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I do not understand why we should be sold
on the $250,000 increased FDIC limit.
First, last week I thought there were
several articles that the FDIC could survive if there was a run on the banks.
How can we rationalize a more comfortable
sitution when they increase it to $250,000.
Most of mainstreet America doesn’t have
$100,000 in the bank. They can only dream about. They are worried about making their bills for six months if they lose their jobs. The difference betweeen $100,000 and $250,000 doesn’t mean squat to these people. And this is
the majority of Americans out there.
And an “accounting adjustment”? – Someone help me understand why this would make someone vote for this bill.

Isn’t this bill completely unconstitutional as it originates in the Senate and involves changes to the tax law? Doesn’t Article 1 section 7 of the constitution grant the House the sole prerogative to originate revenue legislation?

If they cave, I’m going to give serious thought to voting Democrat in Congressional elections. What’s the point of voting for Republicans who don’t have the backbone to stand up for principle in a crisis?

They could at least demand a delay for a week to allow the public to come to understand the bill.

If I believed Shadegg had really changed his mind because his position because the new bill really was good, then fine. But it’s looking to me like he’s becoming worried about his folks taking the blame for killing the deal, so he’s looking for fig leaves.

The $250,000 FDIC increase helps almost nobody. Anybody with any sense with that much money in plain old bank accounts long ago learned how to break up their deposits into smaller, sub-$100,000 chunks. It’s probably not a bad thing (given how easy it is to get around), but it has little actual impact on any of the things causing the current liquidity crisis. If he’s relying on that to change his mind, he’s just looking for a fig leave.

are used to this sort of thing. But, socialism still sucks and I don’t believe that the sky is falling.

“If they make both of those changes, I’d be inclined to vote for the bill, assuming there have not been any bad things added to it,” he said.

That is Odyssian in its “I have been faithful to you, after my fashion” hedginess.

Emergency NO, Socialist Christmas tree YES.

Gee, we have a real emergency here, we need to FORCE insurance companies to give mental health insurance, oh and some sorta financial save the economy thinge. I’m sure forcing additional coverage won’t drive premiums up any higher.

Oh, what the hell, we’ve ditched most of our principles why bother holding on to what little remains.

(snip, bolding mine)

Senate bailout bill keeps growing

Really a bill onto itself, the mental health parity measure has been a bipartisan priority for top lawmakers in both chambers but has stalled because of disagreements again over how to pay for its estimated $3.8 billion five-year cost. In the current climate, that seems to be no longer a stumbling block, and if the Treasury plan becomes law, it will also.

That wool research tax cut in the senate bill looks good, maybe it will survive the joint committee that decides what further pork needs to be added to the bill so that the gov’t. can take over the financial sector.

In an economic crisis, when the sky is falling, let us not forget the sheep.

Shadegg, a Republican who voted against the bailout bill that was defeated by the House on Monday, said it appears a new bill will include raising the cap on FDIC insurance to $250,000 and changing an accounting rule.

Yeah that FDIC thing, that’s the ticket, that was the whole problem all along.

Sure, get the bean counters to change how they count the beans, that’s important too.

I’m now 100% behind the gov’t. taking control of the financial market at the small cost of $700 billion. I will sleep well at night knowing that Barney, Nancy, Chris, Barack, John, George, and Jimmy all agree that it is for the best.

They’ve all done a great job up till now, why get off a winning horse in mid stream ?

I’m totally with the program. At least the bill gives me a tax break for being a sheep.

Now this piece of garbage bill is even more laden with pork. The whole stinks like hell.

When the Dems come back with their hat in hand for more of our money don’t be crying in your beers. You buncha dummies really think this will be the last bailout bill?? LOL

We Want Free Markets!!
HA!!

We Want Free Markets Until They Bite Back From Our Stupid Risk Taking!! MOMMY PLEASE SAVE ME!!

It’s pathetic.
And it’s even more pathetic its being shilled like its okay on sites like RS.

and the accounting rule can be changed by executive order, since it was originated after Enron by Bush.

One thing is clear, Congressional leadership will not dismiss class until something is passed. The Senate bill will not pass the House. Democrats won’t even bring the bill to a vote if they are not sure it will pass, and Hoyer was on the tube tonight saying he expected 100 Republican votes this time around.

The real problem now is NOT that Paulson’s Plan has been labeled as a bailout, or the specter of “creeping socialism”. The problem NOW is that the Senate added “sweeteners”. Now every clique in the House will expect the same. I would not be shocked to see the final bill cost 700 billion for the “bailout” and 500 billion in pork. We now must bribe our politicians to do their duty in a time of crisis.

This is what brought down the Roman Republic.

I would have to object to the panic that is being thrown around with regards to both the crisis on wall street and the bailout bill that just past the Senate. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. While Mortgage-Backed-Securities (MBSs) that are at the heart of this problem are bad paper, that is primarily because they are based on mortgages that were, in turn, based on inflated housing values. As those values dropped, combined with the economic slowdown we’ve experienced, variable interest rates rose and people couldn’t pay the bills. Some of the mortgages that were bundled together and securitized defaulted and the derivative securities dropped in worth. They did not and cannot become worthless because the underlying assets (albiet two to three tiers away from the actual securities) cannot become valueless – land and homes do not become worthless. The banks will own the homes if not the mortgage. The problem is, owning a home is not what the banks want nor what the government wants banks doing. So, the government buys up the MBSs, allows the values to drop to levels that no one else could allow them to drop to (esp. banks because they have to maintain certain levels of assets), banks foreclose on the underlying mortgages and the values eventually rise. Now, I don’t like it, but if our goal is to avoid even temporary credit restriction and high interest rates, then the bailout is necessary. On the other hand, if you think like I do that the only way to allow the credit markets to return to normal is to allow some banks to fail and credit to temporarily restrict, then the bailout is a stopgap measure that (1) doesn’t really deal with the underlying mortgage problem and (2) simply holds off or slightly mitigates an impending credit restriction. Make no mistake, however, the likelihood that this will produce another “great depression” either way is fairly low.

From listening to Richard Burr this afternoon, if I heard him right, this is
a combination of the bailout bill with
some other budget bill. I was in and out of phone calls, so I did not get the
whole thing, but apparently, there is more going on than what we see.

Even so, why are funding these idiotic things???

And if so, can we please fund research into why my black pug and fawn pug only
reproduce black and fawn pugs and not
some wierd gray/tan thing?? What happened to evolution? If it is a scientific fact, after all these years,
I still should get something other just black and fawn pugs. I think…..$2,325,648.00 should help me figure this out..

Please put this in the budget right next to…what is it… wooden arrows or whatever???