Pelosi blows it............

[Guest]

the noble lawmakers work long and hard, through the night, over the weekend (for a change!!!!!)...Nancy tells interviewers the bi partisan effort is working...we are getting close to a deal.....then just before the vote she gives the ...why I am not in favor of this bill speech.....dumping not only the bill but the Dems & Repubs who put forth the genuine effort to create a bi partisan product.

She lives true to her belief....party/Nancy first.....screw whoever in the process....2 heart beats away from the Presidency.....:1rotfl:

Talk about people not qualified for certain jobs!!!! Given Pelosi having however attained the powerful position she has....the thresh hold of qualifications has been significantly compromised.

She needs to be voted out:1rotfl:

BTK

[Guest]

I believe that Pelosi should not be the Speaker but to say it was her speech that derailed the deal? :cus:

She provided 2/3 of the Dems were where the Repubs? This was Bush's bill where was his leadership?

Probably back at the White House downing a couple of cold ones and maybe a shot of Jack.

[Guest]

But personally, I'm not giving any member of the House of Representatives a pass on this situation. Pelosi is a disaster in the House, as is Reid in the Senate. The various "leaders" who negotiated the package that was defeated at least came together to come up with something that they found acceptable. But then the leadership couldn't deliver the votes. Their hope was that both parties could deliver a narrow majority and get the bill passed. The Democratic leadership did their part, getting a 60% majority. But the GOP leadership, which one has to say includes an incumbent President as well as John McCain, completely misread their members and couldn't get the majority needed.

I'm not being partisan with the above statement. Those are simply the facts of the vote. As far as I'm concerned ALL members of the House ought to be voted out of office, giving the country a chance to start over. Probably the Senate, as well.

The framers of the Constitution designed a beautifully efficient model for governance. But they're all probably rolling in their graves seeing what they designed so completely defiled by partisan extremists on both sides.

[Guest]

But personally, I'm not giving any member of the House of Representatives a pass on this situation. Pelosi is a disaster in the House, as is Reid in the Senate. The various "leaders" who negotiated the package that was defeated at least came together to come up with something that they found acceptable. But then the leadership couldn't deliver the votes. Their hope was that both parties could deliver a narrow majority and get the bill passed. The Democratic leadership did their part, getting a 60% majority. But the GOP leadership, which one has to say includes an incumbent President as well as John McCain, completely misread their members and couldn't get the majority needed.

I'm not being partisan with the above statement. Those are simply the facts of the vote. As far as I'm concerned ALL members of the House ought to be voted out of office, giving the country a chance to start over. Probably the Senate, as well.

The framers of the Constitution designed a beautifully efficient model for governance. But they're all probably rolling in their graves seeing what they designed so completely defiled by partisan extremists on both sides.

Perhaps the 40% of Demmocrats and 60% of Republicans are smarter than their respective party's leadership and saw through the extortion and market manipulation....

As of 3PM today, the DJIA is up 371 from yesterday's close.

[Guest]

Perhaps the 40% of Demmocrats and 60% of Republicans are smarter than their respective party's leadership and saw through the extortion and market manipulation....

As of 3PM today, the DJIA is up 371 from yesterday's close.Maybe the market went up because Congress took off! Maybe if they decide to never come back it'll hit 1400 again in a month!!:1rotfl:

[Guest]

Perhaps the 40% of Demmocrats and 60% of Republicans are smarter than their respective party's leadership and saw through the extortion and market manipulation....

As of 3PM today, the DJIA is up 371 from yesterday's close.

You are extremely short sighted if you think today was a good day. Sorry. Wait and watch.

[Guest]

Chels , if you don't think this was a great day in the Market just shows me you don't know anything about the Market.....I for one had a ball today and made a few bucks..........

fumar

[Guest]

Chels , if you don't think this was a great day in the Market just shows me you don't know anything about the Market.....I for one had a ball today and made a few bucks..........

fumar

Fumar, I am really happy for you and I mean that. Now cash out.

I am not an expert in the Market. My husband has done very well. But I do know that this is a dead cat bounce. Perhaps you would understand it better if I said "dead dog bounce." :1rotfl: We know how much you love doggies! Hahaha. Take my advice, know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em. Cash out. :)

[Guest]

anytime soon to live on, then by all means cash out. If it is a long term investment situation....hang in there pick up some bargains along the way. There have been dead cat bounces before. They are disitant memories some where back along the markets historical trek North.
It has come back from every significant event resulting in a down turn....it has never stayed down. If one does a little research on past market levels you will find charts showing all the historical highs and lows. They both have on very important characteristic.....they both happen on the way upward!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTK

[Guest]

It simply amazes me that when the market is down 777 points yesterday and closed at 4-something today, that people are saying they're making money. It's still down 300 odd points. How's that making money? :confused:

[Guest]

Several House conservatives have retracted their talking point attributing their opposition to the bailout on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “partisan” speech yesterday. Interviewed on the Dennis Miller radio show today, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) admitted that it was a “terrible mistake” to blame Pelosi’s speech:

McCOTTER: I think it was a mistake for House leadership to say that Pelosi’s speech mattered to anybody on our side.

MILLER: Yeah, me too, me too.

McCOTTER: Because we yell at each other like this all the time. And so, what they’ve actually done is a victory for the American people, a victory for the institution of Congress, and a victory for Republicans and Democrats who voted against it. It’s being counter-messaged by their own leadership, who didn’t get it through. That is a terrible mistake and it’s hopefully not going to impact our ability to get this done more quickly than we, as quickly as we need to.

[Guest]

We need to NOT do any kind of bail out whatsover....let the market get to realistic values.

A credit crunch would be good for this country, although I do feel sorry for those who were lead on to believe you didnt have to do anything to get by in this country..that it was owed to you. Long term a credit crunch would be great and maybe we can restore some order.

[Guest]

Dear BTK.

You guys who get all excited and rail at your favorite targets of the day: First, step back and take a breath. Then, get your facts straight.

I'm no fan of Rep. Pelosi, but she had every right and perhaps an obligation, to make a strong speech against the administration's bailout plan. Ever since the vote there are more and more revelations that the plan would have primarily continued to feed and protect Wall St. greed.

The initial critics of Pelosi said her speech was responsible for defeat, because she turned 12 critical Republican votes against the plan. On this point Barney Frank was right: on one of the most important Congressional votes in history 12 people change their mind when someone says something that hurts their feelings?!?

Then there is the point Pelosi introduced about holding companies accountable. If they don't pay back their bailout benefits within five years, the provision would require the President at the time, as well as to give him the power, to require payment or take other action. When she introduced the idea, the crowded work session fell silent. Almost everyone agreed it was one of the best ideas on the table.

Let's wait and see if Congress comes up with something better in the next few days, and whether Pelosi has had a positive influence on the result.

[Guest]

I think it should be evident by now that the Republicans did not want this to pass and are using Nancy Pelosi as a scapegoat. Why don't they just all "grow some" and step up and say they just don't want it. This is really schoolyard!:cus:

[Guest]

I'm not cashing out - just going thru a period of redistribution.



.

[Guest]

I think it should be evident by now that the Republicans did not want this to pass and are using Nancy Pelosi as a scapegoat. Why don't they just all "grow some" and step up and say they just don't want it. This is really schoolyard!:cus:

its the blame game... Blame her for the deal, then the next day change you mind. they are good for that. watch any news show, and you will see that. they had a Republican from Texas on MSNBC lastnight. at least he owned up that it was not her fault for the republicans voting the way they did. i can not understand how in the world the Republicans can change their mind so fast. McCain said it was obama that led the charge to defeat it, then said we have to stop the blame game, and the next morning releases a new ad campaign blaming the Demo's again. As a Registered Repub, i give up.

[Guest]

its the blame game... Blame her for the deal, then the next day change you mind. they are good for that. watch any news show, and you will see that. they had a Republican from Texas on MSNBC lastnight. at least he owned up that it was not her fault for the republicans voting the way they did. i can not understand how in the world the Republicans can change their mind so fast. McCain said it was obama that led the charge to defeat it, then said we have to stop the blame game, and the next morning releases a new ad campaign blaming the Demo's again. As a Registered Repub, i give up.

Hahaha. Last night Jon Stewart did a segment on McCain doing just that! First McCain said it was Obama's fault (???) and in the very next sentence said "this is not the time for blame." Stewart said "Perhaps you should tell that to your previous sentence." :1rotfl:

[Guest]

If you do dollar cost averaging, or dividend reinvesting in the market, then you know when the prices are down, your invested dividends are buying more stock for you. Just hang in and when it goes up you are ahead. Your invested dividends bought more stock at a very low price. No need to panic. Too many people want to cash out, be patient and do not panic.

[Guest]

Hahaha. Last night Jon Stewart did a segment on McCain doing just that! First McCain said it was Obama's fault (???) and in the very next sentence said "this is not the time for blame." Stewart said "Perhaps you should tell that to your previous sentence." :1rotfl:

I really dont want to get into this silliness, but it appears we should really look to the heavens and give thanks that we have the Democrats who are not blaming anyone and Sen Obama whose ads reflect no blame being passed....aren't we fortunate to have this party as the shining light for us...they who are not blaming anyone but themselves in a most modest manner. Yes, we are lucky to have the Democrats...and if you didn't know about all their wonderfulness, just read and listen, they will be gracious enough to remind you !!!

[Guest]

We need to NOT do any kind of bail out whatsover....let the market get to realistic values.

A credit crunch would be good for this country, although I do feel sorry for those who were lead on to believe you didnt have to do anything to get by in this country..that it was owed to you. Long term a credit crunch would be great and maybe we can restore some order.


SO, you'd rather crash the economy for everyone than help alleviate the problem. Do you understand economics? Do you have any idea of the ripple effect on peoples lives if nothing is done?

Apparently You don't have a dime coming from an IRA, 401K, mutual fund. stock dividends or bonds, that you rely on for your retirement. It must be nice not to need a mortgage or auto loan or keep your job. May be a little WPA would be good for our country?

Read Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" for an economics education and learn how utterly dependent on each other we all are in this world.

[Guest]

SO, you'd rather crash the economy for everyone than help alleviate the problem. Do you understand economics? Do you have any idea of the ripple effect on peoples lives if nothing is done?

Apparently You don't have a dime coming from an IRA, 401K, mutual fund. stock dividends or bonds, that you rely on for your retirement. It must be nice not to need a mortgage or auto loan or keep your job. May be a little WPA would be good for our country?

Read Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" for an economics education and learn how utterly dependent on each other we all are in this world.

Dependency upon others does not equate to subsidy for continuous bad judgment.

The "credit crunch" will and should effect those (individuals and businesses alike) who float paper to cover "investments" on the short. It will and should also effect those whose inability to repay (known at the time of the loan initiation, but they are such nice people...)(or, OMG, the stock went down, not up!) cost all of us via higher interest rates to cover the losses from deadbeats.

There is a difference between industrial support and executive welfare. I'm not sure this bailout/rescue/snowjob isn't the latter more than the former, especially when one looks at the lobbyist activity and "contributions" that have been spread around (and that amount ain't chicken feed!) and to whom. If it is the latter, we lose despite the expense.

[Guest]

Dependency upon others does not equate to subsidy for continuous bad judgment.

The "credit crunch" will and should effect those (individuals and businesses alike) who float paper to cover "investments" on the short. It will and should also effect those whose inability to repay (known at the time of the loan initiation, but they are such nice people...)(or, OMG, the stock went down, not up!) cost all of us via higher interest rates to cover the losses from deadbeats.

There is a difference between industrial support and executive welfare. I'm not sure this bailout/rescue/snowjob isn't the latter more than the former, especially when one looks at the lobbyist activity and "contributions" that have been spread around (and that amount ain't chicken feed!) and to whom. If it is the latter, we lose despite the expense.

The "credit crunch" WILL and SHOULD NOT affect the rest of our countrymen that HAVE DONE NOTHING to warrant being hurt by our economy coming to a standstill.

The "Bailout" is not for business's or executive's, idiots who bought homes they cannot afford, or those who bought stocks short. IT is for us, the people who should not be harmed by the aftereffects of the causes you mentioned.

"They", whoever "THEY" are, have gotten us into the mess, your right, but "They" have created a situation where we all will suffer along with them. You me and everyone else in this country are affected by a shortage in the monetary supply that only the Federal Government can help abate.

My family and I have done nothing to warrant our loss in investment value and inability to obtain loans, but you would have us be hurt by the actions of others in order to not "bailout" those of whom you feel don't deserve it.

Thanks for crapping on me just to punish them!

[Guest]

The "credit crunch" WILL and SHOULD NOT affect the rest of our countrymen that HAVE DONE NOTHING to warrant being hurt by our economy coming to a standstill.

The "Bailout" is not for business's or executive's, idiots who bought homes they cannot afford, or those who bought stocks short. IT is for us, the people who should not be harmed by the aftereffects of the causes you mentioned.

"They", whoever "THEY" are, have gotten us into the mess, your right, but "They" have created a situation where we all will suffer along with them. You me and everyone else in this country are affected by a shortage in the monetary supply that only the Federal Government can help abate.

My family and I have done nothing to warrant our loss in investment value and inability to obtain loans, but you would have us be hurt by the actions of others in order to not "bailout" those of whom you feel don't deserve it.

Thanks for crapping on me just to punish them!

I have tried to see it from both sides, but SteveZ, I don't believe you do understand Economics. :sad:

[Guest]

I have tried to see it from both sides, but SteveZ, I don't believe you do understand Economics. :sad:

Gee...Steve.....this poster is an expert on everything....we have been lectured on journalism, business in general, and now economics. We are also lectured on our incorrect postion on politics and always have to understand if you dont agree with her, you are wrong !!!!

Whatever happened to that tired old phrase......."I see your point but I respectfully disagree with you......"

[Guest]

The "credit crunch" WILL and SHOULD NOT affect the rest of our countrymen that HAVE DONE NOTHING to warrant being hurt by our economy coming to a standstill.

The "Bailout" is not for business's or executive's, idiots who bought homes they cannot afford, or those who bought stocks short. IT is for us, the people who should not be harmed by the aftereffects of the causes you mentioned.

"They", whoever "THEY" are, have gotten us into the mess, your right, but "They" have created a situation where we all will suffer along with them. You me and everyone else in this country are affected by a shortage in the monetary supply that only the Federal Government can help abate.

My family and I have done nothing to warrant our loss in investment value and inability to obtain loans, but you would have us be hurt by the actions of others in order to not "bailout" those of whom you feel don't deserve it.

Thanks for crapping on me just to punish them!
There is no intention to "crap" on anyone. I just don't see adding another $700B this time (and this will happen again) to the National Debt just because Congresspersons and this administration refuse to fix the root cause of the program at the same time throwing 700 Very Large to persons-unnamed-at-this-time, and then say that the hurt will be better because of it. That's bunk!

I too have investments, and realize they are a gamble to obtain greater return than a conventional savings account or equivalent. Some gambles have won, others have lost. That's gambling! The terms investment and guarantee are not synonymous.

Loans are still out there for everyone with a decent credit rating. If someone's credit rating is poor, and they don't have the capacity to be reasonably expected to repay, that's too bad. All of the taxpayer subsidy in the world won't change that, unless the thought is the taxpayer should co-sign all private loans. Being able to borrow money is a privilege granted by the lender to the lendee - it is not a right of residency.

Taxing all of us to protect selected "investments" and the ability of persons not able to qualify for a loan on their own merit to borrow money with the probable risk of skipping out on the loan through bankruptcy or gamesmanship is far from reasonable.

If that is not your viewpoint, then we can agree to disagree. I don't ask anyone to pay my bills, cover my losses due to my investing/gambling, or feel that lending me money should be a risky proposition which requires individual or public co-signing. Taxing all of us to absorb the intentional risks others made to make money can be viewed as crapping on all of us.

[Guest]

There is no intention to "crap" on anyone. I just don't see adding another $700B this time (and this will happen again) to the National Debt just because Congresspersons and this administration refuse to fix the root cause of the program at the same time throwing 700 Very Large to persons-unnamed-at-this-time, and then say that the hurt will be better because of it. That's bunk!

I too have investments, and realize they are a gamble to obtain greater return than a conventional savings account or equivalent. Some gambles have won, others have lost. That's gambling! The terms investment and guarantee are not synonymous.

Loans are still out there for everyone with a decent credit rating. If someone's credit rating is poor, and they don't have the capacity to be reasonably expected to repay, that's too bad. All of the taxpayer subsidy in the world won't change that, unless the thought is the taxpayer should co-sign all private loans. Being able to borrow money is a privilege granted by the lender to the lendee - it is not a right of residency.

Taxing all of us to protect selected "investments" and the ability of persons not able to qualify for a loan on their own merit to borrow money with the probable risk of skipping out on the loan through bankruptcy or gamesmanship is far from reasonable.

If that is not your viewpoint, then we can agree to disagree. I don't ask anyone to pay my bills, cover my losses due to my investing/gambling, or feel that lending me money should be a risky proposition which requires individual or public co-signing. Taxing all of us to absorb the intentional risks others made to make money can be viewed as crapping on all of us.

Nobody is taxing us, what the government will be doing for us is buying low grade securities and reselling them at a later date to protect us from at least a minor meltdown of the banking/lending industry. This not about protecting bad investments or shady borrowers/lenders, it's about our entire monetary system.

Study the effect of what happened when Americans were buying (gambling) on stocks on margin in the early 1900's. The market collapsed, people got scared and started a run on The Bank of America in N.Y. Other banks and the U.S. Government decided What the Heck, let them fail. Other banks had runs on them when people heard about the collapse of The Bank of America, wrongly believing that it was a government entity based on it's name (it wasn't).

The public ran a huge amount of banks, leaving no money for the banks to loan. Businesses could not borrow for payrolls, equipment, or supplies and laid off workers or closed, putting thousands out of work. Off course I'm talking about The Great Depression. It happened all because the Government and other banks refused to "Bailout" the banks. I know you didn't need this history lesson, but it's necessary sometimes to refresh our memories

History Forgotten is History Relived

[Guest]

Gee...Steve.....this poster is an expert on everything....we have been lectured on journalism, business in general, and now economics. We are also lectured on our incorrect postion on politics and always have to understand if you dont agree with her, you are wrong !!!!

Whatever happened to that tired old phrase......."I see your point but I respectfully disagree with you......"

Funny Bucco, I've never hear YOU use that phrase. Did I miss something? As far as lecturing goes, you've done plenty of it! Time will prove who's right or wrong. It's that simple. ;)

[Guest]

Sure, this financial ordeal is a big deal but it is getting in the way of other important facts, the main one being that Obama is not ready to lead as president of the U.S.

“[Obama] doesn’t have any kind of sleaze in his background.” —Joy Behar

and "i cant make up my mind McCain and " i have no clue" Palin are any better?????

[Guest]

Nobody is taxing us, what the government will be doing for us is buying low grade securities and reselling them at a later date to protect us from at least a minor meltdown of the banking/lending industry. This not about protecting bad investments or shady borrowers/lenders, it's about our entire monetary system.

...



The "government" is "all of us," not some hybrid entity. The only revenue "the government" has to buy anything is what "all of us" mainly via taxation provide. So, "all of us" are buying these low-grade securities and hoping like heck there will even be a buyer at a later date. The odds of "all of us" getting stuck with junk nobody wants at even 2-cents on the dollar is pretty high. The winners in this debacle become those who were able to dump their trash on "all of us." That's a good deal for "all of us?"

[Guest]

The "government" is "all of us," not some hybrid entity. The only revenue "the government" has to buy anything is what "all of us" mainly via taxation provide. So, "all of us" are buying these low-grade securities and hoping like heck there will even be a buyer at a later date. The odds of "all of us" getting stuck with junk nobody wants at even 2-cents on the dollar is pretty high. The winners in this debacle become those who were able to dump their trash on "all of us." That's a good deal for "all of us?"

Well SteveZ, I think that we are close to talking about the same thing. Now we are down to semantics.

"We The People" (Hereafter called "The Government") allow The Government (the vehicle that allows "we the people" lower case) to tax us (see previous lower case) for the purposes of the common good.

The common good in what we've been debating is to keep the Government (also known as WTP) from a huge amount of harm, caused by a minority of wtp (lower case) to our WTP monetary system.

It is not a good deal for the majority of the WTP, but the WTP need to protect ourselves from the ongoing effect of the wtp's actions to our economy. The wpt have already done their damage. The debacle is past tense, already complete, the junk dumped in WTP monetary system. WTP must now move on, make sure that wpt can't put WTP in this position again, and protect the WTP from the future harm to our monetary system.

Nice debate Steve. As from this point on "we agree to disagree"

P.S. The quote "crapping" was just bait to keep you engaged in the debate.
It seems to be the favorite tactic for most posters in this Political Forum. Guess it worked.

[Guest]

Well SteveZ, I think that we are close to talking about the same thing. Now we are down to semantics.

"We The People" (Hereafter called "The Government") allow The Government (the vehicle that allows "we the people" lower case) to tax us (see previous lower case) for the purposes of the common good.

The common good in what we've been debating is to keep the Government (also known as WTP) from a huge amount of harm, caused by a minority of wtp (lower case) to our WTP monetary system.

It is not a good deal for the majority of the WTP, but the WTP need to protect ourselves from the ongoing effect of the wtp's actions to our economy. The wpt have already done their damage. The debacle is past tense, already complete, the junk dumped in WTP monetary system. WTP must now move on, make sure that wpt can't put WTP in this position again, and protect the WTP from the future harm to our monetary system.

Nice debate Steve. As from this point on "we agree to disagree"

P.S. The quote "crapping" was just bait to keep you engaged in the debate.
It seems to be the favorite tactic for most posters in this Political Forum. Guess it worked.
Bait is not necessary. I truly enjoy a good intellectual exchange. My work has had me take all three positions (Left-Center-Right) on various issues, and it does keep the "little grey cells" firing.

Note that all through these debates, my position about "no $700B" is tied totally to the pretext of giving the money now and worrying about fixes until later. "Later" never comes! If the fixes aren't inclusive with the cash, we WILL be back again, with a much weaker dollar, owing a much larger National Debt, and watching it get even bigger no matter who occupies 1600 PA Ave.

You don't dump more excrement into a broken toilet that has leaked all over the bathroom floor. You fix the toilet first so the floor doesn't get more slippery. I just can't understand a situation where we supposedly know what went wrong, but won't apply some basic systemic fixes concurrent with the cash? You can always add/subtract/modify to the basic fixes, but doing nothing now means nothing will be done later despite all the Congressional/Administration rhetoric. We all know it's true because that's been the history of Congress - VERY short term memory. It's crazy!

[Guest]

Maybe Congressional term limits would help their short term memory:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Maybe Congressional term limits would help their short term memory:coolsmiley:
Congress will never vote term limits upon themselves.

My policy is 3 terms for the House and 1 for the Senate. If they try for longer, I just vote for the opponent, no matter what party or position the opponent takes.