Bad news for McCain 
in recent polling. He's going to need a game-changer; could the VP debate provide it? I expect Palin to come out swinging (what have they got to lose?) and to be extremely well prepared for all the standard questions. We'll see how Biden handles himself and whether the discussion expands beyond talking points and spin. I hope to do another liveblog for the VP debate, starting around 8:30 ET -- if you missed the last one, drop in for the sparkling conversation.
The Senate is going to vote 
on a revised version of the bailout bill that narrowly failed in the House. They've added some provisions that they think Republicans should like, and there's some stuff in there designed to appeal to Democrats as well. My sense is that the more bloated and try-to-please-everyone this thing gets, the less likely it is to pass -- normally that's not the case with compromise bills, but with public opinion running against the bailout I believe that adding so many extras has the effect of providing an excuse for politicians to say no to their party leaders and go along with their constituents. Which ordinarily I'd also approve of, but it's not clear that there is anything else on the table right now as far as plans, and I think for all its flaws the revised bill has been much improved from the initial proposal and will accomplish some good. What are your thoughts?
Comments :
VP debate moderator: conflict of interest
It seems that the VP debate moderator (Gwen Ifill) has written a book about Obama that is due to be released near inaguation day.
The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama
I think she'll sell a lot more books if Obama wins.
This is a stunning conflict of interest, and she shouldn't be involved as a neutral authority in something that could impact the outcome of the election.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
That does seem like a conflict of interest
and perhaps she shouldn't have accepted (or been offered) the spot, even for the VP debate. However, it's too late now, and anyway let's see how she does; I'd predict she'll be as even-handed as possible. Actually, Obama supporters might worry that she'll overcompensate... except they seem to be focused on Tom Brokaw's
perceived bias against Obama.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
poor organization of debate
The right-wing is going crazy over this, and they will use it as an excuse if Palin looks like a fool. I hope they address this issue up front during the debate.
This is a major failure of the debate organizers, including the Presidential campaigns (unless they discussed it and all agreed that they were comfortable with it).
Ifill was selected for this position back in early August, and the citation for the book was added to Wikipedia on 2 Sept 2008. I don't know if she had announced the book before she was selected, but if she had, then the McCain campaign should have been on top of it.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I don't see how they have a leg to stand upon
The Republicans are one half of the CPD. They can't complain about anything.
Your average voter still believes that the debates are run by an independent organization, so maybe that's their rub.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Are you even vaguely familiar with Gwen?
She's been a PBS news person for a long time
. She has never shown any political bent in any of the shows I've seen her in. Always calm & even demenor. The suggestion that she is improper is pathetic.
the point is perception, not the truth
Conflict of interest rules are primarily about perception. If there is any perception of bias, then the results are drawn into question, and the event becomes invalid (regardless of whether the bias existed in reality or not). Organizers of public events should stay away from anything that could invalidate their event.
Still, if Repubicans were going to raise a fuss about this, they should have done so a while ago (not a day before the event).
Bunch of whiners.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
The book was announced in July
there was a write up in Time magazine about it in August, so it shouldn't have snuck up on the Republicans unless they are making a run for the ditch to seek cover for expectations on the Palin debate.
It is the economy, stupid.
Ifill has been promoting the book
Half the reason I brought up this issue was to see why this wasn't a fuss until now. I think it's becoming clear that the Republican hacks who have been causing a ruckus are just partisan hacks (and whiners).
Is this the Time article
you are referring to (21 Aug 2008)?
Other things I've found are:
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Any strong opinions on how the Senate should vote?
Any predictions as to how McCain, Obama, and Biden will vote?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
By all means Senator, you go first...
I think McCain will wait to see how Obama votes and vice versa. Biden will obviously follow Obama's lead.
In total, I think this will pass simply because the Senate is more insulated from their constituents than are members of the House. The Senate will pass anything the House puts out, but the reverse is not true.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I think McCain has to vote yes
given his whole "suspend the campaign to get this bill passed" stunt.
Then again I've been surprised by his audacity more than once this election season.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
They will all vote for the bill
It's necessary.
Our financial infrastructure is broken. If it was a bridge, taxes would fix it to invest in their own transportation safety.
They should vote for this bill for our economic stability.
It doesn't do any good to try and get even with those who have caused this, while the ship is going down. That is just a way to ensure that the ship will go down.
It is the economy, stupid.
You've surprised me
Your insistence of passing some bill, any bill is in stark contrast to what I'd have expected. I'd have expected you to hold out for a proper progressive bill that aims to help homeowners more so than the plans that have been put forth.
What gives here?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Glad I have
surprised you!
I would prefer a bottom up fix be included in the bill, most definitely, but that is dead in the water with the right sided ideologues in Congress. The next best thing is to get this bill passed to start restoring confidence in our banks. We can't operate wtihout banks that function as lenders.
I think this situation is at red alert. Every hour that they don't do something to stabilize the financial system, is costing our overall financial scenario $$$ wealth.
The failure to pass the first bill, caused a steady drip drip drip of a run on the banks.
I think the longer this waits, the more entrenched partisanship creates less of an opportunity to get something passed to stop the bleeding of our overall economic structure.
We should pass the bill. Then we should immediately start doing 'whatever it takes' to create jobs to stimulate our overall economy. That includes if necessary taking out a loan from the govt.
This toxic paper (financial exotica) needs to be put in quarentine immediately.
That is basically all they are trying to do. Set the crap aside, put it in holding, and allow the banks to continue to function, so that people don't start pulling money out of the bank and making matters worse, in a spiraling downward cycle.
Trying to get even with the 'fat cats' is stupid. If vengence is the motive nothing good will come of it.
For the sake of our overall economic stability they need to throw these bad credit default swaps down a well and leave them there for a while. As the economy improves (we hope) the stinky paper will become worth money.
To those that despise Wall Street, know this, Wall Street as it once was is now dead. Time to stop worrying about getting even and think about how to stop our economy from having a cardiac arrest.
It is the economy, stupid.
You didn't like it last time. Sorry, I still don't like this
bill. I want a bill. Not this one.
It seems to me that they took the House bill, larded it up with crap that isn't related to the issue at hand (more tax cuts for business?) and shoved it out there.
I fully expect the Senate to easily pass it. I'm hoping the House won't.
I'd like them to take their time & craft a bill that doesn't just throw money at the large capital interests. Address the cause of the problem, not the symptom.
Why would you
apologize? No need to be sorry for your opinions.
This is a sort of hold your nose and vote yes bill.
I think it is important for a lot of reasons, one of them being to avoid a run on the banks, especially since folks have already been 'walking' on the banks, pulling out money and stuffing it under their mattress.
The main thing is to make sure that McCain is nowhere near the White House so that other meaningful measures can be taken to strengthen the economy, and create an atmosphere of transparency to avoid this debacle happening ever again.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yes, yes, and yes.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Judging by the tone of DK
Reid is trying to get some more Republicans on board by adding some tax cuts to the bailout bill.
This, to me, is the essence of the finger-in-the-wind, jelly-spined Democratic Party. The Democrats don't want the bailout to be their baby if it fails spectacularly, so their strategy is to get enough Republicans on board that they can use the line "hey, they voted for it, too".
I actually support the plan floated by the Kossacks (that is, if we're going to pass anything -- I'd rather we do nothing at all). If we're going to be throwing money around, lets throw it at the people who were pressured into subprime loans. I'd rather there be limited assistance for people who went with an option ARM to buy a rental property, but I'd rather they get it than our friends on Wall Street. Last I checked they haven't been committing mass suicide by self defenestration, so I'm inclined to believe this mess isn't as bad as advertised.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
If we're going to be
How do you determine who was "pressured" into a subprime loan and those who got a subprime loan but were not "pressured"? I've bought and refinanced homes several times and have never experienced anything which I would call pressure, and I suspect that that's the experience of most people. In my experience, lenders and brokers have behaved exactly like you'd expect anyone to behave who is interested in getting a transaction done and interested in satisfying their customer. That's not pressure though, that's being on the ball and taking care of your business.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
There are accounts
They are anecdotal at best. I've read various accounts of people continually getting steered toward 5/1 ARMs and even interest-only and negative amortization loans by brokers. I recall accounts of brokers drawing up paperwork for an ARM after the buyer insisted upon a fixed-rate mortgage. Lucky for these people that they knew what they were doing. Many people did not.
It is my rule of thumb that you never trust someone to whom you are giving your money. This goes for mortgage brokers, car salesman, or even the local supermarket. For this reason, I'm not too keen on people who were pressured -- pressured being defined as brokers who all but would give people a 30-year fixed -- but we need to start somewhere. I'd rather keep people in their homes that they don't deserve than buying junk securities to mollify Wall Street's bad investments.
I suspect that is the experience of most people, too. However what happens to "most people" isn't what has gotten us into this. A very small segment of the market is what has caused the problem.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Mortgage brokers and the causes of the bubble
Before we pin this all on the mortgage brokers, let's think about this a bit.
First of all, what has been the accepted role of a mortgage broker in this country during the bubble? What is it that the homebuying public has wanted in a mortgage broker? Well, a large percentage of people would have wanted a broker who got them qualified for the largest mortgage possible so that they could buy the nicest house possible. If the broker got the person into the house that they wanted and it turned out that the person couldn't afford the payments at some later point, that's not the fault of the broker.
A good percentage of these people did not have significant savings for a down payment and/or had bad credit. This would limit the broker's options in finding a loan for the homebuyer and the terms of the loans that the broker could offer would not be as good. If a broker got someone a loan for someone with a high interest rate, but it was the best he or she could do for that person given their financial situation, and it turned out that the person couldn't afford the payments at some later point, that's not the fault of the broker.
There's nothing evil about adjustable rate mortgages, nor is there anything magical about fixed-rate mortgages. In many countries, there isn't even any such thing as a fixed-rate mortgage; all mortgages are adjustable rate. There are many circumstances where an adjustable-rate mortgage will provide significant savings to a homebuyer, or allow the person to qualify for a larger mortgage. If a broker recommended an adjustable-rate mortgage based on his or her judgment of what was the best deal for the homebuyer, and then later it turned out that a fixed rate loan would have been the better choice in retrospect, the broker has done nothing wrong.
Many people flat out lied to brokers in order to get homes. They lied about their income, they lied about their employment history, they lied about their savings, they lied about where they got the money for their downpayment, they lied about their future earning prospects, and so on. Many speculators lied and said that they were going to be living in a house when they were instead just going to try to flip it. If a person misrepresented their financial situation to the broker, and it turned out that the person couldn't afford the payments at some later point, that's not the fault of the broker.
The underwriting standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been relaxed over a period of decades, in general to promote homeownership and in particular to promote minority homeownership.
These underwriting practices had leaked into the private secondary market as well-- at compaines like Bear Stearns. If a broker arranged for a loan that had terms which did not adequately reflect the risk of default of the homebuyer because of poor underwriting practices in the secondary market, and it turned out that the homebuyer defaulted, that's not the fault of the broker.
There's a lot of shady brokers out there. There's folks who basically steal from the homebuyer by taking huge undisclosed fees. There are those who will submit false documentation to the underwriter or collude with a shady appraiser to get a deal done. There are those who accept a kickback from a lender in return for selling a loan with outrageous terms to a homebuyer. But these crooks have always been around, and they always will be around. There was probably a lot more of the crooks operating at the peak of the bubble than normal, just because all the easy money that was available, but I don't think that they were a primary cause of the bubble.
Finally, there is the gray area. People don't become mortgage brokers because that's what they always dreamed they'd be some day; they get in the business to make a living. I'm sure many deals were made where the mortgage broker said to him or herself "this clueless sap has no chance of making these payments" or "that overpriced McMansion is gonna fall in value like a lead balloon as soon as this sucker walks out the door", but they put thru the paperwork as prescribed by law, the loan came back approved, and the deal was made. Or, perhaps they legally took a larger fee than was necessary and did the minimum to make it clear to the buyer.
Bottom line, the typical mortgage broker
is a selfish greedy bastardis looking out for his or her own self-interest to some greater or lesser extent, just like most human beings, myself included.I disagree. What caused the problem was the lower underwriting standards combined with low interest rates (coutesy of an accomodating Fed and the hidden taxpayer subsidy of Fannie and Freddie). The bulk of the subprime market flowed from these two factors. If base interest rates had been higher and default risk had been adequately priced by the underwriters, a lot of the people would have been unable to get mortgage at all, or would have had to pay so high a rate of interest that they would have chosen not to buy a home. Even the primest of prime borrowers would have had to pay a little bit hgher interest rate. Demand for homes would have been much lower, and there never would have been a bubble or a crash.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Bravo.
FBI reports
Of course there are both people who "flat out lied to brokers in order to get homes" and "a lot of shady brokers out there" -- but these behaviors don't arise in a vacuum, and the impact of these separate types of fraud is not even close to identical.
The bubble certainly drove a lot of this, but the bottom line is that IMHO it is not possible to make a convincing case that the recent financial meltdown results from people purchasing houses beyond their means. You're reacting to "pressured into subprime loans" so perhaps this is somewhat tangential, but I wanted to link some material on buyers versus brokers, and following the FBI I'll broaden the latter category to also cover the financial institutions:
Indication of relative frequency
:
From the 2007 FBI study
:
More recent news (via Fox
) suggests that the companies which collapsed engaged in fraud, supporting the hypothesis that the responsibility for the meltdown lies with insiders rather than buyers:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Let's be careful not to conflate
Let's be careful not to conflate the concept of buyers committing "mortgage fraud" with the concept of buyers "purchasing a house beyiond their means". Mortgage fraud by the buyer, or "Fraud for Housing" as it is termed in your first link, is only one of many ways in which a person could have ended up buying a house beyond their means. I am not making a case that mortgage fraud on the part of the homebuyer is the primary cause of the housing meltdown, and it is not necessary to make that case to argue that buyers purchasing houses beyond their means IS a primary cause for the bubble, and, by extension, the current financial crisis.
The main reason that so many people got into houses "beyond their means" is because the underwriters had substantially liberalized what "beyond their means" meant, not mortgage fraud. They "innovated" away into nothingness the standards that had been always used to minimize the default risk. Consider:
1. At one time a significant downpayment was required to purchase a house, or else a house was considered beyond a person's means. The requirement served to give the homebuyer an equity cushion. That requirement withered away from the traditional 20%; Fannie and Freddie reduced minimum down payments from 10% to 5%, then 3%, then 0%.
2. At one time, documentation of income and documentation of financial situation was mandatory to obtain a mortgage. That requirement served to show that a person would have enough money to pay for a morthgage. Standards of documentation were relaxed, and products were created that omitted this requirement altogether.
3. At one time, qualyifying income was limited to income from employment and a few other sources. That standard was undermined to the point where even temporary sources of income like welfare and unemployment income
was counted as qualifying income by Fannie Mae.
4. At one time, underwriters limited loan length to 30 years. During the bubble, Fannie Mae started underwriting 40 year mortgages
.
5. At one time, private mortgage insurance was required to insure mortgages where the mortgage was more than 80% of the value of the home. The "innovation" of the piggy-back 2nd mortgage was made to get around that, and Fannie/Freddie still snapped up the uninsured first mortgages where the owner in many cases had basically no equity cushion.
6. Traditional thresholds of income, such as the 28% payment to income standard, were relaxed in many cases by Fannie and Freddie underwriters.
This erosion of underwriting standards affected most mortgages made during the bubble in one way or another, and in many cases, this did indeed let people buy homes beyond their means. Mortgage fraud (at least if we're talking about fraud that rises to the level that might interest the FBI and not low-level fudging of numbers and other commonplace but minor foibles, shortcuts, white lies, and errors of omission) only affected a very small minority of mortgages.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Seconded (nt)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I suspect the opposite
and that the warning signs are being distinctly ignored by most. Remember people weren't jumping off rooftops on monday oct 28th, 1929. As usual investors are the dumb cows waiting to be spooked by the approaching clamity before reacting- and then reacting with fear strained idiocy.
The very few people I trust to have a modicum of insight into the markets are basically sh*tting themselves right now and using words like catastrophy, armageddon, and (capital "D") Depression.
Which is not to say that the bailout is the best solution, but it is something, and given how much of the financial world depends on ephemeral perception doing anything has value, even if the action itself is a all for show.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes.....
It infuriates me that suddenly everyone is an 'expert' on the economy.
The folks that have an understanding of our economy, which is enormously complex, are sh*tting themselves. I would rather see these folks help the US unwind this mess, than these fools screaming to behead those on Wall Street.
I hate to say it, but this one time that I think Bush is right. But he has cried wolf so many times no one believes a thing he says. It's ironic and tragic.
It is the economy, stupid.
That is misrepresented
the tax cuts are targeted incentives in the areas of alternative energy research.
The hyperbole going around on this 'bailout' bill out of hand.
It is the economy, stupid.
I'm not against the tax cuts, but they should be in their own
bill.
I have difficulty with bills that pull stuff out of everywhere to try to bribe their way to becoming a law. Bills should have a single focus.
Play diplomacy!
There's one slot open in a new game involving posters from both here and the Forvm. See here
for details.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How low can the housing market go?
How about $1.75
for a house?
Haha, you say, but of course there must be huge costs associated with taking ownership? Nope: She must pay about $850 in back taxes and yard cleanup costs. I'm guessing the property taxes in that neighborhood aren't very high either. Admittedly the house is a POS -- see pics at the link -- but c'mon, a buck seventy five? I paid more than that this morning for a scone... this just seems so wrong.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Its like that in Cleveland
The Countrywide Foreclosures blog has a list:
http://www.streamfx.com/CW/9-28-2008/REO-Ohio2.html
Of note is a 4/2 multi-family duplex that's going for $250. There are quite a few for under $10,000 and more than you'd expect under $5,000.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You'd think the property alone
would be worth a substantial amount, even figuring in taxes... I guess it's just not worth fixing up the houses (or building new ones) and then trying to sell them in areas where there is high unemployment, lowish wages, plenty of property on the market, and minimal demand for new houses.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I like the programs
...where municipalities have a fund where they can buy up distressed, vacant properties and knock down the houses and clean up the properties. I believe there was some money for this in the housing bill passed earlier this year, but I can't recall for sure. I'm sure it's been mentioned on here, but many cities in Ohio already have these programs, but I think a larger effort is called for. It simultaneously would help bolster property values in affected areas and help clean up a lot of urban blight. I'd really like to see some eminent domain actions in the worst neighborhoods with the highest vacancy rates-- tear down everything and build parks or schools or sell the land to private interests for other uses, but this would simultaneously anger the civil liberties crowd, the minority interest groups, and the property rights libertarians and conservatives, so it's probably a non-starter politically and won't occur on a large scale. I liked how they did it in China to make way for the Three Gorges Dam, where they just moved like a million people to make way for a big project :-) Call me authoriarian, but sometimes to accomplish big things, everybody can't have 100% certain property rights.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Senate vote coming up
dKos has a breakdown of pro/con Senators based on their speeches, and it looks to be leaning heavily pro with both D and R onboard.
DeMint is against it... I'm starting to think I was actually onto something projecting him as a possibility
for 2012. Also in the con column is the socialist Sanders. Coburn, the noted anti-porker, is apparently in favor.
The bill has been so... frankensteined? that there are very odd coalitions arising on either side.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The last few weeks have been very entertaining
in terms of trying to keep track of who is in bed with whom.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Lou Dobb's take
and I paraphrase, but this is really close: "foreigners trying to dictate policy and take control of our financial institutions."
Gosh, didn't see that one coming. Hey, at least some things remain predictable!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
foreigners
have also invested a lot of money in this country.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yah
It was funny to watch the far left at dKos root for the far right House Republicans to torpedo* the bill.
* Just for you, purpleface =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Purpleface, you lurker, no reaction
to my little joke?
I'm hurt!
Also curious what you think about the chances for the Senate bailout getting through the House... and whether perhaps it will be House Democrats torpedoing this one.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Late to the party!
Falsely lurking sometimes...have the page open, but doing other stuff :-(
Gawd I'm grumpy. I'd like to make a joke in response, but I got nothin' but George to toss back at ya:
Like me, he doesn't seem to be a bit fan of partisanship.
We (you, me, all of us) need to cease this nonsense about how my daddy can beat up your daddy....we really do.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Won't happen
unless we can get rid of the current two party system. So long as the very system enforces a dialectic then partisanship is a feature, not a bug.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I disagree
I think you can have two (or more) parties that differ philosophically without having the level of partisanship we see today. Washington used the term revenge intentionally, IMHO, to describe a situation where differences of opinion on how to accomplish something develop into such a level of personal identification with a party that familia-style actions are called for. If there were no degrees of difference in partisanship, then why do we speak of the Balkanization of this country or the intensification of normal and expected differences into true hatred of the other?
The partisanship I'm railing against is not the kind that bands together "for" the accomplishment of specific objectives. It's the kind that bands together "against" the other to "get even" for the acts of the other.
My explanation may not be exceptionally clear. I *am* making an effort ;-)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
most of that increase is illusory
The country has always been deeply and bitterly divided by the two parties of its day. Talk of the country becoming more polarized is the same as talk of the gentler fifties, or the noble 1800s- i.e. bull^%$# sentimentalism by people who want to believe things haven't always been this bad...
...but they have.
You can go all the way back to the beginning of the country and look at the Burr-Hamilton duel. Or you can fast forward a little to the Civil War. Or further to the vicious wrangling over interventionism or isolationism in WW1 and 2.
This country has always been deeply divided. It is just impossible for it not to be so long as the system allows only two parties and splits all power between them. Each party will have it's share of Roves, willing to do anything to get power, and theri actions will alienate and incense the more moderate members of the opposite party into direct hatred.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Conservatives in Pakistan
condemn
the Pakistani President for flirting indecently with the lady in the short black skirt, as shamless immoral depravity, referring to his happy greet and meet with the GOP veep nominee.
It is the economy, stupid.
Voting now
Looks to pass easily.
McCain and Biden already voted Y and Obama hasn't cast his vote yet but indicated support earlier.
Edit: Obama also Y, passes 74-25.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Odd bedfellows voting against
You've got fiscal hawks (DeMint voted no) voting against fiscal hawks (Coburn voted yes?? That's a shocker to me)... then you've got Bernie Sanders voting with a Blue Dog like Landrieu, but most of the mainstream liberal Dems voting for it.
If one thing sticks out at me, it's that Senators from big urban states voted overwhelmingly in favor of this, while rural state Senators were much more likely to vote against.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
My personal favorite
is seeing Landrieu and Feingold together on the Nays. Now that's a pair: the most liberal voter in Congress with the (almost) most conservative Dem.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Noting that Landrieu is in a hotly contested election...
I sense that she might be positioning herself for a late-season maneuver on her Republican opponent's right flank on fiscal conservatism.
"Mary Landrieu: looking out for YOUR wallet by protecting the TAXPAYER from WALL STREET BAILOUTS!"
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Result of vote not too well received by markets
Stock market futures dipped about 1% on the vote. I think they were hoping for closer to 80 yeas. You'd think that 1/2 of the House would agree to something that 3/4ths of the Senate could agree to, but the key difference is that virtually all those mopes are running for reelection as opposed to 30 or so Senaotrs.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
The up and down
of the market is less important than the overnight lending rates, and whether banks are able to make loans again. They can't make loans until they put the bad stuff on the shelf, to free up the capital flows.
The problem with taking so long to get this done, is the global markets are being affected by the inability to make loans.
Even with this bill, there are lots of bumps in the road ahead, because generally the economy is slowing globally.
If you look at the numbers, 700 billion is a pittance of the leveraged bad paper swirling around. It would have been much better to have passed the first bill to get this out of the way sooner.
It is the economy, stupid.
You have to check out this site Interviewpalin.com.
It puts up a question and then fills in an answer that's similar to what Palin has done.
It does it by randomly slicing together bits of Sarah's previous answers & speeches.
It is pretty funny. Sad too because the answers sound just like her answers.
Pick your favorite pork project!
The compromise bill is pretty heavily laden with unrelated measures, but that's not unexpected given how Congress works. What's annoying as hell about it is the attempt to prove to the American people that this is a Vital, Necessary, and Immediate Crisis, but one that we can somehow agree on as long as we're still making cheap wooden arrows.
I understand that legislators use pork as a way of building compromise on legislation, but this strikes me as particularly cynical, even for Congress.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Quayle vs Bentsen
I just happened to have left on CSPAN2 in the background here after the Senate vote and they've been playing old VEEP debates. OMG was Quayle lame :-p Palin will have to go a ways to match Quayle's incoherence. His walnut brain was stuffed with so many talking points that you can practically see them sticking out his ears, but since he's dumb as a rock, the gears have to turn awhile to index through the talking points to figure out just which one might apply to the current question. Often, he can't come up with the right one, so he answers an entirely different question than the one asked. And his syntax is very similar to Palin in the Couric interviews.
One of the first questions was about all the Republicans who had criticized the Quayle pick. Sounded very familiar, although the Quayle criticisms extended beyond right-wing pundits; they mentioned that Bob Dole had criticized the pick.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
And the best part is,
Quayle made it to the VP after that. Let's hope that wasn't a precedent .
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I cannot wait for the Biden/Palin gaffe off contest.
Keeping America Safe
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What does the Nation of Islam think of this?
HIV dates back to around 1900, study shows
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Debate Rules
It's too bad that this debate will lend itself to talking points and soundbites. I've been really happy with the last two VP debates because they have been more substantive and engaging. Oh well.
Yeah, a more free-form forum would make
for more interesting TV and probably give a lot more useful information about how the candidates really feel, but I guess it's viewed as providing too much potential for a misstep.
Welcome to SC, by the way, don't think I've seen you comment before.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson