BS: The Bailout

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:20 PM

America, where it pays to fail (A two-part article from DER SPIEGEL)

The same short-term way of thinking that triggered the disaster in the first place is now supposed to bring it to an end. The government is attempting to put out the fire with fuel, not water. In fact, it is precisely the same fuel that sparked the flames on Wall Street in the first place: borrowed money....
American-style capitalism hasn't died yet, but it is merely preparing its own demise. The history of these days is the history of a death that has already been announced....

A part of America has still not understood that in the long run a market economy works better with controls. A government who pays for the losses of the overly greedy with the (not yet earned) taxes of the masses should at least in compensation request the right to control in future how this money is used.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Goose Gander
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM

Amos, whatever are you talking about? ALL we have to do is stroll out to the Money Tree and harvest a few hundred billion more . . . carry it back to the house in big, whicker baskets. Then there'll be plenty for all!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:48 AM

Awww, Freda, 's BOOFUL!!!


President Bush is clamoring with some desperation for bailout action.

Not to discourage intervention, but I wonder if this would have been different if Bush had beren raised on more rigorous principles about not wallowing in debt, being frugal, or at least living within your means. He must know, at some level, that he has been part of the charade that ultimately has crashed the markets for credit and for equity, by running the nation on a course of deficit spending and hollow economics. He's "the decider", and this was one of his decisions: the ration of paper to actual value is not important.

Surprise, George. Ethics matters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:17 AM

I met a traveller from a bankrupt land
Who said: "Two vast and empty safes of steel
Stand in the vault. Near them on the screen,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled brow of one has-been
Tell a photographer well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that fought them and the wallet that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Dubya, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:47 AM

"The rejected bailout bill that was on the floor after a weekend of hard negotiating was objectionable in many ways, but it was a Republican-generated bill and was improved from the administration's original version. Sixty percent of House Democrats voted for the bill, enough to easily pass the measure if the Republicans had not decided to put on their display of pique and disarray.

The question now is whether the stock-market plunge that followed the House's failure to lead — and a renewed credit freeze — will be enough to get the 133 Republicans who voted against the measure to change their minds. And, more important, whether the damage that the no vote has inflicted is readily reversible.

Republican no votes were rooted less in analysis or principle than in political posturing and ideological rigidity. The House minority leader, John Boehner, conceded as much: "While we were able to move the bill drastically to the right, it wasn't good enough for our members."

It's not clear what would be good enough for the Republicans since there was very little talk of substance on Monday after the bill died on the floor of the House. Instead, the Republicans tried to blame their revolt on a speech given before the vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who connected the current crisis to the fiscal and economic mismanagement of the Bush years. It may not have been the perfect moment to say that, but it was true.

Republicans were also upset that serial bailouts represent a rejection of free-market principles. They do. That's because the free market in finance, unregulated and unsupervised, has failed. And, in its failure, it is inflicting greater damage on an already weak economy.

No amount of amendments to the bailout package will change the administration's disastrous economic record or erase the manifest failure of the Republicans' free-markets-above-all ideology.

Since last week, this page has urged Congress to take the time to get the bailout right. Over all, lawmakers have given too little consideration, in public at least, to alternatives to the Treasury's plan to buy up the bad assets from various financial firms.

In the bill rejected on Monday, the unlimited powers that the Treasury Department had initially sought were curbed, and Congressional oversight was added. But judicial review of Treasury's purchases was not adequately ensured. The courthouse door was not closed entirely; lawyers could still seek effective remedies for actions that violate the Constitution. But that's a much higher hurdle than the already formidable barriers in place to discourage lawsuits against the government.

Homeowners were also given short shrift with provisions that mainly urged lenders and the Treasury to do more to help them. That's unconscionable. The financial crisis is as much a problem for homeowners as for Wall Street investment bankers. Appeals to lenders' better natures have not worked to bring lasting relief to homeowners. If they are still not working in the coming months, Congress will have to revisit the issue.

Taxpayer protections are also iffy, such as a requirement that in five years, the president must give Congress a plan for recouping any losses from financial firms. What will happen then is anyone's guess. Lawmakers could decide at that point that taxpayers are the only pit bottomless enough to absorb those losses.

Still, the imperfections in this bill are the result of a democratic process that can be rethought, revisited and reworked. It is better than nothing, which is what some backward-looking House Republicans gave Americans on Monday." NYT Ed

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:43 AM

"Credit markets have frozen almost solid, banks are toppling like dominoes and brokerage houses are vanishing like props in a magic act. And who was one of the paramount leaders of the manic anti-regulatory charge that led to this sorry state of affairs? None other than Mr. Gramm himself, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Where is Mr. Gramm now? Would you believe that he's the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the investment banking arm of the Swiss bank UBS? Of course you would. A New York Times article last spring noted that the "elite private bankers" of UBS "built a lucrative business in recent years by discreetly tending the fortunes of American millionaires and billionaires."

Toadying to the rich while sabotaging the interests of working people was always Mr. Gramm's specialty. He was considered a likely choice to be treasury secretary in a McCain administration until he made his impolitic "mental recession" comment. He also said the U.S. was a "nation of whiners."

The tone-deaf remarks in the midst of severe economic hard times undermined Senator McCain's convoluted efforts to reinvent himself as some kind of populist. But they were wholly in keeping with the economic worldview of conservative Republicans.

The inescapable disconnect between rhetoric and reality is often stark. Senator McCain has been ranting recently about the excessive pay and "bloated golden parachutes" of failed corporate executives. And yet one of his closest advisers on economic matters is Carly Fiorina, who was forced out as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. Her golden parachute was an estimated $42 million.

Voters have to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the economic mess the country is in. Too many were willing, for whatever reasons, to support politicians who spat in the eye of economic common sense. Now the voodoo that permeated conservative economic policies for so many years has come back to haunt us big-time.

The question voters should be asking John McCain is whether he has stopped serving his party's economic Kool-Aid, which has taken such a toll on working families, and is ready to change his ways. Is his sudden populist transformation the real thing or just a mirage?

In the gale force winds of a full-fledged economic hurricane, it's fair to ask Senator McCain whether he still considers himself a conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealot. Or whether he's seen the light. " (Herbert, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:49 AM

One of the most important reasons most House Republicans don't know what they are talking about or facing is because the average age of their staff is 23 years old.
Sure they may have gone to Regents College but the advice and research they give is patheticly low on history and high on God and supply side myths.

WW II era Congressional Staffers were typicly in their 40's and fifties and had some real experience.

The age and role of staffers is still suffering from the purge way back in the Reagan administration.

These kids on the hill won't denigrate themselves nor is it their fault but People who have been on the hill for 20 years will tell you exactly what I have now told you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:48 AM

Today's Irish Times would appear to support your analysis Bill

'Leaders of both parties had wrung concessions from treasury secretary Hank Paulson in recent days, winning more oversight over how the plan would operate, capping the pay of top executives in firms that would receive financial help and adding a number of measures to help homeowners to avoid having their homes repossessed.


The concessions were not enough to reassure nervous congressmen, all of whom face re-election in November and many of whom had received hundreds of phone calls and e-mails from constituents, who were overwhelmingly opposed to the plan.


"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan told fellow congressmen in his speech in support of the Bill.

"Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it - not me'. " '

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:42 AM

bruce...it is hard to make a single simple statement about what the responsibilities of the elected representatives are.

Yes, they are sent to 'represent' the voters, and to a certain extent, do what the voters want. But since not all the voters who voted for them will agree on every issues, and don't even understand every issue (as in this case), members of Congress are also expected to be able to sort out things and use common sense to figure out what is best.

It may be in certain cases, that the 'best' thing to do may be at odds with a majority of their constituents...(something that reflects the national interest rather than local interests of the 3rd district of "your state's name here")...what is the proper think to do then?

   Sadly, most elected officials will vote the way that they consider will most likely get them re-elected. That is happening a lot in this vote. I saw an analysis that said that most of the vote against the bailout were from representatives who were most concerned about their chance for re-election - they did not want to be on record as voting FOR a bill that might not work.

   Whatever the reasoning, it ain't an easy choice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:31 AM

One thing has become fairly clear: Party leadership--especially for the Republicans--has essentially vanished. The split seems to be much more on ideological grounds than Party politics. WHich may, if we survive, be a good thing. It would be a relief to be able to vote for clear-cut issues than for compromise-laden party platforms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:20 AM

"The market lost"

Trillions of paper losses means nothing if you don't sell... they will go back up ... eventually...

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:49 AM

Let me see... There is a vast public outcry against the bailout, and those Reps. that are worried about reelection vote against it.

Seems like maybe they were (trying to) represent those people.

Isn't that what they were elected to do????



So now we have to complain that Representatives are actually voting as the people who elected them want??????

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:43 AM

First of all, the term "trickle down" to a Republican is as inflamatory as the word "liberal" is to a progressive... They hate it and will go way beyond reality in trying to whitewash the obvious and that is the redistribution of wealth to the upper 5%... That';s it in a nutshell... They can write reems and reems of bullsh*t but in the end they are still trying to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t... That is reality and we've seen 3 decades of it...

But beyond that, yeah, Wall Street has gotten itself in a pickle... But can anyone argue that they didn't know that making bad loans was stupid??? I mean, let's get real here... Wall Street knew what it was doing and thought they had the firepower within the governemnt to bail thenm out when ***their*** party was over... Problem is that they miscalculated the discontent of the electorate from 30 years of Boss Hog's abuse...

Now here is a sane idea: Pump the money into FHA, hire real loan people who know a good loan from a bad one and use what is necessary to correct the housing market and the "credit crisis"... Use the interest to shore up Social Security while paying back the taxpayers the principle and portion of the interst that the US has to pay to borrow money... Yeah, that would work just fine...

(But that is socialism, Bobert...)

Yeah, it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 04:39 AM

My buddy Kucinich had some interesting things to say about the bailout plan...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,Guest-John
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 02:51 AM

Help me out here. I'm pretty sure from reading the posts to this thread that it is really, really important to distinguish the good guys and the bad guys.

Are the republicans the bad guys because Bush just wants to protect his rich buddies? Or are they the good guys because they voted against the bill? Or does that make them the bad guys because the economy will collapse because they are so partisan?

Are the Democrats the good guys because a big bunch of them voted for the bill? Or are they the bad guys because the rest of them didn't? Fannie and Freddie were protected by Democrats weren't they? Or were the Republicans to blame because they controlled congress when they repealed Glass-Steagal? Or was that Clinton's fault 'cause he was president?

Or maybe I should like the left-wing Democrats who want more protection for victimized borrowers and disadvantaged groups impacted by the crisis? Or are they the problem because they could have supported a bill that would have saved us all?

Should I hate the Republicans for the "failed policies of the Bush administration?" Or should I hate the Democrats who can't actually do anything about anything because every time they talk in public they spend all their time talking about "the failed policies of the Bush administration?"

Help me out here. 'Cuz if you don't I'm liable to think that the whole congress is a bunch of politicians who don't deserve my money or my trust and that depending on this outfit to create anything useful to me is like expecting to find gold in the DC storm sewers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM

"the object of the bill was to correct an economic crisis. The object is to treat the illness, not kill the patient by inaction and attempt to raise him from the dead at some future date." - Q

Never a truer word spoken. I also liked Q's appraisal of effects in the post previous to the one above.

If the US Congress had been in a rowing boat with a leak they would have had to abandon ship by now following their actions, or more correctly stated their inaction, up to now and taking some of the advice and comments on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:25 AM

The representative for our district, who is a fairly progressive Democrat, voted against it. He said he thinks we should examine some other ways of dealing with the problem for which he says banks in this state (North Carolina) maintain there is a much less expensive solution. I'm kind of proud of my representative.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:21 AM

Administraton unveils sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Updated Monday, March 31st 2008, 12:24 PM

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration Monday proposed the most far-ranging overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression.

The plan would change how the government regulates thousands of businesses from the nation's biggest banks and investment houses down to the local insurance agent and mortgage broker.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unveiled the 218-page plan in a speech in Treasury's ornate Cash Room, declaring, "A strong financial system is vitally important — not for Wall Street, not for bankers, but for working Americans."

The administration's plan drew criticism, however, from Democrats who said it did not go far enough to deal with abuses in mortgage lending and securities trading that were exposed by the current credit crisis. Some state officials criticized what they saw as unwanted federal intrusion on their turf.

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin blasted Paulson's approach as "a disastrous backward step that would put the investor in jeopardy" because it would pre-empt state regulation of securities and insurance.

The administration said that it planned to work with Congress to have constructive conversations, but officials would not predict when any aspects of the proposal could be enacted into law.

Asked if Bush's goal was to get the overhaul approved before he leaves office, presidential press secretary Dana Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One, "We'll have to see. It is a big attempt."

The plan, which would require congressional approval for its biggest changes, seeks to trim a hodge-podge collection of overlapping jurisdictions that date back to the Civil War.

It would give the Federal Reserve more power to protect the stability of the entire financial system while merging day-to-day bank supervision into one agency, down from five at present.

It also would create one super agency in charge of business conduct and consumer protection, performing many of the functions of the current Securities and Exchange Commission.

It would propose eliminating the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, merging their functions into other agencies.

It would ask Congress to establish a federal Mortgage Origination Commission to set recommended minimum licensing standards for mortgage brokers, many of whom now operate outside of federal regulation, and it would also take a first step toward federal regulation of the insurance industry by asking Congress to establish an Office of Insurance Oversight inside the Treasury Department.........

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:45 PM

"Sorry, folks - China has just invaded Japan, but we will come back and talk about it after Ramadan and Christmas."


                Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:38 PM

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 10:02 PM

There has to be an upside. There is always an upside, maybe not.
hmmm
The ruling class got an upside today. 5 more bank failures will help concentrate banking family wealth.

With a 50% loss of spendable money by mddile class families they will not be sending their upstart children to college who might someday challenge the ruling class.


Perhaps we can get the House Republicans to accept a new deal by using the Howie Mandel Deal or no Deal format and guess which briefcase has the $700 billion dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:51 PM

>It's obviously not important. If it was, they wouldn't put the whole thing on hold for the sake of the Jewish Holidays. <

No shit, eh Rig? WTF is that??

Sorry, folks - China has just invaded Japan, but we will come back and talk about it after Ramadan and Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:46 PM

Tricke-Down Nonsense!

As these comments by Sowell show, there is no such critter.
Trickle down ignorance

But ignoring the economics 101 bullshit, the object of the bill was to correct an economic crisis. The object is to treat the illness, not kill the patient by inaction and attempt to raise him from the dead at some future date.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:44 PM

For the banks are all broken they say
And the merchants are all up a tree
When the big-wigs are brought
To the Bankruptcy Court
What hope for a squatter like me.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:30 PM

Well, there's always trickle-up economics, along with imposing a few traffic rules on the wheeling-and-dealing. Some president back in the 1930s seemed to do pretty well with that approach.

Lotsa people bad-mouth him now, and they sure don't want to talk about him and how he did it, but I figure he couldn't have been that bad, because the voters kept re-electing him. The only four term president.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:30 PM

This may give us all pause for thought!

"Yeah, the locusts sang and they were singing for me
Singing for me, well, singing for me."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:27 PM

It's obviously not important. If it was, they wouldn't put the whole thing on hold for the sake of the Jewish Holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:17 PM

Prosperity & Abundance...

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:05 PM

Hmmmmmmm, Q???

You can track the decline of the standard of living of the working class with the beginning of trickle down economics so I don't see where another $700B of more failed trickle down economics will do any better than the last 30 years of it...

Insanity = Repeating a behavior expecting different results...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:59 PM

Well, the public lost 1.2 trillion in the market today- these are individual investors, or individuals invested through mutual funds, pension funds and other savings plans which all depend on the market.
More will be lost tomorrow. People stop buying, manufacturers can't market their products, stores can't sell, and employees are laid off.

For many, that kills sending the kids to college, kicks the stuffing out of retirement savings, or plans to pay off the mortgage, and may throw them on the dole and the food bank.

Recriminations and finger-pointing won't help. Without severe corrective action, the U. S. and others are doomed to a long recession. Forget improved education, universal health care and increased job opportunities.
If the engine won't go, all plans are dead.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:50 PM

fear of communists

fear of terrorists

.


fear of losing your job.




biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:46 PM

Yeah, I know, Amos....

Chuck Todd made an interesting observation this evening on the NBC news and that was that the folks who voted for the bailout were folks in safe voting districts and the ones who voted against it were in competitive districts... Really had little do do with party affiliation???

Hmmmmmmmmmm??? Seems folks voted more on the possibility of losing their jobs than any other reason....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:19 PM

Bobez:

Just to keep the record straight, a hundred Republicans also said no.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 05:54 PM

Well YOU understand Don!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 05:41 PM

Republican House John Colberson said today that when the Jews go home to have their New Year's party, the House Republicans will be hard at work drafting an alternative bill. As a fiscal conservative I will not burdon my children and grandchildren with the current bail out.

The market lost 1.1 Trillion dollars of value today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 05:29 PM

I suppose the good news is that the $ystem has been exposed for what it is.
Also exposed, are the priorities of the politicians.

Does anyone think the public really understand what this will mean?
We still have people on here spouting pro Dem/pro Pub garbage.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 05:28 PM

And now McCain is accusing Obama of having failed as a leader in pushing the bailout. Which was killed by the Republicans in the House. Which ticket is McCain running on, anyway?,

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 04:12 PM

Well, there really isn't much in the way of good news 'cept that something will have to get done and now I'm looking for a "trickle up" package to be put forth that the Dems can get really get behind... It should be noted that about 90 Dems voted no for this bill... The problem with a trickle up bill is that Bush won't sign it unless there is enough dough in it to keep Boss Hog happy...

I'm kinda looking for Obama to put together an alternative plan... McCain would love to but he doesn't understand the economy well enough to sell one...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM

Is it good news that the stock market just took a monumental dive? I dropped someone off at the train station today, and saw an entire row of newspapers with 1929-like headlines. The New York Times financial section had a half page banner as follows: "Wall St. RIP"--I am not sure there is any good news anywhere--

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:48 PM

Barney Frank: (paraphrased)"By a strange coincidence in numerology, the number of conservatives who were 'personally offended' by the bill and who then put party politics ahead of the country, was exactly equal to the number of votes needed to reverse this result"

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Genie
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:30 PM

Yep. It failed to pass in the House.   
That's the good news, IMO.   (The bill was way too much of a rescue for the fat cats and big business, too little help for the average citizen, and only a short-term band-aid for a system that needs fundamental overhaul.)

The bad news is that it was mostly "conservative Republicans" who killed it.   The "liberals," "populists," and Democrats should have solidly opposed it too, but only a minority did.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM

Not that it matters now but the Golden Parachute clause was to prevent any new agreements from being made by any financial institution eligible for funds should they see fit to dump any of their top five executives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:06 PM

Looks as if the House has voted against the Bailout by 19 votes, as of last count...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:40 PM

The golden parachutes are generally contractual obligations undertaken by the companies that hire big-name CEOs. Apparently the only such agreements that can be abrogated have to do with employee's pensions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:32 PM

Those being plundered rarely get to receive a share of the plunder, Sins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:02 PM

No, EJ. My comment was only slightly facetious. Past experience tells me that half of Wall Street is sitting down with their attorneys today looking for a way around the Golden Parachute paragraph. Just thought I might get in on the plunder.

Yes, the hypocrisy is on a biblical scale. But even worse is the claim from politicians that the financial institutions should be bailed out and then left unencumbered by regulation - let the free market work. HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:40 PM

EJ I made a 3D plan for the Reagan Memorial as I did for the W memorial. The central fountain is full of gold dust that trickels down out of reach from the public.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:26 PM

Are you in default on your mortgage, Sinsull?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM

Well, on a personal level, Mary, I wish you good luck with that.




A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:47 AM

I've noticed

All scales today are enormous compared to all biblical scales.