Frank blames House GOP for breakdown of deal

McCian: some "leader."

Mr. Clinton has repeatedly described Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, as honest and trustworthy, though the Obama campaign has argued that Mr. McCain’s campaign rhetoric indicates otherwise. Mr. Clinton has missed few opportunities, while allowing that he disagrees politically with Mr. McCain, of Arizona, to say how much he likes the senator and to praise him for his support of Mr. Clinton’s efforts as president to normalize relations with Vietnam and intervene in Bosnia.

Mr. Clinton also went out of his way to praise Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.“I come from Arkansas,” he told reporters,“I get why she’s hot out there.”

As comfortable as Mr. Clinton is in saying,“I like John McCain,” and “I like Sarah Palin,” no one seems to have heard him say the same for Mr. Obama. Instead, when speaking of Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, Mr. Clinton has assumed a professorial stance that sometimes drifts toward emotional aloofness and disregard.
Secretly he tells his people to vote MCCAIN/PALIN

Citizen wrote:

Mr. Clinton has repeatedly described Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, as honest and trustworthy, though the Obama campaign has argued that Mr. McCain’s campaign rhetoric indicates otherwise. Mr. Clinton has missed few opportunities, while allowing that he disagrees politically with Mr. McCain, of Arizona, to say how much he likes the senator and to praise him for his support of Mr. Clinton’s efforts as president to normalize relations with Vietnam and intervene in Bosnia.
Mr. Clinton also went out of his way to praise Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.“I come from Arkansas,” he told reporters,“I get why she’s hot out there.”
As comfortable as Mr. Clinton is in saying,“I like John McCain,” and “I like Sarah Palin,” no one seems to have heard him say the same for Mr. Obama. Instead, when speaking of Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, Mr. Clinton has assumed a professorial stance that sometimes drifts toward emotional aloofness and disregard.
Secretly he tells his people to vote MCCAIN/PALIN

So you post this bullshit everywhere today - why?
Nothing to actually say on topic backed byfact?

All polls indicate the American people are not for these bailout. But then we aren't for the war in Iraq either. Maybe it's time we let Congress know - to hell with Bush and the Fed and represent the will of the people or get your ass out.

wyojake wrote:

All polls indicate the American people are not for these bailout. But then we aren't for the war in Iraq either. Maybe it's time we let Congress know - to hell with Bush and the Fed and represent the will of the people or get your ass out.

I for one am not going to vote for anybody that supports this bailout

wyojake wrote:

All polls indicate the American people are not for these bailout. But then we aren't for the war in Iraq either. Maybe it's time we let Congress know - to hell with Bush and the Fed and represent the will of the people or get your ass out.

fu ck ing coward.....

Danger, Danger, Danger Will Roberson!!!

Our Democratic nation before us is being led by elected Representatives who suppose to speak, act, and vote on behalf of its citizens. What I hear our representatives saying is they intend on voting in favor of the bailout against the will of its citizens. It is shameful they are treating the American people with such disregard. Our nation’s democratic principles that make this nation great is, at this very moment, is in danger by our elected officials.

I’m not debating the merits of the bailout. There will be winners and loser on both sides. It is the fact that our elected officials are going against the citizens of the United States of America.

Other nations we are trying to bring democratic principles to so there citizens can know what it is like to have freedom are watching.

We know we are living in tough economic times. So what! I have breath, wife and children and freedom by the grace of God.

Representatives’ speck, act, and vote on behalf of the people.

Jimmy

Jimmy wrote:

Danger, Danger, Danger Will Roberson!!!
Our Democratic nation before us is being led by elected Representatives who suppose to speak, act, and vote on behalf of its citizens. What I hear our representatives saying is they intend on voting in favor of the bailout against the will of its citizens. It is shameful they are treating the American people with such disregard. Our nation’s democratic principles that make this nation great is, at this very moment, is in danger by our elected officials.
I’m not debating the merits of the bailout. There will be winners and loser on both sides. It is the fact that our elected officials are going against the citizens of the United States of America.

I can understand why Speaker Pelosi is supporting this bailout. It serves her constituents, who happen to be rich San Francisco bankers.

But McCain and Obama claim that the American people as a whole are their constituents.

I can not believe how stupid these Democrats are. McCain and the Republicans are leading them into an ambush and they don't even see it coming. While they are talking compromise with Bush and the Fed on a bail out, McCain and the Republicans are crafting their own plan which will play out much better with the voters then the Democrats willingness to help bail out Wall Street. These people are what my Father use to call, "SMART DUMB ASSES!" Whether the Republican plan would work any better doesn't matter, it all comes down to voter perceptions. What's the old saying? " Playing them like a fiddle".

I applaud ANYONE & EVERYONE regardless of party for stopping this rotten piece of dung legislation from moving anywhere but the trash can!

Read it for crist sake!

13 Reasons to Say NO:

#1 - There's no assurance it would even work, short term or long term.

#2 - Taxpayers would take the fall for a problem Congress, Executive Branch & Wall St created.

#3 - Many argue that this bailout will only prolong and exacerbate an economic meltdown in the future.

#4 - The US dollar has already lost a tremendous amount of value over the last 5 years. What will happen to its value as we make the ultimate bad investment by buying worthless securities that are virtually un-tradable as the Fed continues to print billions more, diluting our currency even further?

The answer is that our dollar, the value of which Americans have always taken for granted, might lose (a lot ) more of its value over the next 10 years, making every single person in this country poorer.

#5 - The dollar’s demise would represent the ultimate global financial meltdown.

#6 - What do we do if the American taxpayer makes this tremendous sacrifice and it’s simply not enough? George W. Bush said the war in Iraq was going to cost $50 billion.
Did we pack up and come home when that threshold had been crossed? Of course not.

#7 - Can American taxpayers even handle another burden on our finances? How much longer will we allow the federal government to drag us into economic despair and use our hard-earned money as their piggy bank, to bail out bad foreign policy and massive economic fumbles?

#8 - Companies that make bad decisions and grow fat with debt are eliminated and make room for new ones who are more innovative and intelligent in their approach to doing business.

Buying up $700 billion worth of toxic securities is something a socialist government would do.

#9 - There is nothing in this bailout plan that ensures the bankers and investors behind this mess would bear any burden. We should demand a guarantee that the people whose greed and recklessness caused this crisis lose their money first and are hit the hardest.

The current package has no limits for executive compensation for firms receiving funds from this package. If the current proposal goes through, these guys will have gotten away with financial mass-murder.

#10 - In the absence of responsibility that firms would have to take for their actions, Wall St would likely feel a sense of comfort that the federal government now had their back. This would only encourage more corporate policy that fosters insane risk-taking even when the potential fallout might maim the savings of thousands of hard-working Americans.

#11 - George W. Bush is urging Congress to take quick action. Be afraid. Be very afraid of someone pushing a Quick Sale.

#12 -“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

This little tidbit basically concentrates all power in the administration of this package in the Executive Branch and makes it illegal for the decisions made or money allocated to come under any scrutiny from any court or oversight committee within the US government.

#13 - Under the original bailout proposal a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN (voter fraud group!) with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard Lindsay Graham say it was 20 percent!!!!!

http://matadorpulse.com/10-resons-we-should-s...

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-dem...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26...

I applaud ANYONE & EVERYONE regardless of party for stopping this rotten piece of dung legislation from moving anywhere but the trash can!

13 Reasons to Say NO:

#1 - There's no assurance it would even work, short term or long term.

#2 - Taxpayers would take the fall for a problem Congress, Executive Branch & Wall St created.

#3 - Many argue that this bailout will only prolong and exacerbate an economic meltdown in the future.

#4 - The US dollar has already lost a tremendous amount of value over the last 5 years. What will happen to its value as we make the ultimate bad investment by buying worthless securities that are virtually un-tradable as the Fed continues to print billions more, diluting our currency even further?

The answer is that our dollar, the value of which Americans have always taken for granted, might lose (a lot ) more of its value over the next 10 years, making every single person in this country poorer.

#5 - The dollar’s demise would represent the ultimate global financial meltdown.

#6 - What do we do if the American taxpayer makes this tremendous sacrifice and it’s simply not enough? George W. Bush said the war in Iraq was going to cost $50 billion.
Did we pack up and come home when that threshold had been crossed? Of course not.

#7 - Can American taxpayers even handle another burden on our finances? How much longer will we allow the federal government to drag us into economic despair and use our hard-earned money as their piggy bank, to bail out bad foreign policy and massive economic fumbles?

#8 - Companies that make bad decisions and grow fat with debt are eliminated and make room for new ones who are more innovative and intelligent in their approach to doing business.

Buying up $700 billion worth of toxic securities is something a socialist government would do.

#9 - There is nothing in this bailout plan that ensures the bankers and investors behind this mess would bear any burden. We should demand a guarantee that the people whose greed and recklessness caused this crisis lose their money first and are hit the hardest.

The current package has no limits for executive compensation for firms receiving funds from this package. If the current proposal goes through, these guys will have gotten away with financial mass-murder.

#10 - In the absence of responsibility that firms would have to take for their actions, Wall St would likely feel a sense of comfort that the federal government now had their back. This would only encourage more corporate policy that fosters insane risk-taking even when the potential fallout might maim the savings of thousands of hard-working Americans.

#11 - George W. Bush is urging Congress to take quick action. Be afraid. Be very afraid of someone pushing a Quick Sale.

#12 -“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

This little tidbit basically concentrates all power in the administration of this package in the Executive Branch and makes it illegal for the decisions made or money allocated to come under any scrutiny from any court or oversight committee within the US government.

#13 - Under the original bailout proposal a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN (voter fraud group!) with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard Lindsay Graham say it was 20 percent!!!!!

http://matadorpulse.com/10-resons-we-should-s...

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-dem...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26...

What I am seeing on this board is an alarming lack of knowledge about economics.

The economy isn't hurting because of a lack of money. The economy is suffering from a lack of confidence. Confidence is what drives an economy.

When a stock falls, the value of that piece of paper (stock certificate) is what falls, not actual money. Someone bought that paper and gave the money to someone else. That money still exists, it's just in someone else's hands.

So when confidence gets rattled and the price of stock falls, the person holding the stock suddenly has a certificate worth less money, so what does he actually do with the rest of his money? He holds on to so that he can pay for necessities like clothing and food.

Then other people with money see him doing this and start to lose confidence, so they hoard their money too.

Suddenly, less money is getting circulated and that's when depression sets in.

This bailout, as much as I hate to see it, needs to happen in order to restore confidence in the economy. If you'll remember a few days ago, the markets went back up once the government announced a bailout. People felt more confident. This is the key to this. Remember this as you post.

Isnt Barney Frank one of the crooks that got us in this mess?

Wall St can recover. Free enterprise at its best.

http://www.cafepress.com/figstreetstudio/1949...

Randy Savage wrote:

<quoted text>
fu ck ing coward.....

Randy, randy, randy - loose lugnut today looking to get stripped from wear or what? Your tire is about to fall off boy, stop and check before hitting that gas and squeeeling those tired comments. Maybe your twisted sister Sarah can give you some lipstick to enhance your cruising.

The laughing liberal wrote:

I applaud ANYONE & EVERYONE regardless of party for stopping this rotten piece of dung legislation from moving anywhere but the trash can!
13 Reasons to Say NO:
#1 - There's no assurance it would even work, short term or long term.
#2 - Taxpayers would take the fall for a problem Congress, Executive Branch & Wall St created.
#3 - Many argue that this bailout will only prolong and exacerbate an economic meltdown in the future.
#4 - The US dollar has already lost a tremendous amount of value over the last 5 years. What will happen to its value as we make the ultimate bad investment by buying worthless securities that are virtually un-tradable as the Fed continues to print billions more, diluting our currency even further?
The answer is that our dollar, the value of which Americans have always taken for granted, might lose (a lot ) more of its value over the next 10 years, making every single person in this country poorer.
#5 - The dollar’s demise would represent the ultimate global financial meltdown.
#6 - What do we do if the American taxpayer makes this tremendous sacrifice and it’s simply not enough? George W. Bush said the war in Iraq was going to cost $50 billion.
Did we pack up and come home when that threshold had been crossed? Of course not.
#7 - Can American taxpayers even handle another burden on our finances? How much longer will we allow the federal government to drag us into economic despair and use our hard-earned money as their piggy bank, to bail out bad foreign policy and massive economic fumbles?
#8 - Companies that make bad decisions and grow fat with debt are eliminated and make room for new ones who are more innovative and intelligent in their approach to doing business.
Buying up $700 billion worth of toxic securities is something a socialist government would do.
#9 - There is nothing in this bailout plan that ensures the bankers and investors behind this mess would bear any burden. We should demand a guarantee that the people whose greed and recklessness caused this crisis lose their money first and are hit the hardest.
The current package has no limits for executive compensation for firms receiving funds from this package. If the current proposal goes through, these guys will have gotten away with financial mass-murder.
#10 - In the absence of responsibility that firms would have to take for their actions, Wall St would likely feel a sense of comfort that the federal government now had their back. This would only encourage more corporate policy that fosters insane risk-taking even when the potential fallout might maim the savings of thousands of hard-working Americans.
#11 - George W. Bush is urging Congress to take quick action. Be afraid. Be very afraid of someone pushing a Quick Sale.
#12 -“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
This little tidbit basically concentrates all power in the administration of this package in the Executive Branch and makes it illegal for the decisions made or money allocated to come under any scrutiny from any court or oversight committee within the US government.
#13 - Under the original bailout proposal a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN (voter fraud group!) with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard Lindsay Graham say it was 20 percent!!!!!
http://matadorpulse.com/10-resons-we-should-s...
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-dem...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26...

Actually agreed until #13 which was your typical horseshit add-on for instigation and misinformation sake:-)

The laughing liberal wrote:

I applaud ANYONE & EVERYONE regardless of party for stopping this rotten piece of dung legislation from moving anywhere but the trash can!
13 Reasons to Say NO:
#1 - There's no assurance it would even work, short term or long term.
#2 - Taxpayers would take the fall for a problem Congress, Executive Branch & Wall St created.
#3 - Many argue that this bailout will only prolong and exacerbate an economic meltdown in the future.
#4 - The US dollar has already lost a tremendous amount of value over the last 5 years. What will happen to its value as we make the ultimate bad investment by buying worthless securities that are virtually un-tradable as the Fed continues to print billions more, diluting our currency even further?
The answer is that our dollar, the value of which Americans have always taken for granted, might lose (a lot ) more of its value over the next 10 years, making every single person in this country poorer.
#5 - The dollar’s demise would represent the ultimate global financial meltdown.
#6 - What do we do if the American taxpayer makes this tremendous sacrifice and it’s simply not enough? George W. Bush said the war in Iraq was going to cost $50 billion.
Did we pack up and come home when that threshold had been crossed? Of course not.
#7 - Can American taxpayers even handle another burden on our finances? How much longer will we allow the federal government to drag us into economic despair and use our hard-earned money as their piggy bank, to bail out bad foreign policy and massive economic fumbles?
#8 - Companies that make bad decisions and grow fat with debt are eliminated and make room for new ones who are more innovative and intelligent in their approach to doing business.
Buying up $700 billion worth of toxic securities is something a socialist government would do.
#9 - There is nothing in this bailout plan that ensures the bankers and investors behind this mess would bear any burden. We should demand a guarantee that the people whose greed and recklessness caused this crisis lose their money first and are hit the hardest.
The current package has no limits for executive compensation for firms receiving funds from this package. If the current proposal goes through, these guys will have gotten away with financial mass-murder.
#10 - In the absence of responsibility that firms would have to take for their actions, Wall St would likely feel a sense of comfort that the federal government now had their back. This would only encourage more corporate policy that fosters insane risk-taking even when the potential fallout might maim the savings of thousands of hard-working Americans.
#11 - George W. Bush is urging Congress to take quick action. Be afraid. Be very afraid of someone pushing a Quick Sale.
#12 -“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
This little tidbit basically concentrates all power in the administration of this package in the Executive Branch and makes it illegal for the decisions made or money allocated to come under any scrutiny from any court or oversight committee within the US government.
#13 - Under the original bailout proposal a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN (voter fraud group!) with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard Lindsay Graham say it was 20 percent!!!!!
http://matadorpulse.com/10-resons-we-should-s...
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-dem...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26...

actually agreed until #13 which was your typical misinformation instigation add-on to an otherwise good post. Too bad.

Okie Lobbyist wrote:

What I am seeing on this board is an alarming lack of knowledge about economics.
The economy isn't hurting because of a lack of money. The economy is suffering from a lack of confidence. Confidence is what drives an economy.
When a stock falls, the value of that piece of paper (stock certificate) is what falls, not actual money. Someone bought that paper and gave the money to someone else. That money still exists, it's just in someone else's hands.
So when confidence gets rattled and the price of stock falls, the person holding the stock suddenly has a certificate worth less money, so what does he actually do with the rest of his money? He holds on to so that he can pay for necessities like clothing and food.
Then other people with money see him doing this and start to lose confidence, so they hoard their money too.
Suddenly, less money is getting circulated and that's when depression sets in.
This bailout, as much as I hate to see it, needs to happen in order to restore confidence in the economy. If you'll remember a few days ago, the markets went back up once the government announced a bailout. People felt more confident. This is the key to this. Remember this as you post.

From 1944 to 1971 there was very little currency 'risk'. It was minimal. The risk came back and along with it the speculations based on 'confidence' after a meeting with Kissinger, Shultz and Nixon August 15,1971. Nixon took America off the Gold standard after that meeting a short time later.
The risk and confidence or lack thereof came in with a credit default swap. Paper based on paper and in this case leveraged over and over again now at least to 5 trillion. This is about leveraged 'derivatives' and they in DC if doing anything right must 'ban' derivatives. Total outlaw of derivatives.

Confidence is never using someone elses money. That is a lack of courage for others to not use at least part of thier own money. Thats cowardly and oppurtunistic at other expense without anyone having the 'confidence' to invest dollar for dollar of thier own money while using others money.