Is the best solution to this financial mess a Democratic solution or a Republican solution, or is it some from column A and some from column B? Obama thinks it is some from A and some from B, or that’s certainly how I read this:
This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem – this is an American problem. Now, we must find an American solution," said Senator Barack Obama.
Now, first of all, what caused this problem was primarily deregulation. That isn’t just a Repubican thing or just a Democratic thing, no, but I think we can all agree that of the two parties the one that loved deregulation most was the Republican party. Certainly at the end of the day, the problem is one for all Americans, but the party that is most responsible is the party of deregulation and trickle down economics—the Republican party.
The Republicans have offered two solutions – the Paulson plan, which was a complete power and money grab, and now the House Republican plan which is that the solution is to do more of what caused the problem—deregulate Wall Street and hey, presto, deregulation will fix what’s wrong!
So, is the correct solution to compromise the Frank or Dodd bills with more deregulation and more power and money for Paulson and Bush to use however they see fit with no real oversight?
But wait, you say. The Dodd bill and the Frank bill are pretty sucky themselves. That’s true, still both are better than Paulson’s plan or the absurd House plan of "deregulation will fix the problems caused by deregulation!"
And why are they sucky? Because they started with the Paulson bill and because Frank and Dodd compromised with Paulson all through negotiations.
When put that way it’s, I hope, self evident, that the more partisan the solution – the more things like bankruptcy protection and help for people to keep their houses, and serious taking pieces of companies which are helped out – all things not in the original Paulson plan and as far as I can tell not in the House Republican plan, are better.
They are partisan ideas. They are democratic ideas. They are in fact progressive ideas.
They are not bipartisan ideas. Republicans don’t want people to get bankruptcy protection. They don’t want judges to be able to let them keep their houses. They don’t want the government to get 10% preferred shares like Buffett got when he bailed out Goldman, whenever the government bails out a company.
Bipartisanship means compromise and compromise with the Republicans on this means a lousy bill. In fact, starting with the Paulson bill is what made the Frank bill so awful, and the Dodd bill is better than the Frank bill because it departs further from Paulson. But because it’s still based on Paulson, it still isn’t actually a good bill, just a better bill than Frank’s or Paulson’s.
If Dodd or Frank had just put together a bill to do the job without any reference to Paulson’s power and money grab, either of them would have come up with a bill that would do a much better job than either of the bills they actually proposed. A fully Dem bill would be better than ANY bill which is compromised with either of the Republican bills.
So yes, what Americans NEED is a Democratic solution that saves them their jobs and life savings. Because no compromise bill with Republicans is going to do that.
And that’s what Obama should be selling—a bill which would actually work. A Democratic bill, because when you want to fix the economy you go to Democrats, not to Republicans, the people who caused this crisis.
This is in his interest because if he signs off on a bad bill, he is the one who, as President, will get blamed for it not working. And you can take my word for it and a huge list of economis’s, the Republican bills won’t work.
What AMERICA needs is a DEMOCRATIC solution to a REPUBLICAN problem. Not another "bipartisan" compromise that solves nothing. Not another Iraq war "compromise" or Patriot Act "compromise". Enough compromising with immorality and stupidity. That’s what got the US into this mess.
Related posts:
- Is Obama the New, Democratic Version of President Herbert Hoover?
- Democratic “Infighting” or Keeping Blue Dogs from Selling Out Health Care?
- A Public Option in the Democratic Platform?
- Baucus, Reid, Obama Promote Backroom “Bipartisanship” over Democratic Debate
- Three Republican Senators are Worth More Than 76% of the Country
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
column C.
“Enough compromising with immorality and stupidity. That’s what got the US into this mess.”
Fuck, yeah!
i’m ok with a democratic solution – so long as it’s not the democrats in congress who are writing it. i’d like to take a look at a bernie sanders proposal though.
from the previous thread:
Here, here!!!
Is there any reason why higher-order derivatives can’t simply be outlawed henceforth? And have the USG acquire all the outstanding ones as of (say) 9/15/2008 by reimbursing the holders what they paid for them (not the astronomical payoff amounts), plus-or-minus 10% if necessary? Seems like that would foreclose (so to speak) the possibility of the collapse. Put that together with mandatory court processes for mortgage renegotiation before any foreclosure or eviction, to stabilize the value of the underlying assets so that primary mortgage holders aren’t forced to value their collateral inventory at zero (with the exceptionally positive side effect of not throwing people out into the street any more!).
Unfortunately, a Democratic solution wouldn’t provide Democrats with political cover, and without political cover, they won’t act. They like the Paulson plan with some nice negotiations because they can claim that they took bold action, and with due diligence, but they can also say it was Paulson’s plan. Even with all that, they want the Republicans to put their hands on the lever too.
The White House knows how they think, and that’s why they can be led around by the nose.
Meanwhile the Republicans have switched from party discipline to being principled, probably because it lets them distance themselves from Bush.
Dorgan’s on CSPAN about the Carnival of Greed on Wall Street
I think we need all the financial firms to open up their books first before we give a cent we have no idea if $700 billion is even enough.
Why put a frigging Sunset clause in the elephantine shit pile that is the bail out? Revisit it next year after the dust settles.
An interesting take from a (or so he sounds) ‘conservative’ columnist:
“Why Are Bush and the Democrats Combining Against Congressional Republicans?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..29555.html
And I didn’t keep up with the jump so there are good links I posted on the previous thread (NO. Hell NO. by Elliot)
There may not be a strong enough D majority in Congress to get much through.
actually, the solutions are populist ideas, both republican and democrat consituents will agree with them
it’s the republican law makers that will have a problem
I want a bumper sticker with this logo!
For years, I have said that the Republicans always, and I do mean always, get us into economic trouble and the Democrats always, and I do mean always, come to the rescue. You only have to look at history.
Even 10% preferred shares is not enough if the collateral the banks give for the loan can’t be sold at face value so then we should get more and more of the banks until we get face value plus interest.
F the shareholders, F the Hedgefunds, all we need to do is protect Fisa accounts and well I would like to protect homeowners and pension funds.
If we do that the GOP losses leverage. We can save our people and let the Masters of the Universe hang.
Oh, and BTW: “Schwarzenegger vetoes mortgage broker restrictions”
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1267248.html
FYI Ian, the people at fastmoney in their first segment (about eleven minutes in??) gave Putnam (R-FL) some technical trader advice about setting the rice of the securities that the Treasury will buy.
Thanks for all your work on this.
It’s enough to drive one to drink.
McCain did us a favor hopefully he has killed this bailout for now. I think we can do better after the election.
durbin does a great job here, I have this quote from think progress;
And by that, I mean witnessing the sheer cluelessnes in a man so clueful.
Why are Democrats so afraid of proclaiming that, yes, Democrats’ values, ideas, programs, efforts, and generosity are better?
I sent a link to this post to my congressman along with a brief note explaining how this whole mess is a Republican trap as discussed downstairs. He’s a blue dog, but he knows me personally, so maybe it can have some impact on him.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a proposal Thursday that would have imposed tough restrictions on mortgage brokers, such as banning exotic loans to risky borrowers that cause balances to grow rather than shrink over time.
The Republican governor’s veto of Assembly Bill 1830 blocked what consumer groups considered the most significant housing-related proposal on his desk.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1267248.html
Has Arnold given up any hope of another term and is he trying to cash in?
man, this is great stuff;
Our financial system needs a reset, barring that there is a high chance of an economic Depression. The $700 billion is a made up number. It will delay but not avoid a Depression and in throwing more money down this rathole will make it just that much more difficult to get ourselves out of it. There is no plan Republican or Democratic that comes within a million miles of doing what needs to be done.
Spot on, Ian. The Dems should have thrown the Paulson fiasco in the trash and made a completely different bill. And if Bush balks, tough shit. Pass it and see if he has the balls to veto it.
IIRC, the less technical part of the advice to Putnam was about transparency, getting the price, vintage, and other stuff about what the “first buyer” the government, into all the electronic exchanges as a way of attracting other buyers.
Oh I so agree with you!!
Right on!
Now how do we get those spineless Dems to sprout a pair?
So lets end the war and tax the rich. I can’t believe that the GOP wants to approve money that we don’t have and I doubt we can borrow that much either.
I don’t want Bush to devalue the Dollar anymore!
Thank You:)
Profound question.
I want Obama to fight for this.
How about just simply giving, say, $500,000 to each household in the US, with the requirement that it be used first on the mortgage, and only then for whatever else they want?
It would be cheaper than any of the plans coming out of Congress, and fix more of the basic problems.
As for the GOoPer ’solution’: DO. NOT. WANT.
It’s gonna take lot more than $700B:
Marc Faber: US Needs as Much as $5 Trillion Financial Rescue
When Bush and Republicans start whining about “the blame game,” you know they are afraid of accountability.
Write a real bill, Dodd and Frank. Write the bill Americans want. Write the bill your constituents are asking for. Put your, ahem, country first.
Put Paulson’s resignation in your plan. He cannot honestly implement any plan after proposing that unAmerican atrocity.
Make the monkey in the Oval Office veto it.
Do you have a plan Ian:)
I think you just found the fly in the ointment.
Arnold is term-limited. He cannot run again. He may oppose Barbara Boxer for the Senate, but his popularity is in the mid-thirties now, so it’s unlikely.
I think it would really help Dems to demand that this bailout be paid for. Start with an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Cut the Pentagon’s budget. Fold the legitimate responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security into government institutions that existed prior to 2001. Don’t even consider starting to print money, until you’ve taken that low hanging fruit.
paul krugman, on democracy now! this morning:
krugman knows what it means for him to be using the “D” word. unlike some dfh, he could actually scare people into doing things that could push us over the edge. imo, no fucking way would he have said it, if he wasn’t seriously worried.
We don’t have it and if we try and borrow it and print more money/devalue the Dollar life will suck plus even then there is no guarantee the plan will work.
Or that 5 trillion is enough because nobody knows for sure how much money is needed.
The first step in a solution is to understand the size of the problem the financial firms need to open their books.
We got free time lets start assigning blame:)
that’s it teddy.
mccain is toast. and even if he wasn’t, this is too big a deal to put electioneering ahead of. dems – and obama especially – need to start thinking about what their country needs.
like I said before:
let’s put this in perspective:
shrub’s bailout: $700 billion – $1 trillion (financing cost $42 billion/yr)
healthcare reform: $102 billion/yr
20 yr infrastructure deficit: $25 billion/yr
So.. $169 billion/yr
Iraq: potential savings of $170-$200 billion/yr by cuttin’ and runnin’
Perhaps we should blame all of this on shrub’s frackin’ war.
That was suppose to be a reply to Teddy @35
damn. i’m forgetting to include my links today. sorry about that.
Honestly, I do not believe that your everyday Joe and Jane have a clue what this economic crisis is all about. They/we are reacting from the gut. No. No. No.
First reaction is to condemn all the Wall Streeters, their CEO’s with their absurd bonuses and salaries, such who created this mess. They are guilty as hell and deserve everything they (don’t) get. Hell! I pay attention, and I don’t pretend to understand, though I do listen to a few on this forum and others who seem to have a grasp of the economics of the crisis.
Just saying NO, isn’t going to get it this time. We are in serious trouble. When I say we, I mean not just we, but global financial markets. Doing nothing is not an option. However, I do believe that if it took it years to get here, the congress does not have to come to an agreement days before recess. Paulson and Bush threw out their best terror shot, and it failed. A political ploy?
We need to do this right. Problem is the Republicans, and the Bush administration have cried wolf so many times that no one trusts government to do the right thing any more. That is sad.
I don’t think there’s any way to avoid a decline in the standard of living. Eventually they’ll simply inflate their way out of it – and we’ll all be poorer, except the very rich, who always get away.
Given California’s housing market opposing that bill should push him down further.
(EPU’d:) The so-called crisis is a Republican political trap set for the Dems. It’s been a trap all along. Once they were sure Mc would lose, the R’s election goal became getting the best possible Congressional outcome. They have now succeeded in associating Congressional Ds with Bush and $700BB of taxpayer-money bailouts — what in the wide world could be less popular? Meanwhile the House R’s are against the bailout… just like the majority of the American people saying No! and Hell No!. Anyone see the pattern here? Further, by picking Palin, the Rs increased turnout in terms of (and may I just mention how I HATE HATE HATE the term) “values voters” GOTV — and that will multiply the effect of the trap. More Dem hating, and more Dem haters in the voting booths. Not enough for Mc to win because, face it, he’s got nuthin’, but could well be enough to tilt the Congressional races.
Republics thought that there would be no consequences for putting the dim son of the Bush family into the Office of President while they pillaged. Now, even they see what his legacy will be and they are scared too.
Agreed
but but but obama is a DEMOCRAT!
My mind continues to explode about the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars given to the golden boy of Goldmans Sachs, Hank Paulson. Hank has been bailed out by taxpayers already. He has a special “rich people loophole” that allowed his stock sale of GS shares to be sold without Hank paying taxes.
Hank gets paid twice by taxpayers. Now he wants $700 gazillion dollars for derivatives, hedge funds, and other Risky Business. These bad business debts were created by his neo-con cronies, to give us SD (shockdoctrine).
MR. PATRIOTIC PAULSON, YOU ARE A TAX CHEAT. PAY YOUR TAXES!
fuck him too if he can’t see beyond his own ambition and ideology to at least try to help his country when it needs him.
I already have :)
Moral subtext of the bailout debate.
Ian,
Doing yeoman’s work here and a damn good job at that. It’s coming fast and furious and I think that’s part of the plan.
If you have cancer , the first symptom is an ill ease which we all felt leading up to this so called crisis.
Before any doctor goes hacking away there is a study of all the relevant facts, then the careful cutting out of the growth and affected areas,minimizing harm to the body. I haven’t seen the costs and benifits laid out in a coherent form.Without a repeal of the gramm quacker derivative B/S we are in the same fix .
I want a down to the penny accounting of the losses we are assuming. This WAMU flip sounds like the JP Morgan got the red meat part of that company and somebody (us) is stuck with the toxic ,non-performing waste.
Weren’t we warned by mr bush the meltdown would have happened by now, Friday, when this was first floated.
I hope you figure it out Ian cus this is a tough nut to crack.
and democrats thought that there would be no consequences (except good ones at the polls) for giving the dim son of the Bush family enough rope to hang himself and the rest of us. why can’t they see what their legacy will be and get scared?
And, on the other hand you have five fingers.
I suppose I’m the dfh but the more I look into the more I get the impression that the fundamentals in virtually every financial sector are out of whack. None of the plans address these fundamentals so none of them are going to work. Paulson is dead wrong that this is about market stabilization. This market can’t be stabilized. It can only be stopped and restructured in a very different form. Then and only then will there be stabilization.
And the price of running a “post-partisan” campaign becomes clear. Compromise with criminality and insanity gets you results that are somewhat criminal and at least slightly insane. Excellent post!
yes, Arnold’s campaign slogan can be:
Vote for me, and when things get tough I’ll reduce your pay to 6 bucks an hour!
By saving the money from the wars to offset these new costs does nothing to address the annual deficits. We need additional revenue. Tax the heck out of those that have had the free ride. Institute a transaction fee at banks and on wall street. Find those at UBS, Cayman etc. collect back taxes and fines. File RICO charges against UBS and those groups that have aided and abetted in the tax fraud schemes.
shrub’s bailout: $700 billion – $1 trillion (financing cost $42 billion/yr)
healthcare reform: $102 billion/yr
20 yr infrastructure deficit: $25 billion/yr
So.. $169 billion/yr
Iraq: potential savings of $170-$200 billion/yr by cuttin’ and runnin’
How much money would we as a nation save with National Healthcare?
How much would we save as a nation if we fix the infrastructure?
Simply put thanks to Bush we can’t afford not to do these things.
Assets and/or equity, or no bailout. Nobody bails for free.
Ian, off topic
I’m live blogging fastmoney:
More on trading strategies that the Democrats could demand:
Demand a public market for these securities
Trade on Exchanges
Fed as a Clearing House is an advantage, because that way the FED gets the information sooner, so they know where the problems are.
This would develop a uniform pricing model for these securities.
My guess is that URES, the Chicago Board Option Exchange, and their competitors would be interested. Posting the prices starts a price discovery system.
excellent link. thank you. imo needs more visibility than just a link:
Durbin doesn’t address who passed the legislation; the ‘blame’ is really on us for now taking to the streets and other actions to let those who supposedly represent us know that ‘we got your back(s)’ in NOT passing the legislation.
“A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.”
–Bertrand de Jouvenal
The best solution is a solution that:
* Ensures that people who caused the problem or profited most should pay for it:
* Re-regulates to prevent this from happening again
* Includes Main Street in the bailout & Invest in a new productive economy
The Backbone Campaign brought together a Dean Baker, Doug Henwood and a 50 progressive activists last Sunday and generated this counter proposal. Now we’ve shot a great video to stir up a Tax Payer Rebellion. Read the whole proposal and watch a hilarious 1 min. video at ThanksHank.org
I’m equally afraid of doing nothing and letting this president and this congress try to fix anything. My best wish is that we can stave off utter chaos until January when a more sane and responsible government exists.
And, when it stablizes, home prices will be such that the avergage would-be home buyer can service the mortgage, which is way lower then they are now.
Dow up.
Even the Fast Money guys on CNBC are lecturing Senator Schumer the corporate wing of the GOP doesn’t even like this, just who supports the bailout?
Remind me again why are the Democrats compromising?
That’s part of the high-level “statement of principles” that has supposedly been agreed to – “protections for taxpayers.”
I’ll believe it when I see the final bill.
Hanky Panky is a devout Christian Scientist. Relax, doG must want him to have all that money for a good reason. Put your trust in He/She/It. doG does work in mysterious ways after all…
This meltdown should be the end of Reaganomics. It doesn’t work.
Economics trickles up. The worth of a house is what real people can afford to pay for it. If you want housing prices to go up, increase the salaries of workers.
From the other thread:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..ndex1.html
That’s what I want to happen.
FYI, fastmoney just had Schumer on. He was not totally unfamiliar with the idea of creating transparent markets for mortgage backed securities.
People in rural, starter-home, and downmarket areas are going to get hammered, property-value-wise, but people in urban and/or more upscale areas where prices have held better will be able to move out of the cities and afford much much better homes than they could have done before.
Go to Zillow and look at the average prices for each market. If your area’s curve is drooping less than another area’s curve, then you can afford more home there for the same amount of money.
Worst nightmare for the GOP, Schumer just said the Dems will include their “insurance” option in the package. It’s up to Paulson to decide whether to use it or not. One less reason for the House Republicans not to cave.
Capillary action, money moves upwards.
Or economic vampirism, take your pick. (Insert wry smiley here.)
digg
“Now, first of all, what caused this problem was primarily deregulation.”
I don’t think so unless you mean by deregulation the passive-aggressive refusal to enforce and discouragement of enforcement of existing regulations. The Bush/Cheney regime has not only actively discouraged enforcement of existing regulations by cutting staff and other budget resources, diverted resources away from regulation enforcement to non-enforcement projects (busy work), as well as placing cronies in charge of the agencies responsible for enforcement and threatening reprisal against those who would pursue their enforcement duties. Deregulation simply gave them some cover for the criminal acts they intended to commit.
Regulations do not deter foxes given charge of the hen houses. I agree that deregulation made it easier.
Kramer starts off blaming Congress, not the GOP.
That’s just Schumer’s idea of humor – Paulson already said the insurance concept wouldn’t work.
There’s a several failing banks that wish they had followed that idea instead of creating exotic loan types to fuel home sales to people who really should have been renters. But, those loans are just another plank in the Bush Legacy. Mission Accomplished Yet?
mr welsh, i have my own little blog that like four of my family members read, (and no one else.) recently i blogged about firedoglake, (http://michaeljjames.blogspot.com/ ) and mentioned therein what i am here to say. your analysis is so consistently lucid and right on the money, i have come to look for it regularly. thanks for doing what you do.
Kramer: Corporate and Trust accounts are wiring their money into TBills. This is killing the banks.
Kramer wants higher limits for FDIC insurance.
See attached
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlsitMRQAdA
Hi Ian,
Yesterday when I noted that there are $11.1T worth of U.S. mortgages and only 1% of them are in default, i.e., $111B, you replied as follows:
I don’t understand what leverage has to do with it.
Granted there are something like $44T in CDSs, but IIUC they are all ultimately derived from mortgages. Not so?
it would help if more than a handful (if that) democrats in congress got that simple fact.
i get that the republicans are idiots about this. but i’m a democrat, and i’ll be damned if i’m going to sit quietly by and see my party do nothing constructive.
This is actually a good idea, surprising considering the source. The $100K limit was set, IIRC, during the Depression, would be more like $1M in real dollars now.
Exactly, I think the Rebublicans plan is crap, HOWEVER, I think the “Bush/Democrat” plan is also crap (The name alone should be enough to sink the whole deal).
Why on Earth are Democrats “signing on” to a plan DESIGNED BY GEORGE BUSHS ADMINISTRATION?
Do they believe George Bush’s plan will be effective and well thought out THIS TIME? Have they (and any other Democrats who are backing this plan) paid ANY attention to the last seven years?
The Democrats will be much better served to get their own experts and design their own plan than to have any connection to the George Bush plan.
Well 20 to 1 leverage for every $1 of loss the hedges lose $20 as I understand things.
I may be wrong but as I understand things the hedgefunds and Banks factored in a safety margin of lets say 10% of all home loans will go bankrupt but once the bankruptcy rate goes above this level then the 20 to losses kick in.
because it’s not designed by the bush administration. it’s designed by the same financial interests that the democrats have some to depend on (thank you bill clinton and the dlc).
Kramer is saying DOW 8,000 I’m surprised the market is not in a panic.
This is a good idea but would take time to implement. It is an insurance fund supported by premiums banks pay. The existing fund may not be able to pay out at $100K let alone 10x
“Bipartisanship means compromise and compromise with the Republicans on this means a lousy bill. In fact, starting with the Paulson bill is what made the Frank bill so awful, and the Dodd bill is better than the Frank bill because it departs further from Paulson. But because it’s still based on Paulson, it still isn’t actually a good bill, just a better bill than Frank’s or Paulson’s.
If Dodd or Frank had just put together a bill to do the job without any reference to Paulson’s power and money grab, either of them would have come up with a bill that would do a much better job than either of the bills they actually proposed. A fully Dem bill would be better than ANY bill which is compromised with either of the Republican bills.
So yes, what Americans NEED is a Democratic solution that saves them their jobs and life savings. Because no compromise bill with Republicans is going to do that.”
I’m with you. Whoever frames the question ends up controlling the answer.
The Dems should have just said no
Per http://time-blog.com/curious_c…..es_to.html
IMO, it’s a better use of funds than the Paulson plan – put at least some of the $700B into this. It would relieve the concerns of a vast number of Americans.
Is there any reason we should be trying to bailout hedges? (I’m very naive about these things.)
better get used to it.
compromise.
it’s what Obama campaigned on- if you were paying attention.
so that’s what we’ll get. again and again.
goody.
icymi, thought you might enjoy this youtube:
Kramer: “Bear Stearns is fine”
From my vantage it looks like one party to me. fuck’em
No and you are not Naive I listen to your questions and always think they deserve an answer:)
Something tells me a whole lot a shit is going to “trickle down” so much for voodoo economics
Well the stockmarket goes down but that is happening anyway.
*sigh* I would have to spend my days drinking if I believed the newly elected government will be the same.
Reid and other Senate Democrats who are not up for re-election in November have infinitely more leverage and responsibility than Obama.
They’ve been trickling down on us for 28 years now.
Reid and other Senile Democrats ……….
Fixed it for you
Thanks – “Missed it by that much!” – Get Smart.
House Republicans on CBS news (paraphrased) – “We’ll hold our breath until we turn blue unless you consider our proposal.”
Negotiating a bailout with the White House.
All necessary, but in part many of those fine suggestions simply increase flight out of the dollar. WRT those, I’m afraid we have to start some kind of international management of major world currencies. I don’t know how to begin doing that.
House Democrats can’t vote to print money without massive GOP support.
Can anyone tell me what time the debate is and on what network?
who’s that Eve Harrington wannabe waiting in the wings? Why it’s Rahm Emanuel!
That’ll be an improvement.
support the troops!
Uh, no.
Let the greedy, market manipulating bastards go under.
Just to show you how effed up they are, a recent WSJ article talked about how some of them are finding out other hedge funds’ positions and purposely trying to trade against it to drive them out of business; in other words they are eating their own.
I thought it was 9 ET and would be available on all channels
can’t argue with you.
can only try to make a difference. yeah, i know. failing.
(1) Obama has a reputation for bringing both sides together in compromise solutions. (2) Some of the rebellious Republicans have ideas that would significantly improve the recovery plan, e.g. insurance instead of bailout. (3) If Obama joined hands with these Republicans it would enhance his standing as a real leader, AND put a thumb in the eye of the administration. (4) Therefore, Obama should…..?????? (DUH!)
That’s what I have. 9 ET on all networks and PBS.
I kick in ten bucks a month to FDL.
How much are you donating?
Looks like the hedgies are finally getting the attention they deserve.
Official: Cuomo expands short selling probe
I can’t take the way he sings
But I love to hear him talk
I hope you’re right.
IMHO, Cuomo has been more concerned so far with the negative impact this is having on the NYC economy. He wants to keep the markets from moving to Dubai. I think a Federal probe launched by the Obama administration MIGHT have more zeal. I hope I’m wrong and Cuomo does it right.
thanks, foothillsmike and SouthernDragon
democratic fail
how much of my disability check do you think would be an appropriate amount?