Russert’s question stemmed from Paul voting “no” (aka Dr. No) on so many bills and Russert was pretending it was hypocritical of Paul to then claim earmarks. Paul countered that even though he voted “no”, if the bill passed, why not give his constituents back some of their very own money? Funds are going to be spent and since earmarks do not add to a bill’s funding (which of course Russert knew) why not bring it back to the people?

I thought Paul’s answer was great, especially beginning with the, “Oh, come on now Tim….” — emphasizing the false “gotcha” Russert was trying to play.

good post

FWIW, ending slavery required that the vast majority of the Union Army be composed of men who were white supremacists. They strongly believed in segregation, but they opposed some states allowing slavery.

He’s also been one of the main players in “mainstreaming” themes of the “patriot militia” and white supremicist/nativist groups into the mainstream of the Republican Party.

So even when I find myself agreeing with him on an individual point, I still see him as a seriously bad influence in American politics.

where in 2 to 3 years they will be very valuable while collecting some income and may be re-purchased again by these same banks later

It’s not that simple.

Guess what got lost in the loan pool

WE are all learning, to our deep distress, how the perpetual pursuit of profits drove so many of the bad decisions that financial institutions made during the mortgage mania.

But while investors tally the losses that were generated by loose lending so far, the impact of another lax practice is only beginning to be seen. That is the big banks’ minimalist approach to meeting legal requirements — bookkeeping matters, really — when pooling thousands of loans into securitization trusts.

Stated simply, the notes that underlie mortgages placed in securitization trusts must be assigned to those trusts soon after the firms create them. And any transfers of these notes must also be recorded.

But this seems not to have been a priority with many big banks. The result is that bankruptcy judges are finding that institutions claiming to hold the notes that back specific mortgages often cannot prove it.

On Feb. 11, a circuit court judge in Miami-Dade County in Florida set aside a judgment against Ana L. Fernandez, a borrower whose home had been foreclosed and repurchased on Jan. 21 by Chevy Chase Bank, the institution claiming to hold the note. But the bank had been unable to produce evidence that the original lender had assigned the note, which was in the amount of $225,000, to Chevy Chase.

With the sale set aside, Ms. Fernandez remains in the home. “We believe this loan was never assigned,” said Ray Garcia, the lawyer in Miami who represented the borrower. Now, he said, it is up to whoever can produce the underlying note to litigate the case. The statute of limitations on such a matter runs for five years, he said.[…]

Ofcourse the white-collar thugs, who bought the CDS’ and worthless securities want to give it to the taxpayers without paying back the losses.

In three, or five, or ten years, they will only buy back the stuff that is worth something.

Why leave the white-collar thugs, who engineered this disaster in control of what’s left of the banks?

do