muck Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 As a full-time investor-type, it feels like I'm having to work 2x or 3x as hard this year for the same results I got last year. Today's action by the fine folks in Washington will not be making my life any easier. I've already spoken to my wife 2x today giving her updates. The last one was to let her know that I'm going to be even busier for the time being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Mrs. Peppermint should have kept her mouth shut before the vote. What did she say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 i just wanted to say how great it was knowing all of you before the huddle disappears ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What did she say? fanned partisan flames: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Anthrax? Hey, bank runs and commodity shortages are entirely possible if there isn't any liquidity in the market. If those things happen (and it won't take much of a scare for that to become a self-fulfilling prophecy) all fingers will be pointed squarely at the House. I don't think that the proposed bailout package was the "right" answer, but it is entirely possible that something was better than nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What did she say? She said that the Dems should of nominated LULU instead of Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Couldn't the Dems pass this no matter how the Republicans voted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Dems dont want to take blame if it doesnt work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Dems dont want to take blame if it doesnt work. What are you talking about? 2/3 of the House republicans opposed the bill. This isn't a republican versus democrat thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What are you talking about? 2/3 of the House republicans opposed the bill. This isn't a republican versus democrat thing. Oh is that what Nancy's speech was all about. She on the tube now. sounding like a bumbling idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What are you talking about? 2/3 of the House republicans opposed the bill. This isn't a republican versus democrat thing. And 40% of the Dems. Sounds like a lousy bill then. Let's start over by first making the CEO's and executives pay back their hugh bonuses over the past 10 years they received. That should knock out most of the $700 billion right there. Next, we all get to pick which Board of Director approved them we're going to have over to cut our lawns this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 THIS IS A GREAT THREAD! PLEASE let us not get it blown up due to political stuff... PLEASE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I'm actually surprised the House had the stones to put the brakes on. Right or wrong, I didn't think they had it in them. as wiegie said, for better or worse, this vote was 100% about a LACK of stones. "We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.' " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 as wiegie said, for better or worse, this vote was 100% about a LACK of stones. I still disagree. Refusing to pass what one believes to be flawed legislation, when everyone is howling for relief, would be the more difficult vote IMO. Congress rubber stamped the Patriot Act and the decision to invade Iraq. I was expecting that same kind of behavior here given the imminent "crisis" Bernake, Bush, and Paulson keep talking about. Nancy's moranic comments aside, I think the House has made it clear that they're willing to pass some form of bailout legislation; they just want something better than what was presented to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 obama's whole schtick has been to blame this on a republican philosophy of de-regulating everything. and yet, there is clear, conclusive evidence that problems were perceived going back to the clinton administration...clinton tried to fix them, bush tried to fix them, the republicans in congress tried to fix them....at each step along the way, congressional democrats stopped them cold, saying new regulation wasn't needed. clinton himself said so last week. I still think it's majorly retarded every time you try to claim that the minority democrats kept the majority republicans from passing bills. Also think it's majorly retarded to claim that the "Clinton Administration" kept a republican congress from doing what it wanted to do. Did he veto the bill? Nobody is that stupid, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 And 40% of the Dems. Sounds like a lousy bill then. Let's start over by first making the CEO's and executives pay back their hugh bonuses over the past 10 years they received. That should knock out most of the $700 billion right there. Next, we all get to pick which Board of Director approved them we're going to have over to cut our lawns this week. There's some troof in your jocularity. If Bush felt so strongly about the bailout package, all he'd have to have done to breed some real confidence in it would have been to pledge say, $10mm of his own family's assets as collateral that the government could look to in the event a certain threshold percentage of the $700bb doesn't get repaid. Heck, he could have rallied others to do the same in a true show of leadership. I'd have stood up and applauded the guy if he'd done something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 This vote will have huge implications on the election this fall. If nothing passes in its place and the economy really tanks, you can bet that alot of those voters who called Washington upset that they were bailing out Wall Street will be just as upset at the loss of their retirement funds, jobs, etc. Right? What if the bailout passed and the economy still really tanked? Are you sure this was the best way to accomplish the goals? If the government is really shelling out 700bn to a trillion dollars to bail out a seriously f'ed up scheme, it better come with some concessions from Wall Street to keep it from happening again, and I don't want to hear any whining about it. Don't like it? Suck it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Ummm...I believe the stock and bond holders from WaMu believe that they've suffered a great loss. Stock holders at Lehman? Same thing. AIG? Yup. Wachovia Bank's stock holders? Yeah, they took it in the shorts, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 If the government is really shelling out 700bn to a trillion dollars to bail out a seriously f'ed up scheme, it better come with some concessions from Wall Street to keep it from happening again, and I don't want to hear any whining about it. Don't like it? Suck it. Exactly, or else Wiegie better start teaching a new chapter in his book. "How to lie, cheat, and steal your way into millions - perhaps billions - and get away with it." The sub-title will be "Go big...because we only bail out when you fail big". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Oh, and we really need to stop using the word "bailout", it may very well be a "handout". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 ron paul's take ... the walk off move at the end was badass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdrtoys Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What people don't seem to understand is that alot of small to medium sized business use credit lines for their every day operations. The use these credit lines to shore up necessary resources to start projects while they wait for their customers to pay. Without these credit lines, the companies will not be able to meet their day to day needs including pay checks. Unless something is done and credit lines are fixed, we're going to see a lot (small, medium and large) businesses cut their staff or out right close. We'll definately start seeing a delay in employee wages. All the people who didn't want to bail out the "big bad banks" don't understand how those banks prop up businesses on a day to day basis Glad I sold my business last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 ron paul's take ... the walk off move at the end was badass. Could've been the US president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I still think it's majorly retarded every time you try to claim that the minority democrats kept the majority republicans from passing bills.Also think it's majorly retarded to claim that the "Clinton Administration" kept a republican congress from doing what it wanted to do. Did he veto the bill? Nobody is that stupid, man. certain individuals in congress listened to the dire warnings of people like alan greenspan and saw the potential problems with fannie and freddie, and pushed bills to fix the problem. other people padded their campaign funds with donations from their lobbyists, went out on the floor of congress and said, "hey, there's no problem here", and obstructed the reform bills. which individuals were on which side is all a matter of public record. also, I did not say that clinton kept the republican congress from doing what it wanted to do. I echoed clinton's own claim that congressional democrats thwarted efforts (including his own) at implementing oversight at fanne and freddie for the last 10+ years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Refusing to pass what one believes to be flawed legislation, when everyone is howling for relief, would be the more difficult vote IMO. if that's what's happening, sure. but there's evidence a lot of the no votes are coming from people who think the bill is probably needed, but are afraid of the ramifictations of opposing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.