did he not? He was trying to blame Obama and Pelosi for the failure of the legislation. This pretending that it was the Democrats' being "mean" to the Republicans that caused the Republicans to vote against the bill sounds like the huband who abuses his wife, slaps her around, and then blames her for his actions:"She made me do it." These Republicans are psychological basket cases and should be in therapy. I don't think Barney Frank's talking uncharacteristically nice to them will do it for them.

I know this isn't going to be a popular thing to say after a 777 point dive - but this bill wasn't worth passing as is.

The bill needs to do just two things.

1) Force banks to allow borrowers to convert subprime loans to fixed term loans.
2) Insure banks - reducing their risks - to convert the subprime loans.

Anything beyond that doesn't solve the root problem.  Anything beyond that is a giveaway of our money.

In this rare occasion, I agree with the Republicans who are pushing for insurance as opposed to an outright bailout.

But, unlike the Republicans, I believe that the banks should be forced to convert these subprime loans into 30 year fixed at a reasonable rate (6%).  

I don't believe we should buyout the homes that owners can't afford a 30 year note at 6% on.  The banks will need to take care of that problem.

We can put the $700B into a fund to cover the losses.  Once we have a better idea of what the losses will be, I suggest putting the remaining money into insuring SBA loans so that small businesses have access to money also.  Also, the government must stop giving 4 out of 6 contracts reserved for small businesses to big business.

here is what I propose: we do it like the AHC does it with a little twist.  If the government restructures or pays for some of your loan, then when you sell it, the government gets all the profits from the sale.  If by chance you lose money, then you eat the loss.  If you die, then the property does not transfer to your estate, but to taxpayers.

Allow them to repay the government (with interest) and then they can reap the profits or will it to their children.  But I agree - if we keep them in their homes they shouldn't profit from the eventual sale.

I think there needs to be some shared responsibility here between the banks and the home owners.  Should the banks also be required to pay profits to the government if they get bailed out (in the event there are profits)?

I think we may have found something to agree upon here.  I wish Congress could have agreed upon a plan like this 777 points ago ;-)  Insurance to me seems like the easiest solution.  It isn't perfect, but I can't think of any solution which is perfect.

The government would have to get non-voting warrants if they took the bad assets of their hands.  Warrants are like stock options.  They allow the holder to get shares of company when exercised.  The government would then get any benefit of a stock price increase from these deals.

I've heard three times now that Obama did not want a moratorium on foreclosures in the bill.  Does anyone know why or if that is true.  That would have gone a long way to stop the bleeding.  Let's say 6 months so people could collect themselves.  Yes, I'm very confused.  What should I say when I'm told this.  Thanks!

Or will Republicans be intransigent?  Who wins out the donors or the phone calls from constituents?  If Republicans are out, then no bill?

If they take it up again, and Republicans change their votes en masse, then they are flip-floppers.  What do they go home and tell their constituents?  And would this then discourage Republican voters from showing up on election day?

As you and aznew both point out, Americans are ignorant when it comes to the debt market.  It follows then that they don't realize the breadth and depth of this crisis or why it has the Treasury and the Fed so worried.  

I don't know that a 700+ point in the DJIA is going to do it.  The DJIA has been swinging wildly.  And public opinion appears not been swayed by that.  

If lobbyist lose their clout now, I doubt this will pass.  Who would have thought that a group regularly maligned is now essential to passage of a critical stop-gap measure?  And the public stands in the way.  If the Chamber of Commerce wins, then it will only underscore in the public's mind who has power and who doesn't in Washington.  

This is just damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I'm sure most politicians aren't enjoying going to work these days.  But this is one of those moments when they earn those six figure salaries.

Paulson's 3 pager was suspect to begin with. Did he really believe that congress would hand Paulson 700b w/czar powers and no oversight? Probably not, but it did create a "lets fix it" buy-in by congress. It was "sausage" legislation-some even described it as "castor oil" . Add to that: time constraints, the public's lack of trust of the current administration and an even greater distaste for aiding "fatcats" on Wallstreet to the tune of $700 billion- not surprized the bill failed.    

If Congress is serious about addressing our current financial crisis in a bi-partisan fashion then they need to start with a clean page.

The Republicans have been playing "pin the blame on Pelosi" since Dems have been in the majority. Pointing fingers is easy to do, but as the saying goes, when you point your finger, there are 3 pointing back at you.

 

Just got off the world business report, the world markets are all down big at the open.  The commentator said it is the biggest single drop for them in 20 years.  This diaster is at least 80% caused by the bush-mccain unregulated free markets nut wing of the republican party. If the bush administration had been doing its job instead of trying to do away with regulations, I say that none of this would be happening. Not only is mccain up to his eyeballs in excessive deregulation, two of his best buddy, buddies are Carly Fiorina and Phil Graham, part of the borderless world, no regulations lobby.

John McCain: Nothing But More Of The Same