Well, if by market you mean the state’s regulation, you got it.

Now, how did it happen? How is it happen that by mere speculation you have a 700 billion dollar debt?

I sincerely ask.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This is how it happens. They got rid of Glass Steagal which allowed the financial markets to get into bed with banks. The banks then went hog wild making any loans they could and didnt care if they would ever be paid back because they bundled them and sold them to the financial institutions. When they ran out of reasonable loans to make they went into poor neighborhoods to find people who were cash poor but equity rich because they bought their homes decades ago and aggressively sold refinances that they KNEW would never be paid back for the same reason they werent going to hold them. The financial institutions also did not CARE if the loans were good when they bought them because as they grew with paper assets they paid themselves unGODLY bonuses and they knew when it all fell down the taxpayers would bail them out because this country has ALWAYS had socialism for the rich. They KNEW it was a house of cards that would fall eventually but they also knew there was no downside for THEM.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s quite possible that he did us all a great service. But, whether it works to his ultimate advantage or not, he’s getting the blame/credit. And he’s brought it upon himself.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/blunt_blunter_bluntest_mccain.php

There is plenty to go after McCain and republicans without intentionally taking words out of context.

There’s better stuff out there. TP should pull this.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/debatebingo/azc_bingo.html

Thanks for the memories!

But, I’m willing to bet that, given the 9X10 minute format, he will provide at least 17 minutes of babbling nonsense about something other than the topic.

A better plan would have two core elements: First, most of the government money goes to refinance mortgages rather than buy up bad paper. Once the mortgage market stabilizes, some value returns to the bonds backed by mortgages. That way, homeowners are the primary beneficiaries, not the incidental ones.

I think I just said that yesterday. But will the Dems do it? No.
They already caved to the whacked out repugnican thugs who bizarrely insisted that this NOT be a piece of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-deal-that-blew-up_b_129521.html
This “requires” modifications on mortgages that are picked up in the bailout. What is missing is the logical authority to allow bankruptcy courts to work out mortgages. It is bizarre that Paulson, Wall Street and Republicans have decided to oppose what would be the most logical way to work out bad mortgages — a hearing officer on a case by case basis deciding the best way to proceed.

As an unlettered non-physician, I recommend high doses of antihelminthic therapy for Wall Street and its denizens.
(You know. Anti-parasite drugs. Generic ones, please.)

Where is FDR when we need him?

I was for the Bailout until I read this:

DON’T TAKE THE BAIT: How to Lose an Election in 10 Easy Steps

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/23/8591/39629/870/607298

I have two Problems with the Bailout….so far…

1. The Republicans could vote Against it, making political Hay. A massive bailout of any kind is massively unpopular.

2. It Might Not Work. NO ONE is on the record saying it WILL so far.

from the link
“we’re in an asset devaluation, not a liquidity crisis. In other words, the problem with the economy isn’t that banks need $1 trillion to feel confident about making more loans. The problem is that banks leveraged more than the entire world’s GDP in mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps alone–and that paper is barely worth a fraction of its former outrageously inflated value. There isn’t enough money to throw at this problem and still make a dent. And even if you print the money, the rest of the world is likely to call in their chips.”

Mine’s 38-43.

Slightly off topic but…

Is anybody running a contest/pool to accurately predict certain things about tonight’s debate?

For how many times he mentions his captivity, in a debate answer.

You want in?

Instead of injecting taxpayer funds into the market to produce liquidity, private capital can be drawn into the market by removing burdensome regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. In short, too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis, and it is well past time to unleash it.

Is he talking about rewriting the tax laws, so that all the companies who went off-shore also can form commercial entities, and offer credit, but with an “insurance” that requires premiums to be paid – to off-shored corporations?

I’m an historian, not an economist, (and pressed for time just now) but I will throw out this:

A constant push for deregulation, starting with Reagan, that has continued through all of the administrations (including Clinton’s) until now.

Hence the “need” for a bailout, mine-safety issues, toxic toys from China, salmonella tainted US produced food, etc. The one thing all these problems have in common is reduced or non-existent oversight and regulation.

Is anybody running a contest/pool to accurately predict certain things about tonight’s debate? Like how many times Flippy says “my friends”? Who will be the first Reichwhiner to claim that the “ultra librul” Jim Lehrer treated the old guy unfairly? And, what’s the over/under on Flippy’s incoherent “senior moments”?