LOL Sir!:D
As was just said on Fox by Cavuto..."The market is just having a hissy fit...like my 5 year old."

Holly:munchin

House defeats $700B financial markets bailout
 

September 29, 2008 - 2:21pm

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

When the critical vote was tallied, too few members of the House were willing to support the unpopular measure with elections just five weeks away. Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home.

The vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said that Bush had used a "call list" of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.

Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.

They found only two.

Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

"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.' "

With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.

"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.

She just doesn't get it.
 

A link to video inflammatory comments by Speaker of the House the Honorable Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Some politicians would rather be 'right' than get problems solved. This frame mind is especially unfortunate in times of national crisis and when the politician in question is most often wrong.

While I recognize that the consensus was against the bailout, and also that the great majority of the public deeply opposed it, I suspect the cost of rejecting the bill will be significant.

I have attached a chart of the action of the Dow Industrials, with each line representing 5 minutes of trading. The line at 10,725 represents a multiyear support level. Violation of support suggests continued decline.

In addition to Wall Street, a great many people have lost money. Many people are indirectly involved with the market, such as through pension funds, have been, and perhaps will be, affected.

On the bright side, down markets lead to generational buying opportunities. Perhaps this is the prelude.

:munchin

Well said nmap.

I too wonder what the cost of rejecting the bail-out plan will be. Wall Street was clearly underwhelmed by the vote today.

As a percent of GDP, the proposed bail-out was relatively small as compared to some historic interventions. Dropping $700B of taxpayer money for the bad banking practices of others sticks in the craw, but not doing so may cause more pain later. In my world we often use the "ounce of prevention" aphorism. Time will tell.

nmap,

Thank you for your continued expert analysis of this situation.

Can only imagine what some of my former co-workers at Morgan Stanley are doing right about now:rolleyes:
...but if memory serves correct, you are spot on!

There will be many good "buying" opportunities, after this sell-off.

JMHO...:munchin

Holly

Bail out failure
 

It would seem the results would best be evaluated a week from now, a month from now and a year from now. I don't trust Wall Street to NOT manipulate a panic to get their way. One thing I would really like to see is an investigation of Goldman Sachs. Both Rubin and Paulsen come from there and a lot of deregulation seems to have been for their benefit. It is interesting that the current chairman of Goldman sat in on the Fed meetings on AIG and helped design the bailout of AIG. Although he denied any Goldman interest in AIG, it turns out he was lying. Goldman stood to lose billions if AIG failed. It therefore seems taxpayers have already bailed out Goldman, they just don't want us to know.

Hang on folks.....there may be a bumpy ride ahead, and then some!


RF 1

What's with the name change of the bill?

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/im...lcall.0929.pdf

Is the billions of dollars the "for other purposes" part?

What am I missing?

I think I answered my own question - sort of...
They taked this on to the existing bill written in 2007.
But why???

Only the vanquished remember history."
-Marshall McLuhan

Sure would be nice to know how much money member's of the House and Senate lost in the market today.

BMT

A large portion of this current crisis directly relates to the Sarbanes-Oxley act, the previous knee-jerk reaction put in place during a crisis like this. That with the additions of the Fannie and Freddie cash-cow programs "working" and being supported endlessly by Democrats saying there was no need for reform, well, here we are.

The bailout bill is necessary, as I've stated previously. This is the case not only to promote liquidity within the credit markets, but additionally calm the fears of the American public. The average American doesn't seem to understand what is going on right now, and overall, not realizing that they will be hurt as well if this bill doesn't pass. The issue is that the bill in it's current form puts entirely too much power in a consolidated position, and throws billions of dollars into the abyss.

Newt Gingrich brought up some interesting points about suspending the Sarbanes-Oxley act, and setting up a rolling 3-year average. I hadn't thought about it, but after doing some research on it, the man certainly has a point. I for one, tend to like it a lot more than the current plan. It will instantly help the liquidity issue, and most importantly, give our hard-working Congress (:confused:) time to get a proper bill in order that won't be throwing billions of dollars to left-wing organizations. Additionally, the administration can get this done without the approval of Congress, or the passage of a bill, thus bypassing Pelosi and the Dems.

However, as he noted, I'm sure this idea will be overlooked, and the omnipotent Nancy Pelosi will come up with a much worse, crooked, far-left bill by the end of the week. She's so powerful, she couldn't be bothered to rally her own party to pass the bill. Or perhaps she just wanted more Republicans to vote for it, so they can continue the blame game without getting anything accomplished.

Asian markets are open and down, it's gonna be another long day if something doesn't get accomplished soon. :boohoo

Storm,

Good post--I wish I could be that sharp at two am.

I think that, once again, the MSM inserted themselves into the story rather than doing their job. The MSM has called it a 'bailout' and stressed the $700 billion price tag at the expense of communicating that the end cost may be significantly less and also the long term risk to the average American if a rescue package doesn't get passed.

I guess it is a lot easier for some media outlets to throw gasoline on the fire so they can sell more papers or get higher ratings.

As for Newt Gingrich, if only the guy could be a bit more low key. I don't always agree with him but I think he has a first rate mind and is a great communicator.

As for Pelosi, her meltdown was so weird one has to think it was a calculated ploy to put Republicans on the defensive because the alternative is too scary to consider.

I did some research too after hearing this and I agree with Newt...but it won't happen.