While Wayne Gilchrest voted for it, it failed and the DOW dropped more than 500 points to boot. 228 to 205 against the Bailout. Oil dropped down to $98.00 a barrel. It dropped $10.00 a barrel as soon as the news came out about the bailout.
So far today the DOW is down -553.47. S&P is down 79.4. NASDAQ is down 141.23.
Put your seat belts on Folks because we're in for a ride like you've never seen before. If too many Americans go to the Bank and starts pulling their money out, we're done.
See how your Congressperson voted HERE.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
I 've already lost my butt in my retirement program , six digits.
ReplyDeleteI would draw evry dime out of the banks and the market if it were possible. You can't pull out of the market if there aren't any
buyers.
Don't pull your money out of the banks. It is insured up to $100,000 per account, and if people freak out, the economy is going to be seriously hurt. If you withdraw your money and put it somewhere weird, you have no insurance to cover it. The smart money says stay in the market, especially if you don't plan on retiring in the next five years. Remember--as the stock prices go down, your retirement portfolio can buy more stocks at cheaper prices, When it bounces back (and it always does), you don't want to be one of those people who pulled out, you'll miss the big profits. Hang in there, everyone, it will be ok.
ReplyDeleteGood. They did what the people wanted...for a change.
ReplyDeleteHurray for America! The polititians actually listed to a few of their constituents.
ReplyDeleteAnytime the government tries to do something as fast as possible with our money, we better watch out.
Something like this needs real time to look into a good fix. Giving away our tax dollars in a loan to wall street with the sell that in the future we'll have the loan repaid is riddiculous. That's the problem we're in now. Loans can't be repaid.
How can we keep giving multi-million dollar bonuses to people that are running their businesses into hte ground. Please people understand, with any investment There is risk. Some risk is greater than others, but there is still risk.
One of the problems with this particular bill is that there was alot of add ons that were not needed. We are trying to bailout wall street from housing loans that are failing at too high of a rate. That doesn't mean that we need to add in every financial industry that is losing money thru default. People are suppose to win and lose money. That's what the stock market is all about.
Please my fellow Americans, please don't fall for the claims of doom and gloom. If crimes happened, investigate and prosecute. If the government looked the other way, vote these people out and add the regulation and oversight back in. We don't need a nazi approach, but we can't look the other way either.
Joe --
ReplyDeleteIt's just what Andy Harris wanted -- why are you knocking it?
Guess What:
ReplyDeleteGordy will have to lower his gas prices now!
There goes yet another anonymous Idiot putting words in my mouth. I'm not knocking anything. My stance has been the same and I tip my hat for Andy Harris while that pussy Kratovil and Gilchrest were for the bailout without any security in place. Oh, sure, now I'm sure Kratovil will say he's against it too but his joined at the hip partner Gilchrest spoke loud and clear today with his vote. I'm sorry but this is exactly what you can expect from the Democraps on this issue. I call is, Idiots. The right move was made today. Slow everyone down and get the DETAILS ironed out. The concept alone was stupid. Besides, how did we get into a $700 billion situation ALL OF A SUDDEN? Get a grip Democtrats.
ReplyDeletei have no money in the bank to pull out!
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeleteThe only thing we have to fear is fear itself, don't you know?
PS -- please tell Biden not to plagiarize that little nugget of knowledge.
Yo Anon 4:26, it's not $100,000 per account, it's $100,000 collective total of accounts per tax ID or SS#. That means for business or personal account holders with multiple accounts (like say checking, savings, money market) the cumulative total of all accounts is insureed up to $100,000.
ReplyDeleteYo Mardella, have you got your ditto head all the way up your ass? This bailout would HELPS people and the country as a whole. Partisan politics and percieved political gain by the House Republicans just sunk a nation (and maybe you). Think about it.
Joe I beleive it was a republican who initiated the bill. Was it not? The republicans that voted against it are just trying to bring some dignity back to there party by publicly siding against the republican president.I guess you are bailing on your republican president? Are you going to do the same if McCain gets into office and screws up? Face it your party is in more dissary then the democratic party is.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the Democrats tried to place blame for this mess on President Bush even thou this mess is DIRECTLY related to the policies Clinton put into action back in 1995.
ReplyDeleteThe queen witch Pelosi, in a new record low move, used the position of Speaker of the House, to wave her finger at republicans and claim that this is all Bushes fault, right before the vote. How stupid can this idiot from San Francisco be?
She torpedoed the bill that the Dumbocrats wanted.
When will you people learn what happens when you elect Dumbocrats!
Hmmm, I wonder how the reps from Arizona voted? You know the State that senator McCain represents. After all I do beleive that McCain has said that congress needs to pass this bill.
ReplyDeleteJoe, do you have a f**king clue how the economy works? Your snail pace approach is costing billions of dollars. Do you have any idea what an 800 point drop in the DOW in one day does? People are loosing billions in one day. Get a clue.
ReplyDeleteThe Roots of the Subprime Mortgage Mess Have Clinton All Over Them
ReplyDeleteBy Jimmie on Sep 21, 2008 in The Economy and Your Money
There has been a lot of talk recently about subprime mortgages and the thought occurred to me that something had to happen in the financial market to make subprime mortgages so attractive for companies to offer.. First is this tidbit from the USA Today, in 2004.
Subprime mortgage activity grew an average 25% a year from 1994 to 2003, outpacing the rate of growth for prime mortgages. The industry accounted for about $330 billion, or 9%, of U.S. mortgages in 2003, up from $35 billion a decade earlier.
Where did this come from? It’s not as if subprime mortgages were brand new things in 1994. They’ve existed for quite a long time, but mortgage companies didn’t offer them very often. Something had to happen to generate such a marked increase. Financial markets don’t just shift to a new lending practice without a darned good reason. For there to be a tenfold increase in subprime mortgages means that something dramatic had to happen. So what was it?
In this case, it was the Clinton administration.
In 1994, the administration pushed through some fundamental changes to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The goal of these changes was to make sure that banks were “serving low and moderate income geographies” and making sure that these banks “economically empowered persons of low and moderate income”. Regulators were then given more power to punish banks that did not comply with the new rules These changes led directly, I believe, to the explosion of subprime mortgages and contributed heavily to our current financial debacle.
The changes did two basic things. First, the government changed the measure by which the regulators decided whether a bank was in compliance with the act or not. Prior to 1994, the ratings were determined in large part by what efforts banks were taking to reach into these neighborhoods - what advertising they were doing, how many bank branches they opened, what sort of outreach they made into offering loans and mortgages. The new rules made the rating dependent on outcome-based numbers - how many mortgages were signed, how much money was loaned, and so on. Those numbers were broken down on racial lines, as well as by neighborhood, and by financial status. In other words, for a bank to get a good rating under the CRA it had to actually start writing mortgages to low-income lenders instead of simply offering mortgages and advertising its services. This was not merely a matter of paperwork. As the Comtroller said in 1994, non compliance would bring out “the full panoply of all our enforcement armorarium”. In other words, the government had a couple brand-new hammers and they intended to use them if banks didn’t make low-income loans.
The second thing that happened is that the Clinton administration made it easier for groups to make complaints against banks for perceived under-performance. That put an immense amount of pressure on banks to cut deals with largely left-wing political groups who them turned that money toward more advocacy and dodgy loans. As a rather prescient article in the City Paper put it:
Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled “The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.” “Timely comments,” the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, “can have a strong influence on a bank’s CRA rating.”
The Clinton administration’s get-tough regulatory regime mattered so crucially because bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. “To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,” advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, “lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.” By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, “CRA is the backbone of everything we do.”
It’s not a real mystery to see what happened next. Lending institutions, under the gun to give out loans, started extending loans to people who would not have qualified for them otherwise. Those loans, called subprime because they are made to people who are not prime credit risks, carried higher interest rates (because the lender needs to make sure that it makes money out of a loan that is far more likely to go into default) and other costly attachments that mitigated the risk to the lender and the people whose money the lender was using for these loans (i.e. folks like you and me). The more pressure that was put on banks from these advocacy groups and government regulators, the more subprime mortgages they issued to keep their CRA score high enough to remain in compliance.
Now, the Clinton administration is not solely responsible for our current financial woes, but it did contribute greatly to the explosion of subprime mortgages, which helped drive us to where we are now. If we’re going to eventually untangle this mess, the CRA and Clinton’s 1994 regulation expansion is a good place to start.
The spin is starting already on the bailout bill’s failure. What’s surprising is that it’s starting to come from conservatives who should know better.
ReplyDeleteRamesh Ponnuru says it’s bad for McCain and Republicans because he didn’t get House Republicans on board. Jim Manzi calls the rejection a “neat little experiment to test the actual odds of the current financial crisis turning into another Depression”. Rich Lowry is saying that “the likes of Mike Pence indeed played an extremely irresponsible role”.
Sorry, guys. That doesn’t fly. Republicans played their part. This is not their failure. This is a Democratic failure, lock, stock and barrel. Shame on the conservatives who are twisting themselves into pretzels to say otherwise.
Regardless of what the Chicken Little Paulson says, the market is still moving along, even a week after we were told that the collapse of the financial system was imminent. Indeed, the private sector is adapting right now and it would adapt even better if conservatives, would remember who the hell they are.
Even so, Jim Boehner delivered more than enough Republicans to pass this bill. Here are the numbers.
House Democrats: 235 - Number who voted for the bill: 140 - Total percentage: 60 percent.
House Republicans: 199 - Number who voted for the bill: 65 - Total percentage: 33 percent.
In other words, Boehner brought around a full third of House Republicans to vote for a bill that they almost unanimously were against and he did it in about three days. Remember that humongous government programs are the exact opposite of what conservatives should be fighting for. Meanwhile, Pelosi lost 40 percent of her caucus in three days. Say what you will about recalcritant Republicans, but a third of them were willing to take huge bites of the “crap sandwich” despite almost continuous insults from and naked demagoguery by Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, and Obama.
Remember, folks, the House Republicans were completely cut out of the process until John McCain showed up and gave them a seat at the table. And they were derided as “unpatriotic” by Nancy Pelosi for not attending a meeting they were never told about. They’ve taken shots from both sides of the argument from their own most ardent supporters.
And it’s their fault that only a third of them voted for a baldly leftist bill that rewarded irresponsible behavior, punished the vast majority of homeowners who played by the rules and took mortgages they could afford at cost to themselves, and sent the very strong message that the government would go into crisis mode to bail you out of your stupid or greedy decisions?
Bullpuckey. This is one hundred percent a Democratic mess. They have not negotiated in good faith. They caused the problem and have not even remotely approached seriousness to deal with it.
And Republicans should do everything in their power to hang this around their necks. If the Democrats want to drive us into socializing financial losses, then they can do it their damned selves. We conservatives extended ourselves and acted in good faith. I’m through with playing nice with those Marxist morons in the House. If they want to drive my country into a ditch, they’ll have to do it while I spend every minute I possibly can trying to wrest the wheel from their childish, greedy hands.
My wife and I haven't visited the doctor at all this year, because we can't afford it, yet my family's lousy, high-deductible health insurance premium just went up by 20%. I'd love to be able to set that extra 20% aside to save for my retirement or send my kids to college.
ReplyDelete$700 Billion would buy coverage for an awful lot of people...But I guess that would be socialist.
Where's my freakin' bailout?
Proud to be an American today. We still have a voice, though one hanging on by a thread.
ReplyDeleteBoth parties are totally controlled by the elite few who manipulate the stock market. They are trying to scare us into going along with a massive debt on our grandchildren. Our children won't even pay this debt. It will be our grandchildren. What will be their rate of taxation to this wicked empire?
ReplyDeleteCall me old fashion or whatever. My feeble mind says all the little convenience stores owned by the small neighborhood man are almost extinct. The only ones that I can think of is the one on Nanticoke Road and one on Mt. Hermon Road by Kilburnie. Could it be that WalMart gets to use revolving credit and therefore can underprice their goods so low that it puts the little guy out of business. Of course, there are the 7-11 stores which are owned by people who can run it for 5 years or something like that then transfer it to a relative. My simple mind says a constant flow of credit allows big operations to continue but the smaller guy cannot get those benefits, therefore they go out of business.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I have a credit card and mortgage but I believe many people think credit is cash in their pocket to spend and not save.
Keeping credit flowing seems to get more and more people in trouble financial because some not all people continue to use credit to indulge in items that they could do without.
The salaries of CEOs is obscene. Is there any man worth $461,000.000.00 down to $38,000,000.00 a year? This was told by a legislator when I was watching C-Span this weekend. My opinion of a CEO is a high priced manager who many times cuts the lower paid worker to make profits.
If a person has invented a product or started a business that succeeded, then let them earn whatever is due them. I don't care if the making millions or billions of dollars a year because they used their skills to obtain this salary.
they should have seen this coming a long time ago it was bound to happen i dont blame lending agencies or americans for borrowing its in our nature americans love money ,but the government should have been prepared. i blame it mostly on the war on terror we have been in the middle east way too long spending over 12 billion a month just on the war efforts. the war on terror is like the war on drugs terrorism has been around since the beginning of man we cant stop it its a never endng battle so why waste billions a month on it?
ReplyDeleteComing to the end of the campaign season, which is no longer a season it is a huge 2 year circus. A three ring circus under the big tent; to be exact, the amount of money that has been spent is gastronomical. Much less the amount of time. Millions of hours of TV time, whole careers have been made by "political analysts" and lots of money has been made by the media, of all kinds.
ReplyDeleteI am tired of being brain washed...I am tired of adjectives being the subliminal message of who is favored by which "political analyst" It is overwhelming, it is ridiculous, and it is laughable that the American people think that they are getting "news" No...they are not, they are getting "spin" and they are getting spun around until they are dizzy.
No wonder "No one understands" the economic mess.The media is spinning it out of the realm of understanding, We need to find out things on our own. I suggest a computer, a library,a book store.
Deregulation is a word to look up on Google, with the names Gramm, and McCain. Is Gramm the author of the 8 year old deregulation plan for wall street? tacking it on to another bill. Hoping no one would notice, well that is what happened. Is he McCain's economic guru? Yes. Is he the president of a Swiss bank, yes. Did McCain say he wanted to deregulate health care. Yes. He did. Can you connect the dots? Read, folk, read. Don't listen to the hucksters, the circus clowns, the animal acts...read, investigate.
The media will not tell us the truth. Why, Money is why....OMG if they were to tell the truth there would be no " three ring circus" and no money to be made, and no performances of the media clowns.
The American people are a smart bunch, they can be fooled, but only for a little while, and that little while has long past.
It is our country, folks, take some responsiblity.
Anon 5:49,
ReplyDeletei hope you intend to vote for Obama, because his economic policies benefit guys like you the most. While McCain says he will give you a health care credit, it will be taxed, as will any contribution your employer makes. Fir the first time, it will be considered income, so for many Americans this will result in a net loss. Also, obama will cut taxes for those making under $250,000. McCain's plan will not cut your taxes. I know someone is going to come on here and say I am not telling the truth, but just go look at McCain's own statements--that is his plan, he doesn't try to hide it, his whole economic notion is that those making $250,000 or more will trickle down their earnings. Today, the American people had something "trickle down" on them, and it wasn't good. Middle class folks need to take a close look at the economic plans of each of these guys (and also look at Palin--yikes!) and think very hard before you cast your vote for McCain. National security rests not only in missiles, but in the ability to maintain our financial independence. Obama is not perfect, bt his economic plan is a heck of a lot better than Mccain's.
If all you Democridiots are so organized, party conscious, and on the same page, then why did 95 Congressional Demo's vote against the bailout and then choose to blame the Republican's?
ReplyDeleteWow Oil down $10 a barrel, wonder how long it'll be before I see it at the pumps. For us hardworking americans that work hard for our money, I'm in favor the way this vote turned out. Let the people that can't make a mortgage payment because they were their debt to income ratio was too high in the first place. That is what insurance is for. And for the CEO's of these companies that earn these big bonuses on making crap loans.
ReplyDeleteI think this will turn our economy around and help bring down the inflated expenses we pay month to month: gas, groceries, and energy. Companies will "tighten the belts" and pull thru this difficult time in our economy. The businesses that can do this will thrive and come out on top when everything is over.
That is my 2 cents....
I
Joe:
ReplyDeleteAndy would have voted agaist it.
n
He said so in Saturday's Slime. Or did Greg Bassit make that up too?
dont cry the little rich didnt get there way.
ReplyDeleteNow go jump off a cliff because your not rich anymore, asshole republicans
hey 7:50 It is none of that . it is called buy american, keep american jobs in america, the asshole bush give us nafta, now u pay.
ReplyDeleteall pelosi had to do was keep her votes locked in chambers to insure the votes she wanted... terrible misuse of power, nonetheless a "tool" at her disposal, but she didn't insure her votes...stupid, stupid, stupid...woman!
ReplyDeleteguess what? when i bought my stock in october, 2001 the dow was hanging around 11,000.
ReplyDeletein a few years it went down before it went up. last year on the second down trend i traded it in for a 3 or 4 dollar per share profit. now i'm gonna get the same stock for half of what i initially paid, twice as many shares. guess what dow was hanging around 11,000, until this bailout vote yesterday. i can get even more of the same stock. not a huge difference between now and 2001, right after 9/11...
let's return to a more simpler time, when people worked to pay for what they owned.... credit is the workings of the Devil....
ReplyDeleteCongradulations fellow Americans,
ReplyDeleteOur calls and e-mails was the deciding reason why this bailout
failed in the House. Our voice is being heard by record numbers. Its time for Wall Street to give back to Main Street by lowering across the board interest rates on credit cards.
Seperation of church and state huh. On perhaps the most important day the economy has ever seen and there is nothing going on in the house. Once again, Who controls the media, Who controls the money?
ReplyDelete(If you cant see it now, your blind).
If we can just vote for the correct person, all these problems will go away. We need a savior.
ReplyDeleteI really don't give 2 sh!ts whose to blame. Without the bailout, gas prices will go down, credit card companies will fail too. Shame on the the oil companies and the credit card companies for taking advantage of America. Let the chips fall where they may. Middle class and poverty level people know how to come together and help each other out. Families will move in together and gardens will be planted. The problem is the greedy ones don't know how to do what we have always had to do. We will be fine. Vote no to the bail out.
ReplyDeleteIf they want to be serious get the damn pork out of the legislation. Those who signed the bill with the prok included need to be dually noted and voted out of office.
ReplyDeleteAll that FEMA pork from Katrina and many still don't have a home.
Clinton got NAFTA passed after Carter, Reagan, and Daddy Bush failed.