The White Sox defeated the Twins 1-0 in the one game playoff tonight for the AL Central title. 2008 marks the first time in more than a hundred years that both the Cubs and the White Sox will both play in the postseason (the White Sox beat the Cubs in the 1906 World Series).
First off, my natural conservative free market instincts incline me to be against the bailout proposal. However, I’ve been hesitant to make a solid stand on it because I’ve tried to talk to many who are smarter than I who also have the same political leanings, but are adament that a deal such as the one that failed yesterday is necessary for our economic health in America.
Regardless of which side anyone’s on, if this story about Newt Gingrich is true it’s a shame:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.
Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill’s passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.
If Newt really went behind the back of the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, especially as someone who’s not even serving in the chamber anymore, and in addition to this did one thing in private than claimed the opposite position in public, he should know better and be ashamed of himself. Not a classy move.
The House roll call for the bail out bill is certainly interesting. By any standard both the ayes and the nays were highly bipartisan. It is interesting to see the cadre of RINOs that supported the bailout bill. The usual suspects of John Boehner and Roy Blunt (second highest House GOP recipient of Fannie and Freddie political bribes donations) were of course there as well as Vito Fossella (scumbag), Mark Kirk (King RINO), Chris Shays and Peter King.
Some disappointing names were also found among the ayes, Tom Tancredo and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin both voted for the bailout. Eric Cantor of course voted for it, mostly I think because of his insurance provision being added to it, gutted though it was. Having fought so hard to have the insurance provision included it would have been difficult for him to not have supported the final version of the bill with the concession being made.
A special thanks goes out to my congressman Paul Broun of the 10th district, Georgia for refusing to vote for this socialist nightmare. I commend you sir.
Along with 131 Republicans.
Bottom line, this did not fail because Republicans were opposed. It was clear from the beginning that many in the House Republican caucus would vote against.
This failed because more than a third of the Democratic caucus voted against the bill.
It seems clear that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders intentionally pushed enough Democrats to oppose the bill to ensure its failure, and then blame it on the Republicans. Which is exactly what they’re doing now.
There are already 228 votes against the bailout. The DOW is down almost 700. Democrats are voting for the plan, Republicans against.
Update: The DOW is now coming back, up to being down around 400. There are too many votes against the bailout to pass.
Update: Now the House is trying to get 11 members to change their votes. Let’s see who will fold.
Sorry, just calling it like I see it. Everything is falling apart. Today Wachovia Bank, headquarted in Charlotte and an employer of 120,000 people, was bought up by Citigroup. Projections are that 20,000 people will be laid off in the Charlotte area alone. Add this to the two week long gas shortage we’ve been experiencing in the southeast and USA Today’s projection that it will now last another two weeks and you can put North Carolina in the Democrat column on Election Day.
I can’t see how McCain will overcome all of the awful news that keeps popping up day after day. Other than perhaps Black Monday in 1987, I can’t think of another time in my lifetime where things have gotten so bad in this country. With a Republican President in the White House presiding over this, whether or not it’s his fault, I can’t see the public entrusting another four years to another Republican President. It would be absolutely unprecedented for McCain to win.
And it isn’t the bailout either. This was just business as usual. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 passed easily by a vote of 78 to 12 in the Senate and 370 to 58 in the House. Apparently, when appropriating for homeland security it’s necessary to lend the auto industry $25 billion in loans made available by we, the taxpayers, as well as over 2,300 earmarks.
The following Republican Senators voted against the waste:
They were joined in their opposition by the ever reliable Russ Feingold (D-WI). Richard Burr (NC) voted Present, Giving Live Pair, an usual move I explained here. John McCain did not vote.
I was not impressed with McCain last night in the debate. Obama gave him so many openings where he could have come back and slammed one out of the park against him and instead he was missing in action. Obama wants to raise to taxes on those making over $250,000? Fine, does Obama realize that a good amount of those people are small businesses owners, providers of 75% of the jobs in this country, who will now have to suspend expanding their business or scale back and lay off workers causing a rise in unemployment? That’s the answer I was expecting from McCain and instead he stood there letting Obama beat him over the head on the economy.
When talking about the financial state of the country why did McCain not bring up the only major piece of legislation Barack Obama has written, the Global Poverty Act? While the country is in a financial crisis and heading towards recession, Barack Obama would not only raise taxes on small business owners, but would send over $800 billion a year out of our economy and essentially hand it over to the United Nations for global wealth redistribution. McCain could have nailed him on that. As a matter of fact, McCain could win the whole damn election on that one piece of legislation and his campaign hasn’t even talked about it.
I think McCain had the upper hand when it came to the foreign policy discussions during the second half but he really could have shaken Barry up last night all over the place and missed several golden opportunities. I could have pulled somebody out of the college Republicans over at Winthrop University and they could have put up a better fight against Obama. I sure hope Palin is more on the money for her time in the spotlight Thursday night.
Anyone else tired of not seeing her? Either this is the biggest rope-a-dope in history, ie. they as in the McCain Camp want to lower expectations completely before the VP debate, or what I am beginning to fear is that she now is seen by the campaign as a liability.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a plan by Democrats to pump $56 billion in government spending into the economy through public works projects, help for the jobless and money for states struggling with their Medicaid bills.
The 52-42 tally fell well short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a GOP filibuster. The White House promised a veto anyway, saying the measure would not work and would cost too much.
The House was expected to have better luck with a companion $61 billion House plan later in the day.
The bills follow a bipartisan plan enacted this winter that shipped $600-$1,200 tax rebate checks to most individuals and couples and awarded tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
With the economy still sagging, Democrats have long pressed for a follow-up plan that focused on more spending to extend unemployment benefits, boost food stamp payments and build infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, water and sewer projects and school repairs.
Breitbart
In the midst of already throwing away $700 billion of Monopoly money, what the hell are the Democrats and the RINOs doing trying to blow another $56 billion on socialist entitlements? This was irresponsible and reckless and thankfully the Senate GOP put a stop to it, all but a few that is. The usual suspects crossed the aisle to vote for bigger government with the addition of Elizabeth Dole who somehow got the impression that voting for more gubmint cheese would endear her to all of the welfare queens in North Carolina that won’t vote for her anyway.
Republicans voting in the affirmative:
Kudlow: “A Paulson-Cantor Plan Is a Win-Win for Taxpayers”
The single-biggest mistake in the Paulson bank-rescue-plan marketing effort has been the failure to explain clearly how taxpayers are going to recoup $700 billion used to buy toxic assets at auction in order to unfreeze the banking system. In other words, folks don’t understand how taxpayers will be paid back, and may actually make profits, which will enable the new government debt to be erased after the Treasury bank-rescue is completed.
Here’s the key point: Any loan package bought by the Treasury will be 100 percent taxpayer owned. Period.
Let’s walk through this hypothetical for a moment. Through a market-driven auction, the Treasury will purchase some dollar amount — say $100 billion — of loans that banks will sell. The Treasury will then buy those loans at the prices that fill the auction, starting with the lowest prices and working up. Now, the Treasury will hold those bonds either to maturity or for a sale in the open market if rising prices in the market make that sale attractive. In other words, suppose the Treasury buys a bond package at 20 cents on the dollar. They hold it for a while, and if market conditions improve, they sell it for 50 cents on the dollar to some buyer (e.g., an investment fund, a private-equity fund, a hedgie). The Treasury will make the sale at the higher price in order to gain a profit for taxpayers.
In the meantime, as the Treasury holds the loans, the government will get monthly cash-flows coming in on the mortgages, or on any other loans that it owns. So it is win-win for taxpayers. First, taxpayers get the cash flow generated by the assets. (Something like a 10 percent interest rate.) Second, if the loan is sold for profit, the taxpayers will own that profit. And the new law must of course stipulate that all the cash flows and/or profits go for debt-reduction to protect taxpayers.
I don’t think a lot of folks understand this win-win scenario. Let me repeat: The taxpayers own the bonds the Treasury buys; the taxpayers own the cash flows generated by the bonds; the taxpayers own the profits when the bonds are sold; and the taxpayers benefit when the profits and cash flows are used to pay-down government debt.
Actually, for taxpayers, it’s a win-win-win-win.
Think about this. The troubled assets purchased by the Treasury right now are likely to be very under-priced because of the chaotic and frozen market conditions. But over time, through monthly cash-flow payments or through loan sales, taxpayers will get all their money back and in great likelihood a handsome profit.
I have been in conversation with leading House Republicans all day. And they understand these key points. Unfortunately, this understanding did not materialize in their original meeting with Mr. Paulson a few days ago. But now the actual reality is sinking in.
Another point: Republican leader Eric Cantor has an excellent idea for a federal bond insurance guarantee for straight mortgage-backed paper, financed by private-sector insurance premiums. That will improve investor confidence in mortgage bonds and will make those bonds highly marketable. Importantly, senior Treasury officials have told me that Mr. Paulson will accept the insurance idea as an option in the final bill, alongside the ability of the Treasury to purchase distressed assets.
Sources also tell me that other conditions will be necessary to bring the House GOP along. First, the ACORN slush fund must be removed. Second, the so-called union proxy to run a slate of corporate directors is a big problem. Third, all profits from the Treasury rescue mission must be used to reduce the national debt — 100 percent. Fourth, Republican members are opposed to bankruptcy judges setting mortgage terms and interest rates (Sen. Obama also is opposed). Fifth, the so-called government equity ownership of banks is distasteful because it effectively creates a corporate tax increase on banks at a time when they are struggling. And last, the Treasury secretary’s request for $700 billion is regarded as way too high.
Essentially, House Republican leaders want a slimmer, cleaner Paulson plan supplemented by Mr. Cantor’s mortgage-bond insurance program. I think it’s a good package that would be great news for stock and bond markets that are now ailing badly. It would set the stage for a gradual return to normalcy on the part of bank lenders, including loans to small businesses, consumers, and homeowners. It would be a pro-growth package at a time when the economy desperately needs a prosperity tonic.
The New York Times has just reported that the debate between McCain and Obama is now officially on for tonight. It will be held at the University of Mississippi in Oxford at 9:00PM EST.
This ad is being run on NBC courtesy of Brave New Pac and Democracy for America. I think this will backfire on them.
I have been clicking madly around the internet looking to read as many opinions from intelligent conservatives as I could to better understand the terms of this bailout the president, the bulk of the MSM, congress, both presidential candidates, the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary seemed determined to push through ASAP.
Here is a collection of some thoughtful conservatives who have responded to the calls for more socialism.
October 3rd, my friends. October 3rd.
Ole’ “conservative” Andrew Sullivan has been not much of one for quite some time now. Not only is he a full-on Obama lacky now, but his twisted contradictions of himself on a constant basis, combined with his invented “anger” at the Right in general and McCain-Palin specifically, has made him pretty much a worthless use of bandwith for his internet service provider and everyone else’s.
From Real Clear Politics:
Wow. Andrew Sullivan’s unhinged hatred for Sarah Palin continues unabated. Three weeks ago I wrote about his descent into the ugly world of tabloid journalism pushing rumors about Bristol Palin being the “real” mother of Sarah Palin’s fifth child, Trig.
Yesterday we learned via Howard Kurtz that Sullivan is still fixated on pushing the rumor:
Last week, Sullivan, a British conservative who became disgusted with the Bush administration and is a passionate advocate for Barack Obama, sent an e-mail query to the McCain campaign:”I’m very sorry to say, it’s come to this: can you confirm on the record that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin’s biological son? . . . Since this is a crazy idea, it should be easy for you or someone to let me know, the most popular one-man political blog site in the world, what the truth is.”
This from a man who condemns McCain and Palin on a daily basis for being “despicable” and “dishonorable.” Unreal.
Ace of Spades has more on his favorite punching bag’s Trig Trutherism.
And for the record, I absolutely love reading Ace of Spades HQ. Talk about a hardcore conservative who’s unafraid of unloading with both barrels on liberals (and RINOs for that matter), even in a, shall we say, uncouth manner.
At this point I say we just start ignoring the guy. Clearly he has some personal issues that he needs to resolve with himself and his Maker. Because a guy who has gone this far off the reservation is beyond rational argument with anyone in or out of the blogosphere.
Ignore the man. Stop reading him. Stop reporting on him. Make his “most popular one-man political blog site in the world,” dry up to a bare readership made up of loony tunes like him. I quit reading him a few years ago and have never looked back.
Why even give the respect of acknowledging cretins like this?
We have been told that if we don’t acquiesce to the single biggest government expenditure (or assumed risk) of a generation then the (financial) world as we know it will end. We have been told that the markets are as bad off as they have been since the Great Depression. We are further informed that only a massive expansion of the federal government’s power over the economy, control over executive compensation, banning short selling, derivatives and anything else these numbskulls don’t understand is the answer.
Click to continue »
Lou Barletta, candidate for Pennsylvania’s 11th Congressional District has released a statement regarding our nation’s financial crisis. You can read the entire statement here. Below are the six common sense points he stresses and he’s exactly right.
1. This crisis is not unique to one political party. Americans from all ideologies and political affiliations are feeling the crunch. We need to stop pointing fingers and start working toward solutions. Republicans and Democrats share the blame and they can share in the satisfaction of helping us out of the problem if they set aside ambition for cooperation.
2. Members of Congress need to stay in session and do their job. I realize that there is a desire to adjourn next week, but after a five-week summer break, I believe they should continue to work until an effective, sustainable plan is passed.
3. Congress should not rush to judgment. We often hear the rhetoric that the administration rushed us into war. Congress should not be pressured into making rash decisions.
4. The federal government should act to avoid any escalation in the crisis. However, any proposed ‘bailout’ should have strong requirements. The executives from companies that will benefit from federal assistance should be required to take a salary reduction. Any bonus packages due to these executives should be frozen until all federal relief funds are paid back to the taxpayers.
5. An independent commission should be established to review the actions that brought our nation to this point. Who had oversight over these industries? What legislation – or lack of legislation –precipitated these events?
6. New ethics rules should be passed to ensure members of Congress do not have their judgment clouded by campaign donations. Whether or not pay-for-play antics may have led to this crisis can be debated. Nevertheless, when Republican and Democrat members of Congress on oversight committees take large amounts of money from these companies and then ask the taxpayers to give huge amounts of money to the same companies to bail them out, it raises very serious questions.