Posted on 09/28/2008 9:02:50 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
For some of them, they are going home instead of jail.
“I did not understand why such a measure was needed when the ban dies naturally Tuesday night.”
Not sure, but my way of thinking was that dems want to take credit for doing something, i.e., not just letting it expire, so they have it to point to later.
But that theory went out the door when I read that Reid had slipped the drilling ban into the bailout deal. This was the day after I had read about the decision to allow the ban to expire, and I’m afraid it’s gonna get signed right along with the bailout.
Are Paulson’s decisions still exempt from judicial and congressional oversight?
It’s like three card monte..... you can’t tell where the bitch is after all the shuffling around
I suppose that they're going to send me the $30,000 that I lost on the last house I owned.
/sarcasm...
Are you kidding me. You were cheerleading the original Paulson plan from the beggining.
If Acorn gets a dime to me I rather see the entire country collapse ...
I think I might have to agree with you on that.
And that is a perfectly fair and accurate characterization.
To steal a line:
"We didn't leave the Republican party; the Republican party left us."
This bailout will be an Albatross around Republicans' necks from here on.
If the Obamassiah wins this election it might be time to start building the Conservative party up. Or maybe one of the alternate parties that Freepers always suggest.
I think Bush and Henny Penny Paulson just handed him the election by giving the DEM's a rally cause. When our nations deals are brokered by the likes of Barney Frank and friends you know this nation is fixing to fall.
BTW I liked Paulson much better when he was on the Somthers Brothers Comedy Hour /sarcasm
You are so correct!
Why can't people understand that if an action is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it will not be good for the country. It really is that simple. As soon as the government forgets its constitutional mandate, we, the people, get the short end of the stick.
Profits?
PLEASE!!!
Do some homework.
Paullson and Bernanke clearly (but reluctantly) admitted that they want to use the bailout money to puurchase these toxic securities at the highest possible price in order to get as much money to the fat-cats as possible and to create an artificial floor price for them.
They said that protection of taxpayer investment is not important to them.
These are such bad investments that they are being offered at firesale prices with few takers.
If there were profits to be made savvy investors would be snapping them up.
And don't think it is because there is no money.
Warren Buffett just bought $5 billion of Goldman Sachs preferred stock when he could have bought these kinds of investments.
But he knows a bad investment when he smells it.
Only the government spending other peoples money would swallow this B.S.
Bernanke: US should pay higher prices for assets
Price tag for risky securities draws fire
Government proposing above-market valuations
You can tell that Hitler...er, Obama smells blood, just by listening to his voice...the same voice Hitler used to use to con his crowds of adorers. Some things never change. The sheep will vote for him, just as they voted for Kerry. Regardless of the outcome, he and the driveby media will blame the ‘near depression’ financial straits on Bush/McCain, regardless of the facts....that’s what the dems get out of the bill.
That's what I'm confused about. We've heard reports today that this insurance is only required at the option of the Treasury Secretary. Am I confusing two different items, or have they changed this provision since yesterday?
I don't understand it that way,...I think they start with the lowest priced.....
Just don't forget that Obama & the RATS were all for the Bush bailout. Obama was called back to try to push it through in the original form;
McCain went back to change it or stop it.
Bernanke: US should pay higher prices for assets
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday the government should pay more than "fire-sale" prices for the toxic assets it would acquire under a proposed $700 billion bailout plan. That could mean both higher initial costs for taxpayers and reduced returns when the assets are later resold.
Price tag for risky securities draws fire
I just think 'hold to maturity' is code for 'the government will pay more,' " said one investment banker who specializes in mortgage-backed securities.
Deborah Lucas, a finance professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, agreed.
"What Bernanke is really saying is that the government will buy [assets] at a price that ignores that investors are really worried if these mortgages will ever be paid off," she said
Regardless of the details it’s still amounts to socialism.
So let the verminous swine, the DemocRATS, vote for it.
The American people, by a huge majority don't want any part of it.
If the Republicans had any giulianis, they'd all vote "no."
But we already know they have been suckered into RINOs and closet socialists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.