Seattle Bubble

• Poll: Is it ethical for a home debtor to “walk away” from a mortgage?
• Poll: You win the lottery tomorrow. What’s the earliest you buy a house in the Seattle area?
• Poll: You win a free home anywhere in the Puget Sound area. Where to you choose?
• Poll: $700 Billion Financial Industry Bailout:
• Poll: How long before Congress is asked to pass another bailout?

Jump to the bottom to add your comment. ↓

65 responses so far ↓

• 1 Everett_To // Sep 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  I don’t think I have much of a choice, I plan on voting for a presidential candidate, and from what I hear both have indicated they’ll support it :(

• 2 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  A good voter always votes for the best viable candidate. If the only viable choices voted for the bailout, then you still vote for the best one of them. Surely this was why the bailout happened after the primaries, 2 years before the next primaries. The average American attention span is typically less than a week.

• 3 Ben // Sep 28, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  Not a citizen, so my taxation has no representation.

• 4 victorchai // Sep 28, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  So let me get it straight! The bail out helped bankers keep their job and bonus, banks from keeping their good asset and huge amount of cash, it didn’t help home buyers and home owners…bought 700B worth of Junk with our taxpayer $$ but it was called a bail out aim at heart of the foreclosure?and American ppl think it was the right thing to do?
  We Are stupid!!!!!

• 5 softwarengineer // Sep 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm

  GO NADER GOZALES!!!

• 6 Cosmos // Sep 28, 2008 at 7:05 pm

  The majority of the public are ignorant and gullible. They believe government will take care of them. Ha! The rich are in control and they will do what’s in their best interest - and occasionally throw crumbs to create the smoke-n-mirrors to keep the unwatchful trusting.

  Any bailout (this will be just another in a long line, with more to come - Marc Faber estimates approx $5 Trillion before they are done) will push the country deeper into bankruptcy. This will, over time, weaken the dollar, and open the doors for Russia to annex us once they back the ruble with gold. Yes, I believe this WILL happen - within the next 20 years, probably sooner. Even if YOU don’t believe there will be a Russian “invasion” (figuratively)- interest rates WILL soar, which will just be the twisting of the dagger in the heart of the real estate market.

• 7 David McManus // Sep 28, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  I’d vote for Ron Paul if I thought he had a snowball’s chance.

• 8 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  I wrote every Rep and Senator in Washington as well as McCain and Obama and told them I would vote against them if they voted for the bailout.

  There is no issue more important that this one. If anyone can’t take 15 minutes to research this issue and see how asinine the bailout is, they don’t deserve to hold office.

  Best viable candidate? How viable is a candidate if they jeopardize the future of this nation by allowing the tax payer to be the fall guy for these ill priced garbage assets?

  VOTE THEM OUT!

• 9 TJ_98370 // Sep 28, 2008 at 8:24 pm

  .
  A 60 Minutes feature well worth your time; video and transcript;
  .
  My favorite quote regarding the “mark to model” business plan -
  .
  “Well yes, a level of financial exotica ensued, which boggled the mind and which almost everyone involved didn’t understand,” - Roger Altman, Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton

  Paulson: Economy Is In A Fragile Situation

• 10 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  Paulson makes me want to vomit

• 11 Scotsman // Sep 28, 2008 at 9:15 pm

  Transparency, full accounting, and the enforcement of the existing law would go a long way toward freeing up the credit markets. Sure, some would have to take a hit for past mistakes, but what makes everyone think that those hits aren’t going to take place eventually anyway? This bill, no matter what its eventual form, is nothing more than an expensive postponement of the eventuality we all know is coming. Screw the whole posturing lot of them.

• 12 Demersus // Sep 28, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  oops

• 13 AndyC // Sep 28, 2008 at 9:19 pm

  Matthew,
  Could you explain to me why this bailout is such a terrible idea? Also, could you explain how the market will continue to function in an illiquid business environment?
  Thanks!

• 14 Demersus // Sep 28, 2008 at 9:29 pm

  The bailout is a bad idea because it will only enable the continued bad behaviour that caused the problems in the first place. The analogy that’s been used is like substance addition; you’re treating the addiction by giving more of the additive substance. This quells that pain for a short time, but does nothing to treat the actual disease. Ergo, you’re only treating a symptom, not the cause. Another thing is the moral hazard it creates. If you feel that you won’t ever have to feel the pain of your own irresponsibility, why should you change? I’d prefer the lesser pain now; our economy needs to change from credit-driven consumerism back to a nation of self sufficiency, production and savings. I think the Federal Reserve should be abolished and we need to go back to a gold standard for our currency.

  If you’re interested in why I feel this way about the Federal Reserve, please read the memoires of President Wison regarding his signing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

  Here is an exerpt:

  “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
  A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
  Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

• 15 Demersus // Sep 28, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  I should also add that there is some doubt as to whether these statements were actually made by Wilson; some historians dispute it as fabrication.

• 16 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 9:59 pm

  Matthew: Best viable candidate? How viable is a candidate if they jeopardize the future of this nation by allowing the tax payer to be the fall guy for these ill priced garbage assets?

  Their viability has nothing to do with what they stand for. For president, we have only two choices. (A third-party vote is a vote for the opposite of what you stand for.) Of the two choices, if one wants to kick a thousand toddlers in the face, and the other wants to kick just a hundred toddlers in the face, you vote for the latter one.

• 17 jon // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  “Also, could you explain how the market will continue to function in an illiquid business environment?”

  People would start new banks by, for example, buying up the offices that JPM sells as redundant. Problem is, with the government handing out money like candy to banks with toxic loans, a new bank can’t compete. A strong signal that there will be no bailout would cause new banks to form quickly, using all the recently laid off employees. The old banks saddled with the junk would have trouble operating because other banks would be unwilling to lend them money, so the new banks would thrive.

• 18 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  Why the bailout is a bad idea:

  Possible bond market dislocation
  Falling dollar
  Rising inflation
  Contaminating Treasuries
  Suspending mark to market in favor of mark to model (what got us in the mess in the first place)
  Adding more debt to an already insurmountable amount (would raise the debt level to over 11.131 trillion) and would in fact pass the burden to future generations to pay for a mess we created.
  We are one more bailout away from the Chinese, Japanese, and Middle East from flipping us the bird and no long buying our debt. If this happens, say hello to 75%-90% tax rates in order to finance our debt.
  The current plan is going to do nothing to stimulate the economy. We may see a short term bump in the equity markets, but it won’t create jobs, stop foreclosures, or make housing more affordable.
  The economists that don’t have any stake in the game (academics) are opposed to the bailout, as is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO stated that the bailout could actually make the problem WORSE.

  These companies have not revealed what assets they have on their books. By how scared Paulson and Bernanke have been looking lately, I’d say the problem is far worse than anyone has anticipated. The tax payer is going to be left holding a bag of sh!t!

• 19 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:13 pm

  Markor,

  Once again you have established yourself a political ideologue, incapable of independent thought or reason. Vote your party line, regardless of how your party candidate feels about important issues. Great strategy.

• 20 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  AndyC: Could you explain to me why this bailout is such a terrible idea? Also, could you explain how the market will continue to function in an illiquid business environment?

  Could you explain to me why, for someone with a leaking aorta, just doing constant transfusions is such a terrible idea? Also, could you explain how the patient will continue to feed her family if she has to be out of work for surgery?

• 21 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  Matthew: Once again you have established yourself a political ideologue, incapable of independent thought or reason. Vote your party line, regardless of how your party candidate feels about important issues. Great strategy.

  But I didn’t say or suggest to vote a party line. I said only that one should vote for the best viable candidate, which is perfectly logical. To not vote for the best viable candidate is to increase the odds of ending up with worse representation, no matter how bad that representation may be.

  I’d love to see the two-party oligopoly broken. But most Americans simply don’t care enough or are not smart enough to make that to happen. In that case you make lemonade out of the lemons.

• 22 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  You didn’t say which party to vote for in the last post, but you have made it crystal clear that you believe the Democrats the lesser of two evils.

  Ironic that Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank seem to be championing a Paulson bailout and encouraging this to get passed ASAP. Why are the Democrats so eager to hand over the keys to the Republic to a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and a staunch Republican?

  Lesser of two evils my arse. My guess is that you see nearly 100 percent of Democrats voting for this just as they voted for the homeowner bailout.

  BOTTOM LINE, THEY ARE ALL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY WALL STREET. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!!! THERE IS NO LESSER OF TWO EVILS!

• 23 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm

  BTW, Pelosi and Dodd are on CSPAN right now talking about the bailout.

• 24 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm

  Matthew: BOTTOM LINE, THEY ARE ALL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY WALL STREET. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!!! THERE IS NO LESSER OF TWO EVILS!

  How? They will not be voted out. You think if 99% of the voters are angrily opposed to this bailout, a third-party candidate has a chance greater than nil of winning? I don’t. It doesn’t matter how angry the voters are, the vast majority of them will still vote Republican or Democrat. They will not support or even understand preferential voting (so that a vote for a third party is not a vote for the worst of the two-party candidates). Americans are simply too dumb. That’s what got us in this mess in the first place. What you’re suggesting require a new generation of voters, who are smarter than the current lot.

• 25 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  I’d rather the roll the dice and try something new than vote for someone I know has sent us down the path to oblivion.

• 26 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 10:58 pm

  Wow as I thumb through the proposal more carefully I am truly amazed. We (the tax payer) are going to suspend mark to market and pay higher than the assumed market value for these toxic assets.

  Rome is burning.

• 27 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:02 pm

  By withholding your vote for the lesser of two evils, you’ll just give the most evil candidate a better chance of winning. If you really think they’re both just as bad then I guess it won’t matter.

  If Reichert votes for the bailout, I’ll have more reason to vote for Burner, but I was going to vote for her anyway.

• 28 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  This bailout has increased McCain’s chances of winning tremendously. He need only say that he’ll support the bailout, and then vote against it at the last minute. And if he trumps Obama this way, Obama deserves to lose. We know Obama won’t go against his word, so the ploy won’t happen the other way around.

• 29 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm

  Matthew: Wow as I thumb through the proposal more carefully I am truly amazed. We (the tax payer) are going to suspend mark to market and pay higher than the assumed market value for these toxic assets.

  You can assume too that there will be no limit on executive pay, including severance pay, all at taxpayer expense. There are so many ways around that, and I’m sure the loopholes have been intentionally left open.

• 30 The Tim // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:27 pm

  Demersus @12,

  Heh, I was going to point out that the basic math was wrong (comes out to $425 not $425,000 per person), then I noticed you deleted it with the handy comment edit option :^)

• 31 Matthew // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  Markor,

  You completely miss my point. Whoever votes for this IS the most evil of the two candidates. Or at least I know for a fact that they are evil. The other candidate has not yet proven to be evil, they still have some potential to be good.

  Anyone that votes for this is a proven commodity and will be voted against regardless of party affiliation.

• 32 Markor // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:40 pm

  What if both of the major party candidates vote for it? There are no other viable choices; that’s my point. How do you vote against both major party candidates, when the vast majority of Americans assume that any third-party candidate is a kook?

• 33 happyrenter // Sep 29, 2008 at 1:49 am

  I’d vote for Ron Paul if I thought he had a snowball’s chance.

  Had you caucused / voted for him in the primaries, he might have had a snowball’s chance. He withdrew his candidacy some time ago.

  I wrote to all my congress people to let them know that I would be voting against them in November if they supported the bailout prior to the elections.

  I don’t want to see anyone rushing into anything. I think the roll of the congress is to put the brakes on this goofiness and apply some diligence to the decision-making process. That should take some time.

• 34 mikal // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:19 am

  You guys quote Shiller all the time, but none here. He has an article in the Washington Post that supports the bail out. I’m not sure I do, but am sure Matthew will love it.

• 35 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:01 am

  Mathew @ 18,

  You think the bailout is a bad idea because

  1) Possible bond market dislocation
  Not sure what you mean by dislocation, but Treasuries have been trading below inflation (i.e. at negative interest rates) lately. I cannot possibly imagine how the bailout will make the situation worse.

  2) Falling dollar
  People keep bringing up this. But it’s illogical. If this plan works, dollar will strengthen. Again, demand for Treasuries is such that buyers are willing to accept negative interest rates. You are deducing falling dollar from what evidence?

  3) Rising inflation
  Ultimately, this plan comes down to increasing money supply so we won’t end up in a depression hopefully. And you get “rising inflation” from all that.

  4) Contaminating Treasuries
  Contaminating? Because those “toxic” assets will spread the “toxins” to the Treasuries somehow? Of course, the U.S. government stands to lose hundreds of billions if the economy and mortgage situation significantly deteriorate (plus there’s the issue of abuse), but we can handle such loss.

  5) Suspending mark to market in favor of mark to model (what got us in the mess in the first place)

  Are you saying mark to market is what got us in the mess in the first place? That would make some sense because that DID contribute quite a bit to the problems we’re having. I for one think that we need to use mark to model for many of these securities and there must be strict disclosure and review regulations for the models because mark to market accounting simply doesn’t work when there’s no liquidity in the market. For that very reason, until the market for these securities becomes restored, it would be pointless to use mark-to-market with the bailout.

  6) Adding more debt to an already insurmountable amount (would raise the debt level to over 11.131 trillion) and would in fact pass the burden to future generations to pay for a mess we created.

  Assuming that the government wouldn’t get scammed badly here, it really won’t affect the future generations because the government is not spending money but making investments. If done well, the future generations would benefit with reduced deficit.

  Therefore, people should stop fuming about the bailout but instead be vigilant about demanding that the government implements the plan wisely. Consider yourselves investor in a company out to acquire distressed bonds. Of course it sucks that you were forced to invest in that company, but since you didn’t really have a choice, shouldn’t you at least try to make a profit with your investments?

  But then again, most Americans don’t really bother to learn about the world or the economy or the science but more interested in the latest sport scores or Brangelina gossip. It’s a country that voted for Bush and reveled in the idea of Palin as a Vice-Presidential candidate because they seemed like really nice folks who people can all relate to, trust, be friends with and/or “like”, and the people that do apparently care about the issues easily trample over facts and reality to defend their beliefs and ideology. Maybe we do deserve to fall, crash and burn.

• 36 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:17 am

  Jon @ 17,

  After the S&L crisis, did a whole lot of new S&L or banks open?

  After the tech bubble burst, were the failed companies replaced by a new wave of tech firms?

  What makes you think that new banks will quickly replace the roles of old banks (majors at that)? Because it’ll be as easy as rehiring old employees and leasing the office space used by the old banks?

• 37 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:35 am

  Demersus @ 14,

  So the bailout is the “addictive substance”, then what is the disease? As for the moral hazard issue, the government has shown that it won’t bail out everyone by letting Lehman fall, which has had unintended consequence of escalating fear in the capital markets, and that partially contributed to the current bailout plan being presented. Moral hazard is indeed a serious issue, but unfortunately I don’t think we have that luxury of sticking to principles anymore. Besides, institutions that participate in this plan will have to pay by taking losses on their investments and diluting their equity by issuing warrants to the government. It’s not exactly a free ride.

  Returning to gold standard would be totally impractical at this time, and frankly, don’t you think there are better reasons for it than a disputed quote from about a century ago?

• 38 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:59 am

  Cosmos @ 6,

  Russia returning to gold standard? Where the heck are they going to come up with all the gold then? They would have to purchase nearly $400 billion worth of gold, which probably will skyrocket the gold price so much that it will cause deadly hyper inflation in Russian economy before it can ever complete needed purchases. Actually, that move might help out the U.S. a lot by unloading some of her gold reserves of the U.S. (about 18 times more than Russia’s) at highly inflated prices.

• 39 LUC // Sep 29, 2008 at 5:07 am

  Jay,

  Paulson and Bernanke admitted that they were not sure this plan would even work. Paulson stated in his 60 minutes interview that the financial markets will be in turmoil for the next several years.

  Also, the bailout doesn’t address Credit Default Swaps.

• 40 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 5:27 am

  LUC,

  It’s true that they don’t know if their plan would work. Does that mean that they shouldn’t have pushed for it and instead did nothing? I don’t think so. I think they proposed what they thought would work best without being too manipulative. (They could have, for example, forced everyone to stop all foreclosures and rewrite all risky or “unaffordable” mortgage terms so that the borrower can service the loan for duration. Talk about moral hazard there. But then again, maybe something like that would be coming if this plan does not work).

  Hopefully it will work. There are some promising signs, although the mood seems to be very much skeptical. Read: Vulture Funds Plan to Buy Assets Ahead of Bailout

  And another one about whether failing to bail out Lehman led to bigger bailout: Lehman’s Demise Triggered Cash Crunch Around Globe

  And regarding CDS, why should it ever be included in the buyout? CDS’s are an entirely different class of assets than asset backed CDOs or MBSs. They need to be regulated in the way that risks associated with them must be disclosed to shareholders, but no one in his/her right mind would consider them to be in the similar risk levels than any mortgage based assets, and I doubt even the most aggressive banks sought them as assets to hold on their balance sheets. Maybe as protection, but they can probably totally write them off and be fine.

• 41 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 5:36 am

  And there goes Wachovia.. If only it hadn’t bought Golden West…

• 42 LUC // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:02 am

  Jay,

  Hope and possibilities is not what I want to hear when you are investing 700 bn dollars. If they can’t definitely make assurances that this plan will work then let the market take care of itself.

• 43 Matthew // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:16 am

  Jay,

  You got every single item I posted absolutely wrong. The plan won’t work, it may even make things worse. The problem isn’t mark to market, the problem is mark to model. These assets are not accurately marked, and no one knows exactly what they are worth.

  The G is going to be paying way above market value for nearly worthless assets. If the assets were worth anything, the market itself would be buying them. Instead, none of these financial institutions want these POS toxic MBS, particularly in a housing market that still has a LONG way down.

  The Chinese have already hinted at the fact that they may stop buying Treasuries if this bailout goes through. If that happens, we may see a massive spike in Treasury yields and mortgage rates go through the roof.

  I don’t think I should have to explain how pumping 700 billion into the financial markets is inflationary and contributes to a falling dollar, this should be macro 101.

• 44 Matthew // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:21 am

  BTW, has anyone considered this scenario:

  The G says “We’re going to buy your toxic MBS at a higher than market rate, please line up and tell us what you want to sell”. The financial institutions, realizing that this is their opportunity to dump their crappy assets, line up to sell FAR more than 700 billion.

  Bill Gross (king of the Pigmen) actually believes there is more than 1.2 trillion worth of assets that actually will need to be bought before all is said and done. I believe that 1.2 trillion is a low ball estimate. This bailout could actually shine a line on a problem that is far more severe than anyone realizes. Before all is said and done I anticipate Paulson coming back to Congress for yet another whopping check that will make the first bailout seem tame.

• 45 Matthew // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:32 am

  LUC,

  I’m with you. Jay is using phrases such as “assuming”, “hopefully”, and “if”. Not exactly the reassurances you want with 700 billion on the line.

  I think people should be considering the exact opposite. What if the plan does NOT work? We’ve already thrown over 400 billion at the financial markets between Freddie and Fannie, AIG, BSC, and the home owner bailout bill, and none of it has come even close to working. Why should another 700 billion work now?

• 46 cheapseats // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:51 am

  Admittedly I am no economist, but I agree with Matthew, it is not hard to understand that increasing our debt will likely have a negative impact on the dollars’ relative worth. I frankly don’t understand how one could argue any other way? Please explain.

• 47 mikal // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:08 am

  The dollar has become far more worthless because of the rising federal debt as well. I suppose that is the Democrats fault,,, or NOT. Matthew, you quote Shiller all the time. Did you read his article defending the bailout?

• 48 Jay // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:22 am

  Mathew, I’ll just ask you one question. How does one know market prices of items when “no one knows exactly what they are worth”? Supply and demand? How can one have a demand for something and yet have no idea of its value? How can one decide to supply something without knowing its value? Either people know the value of a thing and bid for or sell it or they don’t. Since you said no one knows what those assets are worth, how can anyone bid for it? How can there be a market? How can you possibly find out the market price?

• 49 sunsplint // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:35 am

  This poll question that has no true merit.

• 50 Matthew // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:39 am

  Mikal,

  I have not read Shiller’s article and I do value his opinion. If you link it to here I will be more than willing to read and comment on it.

  Jay,

  The banks/financial institutions have to first have better transparency. They need to open their books and say “here is what we have”. Once that occurs, an attempt can be made to mark these assets to market. The problem right now is that none of these financial institutions have been transparent as to what they have had on their books.

  BSC,WaMu, Wachovia, LEH, etc, ALL said they were adequately capitalized up until the point that they failed! How can we attempt to mark any of these assets to market when the institutions won’t even tell us what they are, and why should the tax payer be left holding the bag?

  The free market will ALWAYS determine value via supply and demand. If there is no demand, the assets should be marked to ZERO and the institutions should be forced to take the hit, not the taxpayer.

• 51 Matthew // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:00 am

  BTW, the hearings are on CSPAN right now, and it sounds like the bill has some strong opposition!

• 52 patient // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:01 am

  There will be no money left for the democratic principals that I’m for after this bailout so in the election I will vote republican since they are for less government spending which we now are in dire need of. When it comes to the sitting democrats I hope all will be voted out. They have shown to be a shame for their party, corrupt and/or extremenly incompetent and with no respect to the voters will.

• 53 Matthew // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

  There is actually more democrat opposition to this bill than I anticipated. The wingnut in a gold bow-tie from Eugene is even against!

  I think the calls, faxes, and emails have influenced their opinion, they don’t want to be voted out! See Markor, you can make a difference. No one wants to lose their seat.

  When your peeps are calling with ratios of 100-1 in staunch opposition to the bill, the Reps will listen!

• 54 patient // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

  Here’s a suggestion to restore some confidence in the economy: Replace Paulson and Bernanke, now. How much more proof is needed ( 700b doesn’t seem to be enough ) that they have done a lousy job, $1 trillion? No, $10 trillion?

• 55 mikal // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:36 am

  Bush has expaded government over twenty percent in his 7 plus years. Having tacked on in excess of 6 trillion dollars in that time how can anyone with any sense say the Republicans are for spending less. The democrats ran the surplus pal. I have voted republican often in the past but how can any republican say the party is currently being run properly?

• 56 patient // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:47 am

  Mikal, no doubt that the current adminstration has been spending like there is no tomorrow but I attribute that to this adminstration not to the republican general principals. The same way that I attribute the total incompetency and corruption of the dems to the current staff not to the democratic principals. That’s why I will vote against my ideologies in this election.

• 57 patient // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:53 am

  More clearly, I will vote against my ideologies since I do not think we can afford to fund them until we have reduced our debt and I think the republican prinicipals are better suited to achieve that. When it’s done my vote will go back to the dems taken that Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank are no longer there.

• 58 Jbeans // Sep 29, 2008 at 10:44 am

  @ Matthew

  The guy in the gold bowtie is Earl Blumenauer from Portland, not Eugene. And he’s no wingnut.

• 59 David McManus // Sep 29, 2008 at 11:10 am

  Now down 640!

• 60 John // Sep 29, 2008 at 11:41 am

  Bailout for homeowners? Are they going to give each family $50,000? Let’s wipe out everyone’s credit card debt and college loans while we are at it.

• 61 Robert Wojciechowski // Sep 29, 2008 at 11:47 am

  Why not start a war with Iran at this point. This will get the public focused on people getting killed. Also if average Joe gets shipped to be killed in Iran - it will relieve the unemployment.

  If the US scores in Iran - we just rob them of natural resources. Just so it doesn’t look like a robbery - we can send them consulting services regarding say democracy. We can preach them how to be a democratic state. Also we can put some christian values into the bag.

• 62 David McManus // Sep 29, 2008 at 11:51 am

  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080929184409.5cxe37ni&show_article=1

  Yeah, so don’t worry and vote for me.

• 63 patient // Sep 29, 2008 at 11:55 am

  Here’s a bailout for homeowners that rewards the innocent as well:

  - 5 years of income tax relief for home buyers that currently do not own a home.

  Even if the crocks gets saved it will feel like it’s rewarding the innocent in a comparison. The historic lesson will be that it’s rewarding to be financially conservative. With the current lending standards in place you will not have a flood of able buyers but a steady controlled stream that can not cause a new bubble since homes will be bought of people who can afford them.

• 64 mukoh // Sep 29, 2008 at 11:59 am

  Mathew, you can mark an asset at market and even below, when the banks and institutions that can buy these assets are tapped on funds, it makes no difference, THEY ARE NOT BUYING.

  When their deposit reserves come back after selling debt that they are sitting on they will be able to buy.

• 65 Yesler Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  McDermoot voted Aye, but many on the Democratic left voted Nay. Lee, Kucinich, etc. I wish we had a congress person that maintained their populist and progressive rhetoric when dealing with Wall Street. But take a gander at who gives McDermott money.

  I wish the WA state system wasn’t rigged so I could have an alternative to vote against McDermott, and not have to vote Republican.

  At least the state isn’t allowed to rig the presidential ballot. I’ll have Nader or McKinney to vote for. Both of them are strongly opposed to this give away to the rich and the multinational corporations.

Jump to the top of the comments. ↑

Leave a Comment