the HOUSE Rejects Bail Out Plan.... Stocks PLUGNE..... WOWWWW

[Don Kabz]

GOD DAMN, this dumb ass just dont get it.

You could tell this nigga a lawyer, hate to accept defeat.

[DZK]

Originally Posted by Nimrod

the rate of dudes who voted NO who were running for re-election was MASSIVE

Doesn't that tell you something? Like maybe Americans don't want this bullshit bailout bill to pass? And that maybe since it's an election year, it's keeping them honest and in line with their constituents -- rather than following the usual "herd mentality" of congress.

[OurSin]

Well here's what i can find on Chapter 7 of title 5 of the US CODE

US CODE: Title 5,CHAPTER 7—JUDICIAL REVIEW

I'm looking under chapter 701, unless they took what i posted completely out of this bill (which i doubt) wouldn't this completely void an official review?

(a) This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that—
(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or
(2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.
(b) For the purpose of this chapter—
(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States;
(D) the government of the District of Columbia;
(E) agencies composed of representatives of the parties or of representatives of organizations of the parties to the disputes determined by them;
(F) courts martial and military commissions;
(G) military authority exercised in the field in time of war or in occupied territory; or
(H) functions conferred by sections 1738, 1739, 1743, and 1744 of title 12; chapter 2 of title 41; subchapter II of chapter 471 of title 49; or sections 1884, 1891–1902, and former section 1641 (b)(2), of title 50, appendix; and


it'll take me way to long to go through this whole thing right now but.......is this still a part of it?

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


wouldn't this completely void that? So writing it in would just be fluf to confuse you?

[Wargasms]

Originally Posted by DZK

Isn't he going to be hired by the same guy he's supposed to be "inspecting?"

who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

and he can be removed at any time by the president.


cmon now, yall just grasping at straws

[TheReturn]

Originally Posted by Nimrod

why would obama and most other respectable democrats support that if that was the case? come on now

Because it's government taking over a huge amount of assets and controlling them. It's socialist, like most respectable Democrats these days.

Originally Posted by Nimrod

n1ggas thinkin section 7 means paulson gona steal money are the same dudes that think bush still flew planes into the towers

gullible conspiracy theorist ass dudes

I don't think Bush flew planes into the towers. But I think that Bush has given himself FAR too much power during his tenure in office. Are you going to disagree that he hasn't? You're telling me you honestly don't think Bush has put the government's power almost entirely into the executive branch? Why then, would we put even more power into the hands of another one of Bush's cronies?

How come the only way to save the economy is to bail out the dumb fuck CEO's that made bad decisions in the first place? If I make a bad business decision in my small business are people going to pay me taxes so I can keep going? Fuck that, why not just return the assets to the people?

Oh, that's right. It would be too democratic, not socialist enough.

Originally Posted by Nimrod

exactly as i presumed

why else would the only people complaining about that section are n1ggas who dont really have any expertise in the issue?


OBVIOUSLY opponents to bush would be complaining about that section if it was what skrybe and oursin makin it out to be


they actin like paulson gona pocket the money and go to the bahamas


thats retarded


why would obama and most other respectable democrats support that if that was the case? come on now


the only reason this bill got shot down was becus its unpopular amongst common people who dont understand the reprocussions of not passin it


they think we are just GIVING wall st 700B becus they greedy and fucked up


the rate of dudes who voted NO who were running for re-electionw as MASSIVE

and the oens that voted yes werent running for re-election

who has their countries interest in mind and who is just tryin to get re-elected?


they said 12 republicans changed their votes to no after nancy pelosi blasted republican ideology


congressman frank said he'll speak nicely to them next tiem so that they'll have their country's best interest in mind


n1ggas thinkin section 7 means paulson gona steal money are the same dudes that think bush still flew planes into the towers

gullible conspiracy theorist ass dudes

nim your a fucking dumbass of the highest order. you make fucking presumptions about shit you have NO fucking clue about and then piggy back off whoever says something you like.

you have ZERO clue what going on and your sole source of information for ANY of this is wargasms and your own assumptions. YOu havent read a single passage of any part of this bill and you have no idea what these securities are or how they are used.


i can sum up your intelligence based on the simple fact that you think its a good idea to buy something, give it away then buy it back at a higher price.

You are a fucking braindead follower...i cant believe your fucking argument is "well it cant be that bad if obama is going along with it"

you have the mental capacity of a sock puppet. Why dont you go read a bedtime story about eh reichstag building and let those of us with actual brain function discuss the important shit.

[Don Kabz]

loophole legislation is NOT ACCEPTABLE, EVEN IF U THINK THE SKY IS FALLING

[menaz]

I've actually read the bailout plan. It's 110 pages. And I was against the bailout from the jump start. And I'm indeed glad it failed.

You people for the bailout aren't thinking critically at all.

Exhibit A.) "The Dow closed the day down 777.68 points, or 6.89 percent, beating its previous record for an intraday drop of 721.56 points, set during the first trading day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Still, in percentage terms, the decline remained well below the more than 20 percent drops seen on Black Monday of October 1987 and the Depression. This is panic, and fear is running amok, one trader told CNBC. “We are in a classic financial meltdown, and it’s panic-based. We’re seeing panic selling.”


The Dow "plunged" 400 points that's not a catastrophic drop by any means. The total drop for the day may end up in the 600 point-plus range, certainly a very bad day on the market, but only roughly a 5% drop.

Yet here we are with no bailout plan passed. Where's the economical callapse? Where the great depression? Remember Y2K? Point being we still have more time to critically think about how to make this a WIN-WIN situation. And a government socialist bailout isn't vaild. It just sends a message to washington that everytime failing financial institutions loom tax payers are going to flip the bill and bail everyone out. Whatever happen to individual responablity? Oh That's right, Democrats killed it.

To me pouring 700 billion of our money into failing financial institutions seems akin to throwing spaghetti against the wall. Keep throwing until something sticks. They tell us that credit will dry up if we don't inject cash. No credit would be disastrous for the economy, but they have not explained well enough why the banks have failed so suddenly and drastically that emergency room surgery is required. Knowing why would help us poor taxpayers feel better about how the problem should be solved. Ever wonder how many other bank failures are out there waiting behind the curtain to take their bows? Are we going to throw even more money at them too?
When does passing the buck end alfie?!

What the economically illiterate don't understand is this revised-bailout plan was very nonsensical because it didn't address any of the problems that led to this financial mess in the first place. Therefore, it was political fodder and not meant to correct the actual government meddeling, greedy incompetent wall street ceo's and borrowers problem which actually caused this crisis. If their bailout plan doesn't define the crisis how can it fix it? It can't. They're simply denying the inevitable for their own cynical gain. (here's a clue, the definition is not 8 years of Bush) The facts are much different.

Therefore, now is time to consider a alternative approache to the credit market problems, including changes to an accounting rule adopted in reaction to Enron, the mark-to-market rule. The big lie here is laissez faire caused this. Not true. government meddeling caused this, among et al....

Exhibit B.)Easy to Understand Video Explanation of What and Who Caused the Financial Meltdown (video embed) | DARK SKIES BLOG

Exhibit C.) Hot Air Blog Archive The Ed Morrissey Show: Kevin McCullough, debates, bailouts, and Truth Squads
Warning: roughly 60 mins running time, but they do break it all down.

Exhibit D.) Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004

You wanna fix this problem and stay out of the democrat's big government wel-fare reach which got us into this mess in the first place. Well then I ask of you should we consider a solution that requires no money, or at least a lot less? Here's one. Have the SEC suspend the accounting rule called mark-to-market. By a relatively simple accounting adjustment, troubled banks assets and capital could be increased and credit kept available. Suspending the mark-to-market rule would allow banks and accountants to revalue their assets based on more sound criteria than the euphoria or panic that pervades the floor of the New York Stock Exchange minute-by-minute. Sub-prime mortgages will likely have much higher values if considered in a longer-term perspective, such as hold-to-maturity. I believe that the vast majority of mortgages will perform in the long term. Presto. Up goes assets; up goes capital; banks can make loans again. Cash infusions may still be required, but this will buy us enough time to seriously examine what steps need to be taken to get runaways like Fannie and Freddie under control, how to renegotiate rates with distressed borrowers who really can handle a mortgage, and how to keep this from happening again. I think this can be done. If we can approve 700 billion, surely we can do this and keep our money.

[Wargasms]

Originally Posted by DZK

Doesn't that tell you something? Like maybe Americans don't want this bullshit bailout bill to pass? And that maybe since it's an election year, it's keeping them honest and in line with their constituents -- rather than following the usual "herd mentality" of congress.

it tells you that AMERICANS dont understand.

Nobody wanted the Paulson plan. Because it didnt have any oversight, or any taxpayer, homeowner benefits. It was just a pure wall street bailout.

It was 2 an a half pages long.

the bill has completely changed since then. COMPLETELY and protections are in place.

The media criticized the paulson plan, as did Obama and asked for protections for the public.

The public only knows the shell of the plan as the "Bush Paulson" plan

The polling worded it in a way that was negative, and people didnt support it.

unfortunately, new polling shows overwhelming support FOR the bailout plan. The congress was going on polling that reflected the opinion of the original paulson proposal, and the publics ignorance to the true state of the current bill and the economy.

[OurSin]

And even so, this bailout would be considered a last ditch effort after other strategies failed. I was watching CNN last night, the house republicans did not sign this because these strategies were not implemented at all.

I forget exactly what it is (obviously i'm not an econ major) but he cited something that happened right before the regan administration took over that was way worse than whats happening now. And it was easy and worked, something about allowing companies to use their networth for credit instead of acutal funds they had.....or some shit

[Mo0n ShYnE]

i think the mentality is

"if it it's not fuckin with my money then it ain't a problem."

1 easy thing to see here is that if these companies keep failing
many jobs will be lost

[Don Kabz]

Americans dont understand? What that tells me is that u dont understand Americans and need to leave your house.

[OurSin]

Originally Posted by OurSin

Well here's what i can find on Chapter 7 of title 5 of the US CODE

US CODE: Title 5,CHAPTER 7—JUDICIAL REVIEW

I'm looking under chapter 701, unless they took what i posted completely out of this bill (which i doubt) wouldn't this completely void an official review?

(a) This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that—
(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or
(2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.
(b) For the purpose of this chapter—
(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States;
(D) the government of the District of Columbia;
(E) agencies composed of representatives of the parties or of representatives of organizations of the parties to the disputes determined by them;
(F) courts martial and military commissions;
(G) military authority exercised in the field in time of war or in occupied territory; or
(H) functions conferred by sections 1738, 1739, 1743, and 1744 of title 12; chapter 2 of title 41; subchapter II of chapter 471 of title 49; or sections 1884, 1891–1902, and former section 1641 (b)(2), of title 50, appendix; and


it'll take me way to long to go through this whole thing right now but.......is this still a part of it?

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


wouldn't this completely void that? So writing it in would just be fluf to confuse you?

quoted for wargasm.......I really want to know.......

and my god somebody get nimrod off of here, dude has no business discussing anything outside of marine biology and 4th grade math.

Originally Posted by Nimrod

they actin like paulson gona pocket the money and go to the bahamas


thats retarded

..


they think we are just GIVING wall st 700B becus they greedy and fucked up

yes...they are acting like that because the article you posted about the mexican bailout on like page 2 of this thread, left out the fact that the guy who orchestrated and oversaw that bailout ended up owning 3/4ths of all mexicos stock.

and since you are the expert...explain why we are giving 700b to wall st if its not because they are greedy and fucked up.

also explain it to the FBI, that way they will stop building cases to prosecute wall st CFOs for being greedy and fucking up. Clearly nimrod and his presumptions should convince the fbi that wall st cfos arent behind this whole mess.

[-GZ-]

Originally Posted by OurSin

quoted for wargasm.......I really want to know.......

and my god somebody get nimrod off of here, dude has no business discussing anything outside of marine biology and 4th grade math.

amen

[Wargasms]

Originally Posted by OurSin

quoted for wargasm.......I really want to know.......

and my god somebody get nimrod off of here, dude has no business discussing anything outside of marine biology and 4th grade math.

i dont see that shit you just quoted anywhere. Where did you get that from? its not in Section 701

[Wargasms]

kabz just dumb for no good reason.

[Don Kabz]

lmao just leave this thread war, I'm giving u the heads up. Ur riding on the bridge to nowhere.

the only person agreeing with u is nimrod

[yayo 2]

Originally Posted by Skrybe SK

nim your a fucking dumbass of the highest order. you make fucking presumptions about shit you have NO fucking clue about and then piggy back off whoever says something you like.

you have ZERO clue what going on and your sole source of information for ANY of this is wargasms and your own assumptions. YOu havent read a single passage of any part of this bill and you have no idea what these securities are or how they are used.


i can sum up your intelligence based on the simple fact that you think its a good idea to buy something, give it away then buy it back at a higher price.

You are a fucking braindead follower...i cant believe your fucking argument is "well it cant be that bad if obama is going along with it"

you have the mental capacity of a sock puppet. Why dont you go read a bedtime story about eh reichstag building and let those of us with actual brain function discuss the important shit.

Lmfaooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Wargasms]

oursin, im on the same link you are on, the cornell site,

where is that section 8? is that part of another provision?