posted April 28, 2010 05:55 PM         

Right Node, a clerk reader in the House or Senate reading a 1400 page bill at breakneck speed IS the perfect substitute for printing a bill and distributing a copy to all congressional members to study. Right! You've solved the problem of no one knowing what's in the legislation upon which congressional members are asked to vote. Right! Congratulations.

I see you're back acoustic. Did you have ample time for a good cry and then research so you can at least make an attempt at another half assed argument?

"You, on your best day, still loses to me on my worst....acoustic"

posted April 28, 2010 06:27 PM         

quote:

---

I see you're back acoustic. Did you have ample time for a good cry and then research so you can at least make an attempt at another half assed argument?

---

I don't know where you've been this whole thread Jwhop, but you haven't landed a point yet this thread. You've not only been beaten, but your inability to go back to what your original contentions were has been noted. What part of that makes you feel victorious? This is really quizical behavior.

I didn't steal your stuff. I don't think you've got anyone you could make such a claim to. Maybe a grade-schooler...maybe.

posted April 28, 2010 07:16 PM         

The Senate will begin debate on the bill at 12:15 p.m. (1615 GMT) on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"It's time to move this debate from the sidelines to the playing field," Reid said.

The two sides reached an agreement after Democrats threatened to hold an extraordinary all-night session to pressure Republicans after they had blocked action on the bill for three consecutive days.

With congressional elections set for November, lawmakers from both parties are keen to pass a bill.

Financial markets are watching how strongly the legislation will crack down on banking and dealing practices, and what that may mean for banks' capital and valuations. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2821631420100428

posted April 28, 2010 09:18 PM         

quote:

---

Now, how's that Republican bill work coming? You've claimed that it does what the Democrat's bill hopes to accomplish. Prove it already....acoustic

---

Memo to leftist pinheads.

I wrote S.3218 myself...in about 5 minutes.

So, don't expect to see a Republican offering S.3218 as an alternate to S.3217...though they would be miles ahead to hang lying demoscats who SAY they don't want any bailouts for Wall Street, their investors, creditors or bond holders...but who actually do want to pay off their 5th largest campaign contributors...with bailouts.

So, it's game, set and match.

A news flash just came on saying demoscats had promised Senator Shelby that language in the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill will be adjusted to remove perpetual bailouts contained in the bill.

The perpetual bailouts O'Bomber, Dodd, Shumer and other habitual liars said were not in the bill....and that's the reason Republicans agreed to permit the bill to move to the Senate floor for debate...after defeating Reid's 3rd attempt to move the bill to the floor earlier TODAY.

As for your plagiarism acoustic, I have a much better memory than you. I once told you that on the best day of your life and my worst, you couldn't...........

posted April 28, 2010 09:44 PM         

No. There was no deal to remove permanent bailouts as bailouts were not in the bill to begin with. A Washington Post reporter shared my dilemma yesterday. Republicans were complaining about his coverage of Republicans with regard to the financial reform bill. He said it's tough to cover them, because they keep insisting bailouts are in the bills when they aren't. Personally, I think the pretend issue of bailouts is really a smokescreen to buy Republicans time to negotiate consumer protections out of the bill.

posted April 28, 2010 11:16 PM         

The votes Reid lost had nothing to do with cameras on the Senate floor.

"The GOP decision to relent came after Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking committee, told his colleagues that he could win no further concessions from Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd in private talks. He said Dodd did agree to adjust some provisions that Republicans had complained would permit further bank bailouts."

Like I said acoustic, my memory is much better than yours...AND that is my line..just as S.3218 was my idea..and my work.

posted April 29, 2010 01:53 AM         

quote:

---

Dodd said his talks with Shelby had been productive. "But I cannot agree to his desire to weaken consumer protections given the enormous abuses we have seen."

---

Bailouts = smokescreen

posted April 29, 2010 08:29 AM         

Hilarious, and WAY typical.

This pole dance with The "Street" will make Mid-term elections interesting.

21st Century History Lesson:

1. The Microphone is always hot.
2. The cameras are always on.

posted April 29, 2010 08:49 AM         

The problem with the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill is that it institutionalizes most favored status for large financial institutions, perpetuates bailouts for them, their creditors and investors and grants almost unlimited power to FDIC bureaucrats without any Congressional oversight into what they're doing.

Hahaha
God, it's a con job from beginning to end. It's no surprise to me demoscat supporters can't smell a rat. They've gotten used to the stench.

Even the giant financial institutions are FOR the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill. Some punishment for large financial institutions...as O'Bomber and bought and sold demoscats SAY.

They sure as hell would not be for my substitute bill, S.3218 which would end all bailout possibilities...and neither would the bought and sold demoscats.

S.3218

"No Federal Taxpayer money Shall be Budgeted For, Allocated To or Expended By any agency of the Federal government to grant Federal government assistance to any Business whether Domestic or Foreign. Nor Shall any Federal Taxpayer money be Budgeted For, Allocated To or Expended By any agency of the Federal government to Guarantee the debts of any Business, whether Domestic or Foreign, or pay losses of their Creditors, Investors or Bond Holders."

Exceptions:
1. Checking and Savings Deposit accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (FDIC), are exempted from provisions of this bill.

posted April 29, 2010 10:51 AM         

Let's see, the guy who can't decipher the dictionary definition of "Most" is now saying he can decipher the tricky weasel wording of the O'Bomber "Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill"?

You're building a list of preposterously funny fantasy land musings here acoustic.

You're also displaying a serious olfactory dysfunction.

Large financial institutions are yelling...please, please, please throw us in that brier patch of O'Bomber's" Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill".

And...

you can't smell a rat.

posted April 29, 2010 11:17 AM         

I see A LOT of talking, and VERY little proving me wrong.

posted April 29, 2010 11:44 AM         

That's the main reason you lost the argument over the Pew Poll..by default.

In fact, your default position which you always display..is to be..."wrong".

You're becoming the "Wrong Way Corrigan" of GU. I suppose there's some distinction in that.

Corrigan took off from NY City on a flight to Long Beach, California...and wound up in Ireland.

You're getting there acoustic.

A personality war acoustic? Still clueless aren't you!

posted April 29, 2010 12:02 PM         

You lost the Pew debate on several occasions, because you failed to understand what the data said even despite the accompanying interpretation, and even despite access to the question list. That was pretty monumentally bad any way you look at it. In those threads, as in this one, your position was based on a misinterpretation. You couldn't talk your way out of that one, and you've apparently chosen a similar course here.

posted April 30, 2010 12:33 PM         

The O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill IS it's own argument against passage.

Further, this piece of financial institutions backed trash fails to deal with the most corrupt financial institutions which kicked off the meltdown to begin with. Those are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...the piggy banks for O'Bomber, Dodd, ACORN, Franklin Raines, Jamie Goerlich, Tim Johnson, leftist members of Congress and renegade leftist groups.

O'Bomber and demoscats are just lying through their teeth that this bill is intended to punish and reform Wall Street.

posted April 30, 2010 01:12 PM         

OMG are you two at that one again?!? LOL

Why don't you both admit you love each other and be done with it

Hugs to you both,
The former Goatgirl

------------------
We cannot seek or attain health, wealth, learning, justice or kindness in general. Action is always specific, concrete, individualized, unique. --Benjamin Jowett

posted April 30, 2010 03:08 PM         

No, I don't think so. There's been far too much smelly water flowing under acoustic's bridge.

I'd be more likely to go skinny dipping in the city sewer.

posted April 30, 2010 03:39 PM         

quote:

---

I don't need an argument to craft acoustic.
The O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill IS it's own argument against passage.

---

If you're calling it a "Bailout" bill, then you do indeed have to craft an argument, because it is not the government using taxpayer money to keep a company solvent and in business. You haven't said a thing that remotely supports the idea that "bailouts" exist in the bill.

posted April 30, 2010 04:36 PM         

quote:

---

Hello AD..aka Goatgirl...Postscript....why did you change your screen name?

---

Cause I fly now. I go with the flow of life, not so earthy anymore. The trials and tribulations of the last few years helped me evolve towards my Saggie NN

(I know AG.)

------------------
We cannot seek or attain health, wealth, learning, justice or kindness in general. Action is always specific, concrete, individualized, unique. --Benjamin Jowett

posted April 30, 2010 04:37 PM         

Normally, if you’re a healthy, red-blooded cheetah, a nice juicy impala is the “runs really fast and goes ‘boing!’ ” part of this good-for-you breakfast. But what if you’re not very hungry at the moment? Then he’s your new playmate!

That’s what photographer Michel Denis-Huot discovered in these amazing shots for the Daily Mail. Already tired from hunting, the cheetahs patted and nuzzled the impala for about 15 minutes…

… and, even more amazingly, the impala nuzzled back …

------------------
We cannot seek or attain health, wealth, learning, justice or kindness in general. Action is always specific, concrete, individualized, unique. --Benjamin Jowett

posted April 30, 2010 04:47 PM         

The Bailout Bill?
April 21, 2010

Does the financial regulatory bill put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts? Or does it "institutionalize" them? Viewers of the Sunday political talk shows and recent C-SPAN clips from the Senate floor might well be wondering, as Democrats (the "end of bailouts" crowd) and some Republicans (the "institutionalize" camp) have made these contradictory claims.

No piece of legislation can guarantee that a future Congress won’t allow the federal government to prop up a failing financial institution. But claims that this bill makes taxpayer-funded bailouts a permanent fixture are misleading, to say the least.

The main point of contention is a provision that calls for a $50 billion fund to be used to liquidate a bank that’s on the verge of collapse. The bill does not authorize use of the fund to prop up companies or bail them out. Rather, it would be used to keep a troubled company operating long enough for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to dismantle it. The Senate bill, which is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, states that the fund would be available to the FDIC to be used for "the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies, payment of administrative expenses, the payment of principal and interest by the Corporation on obligations issued under paragraph (9), and the exercise of the authorities of the Corporation under this title." (The "Corporation" is the FDIC.) This fund is even called the "Orderly Liquidation Fund" in the bill.

Furthermore, while critics speak of "taxpayer-funded bailouts," the fund in question isn’t financed by ordinary taxpayers at all. The bill requires banks and financial institutions to fund it, and replenish it if funds are used. The FDIC would decide which companies have to contribute, and how much, based on an institution’s risk. The FDIC would have between five and 10 years to reach that target of $50 billion.

As for an "orderly liquidation," the bill says that would include removing the management of the company and making sure shareholders don’t get any money until other claims are paid:

SEC. 206. MANDATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ALL ORDERLY LIQUIDATION ACTIONS.
In taking action under this title, the Corporation shall— (1) determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company;
(2) ensure that the shareholders of a covered financial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid;
(3) ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210; and
(4) ensure that management responsible for the failed condition of the covered financial company is removed (if such management has not already been removed at the time at which the Corporation is appointed receiver).

We spoke with Harvard Business School Professor David Moss, who has researched and written about the government’s role in managing risk, about this provision in the bill. “The assessment is put on the financial firms,” Moss says. “Calling that a bailout seems inaccurate to me.”

In his opinion, Moss says, an orderly liquidation that puts the cost on financial institutions themselves is “an appropriate way to deal with it based on what we know historically.” It’s a way “to prevent the cost from falling on the taxpayer.”

Perhaps the most vocal critic of the legislation has been Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said on the Senate floor on April 13: "This bill not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks; it institutionalizes them." McConnell’s argument is that the $50 billion paid in by banks and Wall Street firms will lead to federal regulators taking actions that will require additional funds from taxpayers:

Sen. McConnell, April 13: Moreover, the mere existence of this fund will ensure that it gets used. And once it’s used up, taxpayers will be asked to cover the balance. This is precisely the wrong approach

McConnell noted that during the last crisis, AIG alone received more than three times the amount of this fund from the taxpayers. It’s true that AIG was bailed out (not shut down) at a cost estimated at $182 billion. But the fact is that the fund is designed to put firms like AIG out of business in an orderly way. Putting something out of business is not ordinarily defined as a bailout. (Precisely! - AG) Anyway, Congress approved the last bailout, and a future Congress would have to approve or disapprove any future bailout on that scale. This bill wouldn’t repeal its control of the federal purse strings.

Not all Republicans have agreed with McConnell. GOP Rep. Bob Corker of Tennessee called out the critics for misrepresenting the bill.

Corker, April 19: But this fund that’s been set up is anything but a bailout. It’s been set up to in essence provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there’s money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off.

On Sunday’s "Meet the Press," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said "taxpayers will not be on the hook for bailing out these large institutions from their mistakes in the future." Instead, the banks would be. Later on the show, Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee countered: "They know this is financial regulatory reform bill in its current form, that is working its way through, is — going to institutionalize the bailouts." She acknowledged that companies are the ones that pay into the liquidation fund, but said the cost would be passed along to the consumer. "Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do." Fair enough, but that still ignores the fact that the bill creates this fund to help dissolve a company, not prop it up.

The White House has said that the liquidation fund should just be nixed and replaced with a provision calling for companies to pay back any taxpayer money that might be needed for any future federal-handled dissolution. In other words, the government would pay liquidation costs and companies would have to reimburse the government.

The bailout-versus-not-a-bailout debate may be coming to an end, however. Recently, McConnell had toned down the criticism. On April 20, he said he was encouraged by bipartisan discussions. "I’m convinced now that there is a new element of seriousness attached to this, rather than just trying to score political points," he said.

The Federal Reserve

McConnell also claimed that the bill gives the Federal Reserve "enhanced emergency lending authority," while Dodd countered that this authority is "strictly restricted." We’ll score this one for Dodd.

We wrote about the Federal Reserve’s authority to lend struggling companies money in February, when a third-party group was making misleading claims about the House regulatory bill. Section 13 (3) of the Federal Reserve Act says that "[i]n unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may authorize any Federal reserve bank" to lend money to "any individual, partnership, or corporation," and it’s through that rule that the Fed lent money to AIG and Bear Sterns.

The Senate bill modifies Section 13 (3), putting more controls on the board’s ability to give out money. The legislation (Sec. 1151) says the board must set up policies governing emergency lending. "Such policies and procedures shall be designed to ensure that any emergency lending program or facility is for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company, and that the collateral for emergency loans is of sufficient quality to protect taxpayers from losses."

That sounds like more restrictions, not less, to us.
http://factcheck.org/2010/04/the-bailout-bill/