From what I gather it may yet pass. However: even the NY Times story that you pointed to acknowledged that the results might not be as dire as many said. (In the very last paragraphs.) More to the point we don't have buy the Panic!Panic!Panic! Move Now!Now!Now! The Bush administration has said they intend to spend about 30 billion a month. So call a special session for October 14, and give them 32 billion under the terms of the current proposal to use until then. In the meantime, hold hearings to design a new proposal from scratch rather than just modifying the garbage exclusively designed by current and former Goldman Sachs executives.
Natter 61*
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Dana, I like them in dark chocolate or smokey brown. They look sturdy.
dark choc.
wow people here are not thrilled with the no vote on the bill. I know others in finance who told me this weekend that they thought a bailout would be a mistake. more wait and see, I guess.
Yup, my dad ran over his own sign.
oops.
It looks like the bailout didn't pass in the House.
I suspected that might be the case. I must agree that 700 billion does force one to pause, but yipes! They do know the European banks are also starting to collapse, right?
How do we feel about these shoes?
Sturdy and built to do what they need to do. I like the blue ones!
How do we feel about these shoes? And what color do we like best?
I have some very similar ones in dark chocolate and really like them.
wow people here are not thrilled with the no vote on the bill. I know others in finance who told me this weekend that they thought a bailout would be a mistake. more wait and see, I guess.
I have no idea myself as to what's the best course of action. AND there's no one in the govt to trust anymore, is there?
So what's the argument of those who say it's a mistake?
So call a special session for October 14, and give them 32 billion under the terms of the current proposal to use until then.
But a single deal could cost them more than that, right? I mean, I guess the question is how much money can the Treasurer demand w/o this kind of blanket bailout. Is there an advantage to a blanket bailout vs individually negotiated deals?
pardon my hiccup
OMG, the poison labels are so cool and gonna be on each and every one of my folders for university this year.
Also,
They may possibly have the world's best hummus.
There are few places in East Jerusalem who may differ. I'm not the biggest hummus fan on earth (oh - remind me to tell you, lovely Americans, the unbelievable amounts of times I've been asked to tell my opinion about certain types of hummus when I visited the States), but some people I know vows by them.
Post-holiday-dinner. Gonna nap in front of the TV. Yay TV. Oh, we had lovely dinner. Death was a big star of conversation. Lots of laughs, seriously.
The argument I was given was that the market needed to correct itself more. The big risk-takers needed some repercussions and a bailout would only encourage an environment of irresponsible lending/investing becuase it would all get covered in the end anyway.
That, of course, is an oversimplification, but they had to simplify to a level I could grasp. It is also fairly cynical, I think, and possibly not addressing what the ramifications will be to joe-schmo on the street.