Obama and his Economic Advisor Warren Buffet

A quote;

The Greenberg fiasco has dragged in Warren Buffett, because General Re, a subsidiary of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, was the other side of one of the suspect AIG transactions. Buffett is at best a peripheral player in the drama.

And, on an interesting note of friends of friends;

He is scheduled to meet with investigators on April 11, but New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office has taken pains to note that Buffett is being called in as a witness, not a target.

And --

The folksy billionaire and investor par excellence is the self-appointed conscience of the American capitalist democrat.

And Finally, the source;

[http://www.slate.com/id/2116167/pagenum/all/ , Posted Monday, April 4, 2005,]

(Disclosure: Buffett is a director of the Washington Post Company, which owns Slate.)

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Real Impact of the So-Called "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich"

The chart below is a brief analysis of the economic impact of the so-called Bush tax cuts for the rich.

The Dow Historical Chart from 2000 to 2008





The red line is the Dot Com bust, with post Enron and 9/11 economic impact. The black line is the Bush tax cuts. The recent financial crisis alerted Main St. to the fact that their 401k, mutual funds and other retirement accounts are directly linked to Wall St. Democrats, in their calls to tax the rich, continually fail to understand that taxes have a negative effect on the market, and consequently, on the 401k's, and other retirement accounts. They, instead, look to the socialist economic policies of Europe. The ones that bankrupted the pension funds of workers, and ushered in state sanctioned murder (euthanasia) for burdens on their universial(1) health care system.

(1) If you are deemed terminal - you will be terminated not treated. Further, this extends to the mentally ill, the depressed, and retarded children. In Europe, to reduce health care cost, they have begun rationing health care and killing those who are terminally* ill. A special medical commit has been convined to ensure that the killing are meet state standards. [Reference: euthanasia in the Netherlands and Germany]

Powered by ScribeFire.

"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Obama

When Barack Obama uttered the words, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."., he identified himself as a socialist. He also stated one of the biggest misconceptions of socialism. They assume poverty is solely financial condition - and free money for the poor will solve the problems of poverty. However, you just have to look at the idle rich, like Paris Hilton to see what "free money" and no purpose in life does to a person.

The daily gossip shows, who's target is the idle rich Hollywood, shows that easy money does not resolve deeper problems and does not bring happiness. Former child star, and former supermodel, Brooke Shield has become the poster child, with her public feud with Scientologist Tom Cruise, over her chronic depression and her use of medication. Yet another view into the idle rich, is seen in the very public meltdown of Britney Spears - also a child star. This was followed by the problems and pregnancy of her sister Jamie-Lynn Spears. It was at the same time as the problems of another child star, Lindsey Lohan - and in the light of past child stars like Danny Bonaduce.

However, problems are not limit to child stars. There was the drug overdose of Heath Ledger (star of Batman: The Dark Knight, in which he stars as the Joker) that involved the Olsen Twin Mary-Kate. Who, with her twin Ashley, also appear troubled - in the glare of media lights. This was in the same line as the suicide of David Strickland, who co-starred with Brooke Shields in Suddenly Susan. Which was comparable to the murder-suicide of Saturday Night Live star Phil Hartman, committed by his wife. The problem is so large that a tv shows on addiction - in particular celebrity addiction (Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew a VH1 show) have very high ratings. So what evidence is there that "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Are You Ready for the Great Depression?

As stock markets continue to plunge, what the mainstream media won't tell you is that they are part of the problem. It's not just a confidence issue, there are real economic fundamental that are now broken and need fixing. All of the medias experts are urging calm - and business as usual. They're wrong (partily) yes stay calm (because there is an out) but it's far from business as usual.

The problem is that we wanted way too much. Our expectation of entitlements, free health care, free education, free (universal housing) and the ever expanding government - all cost real money. However, socialists like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, don't understand this. They believe if they had control of everything (a socialist utopia) that they can deliver a perfect world. So, in lock step with global socialists, and the UN, the Democrats (although hidden from the people) are the new American socialists - and they are planning the new USA - the USSA (the United Socialist States of America).

This crisis is the needed first step, in the socialist manifesto, toward a socialist state. Fear, and panic, which evolves into anger against the government - is the tool they use, to stand and say, "We are with you and we have a solution". The look like leaders, just like Barack Obama, and they will sell you socialism. They will sell you - into giving them full control of everything. They will start with the major institutions, banks and health care. It will evolve to everything else from there. This is the goal of the socialists Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest of the Democrats (who are now the Socialist Democrats).

They have fooled (and are fooling) the people into thinking that they are for the people - and against the "evil" corporations. They are holding hearings to show how they are "so angry" at the corporate greed. What they don't tell you is that this is a show - not real. They aren't angry - they are participating in the greed. Why? Because the companies in front of them are their major supporters and friends. It was the Socialist Democrats, now holding these hearings that created the law (the Community Reinvestment Act, Fanni Mae and Freddie Mac) that created this economic crisis.

What this means, the that the Socialist Democrats (who control both the house and senate - since Jan.2005) have no interest in stopping this financial crisis. In fact, they want this to happen - they have been hoping for this. It's need so they can bring in their socialist state - with the globally loved leader Barack Obama. Obama is loved in the manner that Kim is in North Korea, Lenin was in the USSR (now Russia) and Hitler was in Germany (and yes Hitler was a socialist leader and Nazi Germany was a socialist state). So are you ready for the Great Depression? The USSA? Under the beloved leader Barack Obama!

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Senate Record - McCain's Calls for Reform Ignored in 2005

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

Mr. McCAIN(Speaking). Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ``illusions deliberately and systematically created'' by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S . 190 , to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

[http://thomas.loc.gov]

Powered by ScribeFire.

Summary - The Clinton Community Reinvestment Act

"Community Reinvestment Act"  - Ensuring Credit Adequacy or Enforcing Credit Allocation?
Vern McKinley

[Vern McKinley has worked at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and is currently employed at the Resolution Trust Corporation. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely attributable to the author. This article was adapted from a more extensive paper available from the author at 1730 N. Lynn St., Suite A-67, Arlington, VA 22209]

[1]"In a July 15, 1993 speech on the South Lawn of the White House, President Clinton discussed the availability of credit to low and middle-income areas, and mentioned what has been a relatively obscure statute for most of its seventeen-year existence—the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This statute requires financial institutions to reinvest deposit funds back into the communities in which they are located."

[2]"This statute requires financial institutions to reinvest deposit funds back into the communities in which they are located. Clinton claimed that the CRA has not lived up to its potential. In line with this concern, the bank and thrift regulatory agencies, primarily under the leadership of Clinton-appointee Eugene Ludwig of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), have spent most of the past year and a half revising their regulations interpreting this statute. Even Alan Greenspan, the Reagan-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), has recently taken a more active role regarding CRA issues. He recently gave his first speech on the subject after seven years as Chairman, and cast an instrumental vote against an application for a proposed acquisition by Shawmut National Corporation of Massachusetts. The denial was based upon the powers granted to the Fed by
the CRA.

Rather than being a positive trend, these recent actions allow government and special interest groups to influence and even dictate lending decisions. Instead of being expanded, the CRA should be repealed."

Powered by ScribeFire.

From Glenn Beck

Yes, another email letter from your crazy brother. You raised a lot of questions in your last email and I am going to try to answer all of them.

I think all of your questions fall  into three areas: (1) how did we get here; (2) what's coming; and (3) what can I do to prepare myself and my family.

Consider this email as my answer to your first question, "how did we get here?". I'll be sending you 2 more emails answering your other two questions.  Since there's a lot of misinformation out there I will document each of the facts in my emails so you know where I pulled the information from and where you can go to read and learn more.

What you shouldn't do is panic. We'll get through this--don't pull all of your money out of the bank but have enough cash on-hand to meet any possible emergencies.

First, you've got to get the stock market's ups-and-downs out of your mind. The recent drops and upticks are short-term. Our economic problems are much bigger and deeper. Too many people believe that if the stock market goes up our problems are behind us and that's simply not true.

Last week the market had big drops and big upswings. In the end, the market ended down more than 800 points and lots of 'experts' were shouting it was a time to buy. I don't see it that way.

Did you know that just two days after the stock market crashed in October 1929 the market actually gained ground the next two days? The New York Times reported that "the market quickly regained its poise and stability...." Today, Wall Street 'pros' are telling us it's a good time to invest because Warren Buffet is investing. A lot of people were probably using the same argument when the Rockefeller family was buying stocks right after the 1929 crash, what they didn't know was that it would take Wall Street ten more years to see those prices again.

Our current economic crisis was caused by politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, who perverted the American Dream by treating home ownership as an undeniable right rather than what it really is, a privilege. President Bush aggressively promoted the benefits of home ownership through various policy positions, including a reckless zero down-payment initiative for some homebuyers and praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even after concerns about their accounting standards began to surface.

Home ownership has always been part of the American Dream. It allows individuals and families to build wealth by having them pay themselves instead of a landlord or rental company and vests people in their communities by grounding them in local schools, stores and government.

The concept that owning a home was a privilege and not a right began to change in 1992 following a flawed Boston Federal Reserve Board study which allegedly found subtle discrimination in loan and mortgage lending by banks and mortgage lenders.

Politicians didn't care that the study was full of errors. The study found discrimination took place when five minority applicants were rejected for special low-income loans even though the applicants were rejected because they made too much money to qualify for a low-income loan, not because of their race. The report also classified as 'rejected' the applications of eight minority borrowers even though these borrowers voluntarily withdrew their mortgage applications. The study's sloppiness also went the other way.

The study reported that a white applicant was approved for a $3,115,000 loan in order to purchase a home valued at $445,000. It was later demonstrated that the actual loan was approved for $311,500, far less than $3 million reported and more importantly, less than the home's purchase price. When these and other errors were corrected no evidence of discrimination existed.

But politicians didn't care. They used this report as the basis to
fix a problem which didn't exist. Leading the charge for change was
President Clinton who immediately set-out to rework the Community Reinvestment Act to give federal officials the power to pressure banks to make loans they otherwise considered too risky or uneconomical.

Traditional lending requirements were labeled 'outdated' and
discriminatory. What 'traditional lending requirements' were viewed as
'outdated' and 'discriminatory'? (1) banks were told that a "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" and that "past credit problems" should be viewed and considered in light of any "extenuating circumstances"
so loans could be extended when they otherwise would have been denied;
(2) banks were encouraged to let borrowers without enough money for a
down-payment make-up any deficiency with "gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies"
even though banks considered this risky as the home buyer would have
little or no equity in the house; (3) banks were also instructed that
borrowers who received child support, welfare payments or unemployment
benefits could count that as 'income' for borrowing purposes.

Call me crazy but if you need to count child support money that's
intended for your child, or are in such bad economic shape that you're
relying on welfare payments to make ends meet or are unemployed, maybe,
just maybe, you shouldn't be buying a house. Too bad our politicians
and the 'best and brightest' on Wall Street couldn't figure that out!

Community groups like ACORN, threatened to cry racism
if banks didn't increase their loans to subprime borrowers. Banks
typically avoided subprime loans as they carried a greater risk of
default, but with law on its side, ACORN and other groups intimidated
lending institutions into making such loans.

Banks soon learned, however, that making subprime loans actually
could increase their profits without increasing their risk. Once the
banks extended a loan to a subprime borrower that loan could then be
sold by the bank to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, two government sponsored
entities charged with making home ownership affordable to all
Americans.

Banks, Wall Street, and mortgage lenders were soon eager to extend
mortgages to subprime borrowers because they could make lots of money
without carrying any risk. Fannie and Freddie carried all the risk once
the original lending agency sold the loan to them. And once Fannie and
Freddie bought the loan this freed up the banks to make even more
subprime loans.

So everyone was a winner. The subprime borrower got the money to buy
a house. The banks generated mortgages and made a nice profit and
Fannie and Freddie executives made tens-of-millions of dollars in
salaries and bonuses by hitting their annual goals.

The problem was that in order to keep all of this going lending
standards were continually lowered to help the next level of subprime
borrowers qualify for mortgages and no one had an incentive to make
sure that the new subprime borrowers would actually be capable of
making regular mortgage payments. The banks which extended the loans
really didn't care because they were just going to sell the loan off to
Fannie or Freddie. Fannie and Freddie weren't too concerned because it
wasn't their money-they knew that they were insured by the 'full faith
and credit' of the federal government (that's government lingo for "you
and me").

So when federal regulators began to warn the executives at Fannie
and Freddie about the increasing risks of non-payment by subprime
borrowers the companies did nothing and when the regulators took their
concerns to congress their warnings were met with scorn and contempt. The politicians who received the most political contributions
from Fannie and Freddie, by pure coincidence, just happened to be their
biggest defenders: Chris Dodd (D-$133,900), John Kerry (D-$111,000) and
Barack Obama (D-$105,189).

Representative Barney Frank, who has been a fierce defender of
Fannie and Freddie, actually said, while arguing against more
regulation, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this
situation towards subsidized housing....
" It's nice to know that he doesn't mind gambling with our money.
Senator Chris Dodd, in praising Fannie and Freddie said, "I, just
briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this
is one of the great success stories of all time.

"While Senator Charles Schumer said, "And my worry is that we're using
the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie,
and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission."

Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other senator, with the exception of Senator Dodd, in the last four years. Before entering the senate, Obama filed a class-action lawsuit
against Citibank, alleging that the bank was red-lining, or not doing
enough lending in certain areas. That lawsuit was eventually settled.
Arguably, Barack Obama helped cause the problem he now wants to fix.

The Federal Reserve Board was doing its part by throwing huge piles
of cash at would-be home buyers by keeping interest rates too low. With
low interest rates speculators began to look at houses as business
opportunities, while others began to look at their homes as a giant
piggy bank rather than a place where you actually lived and raised a
family. Alan Greenspan encouraged this type of behavior and proudly
said, "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgages..." President Bush, responding to September 11th unwisely encouraged us to "go shopping" rather than hunker down financially and contribute to the War on Terror in other ways (can you say home equity loans?).

The SEC also shares in the blame. It failed to do its job (failed to adequately regulate mortgage brokers, the credit rating companies, and naked short-sellers), acted only after the markets froze-up (finally addressed mark-to-market rules) and refused to examine how the credit-default-swap market could grow from $919 billion in 2001 to over $54 trillion by 2008
(which allowed companies to make wild financial bets with the false
confidence that 'insurance' would be there if the deal went south).

So what happened? Home-ownership rates which had been relatively
constant for 25 years began a 10 year upward climb beginning in 1995,
around the same time that government began its push and pressure for
banks to make more subprime loans. The politicians, banks, lenders and
Wall Streeters were thrilled because they were all making gobs of money.

Today we are all paying the price for the decisions made long ago. I
have spoken to people involved at the highest levels and they now are
all saying the same thing, "it is worse than anyone knows" and "worse
than I even thought." Political and business leaders who I respect have
told me that the economy is on the edge of an abyss.

The bailout is an outrage and is designed only to buy time for the
politicians. It will delay the real hard times from hitting until after
the November elections. Not one politician has said that this bailout
legislation will put us on a better financial footing or that our
economic problems will be put behind us. In fact, we'll be worse off
because our politicians, even in this crisis, can't stop themselves
from spending. This bill includes an extension of the rum tax benefits
for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands ($192 million), tax benefits for companies which manufacture wooden arrows for kids ($6 million), car racing tracks ($128 million), a provision which forces insurance companies to treat mental health problems like physical problems ($3.8 billion) and many, many more.

International markets don't offer any better alternative. Germany, England, the Netherlands, and Russia have all come out with their own government backed bailout plans. There are now calls for more international regulation (presumably led by the United Nations) and China has taken this opportunity to call for "a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States." Meanwhile, there is increasing international indications that the dollar will lose its place as the reserve currency of the world.

The politicians from both political parties continue to lie to us.
They promise us better healthcare and more government programs. The
only thing either party will be able to deliver is higher, much higher,
taxes as the debt swells and government revenues fall. The same
politicians remain silent, while capitalism, which brought us the
highest standard of living in the world, is increasingly attacked and discredited by its enemies.

But it's not capitalism which has been discredited by our current
crisis, it's greed that has been shown to be at the root of our present
economic uncertainty, and greed is unfortunately a universal human
trait and has demonstrated its reach in socialism, fascism, communism
and capitalism. The greed of Wall Street is nothing compared to the
greed of our politicians who have continued to expand their power and
influence at the expense of their country.

Our children and grandchildren will ultimately pay the price for
their failure to act prudently and in the best interest of our country
because they will be the ones saddled with mountains of debt and
diminished standard of living.

I hope that this summary gives you a better idea of how the people
who caused this fire are the same ones who are now telling us that they
know best how to put it out and a reason not to believe their current
promises.

We have faced tough times before. We fought the Nazis in World War
II, defeated communism in the Cold War and Americans fought each other
to keep our country together in our own Civil War. These tough times
require us to educate ourselves and help others understand what has brought us to this point and the grave consequences of what will happen if we let this continue-that is our fight.

In my next email letter I will answer the other question you asked, "what's coming?"

Sis, I know you will always consider me your crazy brother but
please pass this message on to all of your friends. There are too
many rumors circulating and I want to put the facts out there. This
isn't about slamming the Democrats or Republicans--this is about
getting the truth out to as many people as possible. The more
people we can wake-up the more people we will have restoring the hope,
promise and opportunity of our great country.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What The Bush Tax Cuts Mean for Main Street

More than 90% of all mutual funds have lost money this year, according to the researchers at Morningstar Inc. As fund managers have been flailing to stay afloat, they have been trading like crazy, generating capital gains and, in turn, creating a tax liability for investors.[MarketWatch ; http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-obama-should-move-end/story.aspx?guid={DAB0DD9D-EC06-411E-B26F-B1607D582983} ]

This is what the Democrats oppose - and call the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

WHAT ABOUT TO LIFT TAX BURDEN FROM EMPLOYEES BY 10% AND LEVY ON FUNDS, BANKS, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND OTHER BLOOD SUCKERS BY 20%?

Otherwise, Who will you make to pay that 700 billion USD bailout burden?
[MarketWatch ; Comments]

This comment from the "main street" point of view" reflects the Democrat (Now the American Socialist Democratic Party - or just the socialists) line against the Bush tax cut for the rich. However, note the reality of the problem, the mutual funds being taxed are Main Street's pension funds! Have you spotted the socialist lie??!!!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Improvments in the Bailout!!!

1. 
   H.R.1424
   Title: A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.
   


2. Note: On 10/1/2008, the Senate plans to use H.R.1424 as the vehicle for the economic rescue legislation. See Senate Majority and Minority notices and documents from the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. On the Banking Committee website, Division A (pp.2-113) of the draft legislation is referred to as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; Division B (pp. 113-261) is referred to as the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and Division C (pp. 261-451) is referred to as the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.


3. S.AMDT.5687
   Amends: H.R.1424 , S.AMDT.5685
   Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] (submitted 10/1/2008) (proposed 10/1/2008)
   
   AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the tax on high income individuals.
   
   STATUS:
   
   10/1/2008:
   Amendment SA 5687 proposed by Senator Sanders to Amendment SA 5685.
   
   


4. 
   10/1/2008:
   S.AMDT.5685 Amendment SA 5685 proposed by Senator Dodd.
   In the nature of a substitute.
   10/1/2008:
   S.AMDT.5687 Amendment SA 5687 proposed by Senator Sanders to Amendment SA 5685.
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the tax on high income individuals.
   


5. 
   TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
   
   * SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
   Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007
   
   * SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO HOUSE:
   Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007
   
   * SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED HOUSE:
   Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
   Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008
   
   * OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
   To amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans.
   
   * OFFICIAL TITLE AS AMENDED BY HOUSE:
   To amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes.
   
   * OFFICIAL TITLE AS AMENDED BY SENATE:
   A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.
   


6. AMENDMENT(S):
   
   1. H.AMDT.958 to H.R.1424 Pursuant to the provisions in H.Res. 1014, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as adopted.
   Sponsor: House Rules (introduced 3/5/2008) Cosponsors (None)
   Committees: House Rules
   Latest Major Action: 3/5/2008 House amendment offered
   
   2. S.AMDT.5685 to H.R.1424 In the nature of a substitute.
   Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 10/1/2008) Cosponsors (None)
   Latest Major Action: 10/1/2008 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 5685, pursuant to the order of September 30, 2008, having achieved the required 60 votes in the affirmative, was agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 74 - 25. Record Vote Number: 212.
   
   3. S.AMDT.5686 to H.R.1424 To amend the title.
   Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 10/1/2008) Cosponsors (None)
   Latest Major Action: 10/1/2008 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 5686 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
   
   4. S.AMDT.5687 to H.R.1424 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the tax on high income individuals.
   Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] (introduced 10/1/2008) Cosponsors (None)
   Latest Major Action: 10/1/2008 Senate amendment proposed (on the floor)
   
   5. S.AMDT.5691 to H.R.1424 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
   Sponsor: Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] (introduced 10/1/2008) Cosponsors (None)
   Latest Major Action: 10/1/2008 Senate amendment submitted

Powered by ScribeFire.

The $700 Billion Ripe-off!

[From CNN Transcrips; William Isaac, former FDIC Chairman, and Bob Barr]

CHETRY: Why aren't we hearing more people talk about that?
ISAAC: Well, a lot of people talk about it, but we can't -- our voices can't be heard from all the politicians saying
that Main Street is going to die. This bill is really for Main Street, not Wall Street. That's nonsense. This bill is for
Wall Street, and it offends me that we're going to take $700 billion of taxpayer funds and put it into Wall Street.
ISAAC:
the SEC needed to end the marking of mortgage- backed assets to fair value because, which is what their accounting rule requires because there is no market in mortgage-backed securities. And so, the SEC was just crushing the values of these by forcing them to be marked to an index and they destroyed. The SEC destroyed $500 billion (OFF-MIKE) financial industry needlessly. It should never have happened. And when you destroy $500 billion of (OFF-MIKE) lending capacity because banks lend $10 for every dollar of capital they have. So the SEC almost single-handedly destroyed $5 trillion of lending capacity. That's why we have a credit crunch in this country. Not because the banks need these bad loans purchased from them, they really don't. This is $700 billion out of $14 trillion financial system. There is plenty of liquidity in that system. What we have is a capital shortage because the SEC was destroying capital for the past year.

CHETRY: Why aren't we hearing more people talk about that?
ISAAC: Well, a lot of people talk about it, but we can't -- our voices can't be heard from all the politicians saying
that Main Street is going to die. This bill is really for Main Street, not Wall Street. That's nonsense. This bill is for
Wall Street, and it offends me that we're going to take $700 billion of taxpayer funds and put it into Wall Street.
---
BARR: No, I don't agree. The doom and gloom, the sky is falling that comes out of Washington is all a ploy by
the Washington insiders to force the country and force Congress into doing something without really thinking it
through. What they ought to be doing, instead of trying to push something through again almost sight unseen in
the Senate is have some extensive hearings to get to the bottom of this, have both sides, not just one side of the
argument presented to the American people. This is far too important, far too costly to be ramming something
through the throat, down the throats of the American citizenry.

BARR: This here again, there are some steps the government can take short of a $700 billion or trillion dollar.
The government doesn't even know what this is going to cost bailout. But certainly, there are some specific steps
that Washington could take short of that. They could direct the SEC to ease and change the artificial accounting
rules that have dried up credit, the mark to market accounting requirements.
The Fed could ease -- could put some -- could inject some liquidity into the market over the short term. That
would ease the credit crunch. So there are some specific steps that Washington could take, short of ramming this
trillion-dollar bailout.

The fix;
[From CNN Money]

The revised bailout bill also includes a "Mental Health Parity" provision, which would require health insurance companies to cover mental illness at parity with physical illness.

Powered by ScribeFire.