Pelosi Screws the House Vote

See, Andy... that last para points out the problem.

Not that they shouldnt have bit the bullet anyway, but there was no lack of regulation.. just plenty of the wrong kind and not enough of the right kind.

Again it had nothing to do with 'trickle down' That is a 'Drink the Kool-aid' meme. And frankly most people are swallowing it. We cant tell which voters are irate because they might have their credit blown up. and which might lose thousands in their retirement.

One thing I THINK is universal, no one thinks 'Big Money' should get off free. What's confusing is the perception of what 'Big Money' is.

BTW: Let's go back a year in the Way-Back. Whatever happened to the term "Sub-Prime Mortgage Scandal"? That is STILL what it is. But no one is really calling it that. Why?
Because it hits to close to the core.

 

What IS a 'better bill', Don.

Something that drastically changes CRA?

Or something that bails out the guy who is about to be foreclosed? Who is going to buy that revised mortgage note? I'm not especially AGAINST that, but are we going to hear anything from you about the down-side to that?

Let's get beyond that Wall Street Criminals {which there are} unless you're amenable to pointing out ALL the Criminals. You know... like those who cook the books on quasi-governemtnal financial institutions, so they can collect bonuses and contribute big campaign bucks to these who will keep the trough full.

Not going to go THAT non-partisan, I bet.

 

There is a lot of blame to go around for the issue we're in now. Yes, the finance sector who gave these subprime mortgages; the real estate sector who helped support it; the flippers, and also the rental market who helped force people into subprime mortgages.

I was impacted by the latter group - the rent for my 2 bedroom apartment went up 10% a year for 3 years straight. I was faced with paying $1400 a month for a 2-bedroom apartment, with the anticipation of ~$1550 a month the next year -OR- accept a subprime mortage (2 year fixed, then ARM) to get into a 3-bedroom townhouse for $1800 a month. Luckily, I was able to refinance to a fixed mortgage before my mortgage went up to $2450.

We'll never be able to target all of those that took advantage of the situation to make money. One of the rules of effective problem solving is to focus on the problem, not on the person. Frankly, I care less about punishing those responsible than I do for ensuring a depression doesn't cost me my job and my home.

 

I, 100%, agree.

Does that apply to both sides or just one side? Perhaps if Barney Frank would just shut up.. perhaps if Pelosi would?

I want Congress to mensch up and pass the freaking thing.

THEN - when things stabilize- let's really investigate it.

Notice the Senate seems to be acting 'adult' about this. I haven't seen Chris Dodd or Chuck Schumer grabbing the mikes. I havent seen Dingy Harry spouting off.
- Aside: Meaning he/they havent been featured on FNC. I'm sure if I watched PMSNBC, I'd have seen it. But they havent said anything overly outrageous as Pelosi and Frank have been doing, which means it's just soundbite not exhortation.

What we say on this forum and what the big bloggers and talking heads say is not the issue.

 

What the hell are talking about?

That was NOT the 'Wall Street Reaction' Why the hell cant you just tell the WHOLE truth!!!

For those of you with short memories, the reaction of the chicken littles Don is referencing was to sell and Wall Street dropped 700 on the result of the vote.
That's -700
THEN, cooler heads prevailed, some people saw a chance to make some money, and THE NEXT DAY, it recovered 400, leaving overall down over the two days at -300.

So Wall Street did NOT GO UP on the news.

 

NO IT DIDNT!!!!

Dont advise people on stocks don

 

Get your calculators out:
enter -700

Then enter

+400

What do YOU guys get?

I'm gonna try to make this very clear.

The visceral reaction of Wall Street was to go down 700 on the news - THAT was the reaction to the Democratic veto of the bill. And I dont JUST say that to piss Don off, I'm referring to the 95 Dem 'nays'.... which certainly helped form those reactions.

But the next day, after analysing the Asian and European market reactions as well as the reaction of the market on the same day as the vote, many bought stocks reflecting their confidence in what?!!

The Congressional Conservative view.. Or the strength of the market in the interim? What do you think?

I think they were betting on the market first and on the Senate passage of the bailout, second.

 

What time was closure on the vote, Don? What time does floor trading end?

Who do YOU know waits overnight to make decisions on their stock portfolios?

Geez....

 

My understanding was that the market dropped based upon the news of the failed vote and then recovered some the next day, primarily due to people buying up undervalued stock.

 

Your understanding is right, Andy.

There was 1.5 to 2 hours from cloture to close of trading. As you see in the top post - DURING the vote, it rotated around about -500. Lost an additional 270 on cloture.

WTF are we having this conversation in this thread anyway? Dont we all agree that the thing has to pass? Let's just quit throwing up those red herrings just to see if one will stick.

{Yeah... that's a MM!}

 

Don't forget that Bernanke propped up the overseas markets by infusing foreign banks with Fed money after Monday's result.

Who knows if the market bounced back b/c of undervalued stock buys or if it's in anticipation of a new bill passing. The only way to know is to do nothing and that won't happen.

My idea that we'd get a better bill apparantly was wishful thinking. The Senate has announced they're going to vote on the same bad bill the House did but they're upping the FDIC coverage (which if I'm not mistaken, the Fed could do at anytime w/o them) and then throwing in a bunch of unrelated tax breaks and spending as "sweeteners" to get more votes. So instead of fixing the problems in the bill to make it more appealing, we're going to get Washington as usual.

Here's to hoping it fails and the House gets to finish their work on it. From interviews on the Hill last night, they were talking about putting in language to eliminate mark-to-market, limiting the power the bill was going to give to Paulson, and increasing oversight. With only 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election, this bill will pass and we'll be reliant on the House to shoot it down and provide a better alternative. One that, I don't know, actually attempts to address the problems that got us here and not just throw money w/o conscious at the problem. Yeah, I know, wishful thinking.

 

YOUR ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON YOUR PROVISION OF FAULTY DATA,Dammit!

You can prevaricate all you want I am not letting you get away with making a bogus cheap point!

 

My understanding is that the bill was claimed officially dead late in the day and the market had rebounded a little soon thereafter. You may have to break it down into hours, not days.

Still, I wouldn't read too much into it. The markets would not be the best guage at this point, as the vultures and shorts are out and about.

 

PCB, as I said.... there's a general timestamp on my original post. There was well over an hour left in trading on the day on my last edit and vote closed at least 1/2 hour before that.
- trading floor is open 9-4.



This is a screen cap of a section djia 5 day chart. Not hard to tell when the vote started, is it.
Also look at activity late friday. and the plummet at start of trading Mon.

You guys can interpret that as you will but it's apparent to me that we see kneejerk react then cautious upswing tuesday as traders start evaluating what it really means.

Also look at volume {lower line}

 

And when I pointed out the flaw, as the chart does as well. It doesnt matter to you, that's your line and you're sticking to it!
- What I obviopusly meant there, really goes back to the changed title of the thread. Was it apparent to you that 95 Dems would vote against? Were you thinking more.. or fewer? I had no idea how many GOP votes there would be.
Are you saying that Pelosi's speech couldnt possibly have affected ANY Dem votes, as well?

Why do you fill all this space? You dont want to discuss you only care to repeat your meme even when it's disproved
YOU DO NOT GET YOUR OWN VERSION OF FACTS!

Oh REALLY! Now he gets his own version of recent history. WTF was all that late night and weekend wrangling about if all the 'salient facts were ironed out?

Is that what it really contained? Why dont you link to the bill as voted?

Again just more throwing turds against the wall.