T. Boone Pickens said $700 Billion, the New Energy Army will continue to repeat T. Boone Pickens 700,000,000,000 times.


Count the voices in our community, watch with Boone and his New Energy Army.


T. Boone Pickens recruits 1,000,000,000


Let Boone's message be heard! Give Boone ownership of $700 Billion to bailout America to secure our nation and economy from the ravages of foreign oil imports; 10,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years leaves our nation to pay for foreign oil; ten trillion dollars.


$700 billion a year being sent to countries who may not be our friends – so we can import 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil we use every day.


700 Billion Celebrations at the Pickens Plan 1,000,000,000 member Party!


CELEBRATE with your COMMUNITY; 999,988 Strong! 10:27 PM 10/10/2008


Share the New Energy Army Strength badge widgets!


Get and Share the 1,000,000,000 member social widget badge on your community.


Join us for our Countdown, in the Pickens Plan community discussion and forums at CELEBRATE with your COMMUNITY; 999,988 Strong!

Pat Jack
Pickens Plan Ambassador

The much talked about $700 billion bailout bill was passed early Friday afternoon by the House after two weeks of revisions and changes.

The final tally was 263-171 with 58 more votes than for the bill that failed to pass on Monday, according to the Associated Press.

The revised bill was passed Monday by the Senate, and then returned to the House where it was finally passed in an attempt to avoid the widely predicted economic meltdown.

The original bill, which was voted down, was criticized for focusing more on balling out large businesses and banks, and less towards helping individuals and small business. The revised bill extends tax breaks to smaller business, provides $8 billion in tax relief to those affected by natural disasters and raises the limit on federal deposit insurance to $250,000, according to MSNBC.

As the bill was being debated and revised in the Senate, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, addressed Congress and urged the varying groups to avoid placing blame for the economic crisis and encouraged them to focus instead on finding a solution.

"Let's not spend our time as the fire is burning, trying to find out who the arsonist may have been," Bennett said. "Let's free up the credit markets right now."

The $700 billion price tag on the bill is calculated from the total amount of mortgages in the United States, which is currently at $17 Trillion. Five Percent of these mortgages are expected to be bad, and thus the total price tag on these mortgages is $700 Billion, according to Bennett.

One of the biggest dangers in delaying the vote is the slowdown in lending between banks. As banks hoard their cash to buffer themselves from the economic downturn, business customer and individuals are finding it harder and harder to get loans. Without these loans, some businesses are finding it difficult to fund day-to-day operations, according to MSNBC.

Bennett addressed Congress in an attempt to convince those who voted against the bill last week, to look at it again and change their minds.

Some representatives who voted against the bill last week approved of the revised edition even though they weren't satisfied that it addresses all the issues.

"I hate it, [but] inaction to me is a greater danger," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.

One famous German magazine, Spiegel international, write an interesting article: What You Could Get for $700 Billion? But they forgot to write one obvious answer: With $700 Billion tax payer's money, you will definitely get less sleep in the evening. Perhaps you can add more responses/answers to that question. I would be really happy to hear it from you.

You can read one fine review of "the series" here: http://gahzette.blogspot.com/

"As usual, Congress has show itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed. "
_
Thirdly, the DOW has fallen. Here's the CNN article as well. Right after the bailout passed. Surprised?

_
And finally, this nation is up for sale:

"For Sale By Owner:

Selling price: The future of the next 10 generations of all occupants."

One of the comments on Campaign for Liberty. Thought I would share.

"Warren Buffett said Thursday that it is crucial to the global economy that the controversial $700 billion Wall Street bailout passes, but warned that the pricetag may have to rise."

If you give a mouse a cookie...

It's interesting that you can relate this situation to a children's book.

$700,000,000,000.00 

...just wanted to see that on paper(or at least pixels)...

the national debt is only $9,950,342,277,858.64 and only increased $2.56 billion per day since September 28, 2007.

I think they should throw a few billion more in there and take us all out for a dinner and a movie...after all..isn't that what you are supposed to do before getting screwed?

Body of Lies is going to be incredible...seems to fit in perfectly...and I saw Leo at a drugstore in manhattan..(i have to tell this to my wife every time anything with leo comes on...cool guy).

So, they will be getting their 700 billions one way or the other, which makes me wonder why are the Fed and the Treasury creating this drama if they could just hand in 700 billions under the table?

Could it have anything to do with the elections?

Speaking of it:

I am an Ambassador for the Pickens Plan online. I have blooged on 700 Billion within a group discussion within ning using the discussion features of the ning group.

Searching google.com just before bush's speech that announced the depth of the banking crisis and banking failures, Pickens Plan owned top google SERP returned for a search using the phrase:

700 Billion

Media organs of the banking failures have hijacked Boone Picken's 700 Billion keyword phrase. It's arbitrarily important. Why did the organs of the banking failures, the lobbists and your elected officials choose the number $700 Billion. Did they also tell you that Boone Pickens had spent tens of millions of dollars pushing the very same phrase to the media? No they did not, because they don't want you to understand that there are TWO 700 Billion dogs out to bite America in the heart.

Blogs and media returned in top google SERP for "700 Billion", (the day of and days after), were pushed to the internet in advance of bush's speech, written and refined in advance of whitehouse full disclosure of the banking failures and bailout crisis in the United States of America. The dance was timed perfectly, I salute the shadow; Watch.

A google search for 700 Billion no longer returns top SERP pointing to Pickens Plan documents, where once Pickens Plan documents were the ONLY links returned by google in the top 10.

Before the banking bailout crisis was announced, PIckens Plan had all top ten search returns in google nailed down for the phrase: 700 Billion. If you are thinking conspiracy, then click the x at the top right of this screen. I don't do conspiracies, I do business, the business of top google rankings. Top google rankings are gold, silver and diamonds whose value is unaffected by banking bailouts.

Type your name without quotes into google and see where you rank. How many documents are returned for your name and how could you get your name to the top of google? Now type in the phrase "700 Billion" without quotes and tell me how many documents are returned. Who is at the top of google for 700 Billion? Who was at the top of google before bush?

There is only one blog that now carries my comments about Boone's 700 Billion, the comment ranks 2nd in a search for the phrase "700 Billion" without the quotes. That's right, a COMMENT on a blog. It's fun to see how long it will last ... hours ... days ... mintues ... or maybe 700 Billion nanoseconds.

700 Billion dollars leaves this nation to pay for foreign oil imports this year can be seen in the google SERP returned for this blog that ranks my comments second for the phrase 700 Billion.

The U.S. government and banking media organs orchestrated an online campaign to Co-opt Pickens Plan Search Engine Optimization for the phrase 700 Billion. They did an excellent job and I am fighting back so that you will understand that Boone wants you to know that 700 Billion dollars is EXACTLY the same figure the banks are begging, and is also the amount of money that will leave the United States of America to pay for foreign oil this year.

$700,000,000,000, (seven hundred billion dollars), leaves this nation to pay for foreign oil imports this year and for the next 10 years. TEN TRILLION dollars leaves America over the course of the next 10 years while Iran retools transportation to run on natural gas, (they will sell their oil to the United States for $200, then $300 per barell).

1.4 trillion dollars leaving our economy this year for oil and bailouts, then there is the war and the occupations to pay for, and finally the budget.

Developing a domestic energy economy based on domestic resources to reduce the crippling dependence on foreign oil, (the cycle of war and terror for resources), is a heroic deed beyond all others. I need you to know that Boone's army sees the deciet and lies of the incompetent banking leaders.

The U.S. Automakers will want their $700 Billion bailout, just you wait.

1.4 Billion in bailouts, plus the 700 Billion for oil imports this year, the war and occupations, and then the budget.

Is this the right way to ruin a nation? I say yes.

T. Boone Pickens has a plan to remove the stranglehold of foreign oil with which America is tortured as banks hedged their funds on oil futures and lost, lost to Boone Pickens.

If you drew a graph of the rise in Pickens Plan membership against a graph in the suppression of oil futures you would see them depart at a similar slope.

Bailout of the super wealthy bankers who caused this banking crisis failure to the tune of 700 Billion, or bail out America with the Pickens Plan.

It's about national security, (dependence on foreign oil), economic security, (700 Billion to pay for the failed oil futures hedge), and a domestic energy dollar.

Boone Pickens has a plan to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, the poison which is killing the United States of America.

Pat Jack

Pickens Plan Ambassador

The Scotsman

The latest tale of childhood from the Disney dream factory is a million miles away from its usual sanitised fare. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is a harrowing insight into the Holocaust, with an ending that stays true to the shocking truth. By Stephen Applebaum

IF YOU mainly equate Disney with cuddly and fuzzy, then you are in for a shock if you settle down to The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas expecting to leave the cinema with a warm glow. For while the film's title makes it sound like a cosy bedtime story, ark Herman's (Brassed Off, Little Voice) brave drama, from Disney subsidiary Miramax, is ultimately the stuff of nightmares.

Though a tale of childhood set during the Holocaust, this is no Life is Beautiful. Where that film's mawkish coda offered the audience bogus consolation, the harrowing final few minutes of Herman's film rush us headlong into the infernal machinery of the Final Solution, to which the only responses can be silence, sorrow and tears.

Survivors' stories, or the stories of so-called righteous gentiles such as Oskar Schindler, may be uplifting and life-affirming, but they do not reflect the truth of the Holocaust: that most people perished. Irish author John Boyne's 2006 best-selling children's novella did not duck this truth, and neither does Herman's adaptation.

Even so, one British commentator recently accused the movie of representing a "Disneyfication of the Final Solution," before going on to wonder "whether The Gas Chamber ride is being installed outside Paris". It was a cheap shot, and Herman is rightly puzzled. "I found that a very muddled piece and didn't really understand what she was getting at because I can't find any Disneyfication in this film," he says. "I don't quite know what she means. It's almost as if that because it's from a child's angle, it becomes too sweet. But one of the points of the story is the innocence of the kids and the ignorance of the grown ups."

"The kids" are Bruno, the eight-year-old son of the newly-appointed commandant of a concentration camp, and Shmuel, the Jewish boy on the other side of the camp's electrified fence, whom he befriends. Despite the charge above, there is virtually no sentimentality in Herman's portrayal of their journey from innocence to a grim realisation about the adult world surrounding them.

Moreover, he has kept his word to Boyne that he would not dilute the book's shocking climax. "I met early with him and sort of promised that I would protect the ending. Although that was a promise, obviously, that wasn't really in my power to keep," he laughs, "because making movies doesn't work like that."

It appears that Herman did not just want to be faithful to Boyne's vision. "In a way, the ending is sort of payback to the ending of Life is Beautiful," he says, referring to Roberto Benigni's lugubrious Oscar- winning comedy. "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas accelerates to the end, it gets ahead of you, and then it's gone. There's no sort of, 'Oh, I can meet my mother out in the countryside.'"

The ending had actually been one of the key elements that appealed to Herman when he first read The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas in galley form, prior to its publication. There was already a buzz about the book but, unusually, no-one had picked up the film rights. "I was kind of surprised because the word was so good," he says. "But then you think about the subject matter and you can perhaps understand why (the studios] stayed clear. I just felt that if people read the book, they might think it's difficult to turn into a film, so if a film studio could read a screenplay instead of the book, they might get it. But the only way of doing that was to buy the rights myself." So that is what he did.

Free to work without studio interference, Herman set about adapting the book. He took out one of his favourite scenes where Hitler and Eva Braun visit Bruno's family in Berlin – "we're making a fictional story, and putting in a real character would put it out of kilter", he explains – and made his version of the camp an unnamed place rather than Auschwitz, or "Out-With", as Boyne's Bruno calls it in the novella. Herman was fascinated by the ambiguities of looking at this world and its characters through the eyes of a German child. People who we would consider monsters in hindsight, such as Bruno's father (played by David Thewlis in the film), become more familiar. "These guys were really human beings," says the filmmaker. "They protected their family, they were decent fathers during the evening. And then the next day they'd go out and kill so many people. I love all that ambiguity."

It also makes for a less clear-cut emotional response as a viewer. When tragedy strikes at the end of the film, you are unsure whether to feel sympathy for two of the central adult characters – they're Nazis, damn it! – or say they had it coming. "I love the fact that people are confused about their emotions and their feelings towards them."

Researching the film was one of the most emotionally gruelling things Herman says he has ever had to do. Trawling the internet for information, "You find yourself on sites that you shouldn't be at, and you click a link and then you're on one that you really shouldn't be at. And then you get to a stage where you say, 'I really don't need to do research this far." It was a very depressing, upsetting time, really, while I was writing it." By the time he and everyone else arrived on the set, they had "all been to pretty dark places".

When The Boy with the Striped Pyjamas was first published, people questioned whether the Holocaust was a fitting subject for a children's book. Herman, though, is not even sure that Boyne's novella – despite its deceptively simple, fabulist form, which the director/writer has striven to recreate – is actually a children's book.

"I was always a little bit muddled about (that] because you have to be old enough to understand the Holocaust to be able to understand the ironies of Bruno's story, in a way," he explains. His film, he says, is only a family film in the sense that "parents can, and probably should, take their kids. I don't think it's specifically aimed at kids at all."

Nonetheless, it is children who are likely to benefit most from the film, because of the journey that it takes the audience on as the scales slowly fall from Bruno's eyes. A continuous undercurrent of dread lets you know that it will probably not end well. And when the tragic denouement arrives, it is as uncompromising as almost anything in The Grey Zone, Tim Blake Nelson's flinty film (now available on Region 2 DVD) about the sonderkommandos of Auschwitz-Birkenau – arguably still one of the toughest, bleakest and most honest movies about the Holocaust, and, in particular, the moral dilemmas faced by prisoners in the camps, ever made.

Shooting such scenes is always difficult, but staging the final moments of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was further complicated by the involvement of the two young boys playing Bruno and Shmuel, newcomers Asa Butterfield and Jack Scanlon respectively.

"That was just a nightmare on so many levels," says Herman. "You've probably got more lawyers there than filmmakers. You had all the legalities of kids in amongst grown-up naked people, who can be where and when, and what they can see. It was really horrendous. You'd got the parents with them and all sorts of helpers. It's disturbing for us grown ups, but I'm sure it's even more disturbing for the kids."

Viewers will have to decide for themselves whether it was worth it or not. But any parents looking for a way to introduce their children to one of the 20th century's darkest moments could do a lot worse than start here. According to Herman, the film has already received the seal of approval from several Holocaust survivors, including one woman who was herself in Auschwitz as a child.

"She was saying how the film is more powerful than actually taking a trip to Auschwitz now," he says, "because Auschwitz has actually become a museum and kids can't quite get emotional contact, whereas this film seems to do it for them ." Any movie that helps to throw light on this terrible period and encourage a new generation to talk about it can only be a good thing, Disney or not.

The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

And do you think Congress is going to stop trying to push their bailout plans? Not likely. It was reported that 93% of people polled oppose a bailout and congress received messages at a ratio of 300 to 1 against rescuing the nations financial institutions, and yet Bush does it under the table anyway. AND Congress is still pushing for a compromise bill to get the bailout through. Remember that in government, "compromise" means more spending. When will it end? The dollar can't take any more of this.

Changes and Additions

• To be updated soon

Update Links:

Online Update for unlocked phones(SIM-Free)

Before you start, make sure you have met these requirements:

To install and run Nokia Software Updater application:
PC with 1GHz or higher Pentium-compatible processor
At least 256 MB of RAM (memory)
Windows 2000 (SP4 or later) or Windows XP (SP1 or SP2) or Windows Vista
Administration rights on the PC while installing
High-speed internet connection

To connect your phone to a PC:

Fully charged, compatible Nokia phone
Compatible Nokia USB connection cable
Compatible USB port on your PC

Step 2/2: Back-up data

Personal data such as contacts, photos and messages stored in the phone memory will be deleted during phone software update. It is strongly recommended that you backup this data to your memory card before updating your phone software.

To backup to your memory card:
select Tools > Memory from the main menu
select Options > Backup phone mem.

To restore info to phone memory:
select Tools > Memory from the main menu
select Options > Restore from card

Now click on the link below to proceed with the update

http://europe.nokia.com/A4176089

Is this whole economic mess as bad as it seems? I mean, I know it's a terrible question, and I'm sure the answer is a resounding yes, but it's hard to believe that it has gone so sour, so fast. I graduated from college in December of 2007, and at the time, helped co-found an internet start-up company. Another friend of mine graduated at the time same and traveled for six months before taking a job with Lehman Brothers. If there were odds being given for who would be looking for a new job faster, I don't want to know what they would have been.

I know that this recession will alter the way business is done forever. At Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and a host of other small to medium sized businesses, it's a guarantee. At companies like mine, it feels inevitable. There is no capital available. The Dow Jones just witnessed the largest single day loss in it's history. Gas prices are still hovering above $100 a barrell, and they aren't going down. These are all talked about much more eloquently and frequently by the major news outlets, but I feel the need to mention them, if only for a personal historical record of the event.

Politically, there is an epic election in which both candidates muddle through the economy (Disclosure of sorts: I'm a democrat by nature and in all probability will vote that way on November 4th). In their first televised debate, I felt like there was one moment when either candidate could have been honest and real. "Congress is proposing a $700 billion bailout. This will obviously affect what you are able to do once in office. Do you see any of the programs that you've proposed being cut?" Fair question, and an incredibly important one for the American People. What do you think happened? Obviously, nothing of substance. We know change is coming, and we know experience matters. We love war heroes and good speeches. It's all a big show, but this time, it really matters. It took us a year to admit the economy is in recession BAD (I don't really care what word you use, and recession seems to conjure up to many arguments that detract from the fact it's just bad), and these guys would not say a thing. I need to know, what is going to be cut? Is social security in trouble (probably not, but if it is, hello higher 401k payments)? Am I going to continue to pay a ridiculous premium for health care (both as a business owner and as an insured individual)? I want to put education first too, but how far out in front? SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE, and we all know that. At least I know in three years, the cost of gas WILL NOT go down because oil from offshore drilling has finally been put into production. And, most importantly, I learned the proper use of the words "strategy" and "tactics", and I also learned that Mr. Obama may or may not have used them correctly.

Strategy:

1. Also, strategics, the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations

Tactics

1.(usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.

Both definitions from: http://www.dictionary.com

I know there is a difference, a professor told me once. I didn't find it important enough to commit to memory. I know that I still don't care. I guess I should be thankful: who knew you could learn so much, and yet so little, by devoting almost two hours of your life to watching two men you'll never meet pretend to talk about things that matter. Perhaps the best part is the political pundits and news stations, who all thought McCain won, and the polls, who all showed Obama ahead. Something like 52 million people watched the debate, and the one thing I'm sure of, the biggest loser from Friday Night: the American People.

I briefly mentioned the record drop in the DOW, which was a direct result of the House of Representatives voting down the bailout package on Monday. I'm not sure, and don't want to fact check, but I don't believe there has ever been a time where a Treasury Secretary, Fed Chairman, President, Wall Street Executives, the opposition party, and two new presidential candidates have agreed on a bill that subsequently failed. I don't know if it is the right maneuver or not. I do know that I'm not happy about bailing anyone out when I can't find venture capital and my start-up company might come up short four months from launch. I know that we haven't been greedy. I know that we haven't leveraged every "asset" to the hilt, and I know that I'm not making anywhere near the $20-$120 million in comp packages that these CEO's are.

But I'll support the bill. I won't vote against it because Nancy Pelosi is partisan and mean (which she is). I won't vote against it because it's not like my plan, which won't work.

It's not the people's or  hated Wall Street's fault that George Bush is an idiot. There, I said it. That's why his approval rating is 28%. I am sure he will go down in the annals of history as the worst president ever. I wish I had blogged in 2000, when he stole the election, because I said it then and I would have gained some credibility out of the last eight years. Congress has an even lower approval rating because they take the time to ban online poker playing, approve wars with sovereign nations, and write legislation on the legalization of marijuana (this ones for you Barney Frank). I don't care about marijuana, either way, it means nothing. But I'd be willing to bet if all the time spent lobbying for the little green guy was instead spent lobbying for important issues, like the economy, maybe house republicans (or the 40% of democrats who also voted against it) would have liked you enough to brush off Pelosi's meanness. It's no guarantee, but hey, worth a shot right?

There is great potential that this blog post comes back to haunt me. I called someone a name, and I made fun of the debate, and I made fun of Congress, and I made fun of big companies. About the only thing I didn't do was go at the oil companies (Obama for the windfall tax alone). It's a very frustrating world out there. People are scared. I'm one of them. I live in a generation that is coming of age in a world defined by our parent's greed. They are leaving us a trashed economic system, minimal faith in government, a dying planet, and a huge huge huge national debt. They have destroyed or are well on their way to destroying the social institutions that survived the better part of the 20th century. And they can't agree on anything.

To the House of Representatives: Take one on the chin, approve a bill, risk losing reelection. If you lose, you probably deserved it.

To President Bush: I'm sorry, but you make me unhappy.

To "Big Business:" I don't like you right now, but I'm not sure if it's because I'm not one of you, or if it's because your greed and ridiculous business practices are threatening the entire economy.

To the candidates: I implore you to be straight forward and honest. I know you can't because of the current political landscape. I know you'll lose horribly if you tell retiree's that your going to cut their benefits. But if you're going to do that, I'd rather let the country decide if you should be in office. And whoever wins, you absolutely must reduce the power of the Executive, or I'm afraid noone will ever have faith in your office again.

To venture capitalists: I do believe strongly in the business model of my company, and I'd love to meet and discuss.

To everyone else: Hold on and pray hard.

To people who don't pray: That's ok too, but hold on.

I went through a range of emotions while writing this post. I'm sorry, don't hold it against me. If you disagree, let me know. We'll talk.

The House voted to reject the $700 billion dollar bailout plan 228-205, the New York Times reported Monday.

While lawmakers try to solve the problem, Americans dispute who is responsible for the financial crisis.

A CNN/Opinion Research Poll released last Monday reported that 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for current economy problems, 24 percent said Democrats are more re-sponsible and 8 percent said neither party is to blame. Sen. John McCain released a statement in regard to the bailout plan on his campaign Web site.

"Two years ago, I warned the American people about the lack of oversight, transparency, the back room deal-ings and financial recklessness at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those warnings went unheeded and directly contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis which has created the perfect economic storm."

According to McCain’s Web site, his plans for fixing the situation include the creation of an early intervention program, increased government agency transparency, greater consumer and investor protection and making sure the Treasury Department follows consistent policies in guaranteeing loans.

Sen. Barack Obama spoke out on the issue during the presidential debate Friday. He said, "We also have to rec-ognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain — the theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most and somehow prosperity will trickle down. It hasn't worked, and I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake."

According to his campaign Web site, Obama’s strategy for fixing the problem includes increased oversight by independent auditors, more protection for taxpayers, rules that ensure that CEOs are not rewarded at taxpay-ers’ expense and measures to help homeowners stay in their homes.

BYU Accounting Professor Norm Nemrow said the solution to the current situation is neither clear nor easily achieved.

"There are winners and losers in this situation," Nemrow said. "The real question is who should pay."

Nemrow said perhaps the cost should be on the homeowners who borrowed to live beyond their means. Unfor-tunately, Nemrow said, there isn't a way to get the money back because many of those people have already lost their homes.

Greg Skidmore, an international relations major from Los Alamos, N.M. and BYU Republicans chairman blames the government.

“I believe that the federal government allowed improper lending and borrowing practices to go on for too long,” Skidmore said. “Because buyers were extending beyond their means and because banks were capitalizing on improper lending practices, we lost liquidity in the market and have ended up at our current stage in this crisis.” Skidmore said underlying greed and excessive consumer debt diminish the ability to fix the nation’s economic problem.

Amelia Adams, a political science major from Spokane Valley, Wash., and co-chair of the Economy/Poverty interest group with BYU Democrats, said the financial crisis cannot be blamed on one organization.

“What happened was due to years of overspending and speculation by average United States citizens and flawed economic policies of the Bush Administration,” Adams said. “Investment banks on Wall Street went bankrupt because they invested in mortgages. When average citizens couldn't pay their mortgages — perhaps due to un-employment, over taxation, or overspending — banks had to foreclose and the investments were lost.”

Ideologues will tell you that we should not bail out the rich, and I agree.  However, as the operator of a business with a national sales base, I can report firsthand that consumer sentiment has already dropped (you know that yourself, but everyone else has cut back, too), which means that sales are falling precipitously everywhere as we all hold onto our money, and the great machine of commerce is grinding to a halt.  The investment markets are a reflection of what has already happened in the malls.  Politicians are not merely trying to scare you: they are frightened themselves.  The phrase repeated on Capitol Hill and in the media is "we are in uncharted waters."

The economy runs on confidence, which is what money really measures.  We have confidence that the products we buy will perform as advertised, that we are working for useful enterprises with promising futures, that we will keep our jobs and be able to retire some day, and, generally, that tomorrow will be better than today.  So when we stop believing in ourselves and our everyday pursuits, everything stops.  We stop transacting commerce, and, very quickly, lots and lots of jobs are lost.

Unemployment reached almost 25% in the 1930s.  It will happen again unless we re-start the flow of commerce soon.

If you want to know how we got into this situation, I have published a note below from a friend of a friend who writes cogently about the financial structures involved.  Here are a few other observations:

• This is not a "sub prime mortgage" problem.  Unfortunately, the sub-text of our nation's financial melt-down contains a core belief that some bad people spent more than they should have and they're taking down the rest of the world, too.  There are about 1.1 million foreclosures in the U.S. and the median house price is about $200,000, so you could buy every last foreclosure for about $200 billion.  Of course, you wouldn't have to buy the whole house to prevent this kind of disaster, but that's about the cost of owning every last house outright, so something else is going on here.
• What real mortgage problems existed were encouraged by the bankers and their lobbyists who dropped minimum down payments and sensible loan regulations, which inflated bids for houses and created larger and less bearable mortgages.  In The Great Crash, 1929, John Kenneth Galbraith marvels that Florida real estate was purchased in the 1920's for as little as 10% down;  in 2005, the median down payment on a U.S. home was 2%;  43% of homes were bought for "no money down."
• It took real imagination and the best minds of a generation to leverage some bad housing loans into a trillion dollar problem.  Business math is relatively simple, but the financial industry made it complex and sold the idea that risk could be scientifically accounted and pushed to the very edges of existence.  Financiers peddled the emperor's new clothes: they pretended they knew something you could not understand and that, as the motive force of the invisible hand, they delivered a magic value to the economy for which they deserved out-sized rewards.  The new math was sold, re-packaged and re-sold until the world derivative market reached nine times the world's gross domestic product - about $596 trillion.
• It was a great scam while it lasted.  In 2006, Goldman Sachs paid out $16.5 billion in bonus compensation, an average of roughly $623,418 per employee. The average managing director's total compensation on Wall Street that year was $2 million.  In 2007, Goldman Sachs paid out about $20 billion to its brainy tailors. 
• All this manipulation further concentrated wealth in the U.S., and at the same time siphoned off intelligence that we could have used to create, instead of redistribute, wealth.  We create real wealth when we farm, mine, manufacture or improve a process.  Real wealth improves our lives.  Finance for finance's sake is a game played to benefit those running the game.  When finance deviates from assisting in the creation of real wealth, it instead concentrates existing wealth.  During the last 20 years, the financial industry grew from 10% to 40% of corporate profits while its share of stock market value grew from 6 to 19%.  The industry employs only 5% of private sector jobs.

So do we let our house burn down because the firemen stole the safe?  Tempting, but that's a worse outcome.  Here are a few suggestions:

• Get money moving again.
• Approve a plan that can be monitored and modified by Congress as it rolls out.
• If we're going to use public money, take shares in their companies.  Bankers call this a "cram down," and they would be cramming you down today if your company had performed half as poorly as theirs.
• Announce aggressive incentives for alternative energy investment.  A big part of our problem is that our way of life is built on cheap energy, which we no longer control.  We need to take back control of our energy supplies so that we can stop exporting our wealth to people who hate us.
• Invest again in companies that produce a better way of life.  Americans are entrepreneurial and innovative.  Get back to creating real wealth.
• Let small businesses raise money again.  After Enron, the protections that Congress put in place effectively prevented the middle class from investing in (and benefiting from) start-ups, and handed control over any promising business to the financial class.  Given the oppressive requirements of the Sarbannes-Oxley act, a company today must reach $100 million in sales to justify a public offering in the U.S.  This has reduced capital available for the innovative reinvention of the U.S. economy, which has always been carried out by small companies, not large ones.
• With so much new money coming into the system, we will endure inflation, but, if we get back to creating real value, we will be more productive and will be able to moderate inflation.  The alternative - deflation and joblessness - is far worse.

Whatever plan Congress approves will be the biggest spending program in our history.  It will be bigger than the social security administration and bigger than the the military.  We should be angry about this.  We should investigate the bad guys and, in an ironic twist, take their vacation homes.  Most important, though, we need to put out the fire and get back to building a better way of life, which is what most Americans do best.

-----------------------

The 2008 financial crisis
 
The problem we find ourselves in today is frightening for the financial sector of our economy, not for the overall economy. We remain the dominant country in the world, our GDP is the largest, our businesses remain successful, and the dollar is still considered the basic currency of the world. As long as we are able to avoid the worst case scenario the problems we are facing should have little, if any, impact on most ordinary people’s daily lives.
 
However, if problems in the financial sector are not resolved, it could have deep reaching effects on our society. In order for businesses to expand and to meet the normal fluctuations of commerce they require money to operate and to invest in plant and equipment. In other words, money is the oil that keeps the engine of our economy going. If the commercial banks and the investment banks find that their financial situations become desperate, they may need to sell assets and/or restrict lending to ordinary commercial businesses in order to meet regulatory and other requirements.
 
How we got there
So, what has caused this “financial crisis?” The answer is neither simple nor quick. The origins were in the 1980’s when the banks discovered the concept of derivatives. These were not loans per se, they were financial transactions designed to shift certain risks in financings from one party to another. The large international banks and the more sophisticated investment banks in London and New York quickly embraced the product. They first achieved popularity in currency swaps where one party had revenues in one currency and obligations to pay in another. In order to alleviate the risk of changes in the exchange rate between the two, banks would agree to guarantee the value of one of the currencies for some period of time. Because they traded in a great many currencies the banks could “lay off’ this risk by entering into other swaps to cover their exposure. Their proponents characterized these as “zero sum deals,” in other words when one party lost, the other party gained so the total remained the same. Over time, this field became more and more dominated by mathematical wizards, not financial people. These people became known as “quants” because of their reliance on quantitative analysis.
 
The quants were pushed by their bosses with financial backgrounds to create ever-more complicated and larger transactions, in order to increase the bank’s fees. These deals got so complicated and involved such esoteric equations, that the senior management of the banks had almost no knowledge of what the derivatives actually concerned, what the risks were, and even how much exposure they represented to the bank involved. The managers were, however, very aware of the amount of fees generated. Another reason management liked the product so much was that it was not regulated by the banking authorities. Neither accountants nor the regulators were able to understand these, let alone place any realistic value on them. So, these were almost free money to banks, the funds involved were not required to meet regulatory requirements and were not required to be disclosed in financial statements.
 
The idea of transferring the risk of any financial transaction spread throughout the industry and began to take many different forms. Some of the more dubious examples involved Enron offering weather insurance and the failure of Long Term Capital Management. However, these setbacks did not thwart derivatives, quite the contrary. As derivatives continued to become more widespread a new investment vehicle was created, the Hedge Fund.
 
These funds are usually created by people who have established successful track records as quants and are now prepared to step out on their own. They approach very rich individuals (at least several million dollars to invest) or financial institutions to give them money. They base their investment decisions on a variety of quantitative analyses that are often counter to the accepted wisdom. They invest this money in unusual transactions, they might invest a new financial product that the market has not discovered yet, and they are always willing to take larger than normal risks in order to earn higher returns.
 
Because their actions are usually counter to others they require almost complete secrecy in all their dealings. So, if you invest $10 million in a hedge fund it is not unusual that you would have no idea whatsoever where your money is invested. Of course, there is a reason hedge fund managers can do this. They often earn extraordinarily high returns, 25-75+ % per year. This is achieved not only by their investing but also by their use of leverage−they borrow large amounts of money to increase the amounts they have to invest. They hope to pay back the loans out of their profits. If they don’t have any profits, the leverage works against them and they may be forced to pay back the loans out of their investor’s principal.
 
Because they are entirely unregulated hedge funds can charge whatever they want for their services. The industry standard is roughly 2-3% annual management fee and up to 25% of all profits earned during the year. The hedge fund industry has a very active lobbying effort in Washington and is a generous donor to many political campaigns. For some reason, Congress has allowed hedge fund managers to treat the 25% of profits earned as long term capital gains, not ordinary income. When the sheer size of many of the funds is included with this unique tax break it is not surprising that the hedge funds have created a whole new class of billionaires in the United States and elsewhere.
 
The large international commercial banks were very aware of the high returns being created by the hedge funds and investment banks. But, they were highly regulated by national and internationals standards. They couldn’t make the kind of investments or take the kind of risks of the other institutions. They had to keep their balance sheets in order and they had to meet strict capital requirements. That is, until they discovered subsidiaries and structured investment vehicles, a shadow banking system. These subs and the products they traded in did not have to be included on their balance sheets nor did they have to be fully disclosed to the regulators. They were a way for the international commercial banks to play the same game as the investment banks and the hedge funds. Globalization had long been a fact of life in the financial markets and now it was in its heyday. The investment bankers were only too happy to sell their products to the new players. Once the commercial banks got into the market, they began to put together similar products of their own, mainly to sell to one another.
 
In the period 2000 - 2006 the financial markets were dominated by several major motivators; the first was an increasing emphasis on ever greater profits, the second was a movement towards those parts of the markets where government regulation either did not exist or was not effective, the third was the belief that the risks of many financial transactions could be significantly reduced by the careful structuring of them, and finally the belief in the complete freedom of the capital markets by the current U.S. administration.
 
When all these came together we had what amounts to an international free for all. Local markets were no longer important, they were just too small. Any financial products that didn’t have the capacity to grow into the hundreds of billions, even trillions, weren’t considered worth anybody’s time. New products were developed and marketed successfully−whose only rationale was the quant’s support of them−with little or no thought given to the underlying financial realities. Profits and individual incomes grew into such obscene amounts they overshadowed any other considerations. The March 22 issue of the Economist Magazine pointed out that the financial services sector of the U.S. economy represented 40% of total corporate profits earned in 2006, while it represented just 5% of all private sector jobs. By contrast, financial services earned 10% of total profits in the early 1980’s. And, because of all of the above, no one bothered to look at the ultimate risk; they all liked the emperor’s new clothes too much.
 
What is today’s financial crisis?
Actually it’s not one, but three, financial crisis’s we find ourselves in. The first is the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The second is the Structured Investment Vehicle (SIV) crisis. And the third is the Credit Default Insurance crisis. These are all the result of recently created financial products. Although they are different, they all affect the financial markets and they appear to share much of the same impacts. Most simplistically, if they continue to go wrong and are not solved in the not too distant future, they could greatly reduce the amount of credit available to the world’s businesses, they could seriously weaken many of the world’s largest financial institutions, and, in the worst case, they could make confidence in most of the world’s financial system crumble.
 
Subprime Mortgages
In 2004-5 the U.S. Government wanted to make the dream of owning a home available to more people. House prices had increased dramatically, freezing many prospective purchasers out of the market. In order to implement their desire, the government sent out a signal to mortgage lenders that they might want to relax their borrowing standards and the regulators would look the other way.
 
The mortgage brokers, mortgage companies, banks, and other lenders enthusiastically complied. Down payment requirements were reduced to zero in many cases, income requirements were consistently reduced, and assertions made on mortgage applications were often not checked. Because of the long term increase in home prices the lenders thought there was little risk in such irresponsible actions.
 
Then, as the marker overheated, people who were speculators, not income-challenged potential borrowers, also took advantage of the easier terms being offered. Applicants of all income strata felt less restrained by logic and the truth, telling the lenders whatever the applicants thought they wanted to hear. The mortgage brokers and lenders began offering products such as adjustable rate mortgages (ARM’s) in order to entice people to commit to ever larger obligations, even if many of them could not reasonably afford them. Unprincipled brokers and others used misleading and often illegal incentives to get people to commit to mortgages.
 
When the real estate bubble burst and home prices no longer increased - and actually started to decline, many participants found themselves stranded. The speculators, who had overcommitted to houses, condominiums, etc. found themselves with mortgages on properties that they could not sell or even rent, while the demand for mortgage payments continued. The option of many of these was to walk away from their obligations or declare bankruptcy. Owners of rental properties who could not pay their mortgages walked away, leaving their renters, with no one to pay rent to, out in the street. Those homeowners who either overcommitted to mortgage obligations or found that they could not pay the higher monthly payments on their ARM’s, tried desperately to contact the mortgage holder to renegotiate their payments or  sell their homes at greatly reduced prices.
 
The impacts, which are currently ongoing, can already be seen throughout the country. New home construction has slowed dramatically, sales of both new and existing homes has decreased, defaults and bankruptcies have greatly increased, in many areas where defaults are widespread, the neighborhoods themselves have deteriorated  to such an extent that past home values have disappeared almost entirely. Many unfortunate people who would have sold their homes for a loss are finding that they can’t attract any buyers at any price.
 
In the past the bursting of such a speculative bubble would have serious and painful effects but it would not have been a crisis of this magnitude. The speculators would have suffered, having to sell their properties at a loss. Landlords would have been able to negotiate with their bankers and tenants to come up with some sort of financial arrangements that kept them going. Many mortgage holders might have been able to convince their bankers to give them payment options that were lower in return for increased or longer mortgages. Or, in the worst case, might have been forced to sell their homes at the loss of some or all of their equity. But almost all cases assumed the ability to sell one’s real estate−at some price and at some time. Although the banks would have suffered during this period most of them would have still had money to lend. These funds are the grease that allowed the market to keep operating, even if at a lower level.
 
This does not appear to be the case today. The number of sub-prime mortgages is turning out to be much higher than anyone imagined even last year. Banks and mortgage companies have reacted to the sub-prime mess by dramatically increasing lending standards, often refusing even good credit borrowers. This, in turn, has led to a real estate market where many properties can’t be sold, at any price. Borrowers who turn to their bankers are often told, “Sorry, I can’t help you. We sold your mortgage, with others, to a securities firm and I have no idea who owns your mortgage now.” The banks themselves often face severe cutbacks in lending simply to comply with the capital requirements of federal regulators.
 
What caused this? 

Structured Investment Vehicles
A mortgage is simply a financial instrument where one party agrees to lend another a sum of money in order for the borrowing party to acquire a piece of real estate. The borrower, in turn, agrees to pay the borrower back through a series of payments over a certain period of time.
 
The quants at the investment banks looked at mortgages and thought, “If we put a bunch of mortgages together in the form of a separate security, we could sell that to others and make money from doing so.” These were called Structured Investment Vehicles because they were not separate transactions, but a series of transactions in one product. One example is the  Collateralized Debt Obligation. Because of this, and other technical reasons, they fell outside of accounting and regulatory guidelines. These securities were valued by considering the borrowers’ repayments as a revenue stream. Then, the lower amounts offered to the buyers of the securities were considered the expense stream. The difference between the two streams was the profit for the one who put the product together.
 
The SIV’s were sold as a way to improve the risk of the individual mortgages by spreading the risk among many participants and placing them in the larger overall financial market. This may have worked well except for a few unforeseen events.
 
The first one was the aggressiveness of the people who produced this product. Once it had been sold profitably to one level of financial institutions, the bankers decided to make more money by putting several of these products together and then selling the new, larger SIV to the next level of institution. They continued this process until the SIV market grew into the hundreds of billions of dollars and were owned throughout the world by almost all of the major financial institutions. This has created a market that never existed before, one where the basic part of the product, the mortgage, has lost all identity within the product and its market. It also one where players from all over the world find themselves relying on each other’s ability to pay as never before. Because they are all in new territory, none of the accepted rules of textbooks apply, nor does anyone have experience to provide any guidance in this arena.
 
The second was the amount of fraud and irresponsibility involved in the selling of the mortgages to the less credit-worthy borrowers. Most bankers assumed the weakest credits they would lend to generally defaulted on 4-6% of their mortgage obligations. Once the lending standards were lowered, a reasonable person would have assumed that this rate might have risen to 7-9%. However, many bankers didn’t worry about the higher default rate because they knew they were going to sell the mortgages on to another party in an SIV. As a result, they often characterized the default risks much more optimistically than reality called for. The toxic storm of lowered lending standards, fraud (by both borrowers and lenders), and irresponsibly optimistic predictions of default rates all hit at once when the market collapsed.
 
The default rates experienced in the groups of mortgages that made up the SIV’s rose to 20 -30% of the total as the SIV’s became larger and larger. When the original bank that had sold the mortgages experienced defaults in the portfolio, they passed on what they had received for the other mortgages, less the defaulted amount to the buyer of the SIV. Then, they wrote off the defaulted amounts as a loss. This process was the repeated over and over all the way up the chain. Of course, the amount of money involved increased as each new SIV was put together. By the time the SIV’s grew to the level of the hedge funds interest the mortgages represented huge amounts of money. When the fact that the hedge funds borrowed money in order to buy 2 to 5 times more of these than they themselves could buy, the figures became staggering.
 
The high levels of defaults eventually forced many of the international banks to recognize the losses they faced from these products. Although the banks did not have to disclose the amount they had invested in SIV’s, they did have to report the profits or losses from these on their financial statements. To put the size of the SIV’s involved in the sub-prime mess into perspective, in the last six months the banks have taken losses of more than $100+ billion. There are estimates that the bank’s losses could go as high as $200+ billion.
 
The product has been toxic to the hedge funds as well. Because of their leverage, the hedge funds have been particularly vulnerable. When the excess default levels hit the hedge funds many were forced to shut down the fund itself. They were forced to sell off the revenue stream for whatever the could, pay off the debt with these proceeds, and if there were anything left return it to the investors as a return of their principal. Since many hedge funds were created by the banks themselves any losses from such liquidations had to be recognized on the parent’s financial statements.
 
The losses of the internationals commercial banks, the investment banks, and the hedge funds, although much larger than ever before, can be looked at as the risk of doing business. They were supposedly sophisticated investors and were supposed to the most knowledgeable people in the world when it comes to understanding financial risk. This is one of the reasons they have been largely free of regulatory restrictions by the government.
 
TheU.S. commercial banks, on the other hand, are tightly regulated basically because they have the responsibility of being the conduit between the federal government’s monetary policies and the private sector. They are the institutions that maintain the public’s confidence in the financial system we live under. So, when they created the off-balance sheet entities to trade in SIV’s, they went beyond the regulatory restrictions. But, once they were forced to recognize their SIV losses in their financial statements, these losses began to have an impact on their capital adequacy ratios. Federal regulations require them to have a ratio of “liquid” capital to the amount of loans they have outstanding. Any losses they take on their income statements reduce their available capital. This is the reason several of the largest banks have had to borrow money from foreign sovereign investment funds recently. For example, at the end of 2007 Citicorp and Merrill Lynch borrowed $19.1 billion from these sources.
 
Unfortunately, many commercial banks are not big enough to borrow from these funds. As a result, the U.S. banks are restricting their lending, particularly in the real estate sector. This is the “credit crunch” we are facing today.  Without loans, the real estate market lacks the “grease” to operate at optimal speed and, this in turn, means more houses for sale with no buyers, fewer profitable real estate companies and developers, and fewer jobs.
 
Credit Default Insurance (CDI)
Although this is not a crisis at the moment, most knowledgeable people in the finance business have little doubt that it soon will be. This is another example where the quants saw an opportunity to make money by changing an accepted part of the market to their advantage. They applied a successful product that had a limited market to a much broader area. In the 1980’s CDI, which applied to municipal financings, was a $1.5 trillion market. By 2007, when they were applied to a wide variety of corporate and other bonds, it was a $41.5 trillion market.
 
The market started when medium to small municipalities issued bonds for their needs. Because they were not deemed to be the most credit-worthy they received lower bond ratings (AAA is the highest). This forced them to pay higher interest rates. However, since these entities hardly ever defaulted, financial companies with AAA credit offered them Credit Default Insurance, which, for a premium, gave them AAA ratings, thus lowering their interest rates and saving the taxpayers money. The AAA financial companies promised that if the municipality defaulted on any of its bond payments, they would make the payments for them. This arrangement has worked well for a long time. Defaults are rare, municipalities enjoy a lower interest rate, and the credit insurance companies have prospered.
 
Under the current administration’s policies of business friendly regulation the default rate for less credit-worthy companies has fallen to about 0.5%. Historically, this has been about 3.5 to 5%. When the quants saw this low default rate they decided that providing Credit Default Insurance (or Credit Default Swaps)  for private companies could be a very profitable activity. This was indeed the case. The market expanded rapidly, with more and more financial institutions taking part as providers of the insurance. As the market got bigger and bigger, the premiums grew as well. This, in turn, encouraged people to look for new areas where they could apply this profitable product. The latest twist is offering credit default insurance on many of the bonds that make up SIV’s, in order to get them AAA ratings. Obviously, the level of defaults in the product will have a serious effect on these transactions.
 
The established insurance companies that have historically offered this product, such as AMBAC, have already been affected by the market turmoil, but appear to be weathering it at the moment. The real frightening part of the market is the financial companies that have made up a majority of the recent activity. They offered credit insurance to more questionable companies based on the current 0.5% default rate. If we go into a recession, that default rate will surely rise. If the default rate just goes up to 1.0%, it has been estimated that it could cost the suppliers of CDI’s $1.5 trillion. It is almost beyond imagining to think about what would happen if the default rate were go up to its historical levels of 3.5-5%. And, this does not take into account the real exposure financial institutions face concerning their obligations under CDI’s offered to Structured Investment Vehicles.
 
This analysis is not meant to draw conclusions or offer solutions. History has proven that we have been able to avoid the Apocalypse; some group, somewhere, somehow has come up with a solution. Although it is difficult to see such a savior at the moment, one can only hope that history will repeat itself – again.

So on Monday I get a call from tiffanys, nordstroms, and Gucci, stating that my BANK just bounced. DAMN WACHOVIA!! LOL

So lets say your Scott Storch just for shits and giggles.

You make all of this money producing half way descent tracks, and your the New Liberace, so being you are the new liberace, you go out and get a bugatti, a sunseeker yacht, lamborghini's, ferrari's, phantom's, and all that uneccessary shit. Then you file bankruptcy...
DO YOU THINK THE U.S. GOV't would cut you a check for $700,000,000,000

I don't think they would,

So if the U.S. wants to help the economy, give all 138 million taxpayers $500,000 and that will stimulate the economy rather than issuing the cash to these Moronic Banks.

Dow plummets record 777 as financial rescue fails- Yahoo! Finance

Historic Bailout Vote Fails in the House by Narrow Margin; Markets Plunge, Forcing a New Scramble to Solve the Crisis  - Wall Street Journal

Where's it going to end...

Wall Street? I’m more concerned with what’s going on in the vicinity of Main Street.

I want nothing to do with this bill, or at least what has been discussed about it thus far. A child learns early enough that if you make a mistake, suffer the consequences. Write a letter to your representative. Tell them how you feel.

Watch Nancy Pelosi speak to the House regarding the financial rescue bill.

How do you guys feel about the shape of our once-beloved economy?

The bottom line is that we are a nation of stiffs. I say we arm the nukes and say fuck off to our creditors. What's the worst thing that could happen? NATO and the UN do not operate like organized crime. They aren't gonna try and whack us if we don't pay up. If they try we go balls out and let one fly just so they know we're serious. Now we become the U.S. of B. A.. (the B.A. stands for bad asses) Our new flag will be a picture of Samuel L. Jackson from Pulp Fiction. You know the frame just before they kill the kid eating a Kahuna Burger. Our national song will be the theme from The A-Team. Mexicans will be begging to go back to their mother land. Canadians will live in constant fear of their crazy ass neighbors to the south.

If the previous paragraph sounds ridiculous, well that's because it is. No one wants America to become a Bad Ass. Not even the Chinese will want to tango. You just wait, soon everything will be back to normal. I mean honestly who is going to check America? Europe is our jerk-rag. Asia is a foot stool. Latin America...our shitter. Africa, who the fuck cares?

So chill out America. We are the new Rome. If we collapse we're taking a sizable chunk of the world with us. By the time another super power stands up in our position the globe will be uninhabitable. Smoke em if you got em.

[/caption]

When asked live on CNN, why the bill didn't pass the vote, Blunt Roy said that due to the Jewish Holidays they had to rush the bill and it’s details... Yeah well maybe if you just throw us all in gas chambers (and do a better job next time – use a more powerful chemical), then Rosh Hashanah won’t get in the way of cleaning up the mess your party created... Thanks for being so Blunt Roy. Come to think of it, can anyone recall anyone ever using Jews as scapegoats in a bad economy? Ummm - let me think.. Nope i am blanking. Now Roy, get back to lynching some in Missouri ... Sorry – needed to vent.  What a stupid thing to say (sure you meant well).

Seaker of The House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi D- CA spoke out against the economic bill attacking the Republicans. 97 Democratic Representatives voted AGAINST THIS. Railing about how good paying jobs can be done in a "All American way." She has lost her mind, she didn't say any of this yesterday. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "How did it sneak up on us so silently, almost on little cat feet,that they would come in that day, they didn't actually ask for the money, that much money that night, it took two days until we saw the legislation they were proposing to help calm the markets and it was on that day that we heard of a 700 billion dollar request. But it wasn't just the money that was alarming it was the nature of the legislation it gave the Secretary of the Treasury czar like powers unlimited powers, latitude to do all kinds of things....."

Pelosi also said prior to the vote today, "I am glad the Republicans finally came to the table. it was very UNPATRIOTIC of them not to show up."

Part 2, the image clears at 23sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDPoaKrAcnI

The Republicans response on the floor!

VIDEO PROOF The Democratic Party KNEW this was going to happen.

Real True Internet News was on the House floor interviewing some of the representatives who had just voted against the bailout.

"My cousin Vinny in Brooklyn lost his job a few months ago and is now homeless. Nobody bailed him out. If government won't bail out a citizen who only needs maybe $5,000 to get back on his feet, why the heck should we give $700,000,000,000 to corrupt financial institutions? It's absurd. You could find 700,000 homeless people and give them each a million dollars instead. If you want to stimulate the economy, that's the right way to do it. Cut loose 700,000 new millionaires who've been eating out of trash cans."

"This bailout would have cost each American taxpayer $4,830. Taxpayers who earn maybe $25,000 to $50,000 per year. While the businesses being bailed out have been paying their top level executives millions of dollars per year. Let them bail themselves out. They can afford it."