Not for me.
I'm disgusted and uneasy, as I foresee worse things coming at us now with accelerated speed.

You can put pork in a crap sandwich, but it's still a crap sandwich.

Notice that the Dow was up 2% this morning and is now off 1.5%, close to 10,800 just after 1 pm and now down to 10,325.

Will Mav please start hitting the Donks now about Fannie/Freddie? Making them famous, etc.?

I really find this fiasco amazing.

aren't all these Wall St. people the same ones who called Huckabee a big government liberal?...isn't the National Review some hardcore conservative publication?....yet Wall St. is begging for government to bail them out and the National Review supports it...I wonder why?...maybe it's because many of the readers of National Review are Wall St. people...hmmmmm

I find it interesting that Huckabee was saying there were problems with Wall St. and corporate greed...he was saying the economy wasn't sound; when all the other republican dopes were singing the party line. Huck was the so called big government liberal...I think not.

bottom line is this...Wall St., National Review, etc...are all frauds...it's not about so called conservatism....it's about self interests.

Huck/Jindal 2012!!!!

I also find it interesting that Mr. "I will veto all pork spending" McCain supported this bill.

I'm almost at the point of rooting for Obama...and he'll fail miserably.

Huck/Jindal 2012!!

Yeah, the hysterics over at The Corner are really perplexing. It's probably the only time in that website's history that Larry Kudlow has been the voice of reason.

Unless Ponnuru, Lowry, et. al. have some huge stock in Goldman Sachs, I can't explain it.

"I think I speak for many Americans when I say I'm disgusted and relieved all at the same time."

Relieved because there is still a modicum of hope that your own lifestyle (and it is fair to say millions others like us, and indeed, worse off) won't be hit fully by the fallout of this almighty mess.
Disgusted because an untrammelled and unchecked market has proved to be completely vulnerable to abuse and the failure of human nature - much like socialism in fact. Disgusted also because a lot of deeply held principles disappear in a puff of smoke - or in this case the stroke of a Presidents pen.
I presume?

As Wells Fargo was able to buy Wachovia without FDIC assistance, the question becomes -

Were the billions of FDIC assistance in the Citigroup-Wachovia deal necessary to bail out Wachovia, or necessary to bail out Citigroup??

chsw

Oh, Larry, don't be so hard on the Original Maverick. Don't you see he suffers from the same disease that ravaged Kerry and Gore. It's called "I waited my turnitis" symptoms include cooling their ambitious heels in the Senate, waiting till their party collectively sighs and says "alright, alright...(check the dugout to make sure there's NO ONE better) you're up, kid" and then capped off with a willingness to say whatever to whoever will get them elected, including stuff that contradicts the other stuff they said that they thought would get them elected.

Yeah McCain! Yeah Obama! Yeah Bush! Lets (re)elect one of these rulers soon so that we can have more bills like this! It doesn't really matter who wins, so long as we have rulers like these to guide us, 'cause they know better than I do how to manage my money, and they're smart and know how to run the whole economy.

No, Urbane, my principles remain intact--I opposed the bill because I would rather suffer the consequences that come with having a free market than one manipulated by the government which is never the right way to go. But when you're told the sky will fall if you don't take one type of action, you might oppose the action but still feel relief when that action is taken.

That sounds an awful lot like "I support the war in Iraq if it makes us safer."

I have no relief and much disgust.

Regardless of whether the sky falls or not, Congress has once more abdicated to the Executive Branch because they are seemingly unable to find the word "principle" in the dictionary. Paulson, et. al. told them that if the Bill didn't pass last Monday the market would drop 4000 points. It didn't, the market had a minor gas attack, and the sun still rose the next day.

Not having learned this lesson, the Senate decided to offer a host of trinkets to their "lessers" in the House. This, to those who have mistresses, is known as the "Oh baby, sure I _said_ I'd leave her, but it's just not the right time. Here, have a diamond necklace..."-gambit. The House, being the good little whores that they were, promptly took the gift, pronounced everything okay, and said screw you to the American people. For those of you with children, remember this day when your kids are letting your old a** expire out of reticent anger for their 75% tax rate.

Sorry, but if I had ever thought of joining the Republican Party yesterday convinced me that they have all the intestinal fortitude of a 5-year-old and the wisdom of the child's younger sibling. I expect the Democrats to do dumb sh*t like this, but for some reason I thought "conservatism" meant you paid your money and took your chances. Well, glad to see what it really means is "we have no courage."

I hope that when Congress reconvenes next January (hopefully with many, many new faces) someone decides reenacting Gibbon in the 21st century is not a good plan. Otherwise historians will look back at the wreckage that was America and wonder how a country so powerful allowed itself to be ruled by those who were so craven and weak. I for one would rather have the sky fall on _me_ with moderate damage than have it absolutely _crush_ this country in one or two generations. That is why I find no succor in this bill--only a cold, hard certainty that we are all doomed.

James,

in 4 years, I want you to remember who voted and supported this bill and who's strongly against it.

HUCK 2012!!!!!!!!!!

...or rather HECK, NO HUCK!

I'm disgusted and disgusted.

I'll point out here that the Dow hasn't gone below 10,000 points. We haven't gone a quarter where reports have tallied any losses yet.

Translation: We haven't hit "recession" yet.

Add into that fact that all assets and credit were frozen on Wall Street because those dumbasses realized that they could get paid more money by the Fed than by anyone in the market. They waited long enough, and now the term "bailout" definitely applies. They're beeing given more money than they deserve.

Also, this agreement will forestall the market from picking itself up just like FDR's deal did back in the 1930s. Thanks for the help, Government!

Fucking ridiculous.

In all seriousness I'm thinking I'd rather have the Huckster than anyone who comes out of this Congress. Up until this bailout McCain was probably going to get my vote. Now? Yeah, I might hold my nose and vote for Barr.

Just for the record, the Larry posting above is a different Larry.

I only started following politics closely this election cycle and the things I've learned are sickening.

Huck/Jindal 2012!!!!

"But when you're told the sky will fall if you don't take one type of action, you might oppose the action but still feel relief when that action is taken."

Who is it that is saying the sky's falling? Loudest of all, those on Wall St with the begging bowls out.
Okay, you still have faith in the market. What about those irrational human beings in the boardrooms and on the trading floors? Do you still rate their credentials as free marketeers? At the moment the Invisible Hand seems to be an upturned outsretched palm at the door of Congress.

Um, okay, _that Larry_ posting above is _me_. I typed your name first in the comments section and it came up as you.

I'm sure our lovely hostess will fix this case of mistaken identity. ;)

James,

good to know you're comin around a bit on the huckster.

by the way..."Huckabee" will be on Fox tonight @ 8...tune in

Disgust does not describe the repulsion I feel toward this surrender to Marxism. Congress left all the communist machinery in place to continue carving the corpse that was the American economy. CRA-1977 still allows ACORN mortgage to foist bad mortgagess on Fannie and Freddie, who pay off Dodd, Reid, Pelosi, Obama.... We will have more ghouls like Raines, Johnson, and their like feasting on the hard work and honesty of the vast majority of American citizens. We the people have no power.

Pokerwolf, what was that about the Dow? or should I say D'Oh! I hope you knock on wood next time you mention it.

It's hard to take anyone seriously when they have no clue what the real issue is.

The Debt/Credit/derivative markets are completely frozen. It's the government's job, specifically the Treasury and the Fed to ensure this doesn't happen. Everyone pouting about the free market doesn't have a clue how our Capital markets function.

Making decisions based on fluctuations of the Dow-30....DOHHH!!!!!!!

Hardly, Dan. And I'd like you to tell us just who makes decisions based on a mere 30 companies? If you had more than two neurons working, you'd know that you're reversing cause and effect: stock prices are the reflection of good investors' decisions, and bad investors are those who base their decisions on stock prices.

The truth is that credit markets are not "frozen" because of themselves, and that government intervention has only made things worse by compounding the uncertainty that its interference inherently introduces. Uncertainty leads to hesitation. Hesitation leads to fear. Fear leads to suffering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsell-offs.

The truth is, credit is not frozen. Oh, there's money to lend, but lenders are afraid. It is not a bad thing for economic participants to wait-and-see when they lack enough good information to make proper decisions. Like I said before, to which you couldn't offer any rebuttal, "It's not about how "rational" or "super-smart" the economic actors are, but the quality of information available, and whether prices are allowed to adjust in a free market so that markets can properly clear. Right now, the federal government is providing bad information by promoting this bailout, because would-be buyers have no reason to appraise the securities at their true value."

But the federal government wants to take action, and both parties want to take advantage of the federally created crisis to show "leadership." Leadership for the sake of leadership, in other words. Well, even lemmings have good leaders.

Now on the monetary side, because there's still money to lend, just not a willingness to lend it, the Federal Reserve doesn't need to inflate our money supply by $50 billion, $260 billion, $900 billion at a time. All central bankers are doing is promoting borrowing at the expense of high inflation, alleviating the symptom but ignoring the fundamental problem of a lack of confidence. But that would show how unnecessary the Fed is to solve a crisis that...the Fed helped create in the first place. Therin lies the problem: government, from central bankers to tax-and-spend bureaucrats, first can't admit it's the source of the problem, nor can it let people see how the free market is the only true solution. Paraphrasing Mencken, government needs to keep people dependent on it for "salvation" from bogeymen, as well as problems government created in the first place.

Why is there no confidence? Before, because banks weren't sure about a few banks. Now, it's because nobody is certain about anyone, not because of possible insolvency, but because the government is arbitrarily bailing out Peter and letting Paul fail. Again, government interference produces uncertainty. Where uncertainty already exists, government amplifies it (this is the true multiplier effect of government, not the absurd Keynesian concept). You simply don't know if your borrower will go under completely, or if its board is lucky enough to have central banker friends that will come up with financing. So if you're a bank with money to lend, why would you risk lending to anyone these days except the safest (e.g. U.S. Treasury) instruments? Even money market funds started revamping their prospectuses so they could legally and contractually make risky investments, precisely as the one that "broke the buck" did. And with government-set accounting rules, you can't properly judge whether an entity under mark-to-market is in fact a good opportunity.

Oh, and under the FDIC's rules, a lot of banks can't lend money though they have it, because under mark-to-market rules, they suddenly have negative assets. The money's there to lend, there are enough reserves to cover depositors' demands, but the feds won't let the bank lend it. So tell me how the "credit freeze" is not something caused by government?

Instead of a bailout ("now now NOW or else we're doomed!!!"), markets needed to be...let be. They needed time for good information to arise: for the dust to settle once failed institutions finished falling, and for analysts to pore over ledgers and valuation reports so they could determine who was worth what. Instead, taxpayers got a $700 billion shaft. Originally, the White House admitted the figure was picked because it was a large number. Then the bailout got stuffed with pork, and we're now expected to take government at its word that $700 billion is suddenly not enough?

I guess you're buying it, but those of us who understand money and markets don't.

I'm again sorry for using such big words and long sentences with you, but you'll need to learn sometime that your state-worshipping is misplaced, misguided and missing the mark. You really should stop listening to your boyfriend Steve and other self-anointed "experts" who want bailouts only to save their portfolios.

As usual, no charge to you for this lesson.

Who is Steve and including me in your Gay fantasy's has me wierded out......

Perry ?

On Fantasy Island should compliance people also bear some of the blame or is it still just the Government ?

Removing bad assets from balance sheets is the prudent course of action. Regardless if our Mexican friend agrees with it or not... Demanding no Gov't action in a system that is driven by Gov't action is just incongruos and quite frankly stupid.

Perry, how's your firm holding up? I'm not the first person on here to be a bit worried for you, what with you being in the eye of this current shit-storm.

Ah, sorry, I had confused you with that David fellow from the other thread. So, my apologies for the insults I laid out at the end.

Removing bad assets from balance sheets is the prudent course of action.

But what is your plan to bell the cat? If government does the bailout, it does so at taxpayers' expense. Government by definition can create no wealth, only redistribute it.

The moral thing to do is let investors reap the rewards and consequences of their bad decisions. And if there's a "ripple effect" like some claim, well, then you need to disconnect yourself from risky people. Easier said than done, of course, but we're all interconnected, and part of life is dealing with the consequences of your voluntary risk-taking.

Regardless if our Mexican friend agrees with it or not... Demanding no Gov't action in a system that is driven by Gov't action is just incongruos and quite frankly stupid.

So government got us into the mess, and do you really trust the same people to get us out of it? Do you not recall the adage about when you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing is to stop digging? The Fed fueled the fire with insane quantities of cheap credit, and now it wants to fix things with more cheap credit. The federal government legislatively blackmailed lenders into giving loans to unqualified minorities, then blames "deregulation" instead of owning up to its own sins.

Government does not at all drive capital markets, that is, real capital markets where money is exchanged freely. By nature, government can only interfere (euphemistically called "regulation"). Even basic federal borrowing distorts the quality of our available information: in troubled times, people don't have to sit down and figure out the real value of this or that, because they can just buy U.S. Treasury securities.

So you can better understand my perspective, I come from economics' Austrian School. This is yet another business cycle that is perfectly explained by Austrian Business Cycle Theory, so far the only economic theory that has been able to explain every economic downturn. In a nutshell, government introduces errors into the market, often by an increase of the money supply, and the eventual resulting downturn is a necessary correction so that supply and demand forces can realign.

bryan, I'll put it this way. We were one of the top holders of Fannie and Freddie stock.

One of the top holders of Lehman.

And one of the top holders of AIG.

We've lost a lot of assets under management since the bear market began, first because of stock prices' decline, and then because some of our clients are pulling money to put in government bonds.

Yet we're still here, and still profitable, believe it or not. Because of my department, I'd be among the first to hear of any merger/buyout rumors. So far, our executives and board still believe we can make it independently. It helps that we're an asset manager and fund provider, not an investment bank, so we were in no way overinvolved in CDOs like the big boys.

Earlier this summer, word went around that top management said the bonus pool was being cut by 25%. Probably will be cut more by year's end. Hey, that's life. You take the good with the bad.