Sep 29, 2008
by Steve Smith
As you may have already heard, the House dee-nied the proposed $700 Billion Wall Street Bailout. Kay Granger voted yes, the other members representing Tarrant County — Reps. Michael Burgess, Joe Barton and Kenny Marchant — voted against the bill.
What do you think? Bailout or no?
Join the Discussion: Most Commented Posts
- August 17, 2008 -- A Conversation with Jerry Horton
- June 30, 2008 -- Eighth Avenue Showdown Postponed
- March 7, 2008 -- Stop Drilling on Eighth Avenue, Sign the Petition
- July 29, 2008 -- Discuss: Wendy Davis vs. Kim Brimer
- January 9, 2008 -- Will There Be A Lone Star International Film Festival In 2008?
- March 13, 2008 -- More West 7th Tenants Announced
- April 4, 2008 -- Berkeley, Mistletoe, and Ryan Place: Are You ready for this?
- September 25, 2008 -- Fort Worth Weekly Best of 2008 Awards
- June 10, 2008 -- Gas Drilling Task Force Hearing: How About a Game of Charades? Or Maybe Where’s Mikey?
- November 4, 2008 -- President Obama
34 Comments, Comments or Pings
Suzette Watkins
I think it’s great! Although, some argue that this is the way to another “Great Depression” and all small businesses will fail, etc. I’m still happy that we the people are letting our voices heard, and our voices have made the majority of politcians so nervous in their seats that they voted no, for us, the people (and for their own skins of course). What’s the rush….the sky is still above us as of 3:45 pm, and it doesn’t look like it is falling today. Note: This opinion only holds for 12 hours.
Sep 29th, 2008
Pete Wann
I say let the markets work it out. It’s time for the folks who always talk about “personal responsibility” to put up or shut up. Wall Street bankers took risks, (encouraged by W and his “ownership society”) those risks blew up in their faces, and they should absorb the losses, not the American taxpayer. I suppose I should say more accurately, not the American taxpayer’s great-great-grandchildren.
Every time I’ve signed up for any kind of investment account, I’ve been given the warning that investments aren’t guaranteed, and that I risk losing my shirt. Everyone involved in this fiasco (IMO) was duly and sufficiently warned and should be facing the consequences. (Myself included, and I say this as a recipient of a so-called “sub prime” mortgage. The difference between me and most, though, is that I can actually afford my mortgage payment, and have always been able to. I didn’t deliberately, knowingly, and willingly buy more house than I needed or could afford. Yes, I’m experiencing a little schadenfreude.)
I might add that the same thing goes for the US auto industry. Last week they went a-beggin’ for subsidies so they can finally move their products into the 20th century and re-tool to build more efficient vehicles. Now that they’re not reaping mega-profits from SUVs they’re finding that they’ve lost too much ground to the imports and they want government help to catch up. I call bullshit.
I can’t believe I agree with Joe Barton. I actually thought about calling Kay Granger earlier today, now that I know she voted FOR the damn thing, I’m definitely calling her.
Sep 29th, 2008
Suzette Watkins
Well said Pete. I concur.
Sep 29th, 2008
David AKA Rico
I agree completely with Pete as well. If I take the risk, I should reap the benefits, but also suffer the costs.
The only people I feel bad for are ones nearing retirement who have not moved their funds to less risky investments.
Sep 29th, 2008
Steph
Yeah, what Pete said.
Sep 29th, 2008
Recyclican
Yeah…
What Pete said.
Sep 29th, 2008
Pete Wann
I just got a chance to call Rep. Granger and voice my opinion, but her office is closed. I couldn’t leave a voicemail because the office mailbox was full, as well. I’ll bet she’s getting an earfull from her constituents right now.
If you want to make a call tomorrow during normal business hours, here’s the number: 202-225-5071.
Sep 29th, 2008
Dan
Blaming everything that has gone wrong the last eight years on GW is getting old. If you want to play the blame game, let’s start with Congress and Clinton for relaxing the lending guidelines and social engineering the housing market in the first place. I admit that GW didn’t provide proper oversight, but its either dishonesty or ignorance to point the finger at Bush’s failed policy of the “ownership society”.
This is really getting pathetic when I feel like I have to defend Bush. I don’t even like the guy.
Sep 29th, 2008
Pete Wann
I’m not blaming everything, Dan, at least not this time.
Have a look at this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeownership/homeownership-policy-book-ch2.html
Money quote: “A substantial increase of at least $440 billion in the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;”
“Government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market” == Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
This fiasco isn’t entirely Bush’s fault, but he certainly didn’t help. And the difference between his actions and Clinton’s actions is that the economy was going balls-to-the-wall during Clinton’s tenure, and it was on the decline during Bush’s. I fail to see the logic behind encouraging people to take out ENORMOUS loans when we’re staring down the barrel of a recession, or to be generous for what was happening in 2004, a “slowdown.”
The bottom line is that whether it was Bush or Clinton, our CURRENT leaders are trying to put US on the hook for cleaning up a mess that’s PRIVATE INDUSTRY’S fault. I don’t see why there isn’t more outcry about this BS.
Sep 29th, 2008
poop
People have been calling me “crazy” and “um that dude is scary” for the past 18 months when I ranted about the U.S. falling into a new depression. I will make this rant pretty brief in my contrasting evaluation of 1929 vs 2008. I am not an economist, obviously. In 1929 the global market was quite minimal for us. We were probably selling a few arms to the Brits. In 2008 we are in debt to CHINA. America brought this on. Fun game. Name what America has that the rest of the world does not in 2008. I play the corn card. Oh wait, Brazil has us beat on that.
Sep 29th, 2008
John Peter Smith
I knew this crises was coming the day a homebuilder informed me that he routinely included a new refrigerator as a standard feature in his new homes. That means people are financing a refrigerator in their mortgage. Who in their right mind takes out a 30-year loan on an appliance that at best will last 10? And who in their right mind makes such a bone-headed loan?
I agree with Pete, these idiotic lenders made this mess (greatly encouraged by both parties in congress) let their shareholders take the loss. It’s called capitalism and once upon a time Republicans believed in it.
Sep 29th, 2008
poop
I thought rebubs didn’t like regulation and big government interactions. Oh wait, they don’t. Pelosi hurt their feelings.
Sep 30th, 2008
John Peter Smith
Poop:
Real Republicans don’t like regulation or big government. The problem is that you will find very few real Republicans in either the Congress or the White House. This is most definitely not Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party.
Sep 30th, 2008
David AKA Rico
The problem isn’t necessarily a lack of regulation, but there has to either be regulation or consequences. Our legislators have taken an untenable middle position. With few government regulations and, as a result of similar bailouts, few consequences, there is nothing to deter risky behavior.
Sep 30th, 2008
Ross
One thing I find amazing is the strange bedfellows this crisis has created. Like Pete said, he’s agreeing with Joe Barton. Which raises the interesting question: did old Joe get one right or did the folks that agree with Pete get one wrong?
Look, I’m upset as anybody about this mess, but do those of you high-fiving about the defeat of the bailout actually think that the government should do nothing? Pete, you said the government shouldn’t be on the hook for private industry’s mess. I agree in general, but at what cost to the economy? Is your opposition to the bailout a matter of degree? Or would you oppose any bailout of the private sector?
Sep 30th, 2008
Kevin Buchanan
I can’t speak for Pete, but I oppose any bailout of these people.
We’re dreaming of solutions to keep things going the way we’re used to, but I think we’ll find there aren’t any “solutions” to maintain the status quo this time, with the finance problem or certain other problems swirling behind it. Or, as a wise man recently said,
“We’ll try everything in a quixotic effort to sustain the unsustainable.”
Sep 30th, 2008
David AKA Rico
If any buyback of debt should occur, the government should limit it to the actual mortgages and let all of the securities based upon derivatives fail. That would serve to protect the average citizen while letting the speculators twist in the wind.
Sep 30th, 2008
Pete Wann
@Ross — Great questions, and certainly ones that I’ve been struggling with.
Yes, I think the government should do nothing. I oppose any bailout of the private sector, including those industries that are deemed “essential” to our economy. If they’re so essential that they can’t be allowed to fail, then we need to just nationalize that sector of the economy, otherwise any claim of being a “free market” is nothing more than lip service.
In my view, the cost of continuing to base our economy on debt (especially foreign debt) is far greater than the fallout from the inevitable correction.
Sep 30th, 2008
John Peter Smith
Strange bedfellows indeed. I listened to Speaker Pelosi last night and while I disagree with many of her “solutions” I had to agree with most of her descriptions of the cause.
The Speaker is right, much of the blame for this goes back to the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. I say that as someone that has voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
As far as the danger to the economy of doing nothing I’d say that any more government intervention is far more likely to hurt the overall economy than help.
Japan can serve as a good example for us. The Japanese economy, which was once the envy of the world has been stagnant for over a decade.
The reason?
Due to a variety of market and business reasons, they have a large number of big corporations that are technically bankrupt. However, due to cultural and political considerations, these broke companies have not been forced into bankruptcy. They have no absolutely no prospect of ever being able to repay their huge debts. Yet these companies just keep plodding along, draining off resources that could be put to much better use in more productive sectors of the economy.
Virtually every Japanese economists admits that the best way to improve their economy would be to bite the bullet and just liquidate these bankrupt businesses the way the U.S. did the broke S & Ls in the ’80s. But because the immediate political consequences would be so difficult, the Japanese leaders can’t seem to do it.
The point is this:
–Our free-market economy can be very harsh at times, but it is incredibly efficient. It is that efficiency that has given the average American the highest standard of living in the world.
If Congress does nothing there will be pain, make no mistake about that. However, the pain won’t last that long and long-term we will be better off. If Congress steps in and props up these broke businesses and virtually nationalizes this sector of our economy, the immediate pain may be dulled somewhat. But the lingering effects will continue to drain resources from our economy and hinder good, successfull businesses for a long time.
The one point I would make to those that advocate letting these failing businesses fail is this:
.–A true free-market economy punishes those that fail as it should, but it richly rewards those that succeed.
Please keep that in mind when ExxonMobil releases their next quarterly financial statement.
Sep 30th, 2008
Pete Wann
@JPS –
I agree completely with you up until your last sentence. I’m surprised that you can say “free market” and “ExxonMobil” in the same breath without laughing or crying.
The gas & oil industry (PLEASE, let’s stop calling them “energy” companies — call a spade a spade) is one of the most heavily subsidized in the country. Hardly free market forces at play there. Take away the tax benefits, federal land giveaways, externalization of all the environmental costs of extraction, government intercession with other nations on their behalf, etc. etc., and ExxonMobil’s balance sheet wouldn’t look nearly as healthy.
I agree completely that a TRUE free market economy does exactly what you say it does — punishes those that fail and richly rewards those that succeed, but it’s hard to find any sector of this economy that hasn’t had the pleasure of government intervention in one way or another.
Government is a necessary evil. When it comes to the marketplace, its job (as I see it) is to put reasonable and necessary regulations in place to protect consumers from companies that would put profit before product safety, and to ensure that taxpayers aren’t stuck with the costs of environmental cleanup after industry is done extracting natural resources from an area. And that’s about it. No subsidies, no excessive taxes to encourage one thing over another, etc. You want to make wind and solar more viable? Remove the subsidies and tax breaks the gas, oil, and coal companies get from the federal and state governments. Make consumers pay the REAL price of those fuels. All of a sudden wind and solar start looking a WHOLE lot more attractive.
Unfortunately the above paragraph is nothing more than a pollyanna fantasy. So long as companies are allowed to exercise 1st amendment rights with the same legal footing as “natural born humans,” and also then allowed to lobby and make campaign donations on behalf of themselves and their industry, we’ll never see truly free markets. So long as there are government agencies tasked with both regulating and promoting industries, we’ll never see fair and reasonable regulation.
I hate it when I sound like a hippie conspiracy theorist, but it’s really hard to look at this mess and see any evidence that government isn’t in the pocket of big business, no matter which political party happens to be in power.
Sep 30th, 2008
Ross
Wow, I’m shocked. Because I think most of the people that comment on this site are serious, rational, and intelligent folks, I say this with utmost respect: if you think the government should not perform any kind of bailout at all, you have lost your freaking mind. I have to assume that in making this calculation, most of you don’t don’t understand how severe the consequences will be. If you have clear understanding of the consequences and still don’t think anything should be done, then, as David Brooks said today (I’m referencing David freaking Brooks!), you are a nihilist, and you should be held partially accountable for the results of this little experiment we are about to conduct.
Also, like I alluded to in my prior comment, take a look around at whose is standing around you, or at least what politicians and political commentators agree with you. To my mind, this is basically a situation where the crazy parts of both political parties have revolted against the serious folks in those parties that are trying to stop a disaster. I guess we will see what happens on Thursday.
JPS: Interesting that you brought up The Lost Decade. I take away a different lesson from Japan’s handling of the crisis – while the 1990’s were not good, if the government had done nothing the country would have entered into a period similar to our Great Depression, if not worse. It is a lesson about the need for government intervention, not a warning against it. Just a different way of looking at it I suppose.
Sep 30th, 2008
Pete Wann
That’s just the point, Ross. EVERYONE is partially accountable for the fallout from this mess. Call me a nihilist, or call me someone who believes that responsibility should come with accountability, (or as Uncle Ben put it: “With great power comes great responsibility.”) either way I say that we need this lesson, no matter how painful.
The “serious folks” in both parties are the ones who got us into this mess, and now they’re saying “oopsie, my bad! throw some $,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ at it, and maybe it’ll go away.” Maybe it’s time to start listening to the fringes a little more often! I, for one, am TIRED of always being on the hook to cushion the fall of everyone and their mom when things don’t go the way they expected. ESPECIALLY when the bulk of that cushion will be occupied by very, very wealthy people. You think YOUR 401k looks bad? Think how bad the Lehman Brothers Chairman’s must look to him!
I know that ultimately I’m going to be ignored again, and this fiasco will be allowed to happen. Here’s my prediction: In a year, all of those disgraced CEOs and financial whiz-kids who architected this nightmare will be back with another mega-bucks company, put in place by a board made up of their buddies, looking for the next get-rich quick on the backs of everyday folks scheme. Sonofabitch! There I go again — jumping around from uber-populist to rabid capitalist and back.
There’s something wrong with this world when the average CEO salary is 300+ times the salary of the average employee. Does that guy (they’re disproportionately white guys) REALLY generate 300x more value for the company than Tim in Accounting?
Kevin is a big fan of James Howard Kunstler. I don’t agree with everything he says, and I certainly don’t agree with his tone, but this much is for certain: small is the new big, and intensely local is the new global. “Big Business” has proven that it’s too big for its own good, and it’s time to bring it down a peg.
Wow, I’m WAY off my meds. Sorry for the rambles.
Sep 30th, 2008
Ross
Pete:
I understand the visceral response of wanting to see the Masters of the Universe get their comeuppance. That is my gut reaction as well. And I also understand how distasteful the idea is that most of these assholes will be doing the same thing in a year or two. (Although I’m not certain this will be the case; this crisis may have altered the banking business forever.) The problem is that if nothing is done, we are all very screwed for a very long time. And yeah, big business might get brought down a peg, but so will me, you, and everybody else, including the hopes any of us had for health care reform or any other legislative agenda, not to mention a general decrease in our standard of living and millions of families being thrust into poverty.
You kind of sound like Ozymandias from Watchmen in that you seem to be hoping that this devastating event will lead to a seismic shift in our culture/society. I guess the cynic in me just doesn’t think this will ever happen.
Sep 30th, 2008
Suzette Watkins
I am off my meds too, I agree with every single word Pete said above. I’m lovin this post!! Thank you Steve-O! It’s about time the people get a chance to be heard and it couldn’t be more perfect timing for the people, with elections just weeks away! YHEA!!
It would be interesting to know of the 4 politicians mentioned above, who is up for re-election this year. (Barton, Granger, Burgess, Marchant)
BTW, the sky is still above us as of 4:30 pm. I’m sure they will get something hammered out, but they had to actually work for it and heed the voters for once!
Sep 30th, 2008
cozette
Take a couple that bought a home in early ‘05 with a variable rate mortgage.
Let’s make them 30-something dinks with $90K down — almost 17%. They take out a $450K 3/1 Conforming LIBOR-based ARM and set up housekeeping.
In the current housing market, it doesn’t take much for them to be in trouble:
LIBOR is high. Chances are their ARM will reset at max rate.
Home values have fallen — more than 30% in some neighborhoods in California. (Florida has seen similar declines.) That means the $90K down is gone, and these folks are still 15% underwater — another $90K.
Converting to a fixed rate is no longer an option. They would need cash to pay off the $90K difference between the loan balance and then come up with even more cash to make the loan-to-value limit.
Sure hope they didn’t decide to have any children in the last three years. Don’t want anything that would increase their expenses or decrease their income.
Sure hope the job transfer and promotion they were hoping the company will offer him/her doesn’t come now, when they can’t afford to move.
Even if they negotiate a re-fi based on current market value, they would still owe taxes on any forgiven amount of the loan balance.
These are hard lines.
Sure, this is a hypothetical example. But I submit it is more realistic, especially today, than the hypothetical example of the lying, scheming, greedy speculator.
I figure most of the ones doing this with smoke and mirrors got swept up in the first batch of foreclosures. The ones getting hurt now are far less culpable, and may have had every reason to believe they could afford the home they bought.
P.S. These homeowners weren’t helped much by their gov’t who encouraged the very behavior that led to this fiasco and also printed dollars at a rate that devalued their currency.
Sep 30th, 2008
David AKA Rico
Suzette
All of the House of Representatives are up for election. We have the opportunity to boot them out every 2 years.
Cozette
The people you hypothetically mention are in part a cause of the current crisis, but a larger issue is the mortgage backed securities. What the financial geniuses have done in many cases is the equivalent of taking out several loans for the same collateral. When the couple you referenced cannot pay the loan, the repercussions are felt much more than the amount of their loan.
Pete and Ross
2 comic book references in 2 posts…Scary.
Sep 30th, 2008
Dan
I agree with Ross about this blog. I enjoy reading many of the comments on here. I don’t know if I quite agree that everyone is responsible for this. I am not sure where my culpability in this lies. I didn’t ask congress to relax the lending guidelines. I am not over-leveraged and insolvent
The people responsible for this are the Government and financial institutions. I don’t blame the financially moronic for getting a loan they couldn’t afford. Remember they are financially moronic. We depend on proper risk assessment and subsequent cost / benefit to protect us from this behavior. Unfortunately, when the government is more than willing to underwrite questionable lending practices the rules of go out the window.
Please note the following the New York Times (from September 30, 1999),
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.”
Additionally, my mother was a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriter who quit in 2000 because the lending guidelines worsened to levels not seen since the mid / late eighties.
Sep 30th, 2008
cozette
I posted this a few daze ago on the dallasmetropolis.com website and thought i’d post it here as well.
My personal feeling is the so-called Rescue Plan is really a rescue of the existing power structure. The Great Depression, while awful, was beneficial in that it ended the era of the Robber Baron and anti-unionism that was enforced by private corporate armies with machine guns, and brought forth the modern 20th Century State that was able to defeat Fascism and Communism. My belief is that we are at a parallel point in our history, and that the vested interests in the current power structure are essentially rescuing what has become an outdated power structure. I would like to see the markets take their course, even at the price of a Second Great Depression and the loss of our status as the world’s top economic Superpower to the Chinese. It would result in a re-regulated economic system streamlined for the 21st Century instead of the stupid Cowboy Pawn Shop Capitalist system it has become, and it would end our incredible murderous criminal meddling in affairs of other states.
But where are the Republicans? This bail out is obviously unconstitutional. Article 1 Sec 8, which specifies the power of Congress, state that public money can be spent by Congress in two broad universes: the defense of the state or for the general welfare of the populace. Be honest, do you see any way that their plan satisfies this clause? Only through pretzel logic. To be honest, I would expect this of the Democrats, but watching the Republicans support and defend this plan is viscerally disturbing - it is their core value that financial effort should either be awarded or punished depending on the market. Now, simply to maintain their places in the current Corporate Capitalist State, they are selling out to what I think is blatantly unconstitutional - this “Rescue Plan” should only be enacted as the constitution requires: by Constitutional Amendment, with the consent of 2/3s of the Congress and 3/4’s of the states.
The Republican Party is now destroyed I think. They are really two factions, what I call the Old Fiscal Constitutionalists and the Anti-Constitutionalists. The Anti-Constitutionalists are the confused Glenn Beck faction that is constantly screaming something is “against the Constitution” when it is not, and the real fact is they have no use for the ideas in the COTUS at all. The COTUS specifies that no law regarding religion be passed by Congress, yet the Congress has in the past made “pledges” mandatory in the public schools that include religious chants, which the Anti-constitutionalist’s loudly support as they demand even further violation of the 1st Amendment by demanding that Creationism be taught in the public schools, all the while confusingly claiming they want strict constructionalism of the COTUS.
Their anti-Constitutionalism is seen everywhere: they are against homosexuals having equal rights with heterosexuals, even tho the 14th Amendment states we should all be treated equally before the law. They demand The State enforce abortion laws, in violation of the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against voluntary servitude and the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that a person is in charge of his or her own destiny, not The State. They support the Bush Survelliance State, even tho the 4th Amendment prohibits all police actions against the populace without either probable cause or a warrant. They hate the income tax, even tho it is in the COTUS. I’ve heard many of the Beckbots claiming that providing funds to the National Institute of Health is somehow unconstitutional, even in the face of the obvious statement in Article 1:8 that that is precisely the kind of thing the Congress is set to do.
In all of this I see the destruction of the Republican Party. The Old Fiscal Constitutionalists are totally defeated within their party - their last hurrah is McCain, who has failed them miserably. The only thing that matters to them is their jobs. I am sad, as a Democrat, I often supported them when they were the voice of reason and restraint as the country went thru the excesses of the sixties. I am truly saddened they have been replaced by Anti-constitutionalist buffoons.
Sep 30th, 2008
whattheheck
I love the simple answers…the market is very compex and the idea that Goverment cannot step in because this is different that previous crisis’s is unsettling at best. First remember, Its A wonderful Life…welll your money is in Joes house and mom and pop businesses. I know each of you will say they didn’t need a goverment bailout, but now multiply it by tenfold then a hundred fold. There is enough blame to go around…turn on your Sony TV, play your new playstation, before you get in your Mercedes to go charge dinner.
Sep 30th, 2008
Pete Wann
Markets are complex when they work properly. They’re infinitely more complex when the government starts favoring or disfavoring different sectors or setting up shop to compete against private enterprise.
I understand what’s at stake. I understand that my position is probably viewed as extremely cold or insensitive.
It’s funny that foreign made goods have been brought up. When’s the last time you saw a TV or video game system made in the USA? Not just owned/produced by a US company, but actually MADE here. I’ll betcha a stock market collapse and crash of the dollar would make it a lot cheaper for companies to bring some jobs back to the US, once it becomes more expensive to outsource them.
Oct 1st, 2008
JS Jones
A bailout would be totally irresponsible and just encourage more reckless Wall St behavior in the future. After all, why worry about risk when all you have to do is call Uncle “Guido” Sam to come shake down the taxpayers?
Yes, a no bailout recession “might” be painful, but that’s the free market economy at work, properly flushing it’s bowels. A bailout, or “rescue” as they are now spinning it, is nothing more than a pigu plug that will just constipate the market until it explodes, showering us with Socialist intestinal content.
Congress needs to take a deep breath, stop, think, and ignore all of the doom-and-gloom scaremongering being offered by the press and President Knucklehead. Do we really want more knee-jerk legislation like Sarbannes-Oxley and The *cough* “Patriot” Act?
Oct 1st, 2008
David AKA Rico
@JS Jones
Your comparison of the current crisis with SOX and the Patriot Act is very apt. This is just another example of our public servants rushing to “do something” for political expediency, rather than assessing and crafting the right solution.
I am not sure if there are measures the government should take, but I am fairly sure that this bill is not the right answer.
Oct 1st, 2008
Steph
Let’s hope zombie Ronald Reagan will rise from the dead and eat all the deadbeat Rebulicans voting for this bill. I heard the Senate just passed this awful thing, and now it’s going to Congress. God, I hope it doesn’t pass . . .
Oct 2nd, 2008
Pete Wann
Sounds like a great idea for a short story, Steph!
Oct 2nd, 2008
Reply to “Bailout? Not Today.”
By posting your comment, you agree to abide by the terms of the West and Clear comment policy.