Comments on: John Shadegg Wobbles On The Bailout Bill

By: Steve Gagne

Steve Gagne — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:44:33 +0000

What’s even more pathetic, is that this bailout only covers losses from 02/2007 thru this past 06/2008, leaving the remaining 1/3 of the “maturing” dead weight from then thru 02/2009 uncovered. This is going to cause another wave of financial collapses not even addressed by the financial models.

By: TerryP

TerryP — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:48:37 +0000

Jeff

You are correct that the SEC just changed their guidelines, but did you really need a $800+ billion dollar bill to get the change in the mark-to-market rules into law. Secondly, these days anything that an agency does or says is considered law even if it is not passed by the legislature. If they in fact needed it written into law before it was viable then why did the SEC even bother changing their guidelines in the first place.

While I believe that they should have changed the mark-to-market rules long ago and we might have even avoided some of this mess, since the SEC could just make the change without legislation from Congress, this change to vote for the bill had absolutely nothing to do with the mark-to-market rules. Beyond other corruption there is only one thing that their change of heart could of been about and that is the pork.

It is a sad day when pork alone will move 50+ votes on a $800 billion bill that will be a noose around taxpayers neck for a long, long time.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:26:34 +0000

The SEC move on Tuesday was an “advisement”. They wanted it written in law.

But yeah, it’s mostly just a cover for the pork.

By: TerryP

TerryP — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:47:09 +0000

Didn’t the SEC already make the change to the mark-to-market rules on Tuesday. This was done without any taxpayer money being pledged towards a bailout. If he is chaning his vote because of the mark-to-market rules maybe someone should tell him it was already done. At least that is what I read from a Heritage Foundation article.

I certainly think you could pass a bill raising the FDIC limits without having to attach it to a $700 billion bailout bill that now includes over a $100 million in pork and other non-related special interest items.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:20:20 +0000

Indeed, thomas. With two socialist parties, you can rest assured that any compromises between them will result in “more”, not “less”.

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The Crap Sandwich Bailout Faces Round Two In The House

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:01:52 +0000

[...] one prominent Republican opponent of the deal, John Shadegg of Arizona, has announced that he’s likely to vote “yes” when the bill comes up again, but it’s not clear that there will be enough switches to guarantee passage: By late [...]

By: thomasblair

thomasblair — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:12:34 +0000

somebody,

You thought that the bill would only get smaller? Welcome to Earth.

By: somebody

somebody — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:00:39 +0000

Is there a conspiracy going on? I’d be disappointed enough even if they passed a bill that was substantially scaled down from the first one, but they’re actually going to pass one worse than the first one?