The Obama Administration thread

[Smoking Guns]

Obama Decrees: Massive Immigration of Hamas Refugees from Gaza
by Lou Dobbs

Don't suppose you have a source like AP or something slightly less bigoted than Lou, do you?  I'm truly interested in reading about this...but his brand of "journalism" is lacking.

I haven't had time to investigate... I thought since Lou was on CNN he had to be liberal.. Guess I was wrong.

Nah, hardly a liberal.  In fact, I think he fancies himself a border guard.

The main reason I was curious is because of the phrase "Presidential determination", which you don't hear a lot.   

He doesn't seem to be the type of guy that makes stuff up for ratings so I am curious too... Seems like he has knowledge nobody else wants to talk about.

Well, his beef with the world is about immigration, so it's no surprise it popped up there.  I assume the facts are true, but it's hardly an objective piece, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Lou leave out some details or to skew them with his own worldview...thus, my wondering about a more objective source.

Fox New hasn't gotten a hold of it yet... Something is up with this.  I am VERY dissappointed niether candidate went into the immigration arena.  That, along with the Economy and War, was one of the biggest items for me. 

[SLCPUNK]

You can turn on Lou Dobbs any time and he will be talking about Mexicans and the Amero. Funny, is that he is married to one.

[pilferk]

I thought this was an interesting take on housing's contribution to the downturn....;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29163182/

[SLCPUNK]

This all seems so familiar. Who was the real culprit here? Who gave these dog shit negative amortization (among others) loans AAA ratings? We almost NEVER hear about this aspect of the housing bust.

House of cards...hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Talked to a RE aquaintence of mine last night. He told me his bankers have told him (and this goes with the reports I've been reading) we are no where near the end. We've got another wave of resets on the horizon, the five year ARMS and Alt A's, which many have already begun to walk away from.

Yippie.

[pilferk]

This all seems so familiar. Who was the real culprit here? Who gave these dog shit negative amortization (among others) loans AAA ratings? We almost NEVER hear about this aspect of the housing bust.

That would be the "independent" rating services who just happen to be paid by the banks seeking the ratings. 

No conflict of interest there....

House of cards...hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Talked to a RE aquaintence of mine last night. He told me his bankers have told him (and this goes with the reports I've been reading) we are no where near the end. We've got another wave of resets on the horizon, the five year ARMS and Alt A's, which many have already begun to walk away from.

Yippie.

It looks like we're going to see some sort of government involvement pretty quick.  It sounds like they're going to start actually buying bad paper (isn't that what they were supposed to do with the $$ in the FIRST place??) and there is a proposal for Government subsidies on mortgages for homeowners that match a certain set of criteria (and what that criteria is hasn't yet been revealed...or I haven't seen it yet)..supposedly the subsidies would pay a portion of the interest on the loans, on a monthly basis.

[polluxlm]

Most inequality is an illusion.  We pay a CEO more than a line worker, and we say they're unequal.  But put that CEO on that line and there's a good chance that he's not as good at it as the worker.  Just because we say one job is "better" doesn't mean the CEO is a superior person.  He's just better at one job while the worker is better at another.  And, if they both do something useful that contributes to society, who am I to say they're not equally important?  I don't understand why we must do that.  We devalue so many people.  Funny thing is, I think the world could live without CEO's but not without workers.   

And, if I might ask, are you under the impression that people are all getting "as fair a chance" as they can?  I'll agree with you there...arguments about capitalism would be MUCH more persuasive if everyone had equal treatment (i.e. good schools, not growing up in poverty, etc.).  But that isn't the case.  Not even close.  Our world says that a "capable" person (by the measures of our society) born into poverty is likely to live out his/her life in that same poverty.  S/he'll never receive good schooling, likely has less parental care because of their economic situation, has no access to quality healthcare...but some would argue that s/he should pull up by the bootstraps.  Well, it does happen.  But it's not common.  Our society would rather reward people like Paris Hilton, who'll benefit greatly if the GOP can ever finally beat down the "death tax", than we would smart kids born in the inner city.  And that's fucked up.

Humanity is unequal by nature. The frictions are the engine on which we grow. Collateral damage is to be expected, and frankly, to be accepted.

My gripe is having an authority punish us for that since many simply can't seem to handle the fact that there is suffering in the world. You seem to forget that capitalism is the system that gave us practically everything you see and experience around you. After millenia of autocratic oppression the people rose and put in place such things as human rights, elected representatives, social benefits and the free market. Why? The short answer is guns. Loads and loads of guns. Suddenly the King couldn't rely on his knights to protect him anymore. Thanks to the industrial revolution weapons became cheap enough to acquire and easy enough to use so that we could practically demand what had been denied us for so long, at gun point.

But suddenly capitalism is bad? Alright, tell me why. What changed?

"Stealing"?  If taxes are truly theft then we're doomed to either a criminal society or anarchy.  No, I'm afraid the only real theft here is the greedy world we've created.  Tell me...where did the concept of ownership come from?  Who decides that certain land belongs to a certain individual?  No one had the right to sell the land, so no one had the right to buy it.  "Stealing" is what been done to create such a stratified world in the first place.  Whether it's stealing people from Africa (now there's a way to combat the minumum wage!), resources from anywhere in the third world, setting up puppet governments with friendly policies...the history of this world is one of exploitation...one person stealing from another, one country stealing from another...and then we look at it and say "see how well the powerful have done; why don't the poor do the same?".  Capitalism is as much theater for the masses as it is an economic philosophy. 

   

Greedy world we've created? You give us way too much credit. Arguably the world has always been greedy, but I suppose we could make some sort of notch around 5000 BC when the Sumerian bankers created money (now that is one hell of a creation). Either way, that particular aspect got little to do with our current generations.

Who decided an certain piece of land does not belong to a certain individual? We all have a need for privacy, ergo we have property "rights". Not because somebody or something deems it right, but simply because we want it. All of us, always. It's the collectivists that are grasping for straws on that issue. Going around thinking the State will handle it better, as if the USSR and Cambodia were ancient history.

Taxes become stealing when you are forced to pay for something that got nothing to do with you. I have no problem paying my share for protection, health care and education. I don't even mind feeding crack whores and rednecks out of a job. It's a piss in the ocean anyways, and I'm willing to pay for that to avoid them having to "pay" for it themselves.

I do however consider bailing out banks and fucking hedge funds, to support the lifestyles of John D. and Donald, to be plain and simple theft of my hard earned money. I consider it a crime when a working man putting in 50 hours a week can't afford a decent place to live and having to worry about his primary needs. Considering it's that mans efforts that ultimately funds all the private jets, cocktail parties and 8 year old hookers in the White House I will deduct that somewhere along the way something got stolen. Especially when the state, who I supposedly pay to protect me from this, not only join in on the plunder but often plans and organizes it by law and decree.

Corporations will be corporations, and elites will be elites. There's no going around it, and I can accept that. But I'll be goddamned if my so called representatives aren't going around encouraging it instead of limiting it. That is what they at one point promised to do, and that is the reason I agreed to pay them at all.

 

[SLCPUNK]

Lol, what a bunch of wanna-be pretentious horseshit.

[polluxlm]

Contributive as always. Don't you have some teenagers to condescend?

[freedom78]

Most inequality is an illusion.  We pay a CEO more than a line worker, and we say they're unequal.  But put that CEO on that line and there's a good chance that he's not as good at it as the worker.  Just because we say one job is "better" doesn't mean the CEO is a superior person.  He's just better at one job while the worker is better at another.  And, if they both do something useful that contributes to society, who am I to say they're not equally important?  I don't understand why we must do that.  We devalue so many people.  Funny thing is, I think the world could live without CEO's but not without workers.   

And, if I might ask, are you under the impression that people are all getting "as fair a chance" as they can?  I'll agree with you there...arguments about capitalism would be MUCH more persuasive if everyone had equal treatment (i.e. good schools, not growing up in poverty, etc.).  But that isn't the case.  Not even close.  Our world says that a "capable" person (by the measures of our society) born into poverty is likely to live out his/her life in that same poverty.  S/he'll never receive good schooling, likely has less parental care because of their economic situation, has no access to quality healthcare...but some would argue that s/he should pull up by the bootstraps.  Well, it does happen.  But it's not common.  Our society would rather reward people like Paris Hilton, who'll benefit greatly if the GOP can ever finally beat down the "death tax", than we would smart kids born in the inner city.  And that's fucked up.

Humanity is unequal by nature. The frictions are the engine on which we grow. Collateral damage is to be expected, and frankly, to be accepted.

My gripe is having an authority punish us for that since many simply can't seem to handle the fact that there is suffering in the world. You seem to forget that capitalism is the system that gave us practically everything you see and experience around you. After millenia of autocratic oppression the people rose and put in place such things as human rights, elected representatives, social benefits and the free market. Why? The short answer is guns. Loads and loads of guns. Suddenly the King couldn't rely on his knights to protect him anymore. Thanks to the industrial revolution weapons became cheap enough to acquire and easy enough to use so that we could practically demand what had been denied us for so long, at gun point.

But suddenly capitalism is bad? Alright, tell me why. What changed?

Of course we should applaud capitalism for the benefits it has created.  It is certainly superior to feudalism...at least for those of us lucky enough to live in the industrialized world.  If you're not so lucky, capitalism hasn't really been of great benefit.  You've simply moved from local to colonial to overseas corporate masters, with little hope of actually having any decent quality of life.  How does your natural inequality apply to entire countries?  Am I really to believe that the entire continent of Africa is just too stupid to get by?  The natural inequalities in people do exist...but the inequalities imposed by chance of birth have a far greater effect. 

"Stealing"?  If taxes are truly theft then we're doomed to either a criminal society or anarchy.  No, I'm afraid the only real theft here is the greedy world we've created.  Tell me...where did the concept of ownership come from?  Who decides that certain land belongs to a certain individual?  No one had the right to sell the land, so no one had the right to buy it.  "Stealing" is what been done to create such a stratified world in the first place.  Whether it's stealing people from Africa (now there's a way to combat the minumum wage!), resources from anywhere in the third world, setting up puppet governments with friendly policies...the history of this world is one of exploitation...one person stealing from another, one country stealing from another...and then we look at it and say "see how well the powerful have done; why don't the poor do the same?".  Capitalism is as much theater for the masses as it is an economic philosophy. 

   

Greedy world we've created? You give us way too much credit. Arguably the world has always been greedy, but I suppose we could make some sort of notch around 5000 BC when the Sumerian bankers created money (now that is one hell of a creation). Either way, that particular aspect got little to do with our current generations.

Be "we" I meant all humankind...including our history, and not limited to me, you, and the here & now.  And while money certainly is a tool for carrying forth our greed, it's really the placing of value on people at the heart of it all.

Who decided an certain piece of land does not belong to a certain individual? We all have a need for privacy, ergo we have property "rights". Not because somebody or something deems it right, but simply because we want it. All of us, always. It's the collectivists that are grasping for straws on that issue. Going around thinking the State will handle it better, as if the USSR and Cambodia were ancient history.

As far as the state goes, I wouldn't go so far as to impose either the USSR or Cambodia upon anyone as their ideal of "the state".  Any self-described Marxist who's thought it through could recognize that neither of those was a people's revolution in the Marxist sense and, thus, doomed to fail.  I realize that most believe that history has written off Marxism as a failed experiment.  I see it otherwise.  It's more akin to an experiment tried by really bad, inept scientists.  Whether you look to Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Castro, I can't see a single example of where Marxism actually was carried forth in the sense that Marx predicted.  Rather, we have Leninism and Stalinism, which are attempts to impose Marxism on an unwilling people.  It's no wonder they failed, as do many authoritarian systems trying to impose a way of life that is not desired by the people.  Of course, there's a difference between Lenin/Stalinism, on one hand, and a move toward state or collective control of something in a democracy, that being that the state presumably reflects, in majoritarian fashion, the desires of the population.  Since people voted for Obama and a Democratic Congress, for example, both of which have talked about moving toward something on the spectrum of universal health care, we can presume that there is some general support for that principle.  Hardly the Leninist approach to the state.

Taxes become stealing when you are forced to pay for something that got nothing to do with you. I have no problem paying my share for protection, health care and education. I don't even mind feeding crack whores and rednecks out of a job. It's a piss in the ocean anyways, and I'm willing to pay for that to avoid them having to "pay" for it themselves.

I'm curious what you think is something that has nothing to do with you.  Most people (in the US at least) would argue that health care falls under that, but my general thought is that poverty is something that affects us all, and improving upon that condition improves a country about which we all claim to care.  Some would rather set up boundaries...around their gated communities, between their city and another, poorer one, between states.  For some, it's about putting yourself between a set of lines and making sure that things are great in those lines, even at the expense of people without. 

I do however consider bailing out banks and fucking hedge funds, to support the lifestyles of John D. and Donald, to be plain and simple theft of my hard earned money. I consider it a crime when a working man putting in 50 hours a week can't afford a decent place to live and having to worry about his primary needs. Considering it's that mans efforts that ultimately funds all the private jets, cocktail parties and 8 year old hookers in the White House I will deduct that somewhere along the way something got stolen. Especially when the state, who I supposedly pay to protect me from this, not only join in on the plunder but often plans and organizes it by law and decree.

Corporations will be corporations, and elites will be elites. There's no going around it, and I can accept that. But I'll be goddamned if my so called representatives aren't going around encouraging it instead of limiting it. That is what they at one point promised to do, and that is the reason I agreed to pay them at all.

And I also am less than ecstatic about bailing out banks, especially in the way it was most recently done, with little to no accountability about how that money was to be spent.   

[The Dog]

Anyone catch Bill Maher on Larry King the other night - love that guy.  Good stuff about Obama and the economy and a-hole Republicans.

[SLCPUNK]

Contributive as always. Don't you have some teenagers to condescend?

haha, what's so funny is that you're this smug little turd, who is completely 100% condescending, but ironically can't seem to grasp the fundamental concept of what comprises a private corporation. Instead you buy into this idiots guide to conspiracy theory non-sense, and preach to the interwebtubes about how naive they all are, totally oblivious of your own ignorance.

So yea, I'm going to laugh at that....

[polluxlm]

Of course we should applaud capitalism for the benefits it has created.  It is certainly superior to feudalism...at least for those of us lucky enough to live in the industrialized world.  If you're not so lucky, capitalism hasn't really been of great benefit.  You've simply moved from local to colonial to overseas corporate masters, with little hope of actually having any decent quality of life.  How does your natural inequality apply to entire countries?  Am I really to believe that the entire continent of Africa is just too stupid to get by?  The natural inequalities in people do exist...but the inequalities imposed by chance of birth have a far greater effect. 

You'll get no argument here. Our lifestyles are sustained by the slavery of others. My question is; how do you see any of that changing when the political process in the western world is practically owned by the corporate interest? The media isn't going to tell anyone. They're owned by a handful of globalists, run by interlocking board members from the banking and oil industry, profit from Exxon advertising money and bought by NFL and Paris Hilton cronies. Even if the President were a dictator he would be at the mercy of them.

As far as the state goes, I wouldn't go so far as to impose either the USSR or Cambodia upon anyone as their ideal of "the state".  Any self-described Marxist who's thought it through could recognize that neither of those was a people's revolution in the Marxist sense and, thus, doomed to fail.  I realize that most believe that history has written off Marxism as a failed experiment.  I see it otherwise.  It's more akin to an experiment tried by really bad, inept scientists.  Whether you look to Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Castro, I can't see a single example of where Marxism actually was carried forth in the sense that Marx predicted.  Rather, we have Leninism and Stalinism, which are attempts to impose Marxism on an unwilling people.  It's no wonder they failed, as do many authoritarian systems trying to impose a way of life that is not desired by the people.  Of course, there's a difference between Lenin/Stalinism, on one hand, and a move toward state or collective control of something in a democracy, that being that the state presumably reflects, in majoritarian fashion, the desires of the population.  Since people voted for Obama and a Democratic Congress, for example, both of which have talked about moving toward something on the spectrum of universal health care, we can presume that there is some general support for that principle.  Hardly the Leninist approach to the state.

Presumably would be the word. Appealing to the primal desires of a population is the oldest trick in the book. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the Papacy did it, the Nazis did it and now it's being done to us. No, it's not the Habsburg-Leninist approach. That one didn't work out, so it would be foolish to attempt it again. It's the same principles though; more power to centralized authority and less liberties for the people. I don't see Obama and Bush disagreeing a whole lot on those. Any President for that matter. The difference is calling it "stimulus" instead of "bailout".

You might say there are no forces able to apply that kind of continued pressure towards people hostile policies. To that I say look at the media and who owns them. They are a nation because they tell people what to think, and they're getting increasingly efficient at it.

I'm curious what you think is something that has nothing to do with you.  Most people (in the US at least) would argue that health care falls under that, but my general thought is that poverty is something that affects us all, and improving upon that condition improves a country about which we all claim to care.  Some would rather set up boundaries...around their gated communities, between their city and another, poorer one, between states.  For some, it's about putting yourself between a set of lines and making sure that things are great in those lines, even at the expense of people without. 

Everything effects me at some point in some way. Poverty, war, health...they affect all of us. I don't however think that is reason to throw countless of trillions into emotional programs that end up filling the coffers of big industry all the while the problems they were proposed to fix are getting worse. How much is spent combating drugs? Waging war? Sustaining poverty? Sustaining industry? How is it used? Nobody really knows, but as long as it looks and hears good who could give a damn about the result. Nobody wants to say they support poverty and drugs, even though the programs meant to counter it are doing more damage than good. That doesn't matter, it's too complicated. And you'll fast end up with a "you think you know better?" in your face if you should dare disagree with the, apparently, all knowing, wise politicians and bureaucrats.

Contributive as always. Don't you have some teenagers to condescend?

haha, what's so funny is that you're this smug little turd, who is completely 100% condescending, but ironically can't seem to grasp the fundamental concept of what comprises a private corporation. Instead you buy into this idiots guide to conspiracy theory non-sense, and preach to the interwebtubes about how naive they all are, totally oblivious of your own ignorance.

So yea, I'm going to laugh at that....

Feel better friend.

[The Dog]

Republicans are such cowardly trash.... they bitch and moan about all of these "compromises" they want in the stimulus bill and when they get some of the things they want...  pretty much all of them don't vote for it.  then they cry that it wasn't bi-partisan.

they really do not give a shit about this country.  it's disgusting and I hope the American people FINALLY wake up to it.

[SLCPUNK]

Nobody can despise them as much as I do....

Just sayin'.

[freedom78]

Of course we should applaud capitalism for the benefits it has created.  It is certainly superior to feudalism...at least for those of us lucky enough to live in the industrialized world.  If you're not so lucky, capitalism hasn't really been of great benefit.  You've simply moved from local to colonial to overseas corporate masters, with little hope of actually having any decent quality of life.  How does your natural inequality apply to entire countries?  Am I really to believe that the entire continent of Africa is just too stupid to get by?  The natural inequalities in people do exist...but the inequalities imposed by chance of birth have a far greater effect. 

You'll get no argument here. Our lifestyles are sustained by the slavery of others. My question is; how do you see any of that changing when the political process in the western world is practically owned by the corporate interest? The media isn't going to tell anyone. They're owned by a handful of globalists, run by interlocking board members from the banking and oil industry, profit from Exxon advertising money and bought by NFL and Paris Hilton cronies. Even if the President were a dictator he would be at the mercy of them.

It inevitably breaks down.  The West grew to great wealth on the backs of the third world, and to that effect we have one wealthy, powerful part of the world and many other parts that are poor and weak, by comparison.  But every time I call my credit card company, and end up talking to some guy in India, I'm well aware that someone in my country lost that job at some point.  His options?  To work for much much less or to master a new field.  The former is unacceptable, as the way of life earned by living and working in the US is something he's attached to and the latter is very difficult, especially for those approaching their later years.  So the pressure comes from inside and out, and not from government at all (or very little).  From inside we see workers being told to work longer for worse wages, and from out we see wealth being shipped to formerly third world countries.  It's as if power were a water filled balloon which suddenly springs a leak. 

And most political parties exacerbate the problem, of course.  Republicans demand lowering of trade barriers from their free market ideological standpoint, meaning that it's easier for this process to take place.  Democrats demand workers rights and the safety net, meaning that there's more pressure on the system and that lower costs in other countries become even more attractive.  The both believe they're fixing the problem, but in truth I think they simply speed it along.

As far as the state goes, I wouldn't go so far as to impose either the USSR or Cambodia upon anyone as their ideal of "the state".  Any self-described Marxist who's thought it through could recognize that neither of those was a people's revolution in the Marxist sense and, thus, doomed to fail.  I realize that most believe that history has written off Marxism as a failed experiment.  I see it otherwise.  It's more akin to an experiment tried by really bad, inept scientists.  Whether you look to Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Castro, I can't see a single example of where Marxism actually was carried forth in the sense that Marx predicted.  Rather, we have Leninism and Stalinism, which are attempts to impose Marxism on an unwilling people.  It's no wonder they failed, as do many authoritarian systems trying to impose a way of life that is not desired by the people.  Of course, there's a difference between Lenin/Stalinism, on one hand, and a move toward state or collective control of something in a democracy, that being that the state presumably reflects, in majoritarian fashion, the desires of the population.  Since people voted for Obama and a Democratic Congress, for example, both of which have talked about moving toward something on the spectrum of universal health care, we can presume that there is some general support for that principle.  Hardly the Leninist approach to the state.

Presumably would be the word. Appealing to the primal desires of a population is the oldest trick in the book. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the Papacy did it, the Nazis did it and now it's being done to us. No, it's not the Habsburg-Leninist approach. That one didn't work out, so it would be foolish to attempt it again. It's the same principles though; more power to centralized authority and less liberties for the people. I don't see Obama and Bush disagreeing a whole lot on those. Any President for that matter. The difference is calling it "stimulus" instead of "bailout".

You might say there are no forces able to apply that kind of continued pressure towards people hostile policies. To that I say look at the media and who owns them. They are a nation because they tell people what to think, and they're getting increasingly efficient at it.

I agree that "presumably" is the word, and I have no doubt that the populations majority preferences are not entirely reflected in policy....obviously.  I do reject the notion that the past abuses of governments means that people cannot collectively function for a common good, through government or through another entity if one presents itself. 

And I disagree that such a force doesn't exist.  People are such a force, and while the media may not live up to its responsibilities to tell them of gross inequities, you do not need to tell such to a man who was just laid off while his boss gets a bonus and his job goes to Bangladesh.  When enough people who were once happy realize they've been abused, then such a force will both exist and have will to act.   

I'm curious what you think is something that has nothing to do with you.  Most people (in the US at least) would argue that health care falls under that, but my general thought is that poverty is something that affects us all, and improving upon that condition improves a country about which we all claim to care.  Some would rather set up boundaries...around their gated communities, between their city and another, poorer one, between states.  For some, it's about putting yourself between a set of lines and making sure that things are great in those lines, even at the expense of people without. 

Everything effects me at some point in some way. Poverty, war, health...they affect all of us. I don't however think that is reason to throw countless of trillions into emotional programs that end up filling the coffers of big industry all the while the problems they were proposed to fix are getting worse. How much is spent combating drugs? Waging war? Sustaining poverty? Sustaining industry? How is it used? Nobody really knows, but as long as it looks and hears good who could give a damn about the result. Nobody wants to say they support poverty and drugs, even though the programs meant to counter it are doing more damage than good. That doesn't matter, it's too complicated. And you'll fast end up with a "you think you know better?" in your face if you should dare disagree with the, apparently, all knowing, wise politicians and bureaucrats.

You'll get no argument from me about the war on drugs, and I agree that as long as things look good and people are personally doing fine then nothing changes.  The question, though, is one of how long that illusion can be kept going. 

[Smoking Guns]

Our new attorney general is a total fucking idiot after the shit he said today.  When talking about race, he said our country is a bunch of cowards.  I tell you what, this Lou Dobbs guy is pretty darn thought provoking.  I don't think Olbermann mentioned it, but he did mention the cartoon of the police shooting the monkey.  I can definately see how that is offensive.  Though Olbermann admits the media called Buch a chimp for 8 years.  If Obama wasn't black, it wouldn't have been a big deal.  It was in poor taste. 

[SLCPUNK]

I hope Obama's efforts will create a floor, but honestly I don't hold out much hope. I'd expect even more stimulus packages later down the road unfortunately. We've got a long road ahead of us. Good thing I live in a one story house....in case I think about jumping out my window one of these days. 

[loretian]

Enjoy!    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

[SLCPUNK]

It's ok to prop up hedge funds that take risk though right? That's ok? All of a sudden all homeowners are lazy and greedy and deserve to be in the position they are in right? What is going to happen to the mortgage backed securities if these puffed up values aren't propped up too? (I'm not saying I agree, but we've been painted into a corner.)

Republicans...I've never seen a bigger group of hypocrites in my life. Now that they are in the passenger seat they've turned into a rabid group of conspiracy theory chicken littles who forget what they've destroyed over the last eight years.

[SLCPUNK]

And how about the value of your home dropping another 40% once all those new foreclosures hit the market?