From http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13611 --

Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?

If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.

If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why or why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?

How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? Every day bankers work out loans with customers -- so why are taxpayers being asked to act when banks are largely on strike, refusing to negotiate revised deals with many loan customers?

How about interviewing small landlords who were drawn into these toxic loans. Are banks negotiating with them? If not it means more foreclosures and renters who had nothing to do with this being evicted. Ask why banks are refusing (landlords I spoke to said they are) to negotiate with small landlords.

What steps are being taken to take back bonuses, fees and other compensation from the folks who got rich selling toxic mortgages and illiquid investments that Secretary Paulsen claims are threatening the whole system.

How will adding $700 billion to the national debt ease strains on the credit markets?

As of now we are, as a group, behaving just as we did the last two times the administration sought to rush through a hastily thought out, ill-conceived plan. Why in the world are we being so gullible and naive? whatever happened to the core value of journalism -- check it out?

From http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13611 --

Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?

If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.

If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why oh why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?

How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? Every day bankers work out loans with customers -- so why are taxpayers being asked to act when banks are largely on strike, refusing to negotiate revised deals with many loan customers?

How about interviewing small landlords who were drawn into these toxic loans. Are banks negotiating with them? If not it means more foreclosures and renters who had nothing to do with this being evicted. Ask why banks are refusing (landlords I spoke to said they are) to negotiate with small landlords.

By the way, this week's oil price spike happened in part because the oil-producing countries - which have for a long time been watching with dismay as a weakening, debt-ridden dollar lowers the value of their product (OPEC's wanted to switch to the euro for years now, but the Saudis are blocking that move) - are seeking to compensate for Paulson's planned body-blow to an already-tottering dollar. If this heist goes through, there will be more oil price spikes and we'll get to say hello to everyone's favorite 1970s monster, stagflation.

That's what this is about.

The only reason the Republicans and the Blue Dogs opposed the bailout is because they want to put forth something even worse:

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_09_21_archive.html#8609104159841606745

Too many injuries, too much choking -- or dogging it waiting for a trade to the Yankees or Mets. Sigh.

To twins fans: any truth to the rumor that minnesota fans don't absolutely love gardenhire? seems to me he gets more than the most out of his team.

Gardie is fabulous -- he's a follower of Tom Kelly's small-ball regimen, which simply stated is to do your damndest not to mess yourselves up. Considering he has a tight salary to work with, he exploits the farm team as well as anyone could. The problem is keeping the talented folk around long enough to put together a competitive post-season beastie -- we lost Santana because there was no way that Carl Pohlad would pay for him once he hit free agency. (If Francisco Liriano were 100% we'd have locked up the division last month. Sigh.)

You can read more about our favorite Okie here: http://www.citypages.com/2004-09-29/news/okie-from-okmulgee/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.wrbankslondon01/CommentStory/Business/home

The crisis is real:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.wrbankslondon01/CommentStory/Business/home