Reid to GOP: Get on board, or get run over

After watching months and months of attempted negotiation with GOP senators produce nothing in the health insurance debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t in the mood to watch a rerun.

From Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that he will not wait for Democrats and Republicans to reach a bipartisan compromise on a Wall Street reform bill, scheduling the first key test vote for Monday.

“I’m not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement,” Reid said. “The games of stalling are over.”

The move puts pressure on Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican, to reach some resolution on their bipartisan talks. Both senators have said they were progressing toward a deal, but Republicans have suggested that they would need more time than Democrats are willing to give….

Democrats have made a political calculation that at least some Republicans will feel compelled to back the bill Monday, even without any changes – and if they don’t, it’s the GOP that looks bad. If they fail on Monday, Democrats would likely head back to the negotiating table with Republicans to reach a deal, and continue to force votes until at least one Republican joins them in opening the debate.

“We feel we have the upper hand,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

The New York Times account is a little more detailed about the content of Reid’s press conference, including a description of videotapes rolled out by Senate Democrats:

Mr. Reid, however, noted that Democrats had tried for two months to reach a deal with Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, and another month working with Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, who is also on the committee….

But it was the unusual use of video clips that was most striking about the Democrats’ aggressive posture. First they showed (Minority Leader Mitch) McConnell repeatedly denouncing the legislation, saying it would encourage, rather than prevent, future taxpayer-financed bailouts of big banks. Both sides agree the bill is intended to end bailouts.

“This bill not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks, it institutionalizes them,” Mr. McConnell says on the video in a speech on the Senate floor. In another clip, Mr. McConnell says, “It provides for an endless taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, accused Mr. McConnell of ignoring the legislative text.

“If you listen to this comment by the minority leader of the United States Senate you wonder if he has read the bill, particularly if he has read the section between pages 110 and 295, which is entitled ‘Orderly Liquidation Authority,’” Mr. Durbin said.

“Liquidation is the end of the bank,” Mr. Durbin said, “not a bailout that it could continue in business. It describes all the steps that would be taken under the bill to liquidate the bank. The management team is fired. The shareholders are wiped out. The firm’s assets are sold off to pay any firm debts. Once the money is gone, the creditors are wiped out. The taxpayers don’t pay for any part of this, and at the end of it, the company is gone. There is nothing to bail out.”

I’d say that Senate Republicans are reaping what they have sown over the past 18 months. Apparently, McConnell’s willingness to tell blatantly obvious lies about the legislation in question made Reid question his sincerity about wanting to negotiate in good faith, and I can hardly blame him.

260 comments Add your comment

ME, Me, me

April 22nd, 2010
4:53 pm

U get em Harry!!

#1 Foxy Lady

April 22nd, 2010
4:53 pm

Harry Reid to Republicans:

SUCK IT, LOSERS!!!

ME, Me, me

April 22nd, 2010
4:53 pm

Normal

April 22nd, 2010
4:58 pm

Give ‘em hell, Harry…oops, wrong Harry ;)

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:02 pm

“After watching months and months of attempted negotiation with GOP senators produce nothing in the health insurance debate”

That’s funny. It was more like – here’s our version, you either like it or you can take a hike. There was never going to be meaningful compromise as the dems knew they had the numbers. Had the MA vote happened before the bill got out of committee, we would have all more than likely been better off. Instead, we get stuck with a one sided bill that will forever need modification.

Shawny

April 22nd, 2010
5:03 pm

Love that bipartisan attitude, Mr. Reid. There was no need to rush healthcare, but they did it anyway. No need to get it right, just ram it through. Now, with all eyes on the banking industry, there is a need for reform, but there is not a need for a rush to pass something for the sake of passing something.

To modify Jay’s title: GOP to Reid, “You may or may not have a job after the next election cycle”.

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
5:07 pm

“Ram it through,” Shawny?

Health care was debated for a year before final passage.

We’ve been debating how to fix Wall Street since the meltdown in the fall of 2008. It’s now almost summer 2010.

You’ve got a strange definition of “ramming things through.”

jewcowboy

April 22nd, 2010
5:07 pm

Shawny,

“Love that bipartisan attitude, Mr. Reid”

Please…like the Republicans have ever heard of that word.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
5:07 pm

[[“I’m not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement,” Reid said. “The games of stalling are over.”]]

Translation: “With all the media attention of the last few days, we ain’t gonna get any more money from these guys.”

:-)

Am I missing something, or are people making points and answering with points on different subjects? My impression was the White House and Congressional Republicans were opposed to the $50 billion bailout fund. It’s on its way to being cut out, isn’t it? ’twas Congressional Democrats who put it in. Sen Durbin’s response was NOT on the bailout fund – he pointed to the liquidation section. If one has a bailout, that liquidation wouldn’t come into play, would it? So McConnell makes one point, Durbin answers with something not applicable?

The fund will be dropped and a number of Republicans will vote in favor. It’ll be better than what was, not as good as what could have been. That’s politics.

jewcowboy

April 22nd, 2010
5:08 pm

“You’ve got a strange definition of “ramming things through.”

Must get my mind out of the gutter….so…very…difficult…

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
5:10 pm

Paul, there is no bailout fund. The $50 billion would be used to euthanize the failing bank, close out its accounts, etc. The bank would no longer exist in any way, shape or form, as Durbin notes.

Again, the $50 billion — raised from the banks — would NOT be used to help a failing bank survive. It would be used to bury it while causing as little damage possible to the rest of the economy.

That is NOT a bailout.

Mr. Snarky

April 22nd, 2010
5:14 pm

No more mister nice guy…no more mr. clean
Sock it to ‘em Harry! Enough delay, delay, delay

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:17 pm

“It would be used to bury it while causing as little damage possible to the rest of the economy.”

Back in the real world, it would be “buried” by changing names a la Wachovia, WAMU, Merrill etc. Nothing changed but the name and a reshuffling of management.

jewcowboy

April 22nd, 2010
5:19 pm

md,

“Nothing changed but the name and a reshuffling of management.”

At least sign companies made a bundle as they all changed names…stimulating the economy they were.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
5:20 pm

Jay

That’s critical. Thanks. I can’t begin to list how many media reports I’ve read or listened to that said “bailout” and that said “Now, instead of being rescued by taxpayers, it’s the banks funding it. But it’s not enough and the taxpayers will still be called on to bail them out.”

‘course, if they’d have called it a “euthanasia fund” we would’ve heard “See? They got their death panels…”

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
5:23 pm

Jay

So… as far as the continuing discussion over ‘too big to fail,” that’s a moot point? The policy now is that institutional size does not matter? That if they blow it, they’re dead? I trust there’re provisions in the legislation that take care of “if one goes, they’ll drag down the rest with them” concern we had last time?

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
5:26 pm

As I understand it, Paul, that $50 billion would only be used to euthanize those handful of institutions that are too big to fail. Other banks can be handled the traditional way.

In addition, other portions of the bill — for example, the rule saying banks can’t play in the risky derivatives market any longer — would make failure less likely.

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:28 pm

“Now, instead of being rescued by taxpayers, it’s the banks funding it.”

The banks funding via consumers – us taxpayers get to fund it coming or going, but it will come out of our pockets.

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:30 pm

“that $50 billion would only be used to euthanize those handful of institutions that are too big to fail. ”

That sounds like smoke and mirrors. If it is “too big to fail”, there is no way it will be sold off to a smaller bank, so it will go to a big player that is more than likely already “too big to fail” itself. Sounds like a system doomed to collapse.

DoggoneGA

April 22nd, 2010
5:30 pm

“us taxpayers get to fund it coming or going, but it will come out of our pockets.”

Where else would it come from? The big checkbook in the sky? ALL funding is, at the bottom, taxpayer funded. Maybe not formally in “taxes” but since all money flows to the hands of consumers, it has to flow back out too.

Moderate Line

April 22nd, 2010
5:31 pm

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
5:07 pm
Paul, there is no bailout fund. The $50 billion would be used to euthanize the failing bank, close out its accounts, etc. The bank would no longer exist in any way, shape or form, as Durbin notes.

Again, the $50 billion — raised from the banks — would NOT be used to help a failing bank survive. It would be used to bury it while causing as little damage possible to the rest of the economy.

That is NOT a bailout.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jay-
I am in favor of Healthcare reform to the point of supporting a public option so the anti-conservative/republican rhetoric doesn’t work with me.

The Dems did ram a bill. Healthcare was debated for years but this particular bill was not.

However, I don’t agree with the tactics used. They were slimy.

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
5:34 pm

Not being snarky, but would someone, somewhere define for me just what “too big to fail” is?

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
5:36 pm

Thanks, Jay.

Makes one wonder if Republicans are even aware of what’s in the bill they’re opposing.

That getting banks out of derivatives was crucial. If they want to set up a separate division, fine. But no more keeping in place the structures that contributed to the disaster.

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:39 pm

“Where else would it come from? The big checkbook in the sky?”

The way gov’t spends, THEY think they have a “big checkbook in the sky”, and they also must think that if there a checks in the book, then they have money to spend.

I know lots of everyday folks that think that way too.

@@

April 22nd, 2010
5:41 pm

OMG! Harry Reid is promoting violence. You can now expect some whacko to run over a Republican. EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT IN TOMORROW’S NEWS.

AmVet

April 22nd, 2010
5:42 pm

Man, I can only imagine the Dem campaign ads coming up soon.

“Lesbian bondage clubs on Wall Street frequented by Steele and Shelby! In drag!”

The long suffering and hemorrhaging GOP is likely to lose some more blood on this issue.

Middle class Americans are not happy. And the 99% of us not in the Tea party are not likely to put up with much more white collar criminal coddling from McConnell and his gang of incompetents…

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
5:43 pm

josef nix

My understanding is that it is a financial institution that is of such size and is to interconnected with other institutions through various means, that failure would jeopardize the viability of other institutions.

Is similar to why the Ford CEO went to Capitol Hill to testify in favor of TARP. Ford had no intention of taking any funds – didn’t need’em – but they thought a collapse of GM/Chrysler would drag down with it a host of suppliers and have effects in various other ways, which would end up harming Ford. So they supported TARP.

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:43 pm

“Ram it through,”

Considering it took Senator Snowes’ vote to get it to the floor in the first place, I’d say it was rammed through.

Wonder if Olympia would do it again if she could have a do over. Since she voted against the final bill, I’d guess no.

ty webb

April 22nd, 2010
5:47 pm

harry reid is racist.

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:47 pm

“OMG! Harry Reid is promoting violence.”

Wish Vegas would lay odds on the media taking “get run over” literally. Will never see it.

Change Reid to Palin, and we would get 999,999,999………….headlines.

Sort of sad.

DoggoneGA

April 22nd, 2010
5:51 pm

“Change Reid to Palin, and we would get 999,999,999………….headlines”

I think you’re building a really BIG case on Jay’s words, not Reid’s. I went to the link and did a search for “run over” and they don’t occur on either page of the report.

jefferson

April 22nd, 2010
5:52 pm

It sure taste different from the other side of the table.

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
5:52 pm

PAUL–

I follow that line of logic, but my question is still where is the cut-off point and who is making the decision. It just seems a bit arbitrary to me….

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
5:53 pm

Bit of criticism of process, not any support for Republican opposition -

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin....

April 22nd, 2010
5:54 pm

On Tuesday night, CNN’s Larry King had comedian Sarah Silverman on his program and, towards the end of the show, Silverman made a crack about whether Sarah Palin should pose for Playboy. Silverman said “I think she should go for it” and King responded, “Agreed.”

Would it be too much for you libs not to abuse women in public? I mean we all know how you feel about them, try to restrain your knuckle dragging tendencies, please.

AmVet

April 22nd, 2010
5:54 pm

I think what we need is to impanel a commission to study the previous commissions.

Then they could report to an advisory council which would take the commissions findings and report to the final commission that they threw them in the trash can.

This has been the GOP play book on environmental reform, health reform, finance reform, any and all reform…

Obstruct, delay (like that POS from Texas) and obfuscate. And for gawds sakes slow any and all progress down to a glacial crawl…

md

April 22nd, 2010
5:56 pm

“I think you’re building a really BIG case on Jay’s words, not Reid’s.”

Fine, change Bookman to Palin – same thing.

The point is the unequal treatment the media heaps on Palin.

And no, I’m not a Palin fan – but I’m not blind either.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:00 pm

josef nix

Strikes me as rather elastic – rather nebulous – the sort of thing to drive an engineer or a black/white kind of person nuts.

Heard the other night – something like five institutions control 60 percent or so of the funds. AmVet posted earlier of another, similarly outrageous held by a few institutions.

I’d mentioned much earlier – I think you’d gone to work (how was h3ll day?) that I’d heard Reps opposed because of the authority granted the Executive to intervene without Legislative approval. Seems remarkable that Democrats, who blasted Bush for trying to expand the prerogatives of the Executive, are willing to grant so much to Obama. Without a fight.

Still and all, if worse comes to worse I’d imagine we’d see Congress trying to intervene, show they have power, hold hearing and such.

BTW – I’ll lay down money that one thing NOT in the bill is a change to treating hedge fund managers’ multibillion dollar earnings (that’s per person, folks) taxed at the low capital gains rate, note treated as earned income and taxed at income tax rates.

Looks like they did get something for their ‘contributions,’ eh?

md

April 22nd, 2010
6:00 pm

“I follow that line of logic, but my question is still where is the cut-off point and who is making the decision. It just seems a bit arbitrary to me….”

Isn’t control/power always arbitrary?

@@

April 22nd, 2010
6:00 pm

Gnat:

The MSM has always used headlines to sell a leftist. Their readers rarely get past ‘em.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:02 pm

Report/Whine

Larry King’s getting divorced for the eighth time. For screw!ng his wife’s sister.

Now he’s talking about Palin in Playboy? Guy has a serious problem. Tiger’s clinic has an opening –

FrankLeeDarling

April 22nd, 2010
6:03 pm

I think Sara Silverman should pose for Playboy,much hotter than Palin.

retired

April 22nd, 2010
6:05 pm

I would take this more seriously if Freddie and Fannie had more restrictions placed on them.

md

April 22nd, 2010
6:05 pm

” For screw!ng his wife’s sister.

Now he’s talking about Palin in Playboy? Guy has a serious problem. Tiger’s clinic has an opening –”

Sounds like the Sister has the problem – or ole Larry is packing.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:05 pm

Report/Whine

Well… if King’s sister in law looks anything like his wife…

http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/wp-content/gallery/2009-12-14-david-sax/09_larry-king-and-his-wife.jpg

Naw, no excuse. Guy’s slime.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:08 pm

md

You have a point. I mean, c’mon, the guy’s rich, but she wasn’t getting any money out if it like her sister –

Note to Spitzer: when is prostitution legal? If she marries you.

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
6:10 pm

Paul and md

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m the little lost duck in the woods and am looking for a starting point to try and understand what this is all about. Am I wrong in concluding that, essentially, it’s just politics as usual…?

PAUL

I posted a comment downstairs on the day from h3ll…just let’s say putting six to eleven year olds through three hours of testing is a crime, disgrace and those “mandating” it should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity!

TaxPayer

April 22nd, 2010
6:13 pm

I’m glad to see the Dems finally taking a stand against the Republicans and their cheap tactics.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:14 pm

josef nix

I’ll give credit to Democrats for trying to take some steps to keep another meltdown from occurring. Yes, both parties took $$$ from the institutions, but Dems did press ahead with legislation the institutions did not like. I’ll also give credit to Reps for working with Dems (and to Dems for working with Reps) up until a bit ago. Then it was reversion to politics as usual.

But there will be some restrictions and controls in place when the bill becomes law.

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:17 pm

@@ — another inane post. [I'll pause while you look up the word!]. What exactly did Reid say that would make you post that. But I’ll tell you what words the Repugs and TP have used: Reload and rearm (combined with target sights), our guns are holstered this time, I want you armed and dangerous.

md — more absurdity from you too? How many conferences did Bush invite Dems too? The whining about no bi-partisanship from the party who would negotiate and then say “well yes that was my idea and it is in there, but I can’t support it” is just pure bull.

JohnnyReb

April 22nd, 2010
6:18 pm

Forget the rhetoric over the bill having been debated long, if it is a bad bill, or has bad parts, how long it has been debated is not a factor. With the public wanting Congress to do something to never again have another melt down, it is difficult to believe Republican leaders would openly state the $50M would be a bailout fund when it would not. Add to that the bill giving the President, any President, the authority to go in and declare a bank failing and take it over. Top that with provisions that transfers control of big money transactions from Wall Street to Chicago institutions and you have a bad bill. The disappointment will be if Republicans fail in fillibuster. Another government take over bill from Barry and Company.

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:21 pm

Hmmmmm.

Nothing in the bill about Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae, the entities actually responsible for the meltdown?

Oh, that’s right, they are government and therefore sacrosanct.

The private sector is evil, don’t cha know.

JohnnyReb

April 22nd, 2010
6:23 pm

Sinkwich = your’e right, I left that off my list. Fannie and Freddie are in perpetual bailout, can’t touch that!

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
6:24 pm

Keep up the good fight!

I doubt @@ will have to look up the meaning of the word.

PAUL–

I’ll take your word for it. You seem to know what you’re talking about and, when you’re talking about things I DO know something about, I’ve never found reason to argue with you….

@@

April 22nd, 2010
6:25 pm

Keep up:

“If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun”–Barack Obama

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:26 pm

stinkwich….newsflash…FannieMae and Sallie are publicly traded. But dont let reality get in the way of your absurdity!

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:27 pm

Well, JohnnyReb, the new paradigm is central control by the benevolent federal government. Jay thinks it can do no wrong with Obama at the helm.

@@

April 22nd, 2010
6:28 pm

Keep up:

Too….let me know when you reload jay’s page.

TaxPayer

April 22nd, 2010
6:28 pm

Fannie and Freddie are responsible for the meltdown! Darn! Did anyone think to pass that information on to the ones actually responsible for the meltdown, under the headline, SQUIRREL. Don’t forget to tell them about the impact of CRA as well. :roll:

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:29 pm

@@ — nice but when said and where….some context. But of course you are so blinded you fail to see a distinction of context and inciting the nutjobs.

Try again!

TaxPayer

April 22nd, 2010
6:30 pm

“If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun”–Barack Obama

Keyword being “IF”, @@.

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:30 pm

Keep up, thanks for the response. Why aren’t they part of the bill when they were the major part of the problem?

Obama RULES! Learn to love it I guess.

Bosch

April 22nd, 2010
6:31 pm

Fannie, Freddie, ACORN, SQUIRREL!! :roll:

Geez, when are you wingnuts gonna get a new memo?

JohnnyReb

April 22nd, 2010
6:31 pm

Sinkwich – yea, I keep asking Jay if he receives White House talking points, but he ignores me. There is no doubt something needs to be done to prevent the financial repeat. It could be done without government take over if the Dems would cooperate. But no, it’s their way or the Repubs are the bad guy. Yet, the bill clearly has political payback to Chicago and the progressive bloggers who post here state nothing of it.

Bosch

April 22nd, 2010
6:31 pm

“major part of the problem?”

Geez, again, when are you gonna get a new directive from the talk shows?

@@

April 22nd, 2010
6:32 pm

Keep up:

Over at “BlackVoices” a headline:

“Should Obama Target Minority Communities for Aid — Urban League Report Says Yes”

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:33 pm

josef nix

Thanks, it’s correct only to my level of understanding (I tend to ask questions and Jay provides answers) or to the extent of my biases. But I appreciate the thought.

F. Sinkwich/JohnnyReb

Rep Barney Frank has called for the abolition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form –

and yeah, he’s a Democrat -

Few Regrets

April 22nd, 2010
6:34 pm

OMG – I JUST HAD AN ACTUAL WYLD BYLL HYLTNYR SIGHTING – OMG.

A friend and I went to The Tavern at Phipps for a quick drink after work and that\’s where I saw him and there is no mistake it was him.

He was at the bar and was wearing a heavy starch shirt and wranglers with a huge submariner. He had one of those cowboy belts with the name WYLD BYLL in green letters against a white background. When I saw that I went over to the bar and my friend and I were able to wedge ourselves into a seat right next to his party of four.

Wyld Byll was there with a blond bimbo that couldn\’t have been 25 and must have paid for some plastic surgeon\’s summer home in Cape Cod. He went on and on about his place on the beach in Maui, his cutting horses, and how Obama\’s financial reform would ruin America – just like he does in his posts. I\’m pretty certain that Byll\’s \”date\” didn\’t understand a word he was saying, but I couldn\’t tell if that was because she so drunk that she could barely walk to the lady\’s room or she was every bit the dumb blond she appeared to be.

Byll is about 6\’6\” tall, in pretty decent shape for a guy who looks to be in his mid fifties, and has tanned himself to a mahogany color that is offset by snow white hair. Believe it or not he refers to himself in the third person during conversation as the \”Ol\’ Wyld One\” just as like he does here. And, yes, when his \”date\” went to the restroom, he made a pass at my friend who is in her early 30s and very attractive.

I have read this blog for maybe two years and it was so unreal to stumble across someone so recognizeable. UNREAL.

@@

April 22nd, 2010
6:34 pm

Keep up:

Michelle Obama’s Target: Obesity in Children –NYT

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:34 pm

stinkwich… perhaps your premise that they were a major part of the problem underlies your question. But then again, I have not seen where you posted the information about how they are specifically excluded or how the Repubs would propose to include them. Maybe that lies in the differences in their functions and roles in the economy in addition to the failure of your premise which leads you to the wrong conclusion.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 22nd, 2010
6:36 pm

Not being snarky, but would someone, somewhere define for me just what “too big to fail” is?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the size of campaign contributions would have something to do with it.

JohnnyReb

April 22nd, 2010
6:36 pm

Paul – if Barney is trying to remake Fannie and Freddie, it is to cover his a$$.

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:36 pm

Hi, Bosch. You make some nice tools.

But why aren’t they part of the bill?

Are they blameless in your eyes?

wyldbyllhyltnyr

April 22nd, 2010
6:38 pm

Enter your comments here

Bosch

April 22nd, 2010
6:40 pm

Sinkwich,

I’m not sure they were big enough players to be considered for blame, correct me I’m wrong, but wasn’t it something like they held 4% of the bad mortgages? We’ve discussed this numerous times on here, and no one’s ever been able to put the Macs in a position of being a key player in the economic demise. Again, like the CRA, which we have, at least 100 times, they are “squirrels” for you guys – talking points with no basis in facts.

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:40 pm

Keep up, please try.

I am not a “Repub.”

They are not included, period.

Thanks for asking.

Bosch

April 22nd, 2010
6:40 pm

Sinkwich,

Oh and thanks for the tool complement – I try my best, really I do!

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 22nd, 2010
6:41 pm

“If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun”

How would you know what they brought until you got there? And wouldn’t it be a little late in the game to be deciding what you need then?

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:42 pm

JohnnyReb

One may not care for the motive, but if the result is what you want, isn’t that what counts?

jt

April 22nd, 2010
6:42 pm

This 50 billion dollars smells like a lock box.

We had them before.

The federalies reining in wallstreet…………………yawn. Just ignore them. They ignore us.

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:43 pm

Stinkwich…no problem. glad we agree your premise is defective.

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
6:43 pm

PAUL–

Well, I meant it. But don’t get me started on Barney Frank here! :-) And I’m glad to see you use the word “bias,” I wish more people would…it makes it much easier to discuss things…but somewhere along the way to Engrish, we have forgotten what the word means…

Few regrets…

Oh, no! He’s here in my neck of the woods? I’ll have to keep my eyes open!

@@
And she chose Mike Huckabee’s show to make her announcement…gave me a whole new respect for her and him both…

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:43 pm

“wasn’t it something like they held 4% of the bad mortgages?”

No.

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
6:43 pm

jt:

“All the federalies say,
they could have had him anyday,
they only let him slip away,
out of kindness, I suppose…”

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
6:46 pm

Hillbilly @ 6:36
That was sort of my feelings on the subject, too…

A knife versus a gun…we know my preference…click… :-)

JohnnyReb

April 22nd, 2010
6:46 pm

Paul – that sounds like a line from the progressive playbook, that is, only the results matter. I can’t agree with that.

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
6:48 pm

Wyld Byll, live and in person?

Are you sure you just didn’t step into a cartoon dimension somehow?

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin....

April 22nd, 2010
6:48 pm

In twin letters to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, OPM Director John Berry said his agency has concluded that the law’s requirement that lawmakers and their personal staffs change health insurance “is not effective until the state exchanges . . . become operational. The provision according [sic] has no current effect upon the eligible of Members of Congress or their staffs to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

Aahhh, how wonderful. Congress is protected from the socialist scheme that will soon be f’ing with us, won’t you a’ll sleep better knowing Nasty and Hairy have primo health care coverage?

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:49 pm

@@ — the comment from B Obama I find in the NYTs is from Senator Obama and before the wingnuts started to come out with guns and more….. again context is key and in this atmosphere what might be okay in one context can incite in another. There are clear nuanced distinctions but I am sure you will not see them so I defer to the comments of the great Joh Stewart in his rebuttal to Fox News this week…. which may be referred to as Stewart Fox Reply.

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
6:51 pm

JAY

“Pancho needs your prayers, it’s true, but save a few for Lefty, too…he only did what he had to do…”

Jay

April 22nd, 2010
6:52 pm

That’s a Lefty for you … only doing what he has to do.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:53 pm

jump on tomorrow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzJAF1BxP4

that was a good Friday. Dylan was enjoyably different. I like Haggard’s timbre.

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
6:55 pm

Keep up, that made no sense. Jack Daniels is speaking for you. Please make him stop.

You’re welcome.

josef nix

April 22nd, 2010
6:56 pm

So, all we’ve got to look forward to is a cheap hotel in Cleveland…the future does indeed look bleak…

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
6:56 pm

JohnnyReb

Didn’t say process doesn’t matter. I said you may not care for the motive. Rather like anyone doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The right thing’s still what gets done.

Bosch

April 22nd, 2010
6:57 pm

Sinkwich,

Just no? Nothing else? You sound like a Republican. :-)

Keep up the good fight!

April 22nd, 2010
6:59 pm

Stinky…you still make no sense even if I were drinking Jack…..but then again, you dont know Jack.

F. Sinkwich

April 22nd, 2010
7:00 pm

Bosch, just saying you’re wrong.

Paul

April 22nd, 2010
7:01 pm

josef nix

Oh, I dunno – Drew Carey, Jerry Springer and Dennis Kucinich? Has possibilities -

@@

April 22nd, 2010
7:01 pm

Keep up:

Are those targets I see at the DCCC site?

You see things your way, I see things mine. I DO NOT begrudge the DCCC for using targets.

NGTHOOMFYE