bills_fan

I would ask that the commish ban it immediately. Some kid could get seriously hurt. Absent an immediate ban, get the email list for the coaches (even the guy in the last game) and circulate an email agreement among coaches to 1- Not teach the practice 2- Bench any kid that tackles that way for at least a half. If you get all the other coaches to sign on, my guess is the **** will cave. That would also be pretty powerful ammo for the commish to ban it immediately.

That is shocking. Every NY Rep, save one, voted for it.

William Danko was one of my professors in college. Nice guy, but got just a bit full of himself his 2nd year on the NYT bestseller list.

I love the fact that people on this site keep pressing him with follow up questions. Good show!

Anyone who purchased a home, with at least an 80% mortgage, since 2003 will soon be toast. Whether they went for a fancy 0% down ARM deal or went traditional 20% down, 30 year fixed. If those people want to sell their house, they will not be able to recoup their purchase price. For example, if you bought a $300,000 house in 2006, with 20% down, your mortgage is likely just under $240,000. If you had/wanted to sell now, you are unable without losing most of your down payment. And soon, sellers will have to show up at closing ready to write a check to cover the outstanding mortgage balance, their down payment now gone. Add to that a 6% broker commission and no one will sell. Until my example family can at least get close to the $300,000 they paid, this will not be over. You have to figure that people need to recoup at least most of their down payment to sell, simply because they will probably use that on another house. The market will be locked up for a while, even after banks are more willing to lend. Take my conservative example, multiply by a factor of 5 for the people living way beyond their means/low income with goofy ARMs people.

Interesting update...it appears yesterday's floor debacle has triggered a remarkable shift in the nature of incoming email/phone calls/letters from constituents. Whereas just 48 hours ago, some offices were hearing strident opposition from nearly all their constituents (some offices were north of 400-to-1 against), the tide has shifted considerably since then. Perhaps they're finally hearing from those with day jobs (and 401(k)s) who don't have time to pelt their elected reps with angry emails or protest all day in front of the Capitol.

Fantastic question. If you want a bit more detail... JPMorgan Chase & Co., through its lead bank subsidiary JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, acquired all of the deposits, assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual, Inc.'s banking operations from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) immediately after the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Washington Mutual's lead thrift, and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Washington Mutual's closure marked the largest bank failure in U.S. history. As part of the transaction, JPMorgan Chase made a payment of approximately US$ 1.9 billion to the FDIC. The acquisition included the assumption by JPMorgan Chase of US$ 182 billion in deposits, and extended its retail branch network to six additional states. The combined operations include 5,400 branches, and deposits of US$ 900 billion. Now, contrast the WaMu deal with the Wachovia transaction. The transaction involves the purchase by Citigroup of the banking operations of Wachovia, and the assumption of the senior and subordinated debt securities (including trust preferred) of Wachovia, and the payment to Wachovia of a cash price of US$ 2.2 billion. Wachovia's holding company would continue in existence, controlling the brokerage (Wachovia Securities), asset management (Evergreen) and insurance businesses. Wachovia's common and preferred shareholders would own the continuing company. By contrast with the Washington Mutual situation, Wachovia is not a failed bank deal — meaning that Wachovia's bank subsidiaries were not closed and no receiverships were involved. Further, all the debt securities of Wachovia and its bank subsidiaries were protected. The transaction does involve a loss protection arrangement in which the FDIC would absorb losses on a US$ 312 billion portion of Wachovia's loan portfolio, including a US$ 122 billion option ARM mortgage portfolio. The real "why," I suspect, is management. WaMu was still trying to stay independent and, in fact, did not know that OTS had stepped in until the very last minute. Wachovia knew a deal had to get done and worked with the regulators.

To simplify greatly, Bank Holding Companies are permitted to segregate assets that they plan to hold to maturity and value them at original cost basis, rather than mark-to-market.

I would not say that. I would say that relaxed lending standards to all parties caused this. Basically, banks were pressured to relaxed the old 20% down, 30 year fixed rate mortgage that my parents had. They were pressured by groups (such as ACORN) to do this so that socioeconomic groups unable to meet the standard could own a home. This relaxation, by itself is not a problem. Subprime lending was, for years, a niche market that helped everyone. But now the banks applied the relaxed lending standards to everyone...low income minorities, people wanting a $500k McMansion on $100k a year etc. Each successive administration since Carter has pledged to "bring the American dream of home ownership" to more and more people. Banks kept relaxing their lending standards to more and more borrows (and making a boatload of cash in the process). More and more borrowers that had no business qualifying for a loan. You have seen the ads..."No Job, No Money, No Problem...$200,000 home loan for $300 a month!" Nothing wrong with increasing home ownership, it just has to be done properly. New York City (not exactly the model of efficiency) ran a program where they made 1706 home loans to low income minority borrowers to increase home ownership. They capped the amount they lent, required down payments and courses in home ownership. Of those 1706 loans, only 5 were in default. Thats an astonishingly low number and the City should be applauded for running the program the right way and imposing limits/constraints, where people may not have done so themselves.

I'm listening to it now...great stuff. Please keep up the good work.

Ok, I am a corporate lawyer who practices broker-dealer and banking regulatory law. I do practice at a major New York City law firm, with real Wall Street clients. Its really my job to understand this stuff. I have been involved on either the acquirer or acquiree side of every transaction that has been in the papers, with respect to structuring and advising. Prior to attending law school, I worked in an investment bank.

I will guarantee you that I am far more involved than you are. Trust me, I have done plenty to try and work out as much as I could here. You know, Denninger actually has some relevant points that are worth salient discussion. If you back him, why not start a thread on it? I think he overall misses the forest from the trees, but his points WILL help. His points plus some type of rescue may actually work. EDIT: I'll even link it...not bad ideas. http://www.denninger.net/letters/fixit.pdf They may address the root accounting/derivative problem (not the root of falling home prices), but with a rescue, these are decent ideas and wish I heard more about them from Washington.

Thanks for the laugh. And the reality check. Working 20/24 hours for three weeks in a row will tend to make someone a little batty!

I think that people will begin to see how severe the problem is when, in a span of a month, the market is off 1500-2000 points and they are not getting their paychecks on either 10/15 or 10/30. Then they open their 3Q, 401(k) statements. As I have said before, I think that over the past two decades, we have fermented a great deal of societal acrimony. People are angry and far less civil. This will not be fundamental rethinking of our financial system...at least, not yet. People need to get that anger out. What I am saying is that it could get ugly. Perhaps I overanalyze, but let me ask the military experts on the board (of which I am no expert)....when was the last time an active-duty military unit was pulled from a battlefront (Iraq) and stationed stateside, on active duty? From the article linked below... Federal homeland defense? Defense support of civil authorities? Who is expecting what? Be careful what you wish for. Unintended consequences can have lasting ramifications. Better to choose the imperfect solution that leads to a better day than to meltdown the system. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Simple. If the hurricane hits, it will not discriminate among its victims. Whether John Q. Taxpayer contributed to the problem or not, he will be consumed via the hurricane. If John Q. Taxpayer actually knew/understood the ramifications of this, the bill would have passed unopposed, but for the few that desire total anarchy. The bill may or may not unlock the credit markets, but it will help. That much is undeniable.

So now what... Basically, it appears likely that an attempt will be made later this week to revive some variation of the "Paulson Plan." The real challenge in this zero-sum political game is to fashion something that can pass the House and yet still get through the Senate in fairly short order. One alternative that may emerge is to re-package EESA, in more/less the same form in which it came to the House floor this morning, with several other proposals popular among House Democrats and then simply rely on Democratic votes to get it passed. I have read all of the proposed bills. The original was far overreaching by Paulson, as the media has reported. The second Democratic bill had a lot of bullsh*t add-ons, that made it unworkable. This was the good bill (the one that failed today). Potential add-ons include the mortgage bankruptcy "cramdown" proposal championed in the House by Brad Miller and a second round of "economic stimulus." Of course, then you can forget getting Republicans in the Senate. A last option is to let the consequences of inaction - today's nearly 780 point drop in the Dow and the increasing fallout from the credit market freeze (missed payrolls, etc) - trickle down to "Main Street," and hope that the grassroots uprising that spawned the demise of EESA I will do a 180 in support of EESA II. This, together with the beating the House Republicans already seem to be getting in the media, would, according to this theory, turn a sufficient number of Republicans around to pass essentially the same bill that failed this morning. It's not at all clear, however, that we have enough time to implement the trickle-down approach before the October 15 payroll, which some companies will miss, due to the freeze in the credit markets. Many companies are currently drawing down their credit lines with banks (thereby exacerbating the bank run that beat down financials recently) for the September 30 payrolls. If this is not resolved by the 10/30 payroll.... It now appears likely that House Democrats, working together with the Bush Administration and however many Republicans they can peel off, will take another run at this later in the week, although it's too early to tell exactly what form the bill will take or what parliamentary procedure/strategy will be followed. Chances are, however, that the revised proposal will, at its core, look much like the one that went down today in the House. Obviously, market developments over the next few days or so will also be critical, including the international ramifications of today's vote, which haven't really begun to sink in yet. Basically...global financial meltdown. Say hello to Dow 8000 on October 16, absent a rescue. Also, borderline anarchy in the streets. We have enough societal acrimony bubbling just beneath the surface without the match that a couple missed payrolls will ignite. What really pisses me off is that the extreme left and extreme right are basically holding the center hostage here. The center (and Congressional/Administrative leadership) have not done a good job in this by any means, but they arrived with a very workable bill, that was basically checkmated by the ignorant. If the ignorant had any clue that they may just miss payroll on 10/15 and/or 10/30, if this was not passed, then we may have had a very different discussion. Paulson needs to explain the ramifications of this vote and he is afraid to do that.

And Congress is not taking the days off, they are for the Jewish religious holiday, Rosh Hashanah. Here you go...my formatting will not come out. ---- AYES 205 --- Ackerman Allen Andrews Arcuri Bachus Baird Baldwin Bean Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boyd (FL) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Castle Clarke Clyburn Cohen Cole (OK) Cooper Costa Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Tom DeGette DeLauro Dicks Dingell Donnelly Doyle Dreier Edwards (TX) Ehlers Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Emerson Engel Eshoo Etheridge Everett Farr Fattah Ferguson Fossella Foster Frank (MA) Gilchrest Gonzalez Gordon Granger Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Herger Higgins Hinojosa Hobson Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inglis (SC) Israel Johnson, E. B. Kanjorski Kennedy Kildee Kind King (NY) Kirk Klein (FL) Kline (MN) LaHood Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lungren, Daniel E. Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Marshall Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McKeon McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Miller, George Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Nadler Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson (PA) Pickering Pomeroy Porter Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Richardson Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Ross Ruppersberger Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Sarbanes Saxton Schakowsky Schwartz Sessions Sestak Shays Simpson Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Space Speier Spratt Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Towns Tsongas Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watt Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Wexler Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf ---- NOES 228 --- Abercrombie Aderholt Akin Alexander Altmire Baca Bachmann Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Becerra Berkley Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blumenauer Boustany Boyda (KS) Braley (IA) Broun (GA) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Buyer Capito Carney Carson Carter Castor Cazayoux Chabot Chandler Childers Clay Cleaver Coble Conaway Conyers Costello Courtney Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Lincoln Deal (GA) DeFazio Delahunt Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doggett Doolittle Drake Duncan Edwards (MD) English (PA) Fallin Feeney Filner Flake Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Giffords Gillibrand Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Graves Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Hayes Heller Hensarling Herseth Sandlin Hill Hinchey Hirono Hodes Hoekstra Holden Hulshof Hunter Inslee Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jordan Kagen Kaptur Keller Kilpatrick King (IA) Kingston Knollenberg Kucinich Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham LaTourette Latta Lee Lewis (GA) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas Lynch Mack Manzullo Marchant Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McHenry McIntyre McMorris Rodgers Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Mitchell Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Musgrave Myrick Napolitano Neugebauer Nunes Ortiz Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Petri Pitts Platts Poe Price (GA) Ramstad Rehberg Reichert Renzi Rodriguez Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Rothman Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Salazar Sali Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Scalise Schiff Schmidt Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Shadegg Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Solis Stark Stearns Stupak Sullivan Sutton Taylor Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Tierney Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Visclosky Walberg Walz (MN) Wamp Watson Welch (VT) Westmoreland Whitfield (KY) Wittman (VA) Woolsey Wu Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (FL) ---- NOT VOTING 1 --- Weller

You can thank Rosh Hashanah for mitigating tomorrow's carnage. Of course, later in the week is open season.

A real f*cking profile in courage here... Throw the whole f*cking lot of them out...Dems and Reps.

Wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of Deflation. What happens when all asset values are deflated? Negative economic growth. High unemployment. What happens when wages head south, even for those who continue to be employed? Ooops, didn't think of that right? And, oh, you may have forgotten that the baby boomer generation (the largest in US history) is now retiring...not gonna happen for them. Their 401(k)s just imploded. Remember your history...1929...the margin clerk comes calling...hey, I may just get into the spirit of things and pick up a fedora. Its 1930 again and yes, we will enter a depression. And what always follows deflation....print more money...yep, hyperinflation. Hoping the price of gold drops because I'm seriously considering dumping my own personal savings account into solid gold and picking up an assault rifle while I'm at it.

Here you go... Trading curbs are based on a % http://www.programtrading.com/curbs.htm

Yes, but when every single home purchased with at least an 80% mortgage in the United States since 2002 is underwater (worth less than the mortgage on it)...there is one word for that... F*cked!

Its dead... Moments ago the House EESA bill FAILED. The vote was 205 to 228. 133 Rs voted No, along with 94 Dems. Look out below Dow...700 and counting....

I had not thought of that, not a bad idea!! Home values really need to stabilize and rebound or else this is going to get far worse.

True, but the plan really addresses the symptoms, not necessarily the root cause of the problem. The root cause, from a financial perspective only, is falling home values and negative home equity. I, unfortunately, don't see this plan fixing that problem. Time for helicopter drops? We could, of course, inflate our way out of this, but that would cause even more problems. Time may be our only answer, but will it ever be painful.