The “No BAILOUTS Act”

There is nothing more frustrating than listening to defenders of fundamentally flawed bailout plan that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democratic and Republican leaders failed in passing Monday must be "saved" by Democrats who recognized when the House voted on Monday that this was the wrong response.

Pelosi's plan is based on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's wrongheaded scheming. Democrat leaders may have tinkered a bit with the Bush aide's proposal, but certainly not enough to make it acceptable -- let alone wisely enacted.

Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio says, correctly, that the problem with the Democratic speaker's bailout measure, which the House rejected by a 228-205 vote – with progressive Democrats joining fiscally conservative Republicans to say "no" – is that it "is still built on the Paulson-Bush premise."

DeFazio, a Democratic dissenter, says that the bill Pelosi tried to get the House to back Monday demands that taxpayers take on too much of the risk which creating openings for Wall Streeters to pocket millions (perhaps billions) in federal dollars. While the Pelosi plan may put some limits on so-called golden parachutes, it still allows for what DeFazio describes as "camouflage parachutes"--hidden payouts to the corporate CEOs who created the crisis.

"We can do better," says DeFazio. "We should start again on a new package."

That's exactly what the Oregon populist is doing with a new proposal, the "No BAILOUTS Act" (Bringing Accountability, Increased Liquidity, Oversight, and Upholding Taxpayer Security). Introduced Tuesday with co-sponsorship from some of the most outspoken critics of the Paulson machinations – including Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur, a leader of the anti-bailout movement in Congress – the measure would impose a securities tax equivalent to one quarter of one percent of profits and empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to deal more effectively with bank failures.

The plan is based on a proposal made last week by former FDIC chair William Isaac, who recalled that in the 1980s Congress enacted a "net worth certificate" program – which allowed the federal agency to shore up the capital of weak banks to give them more time to resolve their problems – and the FDIC resolved a $100 billion insolvency in savings banks for a total cost of less than $2 billion.

"It was a big success and could work in the current climate," argued Isaac.

The chair of the FDIC during Ronald Reagan's first term explained that that:

If we were to (1) implement a program to ease the fears of depositors and other general creditors of banks; (2) keep tight restrictions on short sellers of financial stocks; (3) suspend fair-value accounting (which has contributed mightily to our problems by marking assets to unrealistic fire-sale prices); and (4) authorize a net worth certificate program, we could settle the financial markets without significant expense to taxpayers.

Say Congress spends $700 billion of taxpayer money on the loan purchase proposal. What do we do next? If, however, we implement the program suggested above, we will have $700 billion of dry powder we can put to work in targeted tax incentives if needed to get the economy moving again.

The banks do not need taxpayers to carry their loans. They need proper accounting and regulatory policies that will give them time to work through their problems.

DeFazio, Kaptur and their allies essentially agree.

So, too, does the powerful Service Employees International Union, which has endorsed DeFazio's proposal.

"We finally have a plan that will restore confidence in the financial markets without writing a blank check to the same Wall Street banks and CEOs who got us into this mess," said SEIU President Andy Stern. "This is an important, short-term solution that protects taxpayers and their savings accounts. To revive the economy over the long-term, we must address rising unemployment, stagnant wages, the healthcare crisis, and a tax system that is tilted in favor of the wealthy."

Comments (49)

1. Some very good ideas here. However, the SEC shouldn't change mark to market valuation for financial companies as that wouldn't exactly be full disclosure. Stock valuation under "economic valuation" would be fictitious. Reserve requirements for lending also require market valaution (what somebody would pay for it) in order to protect both the depositors and FDIC.

   Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2008 @ 6:13pm

2. It seems like Hank Paulson's main qualifications when he got the job of Treasury Secretary, was that he was very good at making himself and his associates very rich. That's what he knows best. That's why we hired him. He has experience, and will get the job done. He's the only one who understands the situation. The world will collapse if we don't have his wisdom to guide us. I have a bridge in Alaska you might be interested in purchasing.

   Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 09/30/2008 @ 6:15pm

3. Why should we taxpayers "bail out" the banks and institutions that are responsible for the "economic meltdown." These largely deregulated institutions created the "crisis" and now the government should hand them billions of dollars to get them off the hook?? No way!

   Here's a better idea: a bailout for the middle and lower classes. The government could give $1 million tax exempt dollars to individual citizens. Use the criteria of every registered voter with an income under $100,000. This would help those who need it, would cost far less than $700 billion, and would provide a real boost to the economy.

   Bryce Babcock Cottonwood, AZ

   Posted by bandz at 09/30/2008 @ 6:24pm

4. Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (April 2008)

   Tick...tick....tick....tick....

   Nation billions of dollars

   Japan 592.2 China, Mainland 502 United Kingdom 251.4 Oil Exporters 153.9 Brazil 149.5 Carib Bnkng Cntrs 115.4 Luxembourg 84.8 Hong Kong 63.1 Russia 60.2 Norway 45.3 Germany 44 Taiwan 42.6 Switzerland 42.5 Korea 40.5 Mexico 38 Singapore 33.3 Turkey 31.1 Thailand 27.9 Canada 24 Ireland 18.5 Netherlands 15.5 Sweden 13.1 Egypt 12.7 Belgium 12.5 Poland 12.5 Italy 10.6 India 10.5 All Other 154.2 Grand Total 2601.8

   Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2008 @ 6:36pm

5. We need to repeal Phil Gramm's grammswap act, aka Commodity Futures Modernization Act!

   Posted by rikkiw at 09/30/2008 @ 7:05pm

6. If instead taxpayer money is used to somehow inflate housing prices through government policy then it will have to be used presumably far beyond 2010 to continue to inflate the prices. That would be an expensive and costly thing, ultimately terminating with a return of prices to natural levels. Bubbles are apparently like that.

   Posted by Zero at 09/30/2008 @ 6:33pm

   Extremely good point.

   I like the idea of the Treasury issuing a consortium of US banks a credit line allowing them to make a two-way liquid market in all the toxic mortgage paper they have on their books, with the proviso that there are no guarantees for anyone.

   I think these securities are undervalued right now and would like to own a few. For that privilege, and a two-way market so I could get out at any time, I'd be willing as ULTIMATE BENEFICIAL LENDER to take all the mortgage borrowers' default risk on myself to make sure no one loses their homes. I think a good rule would be that for every discounted CDO composed of mortgage loans on luxury property like Miami oceanfront, I should be required to also buy a super-discounted CDO held by poor borrowers in "redlined" areas and that part of the purchase would be subject to a lock-up as to my sale for 2 years. NOBODY LOSES THEIR HOMES EVER AND I GET TO DO MY MATH THING AND RISK MY OWN MONEY AND LOOK FOR VALUE.

   Thus, an "evil speculator" like me and the urban and rural poor of the USA are on the same team.

   The US taxpayers would reap the commissions and spread revenue of all the transactions. The banks would get all the crap off their books -- at losses -- but off their books. I'd get to do what I do best, as a derivatives professional, cognizant of the risks, but not any "brown" person's policeman, si o pa' que?

   Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 7:44pm

7. ponti-You make up funny stuff like that nonsense about your wife.You've had the video propaganda shot down,debunked,refuted,etc so you can stop drinking the partisan kool aid and post on topic.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 7:49pm

8. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 7:49pm

   I'M, again what is it with you?

   Why are so easily baited by the Righties?

   NOBODY was paying attention to PONTI's "Drudge Report alert video" on this thread and it was probably driving him crazy.

   But YOU had to throw him a life-line for another tangent into GOP Talking Point of the Day.

   Can't you ever just...let it go???

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 7:54pm

9. Mask-You respond to sjchermak,ponti,etc,also.Practice what you preach.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 7:59pm

10. Zero, man, the funniest thing about this idea is that I could walk into the head offices of the Banco Mercatil de Venezuela, Banesco, or the Banco Central de Venezuela, into the Venezuelan Ministry Of Finance or maybe into Chavez's office himself and raise a fortune in loose USD for a FUND dedicated to what I proposed. I could do it the two other "rogue nations," Ecuador and Bolivia, too.

    But you know what would happen? There would be some Homeland Security Department or Patriot Act 2 provision that would preclude it!

    When did America lose interest in capitalism and develop an interest in Theocratic Authoritarianism and Plutocracy?

    What do I know? I'm just a dumb Latino, wearing a sombrero and taking a siesta under a tree!

    Que lechugo, no?

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 8:00pm

11. Come out of the clouds - The vote is tomorrow night and it will be the same bill with a couple of additions - tax extension and mental health. You have to think and act faster the train has left the station. What part of "time is of the essence" did you not understand. This other fight will have to wait until another day. They will be back and you need to be prepared.

    Posted by hkeirc at 09/30/2008 @ 8:04pm

12. Why would DeFazio and other progressives propose the same thing that Michele Bachman (R - MN) proposes?

    Eliminating mark-to-market rules would appear to open up the financial industry to more hijinks, with less transparency, which is already the problem.

    I can see why right-wingers might like that, but not progressives.

    --Sandy

    Posted by macinnis22 at 09/30/2008 @ 8:18pm

13. ZERO: De donde es usted? Espana creo o tal vez sus padres o abuelos sean de alla.

    I understand what you're saying. You basically favor Bradyizing the mortgage paper. If this were Latin-America 1990, I'd say "go for it." The problem is too big for Brady Bonds to handle. Merrill's exposure alone is probably as big as all the Latin Debt in 1990.

    I was not joking at all about Venezuela or a larger more-sophisticated US and world-wide bank and hedge-fund community who KNOW how to deal with these things in the way places like Merrill which had no experience in them didn't.

    Right now, all the real finance geeks are looking to BUY MBSs. Once they get into the hands of the Treasury, they're bullshit, no person with an Arab surname would be able to buy, no person in a blacklisted country would be able to buy, no person in a country which wasn't a supporter of the "War On Terriers" would be able to buy. And the Treasury would price them at par or something absurd like that.

    As of this moment there's a willing market of buyers around the world, especially in MERCOSUR, THE EU and all the tax havens for the real McCoy at deep discounts. The US banks may be used to being coddled by the Fed and Paulson, but at some point they're going to have to deal with the red ink. At least now, they can take close out, take their losses and move on.

    Once US mortgage paper is no longer a US-held thing, all kinds of super deep markets will set up organically in Ireland, the havens, Switzerland, Holland, Spain, wherever.

    Bad/Good ratio: I agree but there's a price for everything in a market. I'll pay 55c for oceanfront and take on 3c for Camden, NJ as a cost of doing biz.

    Pleasure to discuss fin and econ with a pro like you!

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 9:13pm

14. Suspending mark-to-market only makes matters worse. We need honesty and transparency, not more financial chicanery.

    To avoid future bubbles we need four things - strict regulation of Wall Street gambling parasites, criminal prosecutions for fraudulent derivatives valuations, civil recovery of the proceeds of fraud, and a mechanism to prevent corporations that are "too big to fail". The latter is simply accomplished by a progressive annual wealth tax on each corporation whose assets (with no offset for liabilities) exceed one billion times the minimum hourly wage.

    To restore solvency we can bring our troops home and close 90% of our overseas military bases. Our military needs to be sized to defend us, not to maximize profiteering. The money thus saved can be invested in the grow-up economy - highways, bridges, levees, broadband, and single-payer health-care.

    But most importantly, we need to bring American jobs home. We do this by changing the tax code to encourage investment in America rather than Mexico and China.

    The solution is simple: rather than being trickled on, we just need to grow up.

    Posted by Mike5000 at 09/30/2008 @ 9:51pm

15. @@ Why would DeFazio and other progressives propose the same thing that Michele Bachman (R - MN) proposes?

    Eliminating mark-to-market rules would appear to open up the financial industry to more hijinks, with less transparency, which is already the problem.

    I can see why right-wingers might like that, but not progressives.

    --Sandy

    Posted by macinnis22 at 09/30/2008 @ 8:18pm

    I have no idea. DeFazio is a very principled guy and the government should at least SIGNAL that they want more accountability from the sector than less.

    But marking-to-market is an art, not a science. Nobody ever gets their marks "right." Especially with exotic instruments there are too many moving parts and embedded optionalities. No nimrod at an American bank can deal with them. No regulators are sharp enough either. The only firms that do it are Goldman, JP, Swissbank/O'Connor, US funds like BARRA and Susquehanna, and all the off-shore funds and many foreign banks.

    America is a giant PALINVILLE. Americans bore easily and don't like education. The Theory Of Finance, Calculus, Probability Theory, Options-Pricing Theory and so on BORES Wall Street boneheads no end. Do you think Hank Paulson has the faintest idea how to unwind a Total-Interest Collateralized Mortgage-for-Junior Debt Swap? He's a salesman.

    I think the REQUIREMENT to mark-to-market each day might make it more of a priority. It would put some fear into some people maybe. Materially, nothing will change.

    DeFazio, I agree, should be on the side of encouraging "best practices", responsible risk-management and knowing your desk and your firm's value-at-risk.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 9:52pm

16. @ MIKE5000:

    Even though I'm not an American so I'm not part of "we," I couldn't have put it any better that you did in you comment.

    Excellent. You should help the Obama campaign. You put all the key issues into simple language that Obama could easily use in stump speeches and debate situations.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 9:57pm

17. To Mr John Nichols:

    Your interest is political, I know, but thanks, anyway for creating a space for people with a lot of knowledge about finance and economics to discuss these issues frankly.

    This is the first American political media site in which I wasn't hassled for being Panamanian or for being both a progressive and a mover-of-money.

    The Washington Post politics blog commenters used to tell me all the time "to go back where I came from." Liberal media? It's a myth.

    Anyway, I appreciate the crowd of commenters you've gathered here a lot.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 10:26pm

18. From the standpoint of an individual investor, mark-to-market is great. But from the standpoint of the entire financial sector, it can propagate deflation in a devastating way, as we have just seen. One weak firm (e.g. Lehman) having a fire sale can bring down the entire industry as everyone has to come up with new capital at the same time.

    Mark-to-market is new, with Sarbanes-Oxley, and the stern rules of FASB 157 were just adopted last November. Somehow, we go along before without such a rule. Transparency is a good thing, but not at the cost of systemic instability. Regulation is a balancing act.

    IMO, reversing or reforming mark-to-market could have much more stabilizing effect than throwing a trillion public dollars at it. Funny our leaders seemed to prefer the latter option. Though they stuck in a waiver for mark-to-market as well.

    Anyway, regulators are already acting today to "clarify" the rule.

    Still many other problems to be solved in the economy. Most need solution from bottom up rather than top down.

    Posted by charlesp210 at 09/30/2008 @ 10:29pm

19. @ Dextra Manley

    I thank you for the complement but you seem to be under a misapprehension regarding Senator Obama. He's a pro-war anti-single-payer trickle-down reaganomics nut just like Bush and McCain.

    All three are working to help the elite coast through the recession on a trillion dollar cushion on the backs of America's grandchildren.

    Posted by Mike5000 at 09/30/2008 @ 10:31pm

20. @ Still many other problems to be solved in the economy. Most need solution from bottom up rather than top down.

    Posted by charlesp210 at 09/30/2008 @ 10:29pm

    I agree with you. The basic problem with Sarbanes-Oxley was merely one of the unfortunate timing: Enron following on the heels of 9/11, so quite naturally Sarbarnes-Oxley became as much an extension of the PATRIOT ACT as a tool of market reform.

    The result: EVERYBODY UNHAPPY. Money managers felt intruded upon. Progressive reform-minded folks saw something that looked positive and promoting of tranparency into another tool of a rather severe Justice Department, NSA, DOD, and later Department Of Homeland Security.

    When I was running money through a series of shell companies in four tax havens, my partners and I took our mark-to-market obligations very seriously. We did not want there to be any whiff of impropriety to anything we were doing and wanted to be able to defend ourselves in any jurisdiction.

    I'm Pana not American and was living in London at the time, but there was a much better attitude from the Clinton government than from the Bush government toward everything in world business and finance.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 10:44pm

21. @ MIKE 5000:

    I'm under no illusions at all about Obama. Soy panameno, pue'...no soy gringo ni mucho menos.

    Obama is owned by the financial services sector and the coal industry. He's pro-war, he's pro-death penalty, he's wishy washy on gay rights (and rather homophobic) and abortion rights, he's opposed to single-payer health care, he's in favor of incarcerating children with adults; he's in favor of keeping political prisoners in Guantanamo Bay; he's in favor of commingling church and state; he has been very close during his time in the Senate to Lieberman, Rick Warren and Pat Robertson. He might even bring that "huevado gueco hijo puta de mierda" Colin Powell into his administration. He's called Hugo Chavez a "terrorist" and Venezuela a "rogue state" when Chavez is COMPULSIVE about fiscal and monetary conservatism and Venezuela has fully functional commodity, bond and stock markets upon which FORD MOTOR COMPANY recently floated a Bolivar-denominated GDR.

    No sir. I'm under no misconceptions about him. The alternative is an economic and perhaps nuclear holocaust. John McCain and Sarah Palin are NOT ACCEPTABLE to any Western nation. But I don't need Obama to be president of Panama. Martin Torrijos is President. Of course, Martin Torrijos is a zillion times more progressive AND MORE ENLIGHTENED ON BUSINESS, FINANCE, AND TAXES than Obama is.

    But your country needs a new government. Obama seems like something of a nice step forward for America. He'd be a giant leap BACKWARD for Panama, obviously.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 10:55pm

22. Wow, Obama community organizer supports coopertae welfare! Of course he's decent guy (clean as Biden would praise), but when needed he would stray.

    -----------

    Obama calls on Americans to support rescue plan

    Sep 30 01:22 PM US/Eastern RENO, Nev. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector. Obama told a crowd at the University of Nevada at Reno on Tuesday that if Wall Street fails, ordinary people will be hurt, too.

    The Illinois Democrat warned that if Congress doesn't

    Posted by HelenDAO at 09/30/2008 @ 11:26pm

23. @ MIKE 5000:

    I can go on and on about what a cretin Obama is on social policy and foreign policy and how he mostly uses buzz-words on economics if you like.

    It was on this site in March that Katha Pollitt wrote about Obama saying that "Democrats need to accept Jesus as their personal savior."

    I was like "Que va? Que es eso el 'schvartza de mierda' como asi?" This was when he was heads-up with Clinton. I'm Jewish and in Panama nobody says anything bad about Bill Clinton. He liberated this country from the US. So, I was no fan of Senator Obama. At the time he made me sick. I was thinking to myself when I read that "I wonder if Bob Wexler saw it? Or Bob Rubin!"

    As the campaign went on and he had some pressure, he showed that he wasn't ONLY Fundamendalist Christian jerk; he was ALSO a Fundamentalist Christian jerk who was very bright, very sophisticated, had a nice gracious style, jettisoned a lot of the "bootstraps" and religious hoo-haa and might be a nice change.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 11:27pm

24. Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 7:44pm

    naw,

    they should give the houses to iraqi refugees....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2008 @ 11:41pm

25. But most importantly, we need to bring American jobs home. We do this by changing the tax code to encourage investment in America rather than Mexico and China.

    Posted by Mike5000 at 09/30/2008 @ 9:51pm

    that's right.

    i'm proud everytime i buy made in u.s.a. and i'm canadian!

    if the folks still had jobs, they'd still be puttin' their 2.3¢ into the rubber money mill.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2008 @ 11:48pm

26. @ FROSTY ZOOM:

    I don't understand the joke.

    In that comment I was writing favorably about something Barney Frank and Ron Paul had been tinkering with as an alternative to Paulson's bailout.

    I'm not American. I'm Pana and our country is NEUTRAL on the "War On Terriers." This Iraq business is silliness to me but it's an American thing, not a Pana thing. It was just George W Bush playing GI Joe and Dick Cheney stealing money. And American dildoes saluting flags and singing "God Bless America."

    Had nothing to do with me whatsoever.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 11:49pm

27. Posted by Zero at 09/30/2008 @ 9:58pm

    los gallegos conquistaron méxico.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2008 @ 11:51pm

28. People here are actually associating the name Obama with the generation of important new ideas regarding the present crisis? Sure, and Gore brought us the internet.

    Posted by john lowell at 09/30/2008 @ 11:52pm

29. Cuales gallegos, pues? Los gallegos son Celtas del norte de Espana no tenian nada que ver con los conquistadores. Ellos eran "Castellanos," si o no?

    Gallegos are Celts. Irish people! What are they teaching folks in schools these days?

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008 @ 11:56pm

30. People here are actually associating the name Obama with the generation of important new ideas regarding the present crisis? Sure, and Gore brought us the internet.

    Posted by john lowell at 09/30/2008 @ 11:52pm

    The opposite I think. MIKE 5000 thought that I might have been naive about Obama's shortcomings as an economic thinker and a committed progressive and I assured him that I wasn't but that Obama was preferable to the rest of the world than McCain is by far.

    The other comment about Obama and the crisis also supported MIKE5000's point of view, suggesting Obama was too close to Paulson.

    I got no interest discussing Obama versus McCain. I had my fill of that on mainstream sites. I prefer Obama and cannot tolerate McCain but I understand all of Obama's shortcomings.

    You want to discuss business, finance, or economics, I'll be happy to discuss the subjects with you.

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008 @ 12:06am

31. No sólo Bernal sino otros varios, de entre los soldados que acompañaron a Cortés, hablan nacido en Medina del Campo. De ellos habla en diversos lugares: Cristóbal de Olea, el valiente que, al salvar a Cortés que estaba ya en manos de los aztecas, perdió su propia vida (CXLV); Francisco de Lugo, capitán que fue de entradas, hombre bien esforzado (CCV) y Francisco de Medina que se metió a fraile francisco y fue buen religioso (CCV). A estos tres añadió luego al capitán Cristóbal de Morante (CX), que vino en compañía de Pánfilo de Narváez, el enviado de Diego Velázquez, con el encargo de desposeer a Cortés del mando y llevarlo preso a Cuba. Tanto Morante como luego el capitán e hidalgo, también natural de Medina del Campo, Rodrigo Morejón de Lobera (CXXX11), se sumaron después a las huestes de Cortés. Cinco --y con Bernal seis-- de la misma noble villa, son prueba, AL IGUAL QUE OTROS MUCHOS DE ORIGEN CASTELLANO, LEVANTINO, GALLEGO, PORTUGUÉS, VASCUENCE Y HASTA GENOVÉS, QUE NO TODOS LOS CONQUISTADORES ERAN EXTREMEÑOS Y ANDALUCES.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 12:30am

32. http://www.artehistoria.jcyl.es/cronicas/contextos/11360.htm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 12:31am

33. Had nothing to do with me whatsoever.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/30/2008

    you don't buy gasoline?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 12:34am

34. Disculpeme, FROSTY ZOOM. Claro que ha estudiado mucho de la epoca y cierto que me entendio de la vaina colonista de los castellanos y andaluces, los mas derechistas del todos los pueblos ibericos despues de la reconquista visigoda.

    Pero los gallegos que ha nombrado eran de etnicidad castellana, jefes de la region y no eran los verdaderos celtas imigrantes de irlandia. Ellos eran la mayoria pero de la clase oprimida a la vez.

    Habian poquitos levantinos en los ejercitos de la reina despues de la reconquista ni mucho menos en las armadas marinas...aunque de Colon.....pues, quien sabe? Tal vez es cuestion de cara o cruz, si o no? Jajaja!

    Si me promete que todo esto de los levantinos no vaya a pasar a una polemica de la culpabilidad de los judios en la mercancia de esclavos africanos en los EEUU, todo este super bien chevere entre nosotros, oiste?

    Saludos.

    DM

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008 @ 12:47am

35. No. I don't own a car.

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008 @ 12:48am

36. La primera capital del Reino de la Nueva Galicia [editar] Una vez que recibió Nuño de Guzmán la Real Cédula procedió a renombrar la "Villa del Espíritu Santo de la Mayor España" con el nombre de "Santiago de Galicia de Compostela", esa población es actualmente la ciudad de Tepic, que és capital del estado de Nayarit. Así mismo, los territorios conquistados por Nuño de Guzmán pasaron a llamarse Reino de la Nueva Galicia.

    quizá es por eso que hacen tantos chistes de los gallegos en méxico...

    pero si, tienes razón. fueron en la mayoría castillanos los conquistadores.

    "Va un gallego conduciendo por Londres y da la radio, cuando justo estaban dando las noticias, y escucha: - Atencion, atencion, se le comunica a los automovilistas que hay un loco manejando en sentido contrario al transito! Tengan cuidado! Y el gallego dice: - Como que uno ? miles ! "

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 12:53am

37. Noyce!

    I got a good one.

    Dos argentinos (imaginate el acento italiano) se estan jodiendo. Uno de ellos dice: "Jo soy el enviado de Dios!" El otro dice "Che cossa, babudo de mierda, JO SOY EL ENVIADO DE DIOS!"

    Un tercer argentino llega y se mete en la pelea haciendo el papel del juez. "Entonces, che passa, caballeros, diganme, prego". Los otros le explican el argumento y el tercer Argentino dice "ustes dos son locos -- JO NO MANDE A NADIE!"

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008 @ 01:03am

38. aguas,

    la vieja de zero es argentina.

    me pregunto si se llama "una".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 01:13am

39. espero que la NSA no esta colandose por estas pláticas transamericanas......

    hi guys.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 01:16am

40. No. I don't own a car.

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008

    do you eat food?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 01:46am

41. "True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 01:53am

42. "The S&P 500 retreated 106.62 points to 1,106.39, as only one company gained, Campbell Soup Co."

    hmmm.....

    soup lines, anyone?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 02:33am

43. With a Senate bound for a vote on the bail ou today, with unrelated items added to it to make it easier to pass, Obama and Mc Cain like the 2 little Wall Street gophers that they are,will vote for it. Obama has been a disgrace in the past few days, no backbone. I, for sure this time, will not vote for him or Mc Cain. Nader is my boy.

    Posted by pachonegro at 10/01/2008 @ 08:32am

44. you don't give more tax cuts to rich and then expect the people's lives at bottom to miraculously improve...it has never worked...mccain's trickle down will not work..it is very simple...employers do not make profit hiring more people, only by firing them and moving offshore...this concept is too old for globalized world.....just like mccain...

    Posted by jrs112 at 10/01/2008 @ 09:55am

45. Well, I never thought I'd see this day. I like NICHOLS arguement. Agree completely. Someone get a camera.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/01/2008 @ 10:25am

46. @ No. I don't own a car.

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008

    do you eat food?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 01:46am

    FROSTY: Panama is in a USD purchasing power dome because of the canal and the tax law. Prices on staples have gone up some, but we pay less in USD anyway and way less for all the American products like -- I don't know -- Frosted Flakes or whatever than Americans do.

    I wouldn't notice anyway because I have enough money that I don't have to worry about feeding myself or my son.

    My point wasn't to MINIMIZE the effects of the war in Iraq. Quite the contrary. I believe that the Bush Administration military policy has been a driving force in the US economic collapse because of the fiscal pressures.

    Look, at one point during the 2005 fiscal year even RUMSFELD said to Bush to stop giving so much money to the Defense Department for war and weapons systems that were not going to be used.

    Middle-East War ALWAYS causes commodity shocks. Desert Storm created a short one because it was a short war. This ass-over-tea-kettle has created a long on and has buried the USD in the process.

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008 @ 11:32am

47. @ Obama has been a disgrace in the past few days, no backbone. I, for sure this time, will not vote for him or Mc Cain. Nader is my boy.

    Posted by pachonegro at 10/01/2008 @ 08:32am

    I agree with you on all of this and I'm hardly a partisan. When the USA has presidential electors for Panama nationals from El Arreglamiento De San Francisco, CdP, RdP, then I'll be able to vote in a US election.

    I prefer Nader and McKinney's IDEAS to Obama's. Neither Nader nor McKinney can get elected president, much as I'd wish it were possible. I know how bad McCain is and I know what damage he could do to his country as much as anyone else's. That, I think, is the limit of the damage any American president could do. Obama, in terms of a calculus function, could not do MORE damage. He might listen to a variety of voices and take a more progressive and modern path.

    If Obama agresses on any country that's neutral on the "War On Terriers" then he'll cause the same reaction McCain would. There would be a flood of dollars, US Government securities, and long-dollar swaps hitting the global markets like a tsunami and Americans will starve and they'll burn up their own cities and towns.

    Somehow, Obama seems like a more careful man than that. That's enough for the rest of the world. It's plenty after the Bush years.

    The big party candidates who spoke in ideas the outside world understands were Kucinich, Paul and (occasionally) Dodd and Richardson. It's not my problem if American progressives projected their fantasies onto Obama and are now disappointed.

    Here, in Panama, we don't DO race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and religion the way it's done in the USA. We're past all that.

    Posted by DexterManley at 10/01/2008 @ 11:57am

48. ¿No hay racismo en Panamá?

    La discriminación existe en nuestro diario vivir y lo peor es que existe en los corazones de muchos panameños

    Carmela Lowe de Gobern Hoy he decido tomar la batuta en representación de los negros de nuestro país, para llamar la atención al reciente ejemplo de racismo, especialmente para los que insisten que "no existe el racismo en Panamá". Me refiero a la indignante portada del sábado 17 de noviembre del diario La Crítica.

    Para los que no tuvieron la oportunidad de ser testigos de esto, permítanme pintarles el cuadro mental. El titular impreso en la portada decía: ¿Quién es más bella? Y seguidamente dos fotografías grandes: a la izquierda, Lourdes González, Srta. Panamá 2001 en el certamen Miss Mundo y a la derecha, Abgani Darego, la recién electa Srta. Miss Mundo 2001 y representante de Nigeria, país al oeste del continente africano. El pie de foto de Lourdes decía: "No llegó ni de finalista".

    .............................

    Un incidente que fue una gran humillación fue cuando tuve unos parientes de Estados Unidos como huéspedes en mi hogar y querían conocer la vida nocturna. Fueron acompañados a la discoteca "Congo" (anteriormente ubicada en la Vía Ricardo J. Alfaro) y les prohibieron la entrada alegando el famoso "derecho de admisión" indicando que fue por su tez "morena" y también porque las mujeres lucían peinados con trenzas (cornrow). Estas personas eran dos médicos, un ingeniero y una cantante y artista de Broadway (Nueva York), y todos sufrimos con ese acto de discriminación racial. Estos son solamente algunos casos, pero hay muchos más.

    http://mensual.prensa.com/

    mensual/contenido/2001/12/08/hoy/opinion/364685.html

    <i>jamais dites jamais...........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 1:28pm

49. I like the bailout alternative called the Save America Plan described at http://americais.ourcreation.info .

    Save America Plan

    Purpose Shore up the American financial system and economy, with risk takers (such as the financial companies and the investors, management, and employees who freely chose to be involved with them) paying for their failed gambles, not the U.S. taxpayers.

    The Plan Insure Americans' savings, including retirement plans Savings and checking accounts: Ensure the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and NCUA (National Credit Union Administration) have the temporary peak resources they need to keep insuring checking and savings accounts up to reasonable levels. Investment accounts: Nationalize the SIPC (Securities Investor Protection Corporation) so that, like the FDIC and NCUA, it's backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, with financial companies paying risk-based premiums so that it too has a net cost of $0 to American taxpayers over medium term time horizons. Ensure the SIPC has the temporary peak resources it needs to keep insuring investment accounts up to reasonable levels. Money market funds: Nationalize and make permanent the one year money market insurance plan so that, like the FDIC and NCUA, it's backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, with financial companies paying risk-based premiums so that it too has a net cost of $0 to American taxpayers over medium term time horizons. Make it a responsibility of FDIC or NCUA, rather than creating a new government agency. Education: To reduce panic, educate -- through a single unified campaign -- savings, checking, and investment account and money market holders about their FDIC, NCUA, SIPC, and money market insurance...see site...

    Posted by dcmmcd at 10/02/2008 @ 1:45pm