home

Hillary Clinton Renews Call For HOLC

Today in the Senate, Senate Hillary Clinton said:

. . . I think we all recognize that this is not the end but the beginning of what we must do. And I believe there are three big goals that we will have to address even after we pass the Rescue Package tonight here in the Senate and send it over to the House.

[MORE . . .]

First, we must address the home mortgage crisis. For two years, I and others have called for action as wave after wave of defaults and foreclosures crashed against communities and the broader economy. We are not yet through the woods. Millions of mortgages are underwater or under specter of adjustable rates set to rise.

I am proposing what we're calling The Homeowners Mortgage Enterprise, an acronym obviously spelling HOME, to rewrite mortgages and reset terms so that creditworthy, responsible families can keep their homes and keep making affordable payments. Through such a HOME program, we'd also be able to consider freezing adjustable mortgage rates and even placing short term moratoriums on foreclosures.

When our country enacted a similar program in the Great Depression, we saved one million homes without costing the taxpayers a dime. In fact, the program ended up with a surplus. And only by rewriting the terms of the debt held by families whose mortgages can be salvaged will we recoup a great deal of the value of the debt we are purchasing from Wall Street firms. . . .

However, I disagree vehemently with Senator Clinton's support for the tax cuts included in this proposal:

Along with the rescue package will be a number of tax credits that will be passed by the Senate tonight. Again, Chairman Baucus has done yeoman's work getting these tax credits put together. The Senate supported them before in it as a fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, energy production tax credits. In fact, we will be stimulating the economy for Main Street while we pass this rescue package for our credit markets. I think that's the right combination.

This is neither the bill nor the moment to enact tax legislation - 30 days before an election where the two candidates have such diametrically opposing views. It invites Christmas treeing this bailout and indeed, it does not even address the urgent needs Senator Clinton herself addressed in her speech. It is wrongheaded and just plain wrong.

I hope the House strips these provisions from the bill.

BY Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Faux Right Wing Rage at Ifill Choice for Debate | More State Polls Point To Significant Obama Lead >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Oh well. Obama addresses the Senate and (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    thanked Durbin for working to prevent mortgage foreclosures. No mention of Hillary. That would have been a nice point to make but I guess it's wishful thinking.

    It seems this bill have lots of support from both sides and will pass easily.

    Will the tax cuts help (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:31:31 PM EST
    small business to a degree worth doing it?

    Add HOLC and strip the tax cuts (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    Now that I'm looking at the tax cuts (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    I concur!

    I thought maybe there were some overall tax breaks that would help small businesses that are currently getting screwed in this climate.

    Parent

    no, not one iota: (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    Will the tax cuts help small business to a degree worth doing it?

    those cuts are specifically designed to benefit only wealthy businesses and individuals. not one of the tax provisions will positively impact either the middle-class, or the low-income stratas of the population, the two most heavily affected by the current home mortgage crisis.

    these tax provisions are merely a sop to the republican minority. i agree with BTD, strip them from the bill, and let those republicans explain to their constituents why they refused to vote on a bill designed to actually help those most hurt by the banking problem.

    Parent

    The tax cuts will pass (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    And Hillary says why: Max Baucus.

    They added a lot of good stuff (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    From Calculated Risk:

    SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub301 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:

    ``(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly--

        ``(i) measures 5⁄16 of an inch or less in diameter, and
        ``(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A).''.

    (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.

    Apparently the 110-page House bill has now become 450 pages through the magic of the Senate.

    I stand by my prediction that the House will vote this down.

    Yay, we got the (wooden) shaft! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by steviez314 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    Forget horse trading (4.66 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    it's arrow trading!

    (And where's my effing earmark?!)

    Parent

    Your earmark? Why it hanging out with (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    Lambert's pony and my house*!

    * if I'm going to be bailing these suckers out, the least they can do is give me a house!

    Parent

    I'm gonna keep my pony in your house LOL!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lambert on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    I'm so happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Parent
    Your Pony can run with my (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM EST
    Dalmatian  ;)  I'll make sure it only gets the bestist of food and care!

    Parent
    What earmark are you looking for? (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST
    This is not the time nor the bill!!! (4.66 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM EST
    You want to add good stuff? Add HOLC. Otherwise do not add anything at all.

    This tax cut is not scored, we have 500 billion dollar deficit and an election in 30 days.

    This is BS to add this now and I hope the House strips it out.

    Let's do REAL tax changes in the next Congress. We need a new 100 days of bold leadership starting on January 20.

    Right now we need to solve a credit crisis and a mortgage crisis.

    What's next, adding a few earmarks to win some votes?

    Parent

    I am sure they already have (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    This is now a must pass bill. Make way for my project!!!!

    Parent
    what in the world is that in there for? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:38:41 PM EST
    Why are you changing your mind about the House?

    Parent
    I am not (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    changing my mind, hence the comment that I stand by my prediction!  I see no reason the House will love this bill any more just because a bunch of random tax breaks got thrown in.  In fact, from the perspective of the dissenters in the House, they voted no and "the world did not end," confirming the correctness of their vote.  I just don't think the votes will be there, in fact the 2nd version might get fewer votes than the 1st.  I could easily be wrong.

    Here's some more from the Senate version:

    SEC. 308. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    (a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.

    (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by this section shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United States after December 31, 2007.

    SEC. 309. EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT FOR AMERICAN SAMOA.

    Subsection (d) of section 119 of division A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended-

    (1) by striking ``first two taxable years'' and inserting ``first 4 taxable years"

    SEC. 317. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS RACING TRACK FACILITY.

    3 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) (relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting "December 31, 2009''.

    SEC. 325. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL PRODUCTS; WOOL RESEARCH FUND; WOOL DUTY REFUNDS.

    (a) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY DUTY REDUCTIONS.-Each of the following headings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2014'':

    (1) Heading 9902.51.11 (relating to fabrics of worsted wool).

    (2) Heading 9902.51.13 (relating to yarn of combed wool).

    (3) Heading 9902.51.14 (relating to wool fiber, waste, garnetted stock, combed wool, or wool top).

    (4) Heading 9902.51.15 (relating to fabrics of combed wool).

    (5) Heading 9902.51.16 (relating to fabrics of combed wool).

    This is what's going to make the bill work the second time around?  Good gravy!

    Parent

    What a crock (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    Sops and earmarks?

    This Senate bill is a travesty.

    Parent

    This is a polyglot package (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    of stuff that was already approved by the senate 93 to 2, and as I understand it, was also thought likely, although not certain, to pass the House.  It's not stuff they made up fresh to tack onto the bailout, as you seem all to be suggesting.  It was an existing package.

    This is the way legislation gets put together in this country.  It ain't pretty, but it's SOP.

    I repeat, these tax measures were not created for the bail-out bill, they were an existing package of stuff that was tacked onto it.


    Parent

    So, why does that make it any better? (none / 0) (#72)
    by alexei on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    None of this should be in the bill, you should only have the HOME (HOLC), the e-Trust and the American portfolio that requires those that use Treasury monies must have portfolios for investments in alternative energy, infrastructure, mass transit, etal.  You could keep the ATM and alternative energy tax incentives since they would help the middle class and help investment.

    Parent
    Should, should should (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:35:18 PM EST
    It's in the bill because the leadership really, really, really wants to pass the bail-out, and they made some calculation that tying the two together would help.

    BFD.  That's the way legislation gets done in this country, like it or not.

    But the point is these aren't some new giveaways or "pork" concocted specially for this bill, as all the semi-hysterical outrage here would have it, it's just stuff that's been out there already.  IOW, Yawn.

    Parent

    Oops. This new medicine is now affecting (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    my vision.

    Since they have all those, I want one for suffering Vols fans to buy new TV's after we throw something through them.

    Parent

    Gator fans too (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:48:12 PM EST
    I want my earmark!

    Parent
    Arrh, mateys! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    SEC. 308. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    Is this the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN provision?

    ;)

    Parent

    Is there a feminine honoric (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:45:11 AM EST
    the equivalent of "matey"?  I'm serious. I asked a barista that in Edinburgh and he was totally flummoxed.

    Parent
    Is this proposed language real? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    I thought this was snark, no?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    That would be some mighty dry snark.

    Parent
    Don't Discount the Power of Lobbyists. (none / 0) (#46)
    by santarita on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    The House debate ought to be fun.

    Parent
    That is called (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    "larding the bill" with something someone wants in return for their vote.

    Prok Barrel, meet the Christmas Tree.  This sucker has more on it than my tree ever does - and I have an 11 foot ceiling, a tree to meet it, and a 50 gallon Rubbermaid full of ornaments to decorate it.

    Not a damn thing on this tree for the poor, the average, or the homeowner, to be sure.  Sounds like we're the Little Match Girls on the outside looking through the window at the warm, cozy Christmas scene we're not invited to.

    Again.

    Parent

    This is last chance before the election (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST
    You better believe that everyone just needs one more thing.

    Parent
    The law precludes me (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    from giving any more accurate analysis of my reaction to this monstrosity.

    Parent
    Eh, we just want the sausage (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    to come out alright in the end.

    I can't really get too upset.

    Leave it to Tom Coburn to freak out about earmarks.

    Parent

    How will Sen. McCain be (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:00:42 PM EST
    able to vote for this earmark-laden bill?  What will Obama do if McCain doesn't vote "aya"?  

    Parent
    He just voted no (none / 0) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:21:10 PM EST
    On that amendment or on the financial bill? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    That's still the railroad or whatever amendment (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    Sorry.  That'll teach me to multi-task.

    Parent
    CSpan keeps showing the financial bill (none / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    particulars on the screen while they vote so it's really hard to tell unless you stare at the TV for five minutes straight.

    Parent
    I was fascinated watching Hillary (4.50 / 2) (#70)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    milling around and talking to everyone.  I love Cspan.

    Parent
    The problem (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:09:01 PM EST
    is that the house put as much bad stuff in that first bill I read. I'm wondering if they won't give these to the Senate and then add some more themselves.

    Parent
    A few thoughts.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by coast on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    One, the tax cuts don't seem to be anything too outrageous.  I agree that this is not the time or the bill to be adding things like this on, but if it gets the votes then do it.  Personally I don't think this should chnage anyone's mind about the bill and it should still get rejected for the mere fact that too much power is being given to an appointee.

    Is this entity suppose to be part of the current bill, or seperate?

    How will you sperate out those who were simply speculating or reaching beyond their means from those who may or may not have been taken advantage of by a shady mortgage broker?

    My concern is that you have families who both buy homes at the top of the market.  One family is buying a house they can afford comfortably and take out a 30 convential mortgage.  Their neighbor is playing the market and buys a house that they can barely make the payments on the adjustable rate mortgage that they took out to purchase the home.  With the hope that they can flip it in a year and make some money (this happened a lot where I'm from).  Now the family with the adjustable rate mortgage finds it can't make the new payments when the adjustment occures and they can't refinance because the house has fallen in value and they don't have the money to make up the difference.  So what now.  Along comes the people from HOME and renegotiate your mortgage, which will have to be based on the new value of the home.  So now both families are still in the same homes, except the responsible family is sitting there with a higher mortgage and monthly payment all because they did what they were suppose to do.  Thats cr*&.

    Yep, you just described us (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    and our neighbors, who bought a once-beautiful old historic home that was flipped again and again, then bought to be gutted by lousy developers who basically stuck a McMansion inside it (with some changes to the outside that also suck).

    And the 30-something neighbors paid an outrageous price, while paying almost nothing down, that already raised all of our property taxes.  

    Then they went to the city with a lawyer and got the assessed value lowered way below what they bought it for, while the rest of us still are at the inflated assessed values because of them.

    And the young homeowners bought every bright shiny toy for the house and yard that I've ever seen, from a firepit to a trampoline to you would not believe all that litters their grown-up playground.  Except they forgot to buy a shovel so didn't bother clearing their walk all winter, so that I couldn't walk to work, as their walk turned to sheer ice.  And many oldsters in the 'hood had to stop taking their walks up and down the block, too.

    And now the young 'uns are a bit worried that they can't keep up with their ARM.  And maybe the wife actually will have to go back to work, she says.  Wonder if her former job is still there.

    Parent

    I completely understand (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by liminal on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    your point.  I live in a completely non-bubbly region of the country (lowest median house value @ $98,000! We are last in almost everything except - according to some coastal publisher types who put out a new book about the 50 states and "loved" this statistic, in the % of our population without teeth - there, we are number 1!) with one of the lowest rates of foreclosure in the country.  Why?  Heh.  No reason to get a stupid ARM to buy a $65,000 house.  Here, it's cheaper to buy than to rent.

    But I think in the long run, the negative pressure on the economy from cascading foreclosures is worse than the unfortunate moral quandry of rewarding greedy screw-ups.  Maybe a timely rescue of Lehman Brothers would have stopped the present economic crisis.  

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton ... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    offering the right prescription at the right time.

    Few on this site are surprised.

    But I'm not holding my breath that Obama will come out in favor of this in any meaningful way before the election.

    I am crossing my fingers that he will AFTER the election.

    Or, put another way, (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    it is doubtful that Obama would veto such a bill....

    Parent
    Obama said that we should "study"... (none / 0) (#73)
    by alexei on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:57:15 PM EST
    the HOLC.

    Parent
    Reality. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    It is what it is.

    I'd say that few in the congress have as clear a view of 'the art of the possible' at this point as Senator Clinton.

    Few have had as 'up close and personal' a view of how pathetic and unreliable these Democratic leaders are.  No illusions for Hillary...not after this primary season.

    At the same time, she's serving notice that more is expected come January and she has named it publicly.  HOLC/HOME.  She will fight for it.

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:40:59 PM EST
    is now the most powerful Senator.

    I agree with you - she is serving notice.

    Parent

    If this was a Rob Reiner film (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:16:23 PM EST
    Obama would finally see the light and step down

    Hillary steps up and becomes President of the United States

    Washington is one changed place -

    Everybody votes Dem incl. McCain and Palin

    Barbra sings again for Hillary and Bill on inauguration day ;-)

    Women Presidents rule for the next 44 elections.
    YEAH!

    Parent

    My LTE will be published tomorrow in (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    the SF Chronicle and this is what it says:
    Most Americans are against the bailout because they rightly see a scam.  No doubt there are legitimate reasons to restore confidence in the market but the bailout plan intends to make lemonade out of lemons for Wall Street.  During the depression of the 1930's the US government under FDR established the HOLC (Home Owners Loan Program).The HOLC bought up outstanding mortgages and issued new, more affordable loans that helped people stay in their homes, According to Hillary Clinton and echoed by Barney Frank ``We need a modern day Home Owners' Loan Corporation. There will not be any semblance of a normal or orderly market without 'quarantining'' the devalued loans" she said.  Additionally, she noted, the program eventually turned a profit.
    It is sad to see so many economists on your business pages arguing about what the value of these loans are and how best to buy them and transform them into new saleable mortgages.  With shaky financial conditions and unemployment rising, one wonders where the market will be.  Why not try what worked stunningly well once  and stop the downward spiral of real estate at its source.  Why is everything old so passé?


    Parent
    Sen Bill Nelson NO on this bill (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:40:10 PM EST
    for the right reasons, it does nothing to help the homeowner.

    This is the wrong bill for this time.

    Correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#47)
    by coast on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    Wasn't there a $300 Billion dollar bill passed in July to help homeowners.  How much more do they need?  This is about freeing credit, not about saving homes.  

    Parent
    700 billion more (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    Paulson told me.

    Parent
    Oh yeh...stupid of me. (none / 0) (#53)
    by coast on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    I really wish Sen. Kerry had a clue (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    his hairdo looks really out of date.  

    lol, I left here, went and got my hair cut, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:55:53 PM EST
    come back and they are still talking. Who are they trying to convince? Each other? It seems like it will pass easily.

    Parent
    I can't figure out why they are (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    talking either.  Also, I note I didn't initially recognize Sen. Boxer, although she is one of my senators.  Long, blonde hair.  

    Parent
    I like her. Can I trade you my two for her? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:06:02 PM EST
    I listened to her while I fed my dogs but I didn't see her.

    Parent
    You can have Feinstein, but not (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    Boxer.

    P.S.  How do the senators expect us to believe the sky is falling when lots of them are wearing pink ties?  

    Parent

    What does it say for my state that I would (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    gladly take Feinstein over my two? At least these two are slightly better than Frist and Thompson (at least they seem to be).

    Parent
    Has (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    either legislative body heard the phrase "lean and mean". Really, when you are trying to make the case that circumstances are so dire that we absolutely MUST, MUST I tell ya pass this bill you kind of lose credibility when you start loading it up with nonessential stuff.

    They can't..... (none / 0) (#62)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    ....help themselves. They're like Bobbin Heads & Robo-Calls; unconscious, reflexive actions.....there really is a perpetual motion machine.

    Parent
    HOLC Smash! (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    Just sayin'

    That's Ted Stevens (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    Excellent! (none / 0) (#33)
    by lambert on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    I've been going with "The Incredible HOLC" but this is better.

    Parent
    Why is Sessions fussing about Amtrak (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM EST
    with all that other stuff in there?

    If there's something about Amtrak (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    in the bill that's upsetting Sessions, I'm 100% for whatever that thing is.

    Parent
    Just for the sheer pleasure (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    of upsetting him.  Count me in.

    Parent
    You got something against trains? (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:23:11 PM EST
    Somebody else was talking about Amtrak (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    earlier. He was ranting on about the constitution

    Parent
    Obama's Best Friend Sen. Coburn. (none / 0) (#48)
    by santarita on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    The Republicans will . . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST
    . . . block an HOLC if it is not tied in togethher with their unsound "rescue" = "bailout" package.  The Senate took a bad package and made it worse!

    Hillary has a good idea on (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    mortgages.....Assuming Obama wins and the Dems pick up all those shiny, new Senate seats everyone is talking about, there is a good chance bills like this one will actually get passed.

    Has McCain spoken yet? I've watched all (none / 0) (#63)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    but 30 minutes since 3:30 and I haven't seen him. It seems as if every Senator is going to speak, most saying the same thing.

    I agree with BTD, again, and it's starting (none / 0) (#64)
    by WillBFair on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    to scare me.
    I'm surprised my sweet Hillary would do this. There must be a political calculation behind it that I don't understand. But it better be a huge payoff for such and irresponsible act.