House Dems to give up their pay raises next year.

IF (big IF) the Repugs can't stop it, that should be done within a week.

But, truly, what I wouldn't give to have a hand on the levers of power right about now.  B/c I am most definitely unhappy at the way Obama and his people are using them.  We could start with opening 3,500 files in the S.D.N.Y., one for each of that madam's clients, and start putting the boots to making the banking system start flowing again.  These clowns are refusing to lend out of fear, and only a greater fear will get them off the dead center where they are presently stuck.  Then we could unscrew that stimulus bill by starting to lean - hard - on  the Republicans.  Remind the world that we reached out to them and they slapped back in response.  Start with some stronger, accurate yet harsh rhetoric.

1.  Some banks are insolvent now.  Some banks are not insolvent.  Some may be in the future or may not be.  All this talk of "nationalization" is way too glib and premature, especially coming from economists who have not actually looked at the banks' balance sheets and cash flow statements. It paints all banks the same, when they are not.  The "stress test" will help.

2.  The Treasury and Fed balance sheets are NOT infinite.  To the extent that gov't money can be used to get private money in to recapitalize, it's a good thing.  Of course, which money gets seniority is important too.

The market also needs mark-to-market accounting suspended.  Now, before you cry that we need transparency, here is why mark-to-market doesn't work:

Let's say my neighbor and I each own an identical house with identical mortgage with the same bank.  He loses his job, can't make the payments and has to sell the house for 50% of his mortgage.  If I'm current on my payments, why should the bank have to write down my mortgage by 50% on their books?  

His major point was that the proposal doesn't explain what they're going to do with insolvent banks.

Another panelists suggested there weren't going to be many more insolvent banks.

Krugman said:

... a substantial part of the banking system, quite a lot of the major banks, are probably actually not viable ... they are insolvent.

Dow was up Friday and Monday, maybe due to the stimulus.  Now it's selling off, just like a selloff after an earnings announcement..

If you are a beginner trader the simple self check would help.

   1. Check if you have a graduate degree from Harvard or similar institution
   2. Check if you understand that 5+ years of practice and several books are necessary before you can risk real money
   3. Check if you have time to do the research

This is why Wall Street isn't a fan.

Yesterday's decline deepened as investors -- who had bid up the price of stocks last week in anticipation of this week's announcement -- cashed in their gains and sold, traders and analysts said.

The same thing as a person buying into a card game, doubling up within an orbit, and cashing out.  While technically within the rules of the game, such behavior is frowned upon by any self-recpecting poker player, and in some home games this behavior could get you beat up, or at the least never invited again.

Let the banks fail. Wall st is trying to muscle the fed into a higher price for toxic assets and 350 bn cannot save insolvent banks.  The banks right now need nearly 2 trillion in capital to retain liquidity through the write downs.

I am a bit overleveraged in my portfolio in the finance sector and would take a crappy hit, but I am sick and tired of Wall St. using a bully pulpit in this crisis of their own making.