Federal Government to assume control of Freddie and Fannie.

[Claydon]

The government has formulated a plan to put troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/post200/2007/FNM/) and Freddie Mac (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/post200/2007/FRE/) under federal control, dismiss their top executives and prop them up financially, federal officials told the two companies yesterday, according to three sources familiar with the conversations.
Under the plan, which could prompt one of the most sweeping government interventions in the workings of financial markets in U.S. history, federal officials would place the firms under a conservatorship, a legal status giving the government the option and time to restructure and revive the companies, the sources said. The value of the companies' common stock would be diluted but not wiped out; while the holdings of other securities, including company debt and preferred shares might be protected by the government.
Instead of giving each company a big capital infusion up front, the government could make quarterly injections as the companies' losses warrant, the sources said. This would be an attempt to minimize the initial cost of the rescue.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26567533/


Had a bad week? Fuck you...pay me!


So.....it was government intervention that contributed to this problem and now the goverment wants to cure what ails us by intervening once again?! Although, given the trillions in debt these two companies hold, I do not see that we have much of a choice. Kiss our tax cuts goodbye from both candidates.

[Genius]

Let's just forgive the debt. Who loses?

[HAWK]

Are you serious?

[Genius]

Not really. I owe them money. I'd like to not pay it. That would be sweet.

[Insomniac]

The U.S. government is in lots of debt. Why can't the Treasury just print more money to pay it off?

[Claydon]

The U.S. government is in lots of debt. Why can't the Treasury just print more money to pay it off?

Inflation is why...and alot of these debts are owed to foreign countries.

[Genius]

So let's just tell 'em to fuck off and not pay them. What they gonna do? What?

[Soup Nazi]

I don't see how this is a good idea, honestly. Even if they went through with it, propped up the companies in an effort to "revive" the 2 and spent billions of dollars doing so, what right-minded consumer is going to do business with these companies in the future? Both of these companies have horrible image problems which I would imagine would stick with them for the foreseeable future, which at least according to my understanding, should put them back in debt even after a quasi bail-out.

[Debo]

I don't see how this is a good idea, honestly. Even if they went through with it, propped up the companies in an effort to "revive" the 2 and spent billions of dollars doing so, what right-minded consumer is going to do business with these companies in the future? Both of these companies have horrible image problems which I would imagine would stick with them for the foreseeable future, which at least according to my understanding, should put them back in debt even after a quasi bail-out.

Letting them die will destroy the mortgage market in the short-term.

The solution is to prop them up until we can dissolve them and let the private market take over what they used to do.

The federal government created these companies, now they need to clean up the mess that they made.

[freegood]

This is fucking bad news. It's disgusting taxpayers are forced to assume a 5 trillion dollar debt load. The financial sector really screwed the pooch.

Let the good times roll.

[Debo]

This is fucking bad news. It's disgusting taxpayers are forced to assume a 5 trillion dollar debt load. The financial sector really screwed the pooch.

Let the good times roll.

There have been numerous attempts to reform FRE and FNM. Both sides of the aisle, more so the Dems, have thwarted any attempt to rein them in.

The were created to offer below market interest rates to the public so people that couldn't really afford a home could buy one. This is a classic example of unintended consequences of the government involving itself in the market.

[freegood]

They got the best of both worlds when Congress privatized them but kept the implicit Government guarantee. Any CEO and board worth its salt would lobby hard to keep that arrangement.

GSEs are definitely bad bad ideas. They always evolve into something that was never intended when they were created.

[Debo]

They got the best of both worlds when Congress privatized them but kept the implicit Government guarantee. Any CEO and board worth its salt would lobby hard to keep that arrangement.

GSEs are definitely bad bad ideas. They always evolve into something that was never intended when they were created.

I love how our politicians ignored their accounting fraud. But they vilify Enron and Woldcom (justifiably).

[Claydon]

I love how our politicians ignored their accounting fraud. But they vilify Enron and Woldcom (justifiably).

Hyprocrisy from the government?


Madness!

[yard]

I agree that the government caused this mess...

I think one side of congress is much more responsible than the other..

BUT in the end we GET SCREWED AND HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!

so bend over and get out your wallet

[Grieves]

Next will be the auto industry, so on and so forth. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwgXpuIoIsGcv8y6iPcXxtlt8rqgD932083O0)

[momsshizzle]

This is scary stuff that the government is taking over these companies. We should let the housing market correct itself.

[Claydon]

So, the feds are saying it will cost the tax payer some 25 billion to shore up these dead bloated companies. Now, if the governemnt is stating 25 billion, then that will mean it is going to cost somewhere around 125 billion. Slather that on top of the current 300+ billion deficit, and you can pretty much be rest assured we are all going to get a significant tax increase. Just so we can bail out morons who signed their lives away on massive shitty mortgages, speculators (both on wall st and main st), and scum bag brokers. (slow clap)

[Okie Medicvet]

So let's just tell 'em to fuck off and not pay them. What they gonna do? What?

If you get a home loan, and you don't pay, they will reposses it, what happens then if you get a student loan, will they repossses your education..and how would they do that, by scraping your brain and taking it out?

yah, I'm weird, I know.

[Hanover Fist]

If you get a home loan, and you don't pay, they will reposses it, what happens then if you get a student loan, will they repossses your education..and how would they do that, by scraping your brain and taking it out?

yah, I'm weird, I know.

They garnish your wages when you do actually start making money.

[BIG PIZZLE]

You can never get rid of student loans. It's good to see our republican government living up to their ideals.

[scraty55]

monday is going to suck...i swear i will have 30 calls from clients freaking out about the market again just like when indymac went under to FDIC...

[Mustard]

Well all I know is I'm going to Indy Mac for my next mortgage...

[BIG PIZZLE]

You dont have much of a choice.

[Mustard]

sad but true...

[Okie Medicvet]

They garnish your wages when you do actually start making money.

Okay, I was being facetious there, but seriously, how much of a percentage of your income do they make you pay? I mean, there is that setup where you repay a certain portion of what you make, right? My daughter is worred that she won't be able to pay her student loans, and has about 8,000 accumulated right now and is worred they will take all her money when she goes to work, and I told her they don't work that way...

[Area Man]

inflation = taxes

we're all taking it in the ass on this one

[Okie Medicvet]

without the k-y even.

Oh, and updated, they aren't just assuming control anymore, they are out and out taking it over.

[Ghostrider]

let's just lop off zeros

[Menace2Sobriety]

Get on top of the gravy train.

[Hanover Fist]

Okay, I was being facetious there, but seriously, how much of a percentage of your income do they make you pay? I mean, there is that setup where you repay a certain portion of what you make, right? My daughter is worred that she won't be able to pay her student loans, and has about 8,000 accumulated right now and is worred they will take all her money when she goes to work, and I told her they don't work that way...


I've seen 25%, I'm not sure if it can go higher or not. For some reason I think they can go to 50% but I'm not positive. It's also taken out after taxes on the income, so it seems like a lot more.

[Cornelius]

Before everyone has a total shit fit about this, has anyone seen today's outlook at the NYSE? Seriously people take a deep breathe before you cry apocalypse here:

Stocks surge on plan for mortgage giants

By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer 15 minutes ago

Stocks surged Monday as investors rushed to lay bets on a recovery in the financial and housing sectors following the weekend announcement that the U.S. government will bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dow Jones industrials gained more than 175 points.
The market's advance was uneven, however, as the technology-heavy Nasdaq composite index showed more modest gains.
Meanwhile, bond prices fell sharply as emboldened investors looked for riskier but higher-yielding assets.
The announcement Sunday that the Treasury Department was seizing control of the companies, which own or back about half the nation's mortgage debt, brushed aside investors' long-simmering worries that the companies would be felled by a spike in bad mortgage debt.
The plan to inject up to $100 billion in each of the government-chartered mortgage companies could not only help lower mortgage rates but, some investors are hoping, buoy the overall economy. The plan could help banks feel more open to write new mortgages and to refinance existing mortgages at lower rates, offering a possible lifeline to consumers struggling with increasing payments.
But the government's steadying hand for two institutions that many Wall Street observers had said were simply too big to let fail still might not alleviate troubles of some homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgages.
Dave Rovelli, managing director of U.S. equity trading at Canaccord Adams in New York, said while the plan boosts confidence in sectors like financials and home builders, it doesn't immediately alleviate worries about other areas of the economy. Still, he said the move was far more welcome than a collapse of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
"It saves Armageddon from happening," he said. "If you think about it this helps the financials, this helps the housing market. Tech took a huge hit last week. Does this really affect tech? I don't think so."
In late morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 184.26, or 1.64 percent, to 11,405.22 after being up nearly 350 points in the early going.
Broader stock indicators also rose. The Standard & Poor's 500 index jumped 18.29, or 1.47 percent, to 1,260.60, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 6.61, or 0.29 percent, to 2,262.49.
The gains lifted the major indexes out of bear-market territory — a 20 percent decline from the market's peak in October.
Bond prices pulled back sharply Monday. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, jumped to 3.75 percent from 3.69 percent late Friday. The dollar was higher against other major currencies, while gold prices rose.
Common shareholders of the stock of Fannie Man and Freddie Mac will be virtually wiped out by the plan, which would balloon the shares of companies to give a nearly 80 percent stake to the government. But the companies' shares had already suffered huge declines in the last year so many shareholders have already endured the majority of their losses.
Fannie Mae shares plunged $5.84, or 83 percent, to $1.20, while Freddie Mac fell $4.04, or 79 percent, to $1.06.
Other financial names rallied, particularly those seen as having big exposure to mortgages. Bank of America Corp. jumped $1.79, or 5.5 percent, to $34.02, while Wachovia Corp. rose $1.33, or 7.9 percent, to $18.08. Citigroup Inc. rose 79 cents, or 4.1 percent, to $19.86.
Among financials, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was one of the few decliners, falling $1.95, or 12 percent, to $14.25 as investors worried that the No. 4 U.S. investment bank was having trouble finding an investor to help shore up its balance sheet.
Home builders also jumped alongside most financials. Lennar Corp. rose 82 cents, or 6.6 percent, to $13.40, and KB Home advanced $1.65, or 8 percent, to $22.26.
The U.S. government's plan also touched off a global stock rally Monday. Foreign investors holding debt of the companies were relieved as were investors simply looking for stronger growth from the U.S. economy, particularly as many economies abroad give off signs they are slowing. Japan's Nikkei stock average jumped 3.4 percent and Hong Kong's Hang Seng index surged 4.3 percent. In afternoon trading, Britain's FTSE 100 jumped 3.81 percent, Germany's DAX index rose 3.06 percent, and France's CAC-40 surged 4.20 percent.
Investors appeared to look past a rise in oil, which logged steep declines last week as investors worried that a slowing global economy would hurt demand. Light, sweet crude rose 53 cents to $106.67 on the New York Mercantile Exchange as Hurricane Ike churned across Cuba and fanned unease about the well-being of Gulf of Mexico oil infrastructure that could be in its path.
In corporate news, Washington Mutual Inc. fell 73 cents, or 17 percent, to $3.54 after removing Kerry Killinger from the chief executive spot. The savings and loan is working to overhaul its business, which has been hurt by bad mortgage debt. Alan H. Fishman is replacing Killinger.
Altria Group Inc. announced it will buy UST, the maker of Skoal and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco, for nearly $10 billion. The maker of Marlboro cigarettes said it will pay $69.50 per share. UST shares jumped Friday to finish at $67.55 following a report of the deal and gained 85 cents to $68.40 Monday. Altria rose 35 cents to $21.30.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by about 2 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where volume came to 666 million shares.
The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 11.10, or 1.54 percent, to 729.95.
___
On the Net:
New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com
Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com

[Claydon]

So I am reading rumblings about 200 billion to bail out these two companies.

Unfuckingbelievable. So I am going to have to pay more in taxes whereby I may not be able to afford to purchase a home, so I can assist in the propping up of speculators and dipshits who can't do math and whine when the bill comes due.

Some celebs and certain gmf members say they are going to move to canada or europe if so and so becomes president etc. I may leave because I am just beyond disgusted with this situation. This is suppose to be a nation of capitalism, so why are we attempting to prop up real estate prices that are over inflated, and there is about a 2 year over supply of homes. Fuck the republicans, and fuck the democrats, lets form the CPA party and get some bean counters into DC.

(putting away soap box)

[Morfin]

I agree. Should have left them alone and let them go and dealt with it. This crap about "Wall Street" saying they were too big to allow them to fail annoys me as they're the ones that got us into this mess and would bear the brunt of its losses. I hate to say this, but I'm with you on this one, Claydon. I have to pay taxes to cover all of those assholes who securitized the mortgage industry and all those overextended people who shouldn't have bought houses in the first place.

[Claydon]

I agree. Should have left them alone and let them go and dealt with it. This crap about "Wall Street" saying they were too big to allow them to fail annoys me as they're the ones that got us into this mess and would bear the brunt of its losses. I hate to say this, but I'm with you on this one, Claydon. I have to pay taxes to cover all of those assholes who securitized the mortgage industry and all those overextended people who shouldn't have bought houses in the first place.

does this mean you have to turn in your man card?

[Morfin]

Note the verbiage "on this one." No more. You have no friends here.

[Claydon]

Note the verbiage "on this one." No more. You have no friends here.

:(

[Morfin]

Can't wait til Hank "Wall Street" Paulson is gone. First, Bear Stearns and now this. Tell me there aren't some good ol' wink-wink handshakes going on between Hank and the Street.

[Mustard]

So if I'm reading everyone right here, the taxpayers get to foot the bill for the fuckups and irresponsibilities of the managing directors of Fannie and Freddy?

If that is the case, then I just don't know what to make of things anymore.

Claydon is right. We really need to get things back on track with fiscally responsible people in charge of things. That, or if the people we put in charge can't do the job, and nobody is willing to do the job, maybe the only options then would to either A) shut up and take it, or B) move to a different country that is fiscally responsible... if such a place even exists.

[Claydon]

60 minutes did a great story on this subject, I thought they were very fair in their presentation. Spreading blame to both sides of the con job.

Part 1
D0nPlqJxtlc


Part 2
U8aWXIW7rFM


I like how the home buyer says he didn't look at it like hundreds of thousands of dollars...... incredible.

[Debo]

So I am reading rumblings about 200 billion to bail out these two companies.

Unfuckingbelievable. So I am going to have to pay more in taxes whereby I may not be able to afford to purchase a home, so I can assist in the propping up of speculators and dipshits who can't do math and whine when the bill comes due.

Some celebs and certain gmf members say they are going to move to canada or europe if so and so becomes president etc. I may leave because I am just beyond disgusted with this situation. This is suppose to be a nation of capitalism, so why are we attempting to prop up real estate prices that are over inflated, and there is about a 2 year over supply of homes. Fuck the republicans, and fuck the democrats, lets form the CPA party and get some bean counters into DC.

(putting away soap box)

The Treasury will acquire $1 billion of preferred shares in each company without providing immediate cash, and has pledged to provide as much as $200 billion to the companies as they cope with heavy losses on mortgage defaults. The Treasury's plan puts the two companies under a conservatorship, giving management control to their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA.

It is unclear how much the government's intervention will ultimately cost taxpayers. In addition to its initial acquisition of preferred shares, the government receives warrants giving it the right to a stake of 79.9% of each company for a nominal sum. The Treasury's preferred shares, which carry an annual dividend yield of 10%, will be senior to those earlier issued, meaning the government will have the first right to receive dividends.

(http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/07/mean-street-taxpayers-should-thank-paulson-for-his-fanniefreddie-bailout/)



(http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/07/mean-street-taxpayers-should-thank-paulson-for-his-fanniefreddie-bailout/)
Existing shareholders won't fare so well. The new overseers will eliminate dividends on billions of dollars of common and preferred stock, moves that are expected to further drive down the price of those shares. If the government exercises its warrants, existing common shares will be drastically diluted. Common shareholders are expected to see the value of their investment, which has already fallen, shrivel further, say analysts. Even preferred stockholders are expected to see a significant decline. (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/07/mean-street-taxpayers-should-thank-paulson-for-his-fanniefreddie-bailout/)


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122088294934209997.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

And...

Mean Street: Taxpayers Should Thank Paulson for Fannie/Freddie Bailout

Posted by Deal Journal
Today, in the largest nationalization in U.S. history, the U.S. Treasury took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
http://s.wsj.net/media/NewmarkE_col_blogicon08.jpgYou would be hard pressed to find the word “nationalization” in any of the news releases, but that is basically what the government “conservatorship” amounts to. Hugo Chavez must be smiling.
Strangely, so should the U.S. taxpayer. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has cut a good deal for the taxpayer and the economy will be much the better for it.
Not all the details are available, but on the face of it the U.S. taxpayer has put in a little bit of money and gotten out quite a lot of control. That is what a Wall Street deal maker wants from any deal.
The deal is structured as a $2 billion capital injection ($1 billion apiece) of senior preferred stock into Fannie and Freddie. The taxpayer gets a fat 10% coupon, as well as warrants for stock representing 80% of the company. The taxpayer also replaces the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie with seasoned Wall Street financiers whose mandate is to actually shrink the businesses.
Now the catch – and there always is one: Fannie and Freddie will require further capital contributions from the taxpayer down the road. Probably a lot more. So the $2 billion is really just a down-payment for a bailout that may end up costing tens of billions more.
But there is nothing new here. Thanks to Fannie’s and Freddie’s “implicit guarantee,” the U.S. taxpayer has always been on the hook. Watch how the U.S. dollar trades in the next couple of days. It isn’t going to collapse with an additional $5 trillion “officially” on the government balance sheet. The market always assumed the obligation was there.
At least now, the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie will be held accountable to the people who have always been footing the bill–the taxpayer.
Of course, in the coming days, there will be howls of protest. The common shareholders will be diluted by as much as 80% with the Treasury’s issuance of the warrants. Eventually, the common stock will be diluted out of existence.
The preferred shareholders who own about $40 billion of Fannie and Freddie paper may be even more unhappy. Their dividends have been cut. The Treasury has issued to itself preferred shares senior to the existing preferred shares. And there is bound to be more of these senior preferred shares to come.
This may prove a problem for the handful of small and midsize banks that hold too much of the existing Fannie and Freddie paper. But it may not. At today’s news conference, Paulson didn’t seem too bothered by the prospect of bank failures caused by write-downs in the value of their Fannie and Freddie holdings.
Paulson knows he can’t bail everyone out–and he can’t make everyone happy. He is trying to be a free-marketer with a mortgage market that ceased existing as a free market when Congress chartered the Federal Home Loan Banks in 1932.
He also knows that today he doesn’t have all the answers. So like any deal maker, Paulson creates as many options as he can. Which is why he didn’t recapitalize Fannie and Freddie in one fell swoop with the $30 billion or so they may require. And why he dictated that Fannie and Freddie didn’t have to shrink their portfolios until 2010.
It is just good deal making. And it will end up working just fine for the people who matter. In this case, that would be the holders of Fannie and Freddie’s debt, mortgage applicants throughout the U.S., and the U.S. taxpayer.
They may not be happy that the US government nationalized Fannie and Freddie Mac, but they should thank Hank Paulson nonetheless.



http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/07/mean-street-taxpayers-should-thank-paulson-for-his-fanniefreddie-bailout/

[Grieves]

http://s.wsj.net/media/NewmarkE_col_blogicon08.jpgMean Street: Taxpayers Should Thank Paulson for Fannie/Freddie Bailout

Wow. That guy is a slimy piece of shit.

Forcing anyone to put their money into a failed business, especially when it's done by the government to the taxpayers is only a good thing to the few to whom it really benefits- the cocksuckers that get a free pass for getting themselves into the mess to begin with. The fact that he is actually trying to spin it like it benefits Joe Taxpayer is deplorable, and I hope he dies a fucking horrible death.

[Debo]

[/b]Wow. That guy is a slimy piece of shit.

Forcing anyone to put their money into a failed business, especially when it's done by the government to the taxpayers is only a good thing to the few to whom it really benefits- the cocksuckers that get a free pass for getting themselves into the mess to begin with. The fact that he is actually trying to spin it like it benefits Joe Taxpayer is deplorable, and I hope he dies a fucking horrible death.

With a mugshot like that, how can he not be a dick?

[Claydon]

Looks like mortgage rates took a drop, wonderful, looks like the feds will prop up artificially high real estate prices after all.

[Debo]

Looks like mortgage rates took a drop, wonderful, looks like the feds will prop up artificially high real estate prices after all.

Nobody knows for sure why the rates dropped, but it probably has something to do with the uncertainty about FRE and FNM being removed. Now that the market is viewed as being less risky, rates are coming down.

[freegood]

A lot of households are under non-recourse mortgages It means you can walk away at any time without fear of penalty. They just mail in their keys, the bank gets the house, but they eat the loss. Last time I checked (5 months ago), 10-15% of homeowners had mortgages worth more than the value of their homes. Even if it were one percent of that walking away, that's a substantial loss to the banking sector, and they will walk away because paying for something that is worth less than the value of your loan doesn't make sense to speculators or debtors. Then there's spillover to the increased supply in homes, which causes homes to be cheaper, and that causes that % bar of mortgage value>housing value to rise and rise and rise.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The government has no choice to try to prop up the housing market. Even then, it might not even matter. One dude said mortgages that exceed housing value could get up to 40%. But not attempting to fix this clusterfuck could cause untold and unpredictable damage.

How they do it is a different matter. This move has been seen more as a bailout than an intervention that removes the stink of moral hazard.

[Claydon]

As long as prices keep falling that is just fine by me.

[Menace2Sobriety]

So I am going to have to pay more in taxes Doubtful. Bush hasn't raised the debt ceiling for at least 3 months.

[freegood]

Oxley hits back at ideologues
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
By Greg Farrell in New York

Published: September 9 2008 19:25 | Last updated: September 9 2008 19:25

In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.

The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury secretary in 2006 he sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of reaching a compromise, but to no avail.

[Claydon]

Doubtful. Bush hasn't raised the debt ceiling for at least 3 months.

Fail

Congress increases debt limits.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Finally.

[kid_vidrio]

At last.

[Distortion]

great article on whats happening right now
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html