Hypocrisy? Congress Gets Another Raise

[Axegrinder]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html

[akhhorus]

How is this hypocrisy?

[Axegrinder]

How is it not?
They preach to the choir about the need for fiscal responsibility, yet they manage to keep one hand in the till for themselves.

[akhhorus]

How is it not?
They preach to the choir about the need for fiscal responsibility, yet they manage to keep one hand in the till for themselves.

A congress that has authorized 700 billion for TARP, probably another trillion for econo stimulus, and they demanded the CEOs of companies asking for money from the people to take less pay. I don't see how another 4,700 per member of congress is a big deal or hypocrisy(especially since they cut the pay of cabinet officials also). Bring it up with your party, they approved it.

[Ibleedburgundy]

hard for me to get all worked up over 2.8%. It's actually a fairly moderate increase even by Government standards. To put this in perspective, last year civilian FED employees got 3.5%. I know a lot folks from other parts of the country think these are high salaries but around here est. $170,000-184,000 (link not working for me) is decent but not rich by any stretch. Not even remotely comparable to the insane compensation packages taken by the buttheads who ran the big three/large financial institutions into the ground.

[Keino]

How is it not?
They preach to the choir about the need for fiscal responsibility, yet they manage to keep one hand in the till for themselves.

Usually when I see Congressmen giving themselves a raise I too get pissed, especially given the current economic times. Having said that, 2.8% is less than the annual increase in inflation. I can't get too upset about that when they are bailing out industries left and right.....

[Axegrinder]

From my standpoint as an ex-autoworker, I find it rediculous that they can call for the current autoworkers to take a huge paycut to save their industry, while they ring up huge national debt and still manage to get a raise.

For those that say that autoworkers are overpaid are being fed a line of crap. They earn a decent living wage...while on overtime. In fact, the autoworkers have made major concessions, but this is a topic for another thread.

[PyroGenic]

From my standpoint as an ex-autoworker, I find it rediculous that they can call for the current autoworkers to take a huge paycut to save their industry, while they ring up huge national debt and still manage to get a raise.

For those that say that autoworkers are overpaid are being fed a line of crap. They earn a decent living wage...while on overtime. In fact, the autoworkers have made major concessions, but this is a topic for another thread.

I'm afraid that the auto-workers were the casualties of lazy business practices and stagnation from a group of car companies that had a false sense of entitlement. It was only a matter of time before they felt the hurt; the workers should be looking for blood from their bosses, not the hill.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I'm afraid that the auto-workers were the casualties of lazy business practices and stagnation from a group of car companies that had a false sense of entitlement. It was only a matter of time before they felt the hurt; the workers should be looking for blood from their bosses, not the hill.

I agree with this. I don't understand how a company can lay off 10,000 productive workers making $40K-60K while the CEO takes home $28 million and the company buys a $36 million jet.

[Keino]

I'm afraid that the auto-workers were the casualties of lazy business practices and stagnation from a group of car companies that had a false sense of entitlement. It was only a matter of time before they felt the hurt; the workers should be looking for blood from their bosses, not the hill.

This is exactly correct and this is exactly why we should not be bailing these bastards out.

[Axegrinder]

This is not an autoworkers thread, it's a Congressional pay raise thread. You know the same people who signed off on some of the worst business regulation, oversight, and monetary safeguards in our nations history. If our nations economy is truly in the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, how can anyone support a payraise for that kind of performance, even if it is only 2.8%?

[akhhorus]

This is not an autoworkers thread, it's a Congressional pay raise thread. You know the same people who signed off on some of the worst business regulation, oversight, and monetary safeguards in our nations history. If our nations economy is truly in the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, how can anyone support a payraise for that kind of performance, even if it is only 2.8%?

Actually, that would be the white house who did those regulatory changes, not congress. And again: they slashed the cabinet's pay.

I don't have a problem with them voting to up their pay considering that they're actually trying to do something to help the problem(both parties). Bush and Paulsen don't seem too interested, and Obama wants Bush to have full ownership of the issues.

[Axegrinder]

I understand what your saying Akh, but doesn't the Congress have an automatic trigger that pays them their raises? It's my understanding that the only way to stop getting these raises is for them to vote against it. If things are as bad as advertised, then if not now, when? Ever?

[BurgundyNGold]

I understand what your saying Akh, but doesn't the Congress have an automatic trigger that pays them their raises? It's my understanding that the only way to stop getting these raises is for them to vote against it. If things are as bad as advertised, then if not now, when? Ever?
I'm not sure that Congress not voting to forego their automated raise in a recession constitutes hypocrisy. It likely, however, demonstrates a certain oblivious, "let them eat cake" insensitivity to the plight of many millions of Americans.

[akhhorus]

I understand what your saying Akh, but doesn't the Congress have an automatic trigger that pays them their raises? It's my understanding that the only way to stop getting these raises is for them to vote against it. If things are as bad as advertised, then if not now, when? Ever?

Ok, but another 2800 per MOC is extremely little money in the grand scale of things. If they were voting themselves another 50k each, then it would be an issue.

[Death_Venom]

Considering the laziness of this "do-nothing" Congress I can not condone any raise in any form.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Considering the laziness of this "do-nothing" Congress I can not condone any raise in any form.

I'm pretty sure the crowd accusing them of doing nothing has moved on to accusing them of doing too much.

[Fathead]

I think we should tie Congress and the President's salary to the economy. This year, they'd be paying money.

[lorimike]

I think we should tie Congress and the President's salary to the economy. This year, they'd be paying money.
<<<

Democrats worked feverishly to get the recession they wanted so badly. They were telling us in 2004 the economy was the worst since the great depression.

[akhhorus]

<<<

Democrats worked feverishly to get the recession they wanted so badly. They were telling us in 2004 the economy was the worst since the great depression.

Source? I don't remember hearing anyone saying that in 2004.

And it was the banks and their paying off of both parties to get away with the subprime and CDMs that led to this recession.

[lorimike]

Source? I don't remember hearing anyone saying that in 2004.

And it was the banks and their paying off of both parties to get away with the subprime and CDMs that led to this recession.


Kerry claimed it was the worst economy when he ran for President. The media was motivated to get a democrat elected so they always trumpeted a bad economy despite the facts proving otherwise up until 2008. It became a self fulfilling propecy. Consumer sentiment was destroyed by the democrats. link below












http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913

[Keino]

Kerry claimed it was the worst economy when he ran for President. The media was motivated to get a democrat elected so they always trumpeted a bad economy despite the facts proving otherwise up until 2008. It became a self fulfilling propecy. Consumer sentiment was destroyed by the democrats. link below


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913

Consumer sentiment was destroyed by the tightening of credit markets , the failures of the financial industry, the value of the dollar plummeting causing the purchasing power for things like Gas and food to decrease and the Real Estate bubble bursting.

No single political party is responsible for this.

[akhhorus]

Kerry claimed it was the worst economy when he ran for President. The media was motivated to get a democrat elected so they always trumpeted a bad economy despite the facts proving otherwise up until 2008. It became a self fulfilling propecy. Consumer sentiment was destroyed by the democrats. link below

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913

From your link:
"To hear John Kerry tell it, America is mired today in the worst economy since the Great Depression."

Thats the opinion of the writer, not what you claimed it was.

And there's no way any politician or the media destroyed consumer sentiment. The credit market meltdown destroyed consumer sentiment by the market dropping 7000 points of value and the banks holding their business loans. That was because of systemic economic problems(allowing subprime mortgages in the first place, then allowing banks and investment firms to tie themselves to all of these toxic mortgages with the Credit default swaps), not because any politician or party was trying to push the economy into meltdown(which would be impossible).

[Biggie]

Kerry claimed it was the worst economy when he ran for President. The media was motivated to get a democrat elected so they always trumpeted a bad economy despite the facts proving otherwise up until 2008. It became a self fulfilling propecy. Consumer sentiment was destroyed by the democrats. link below

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913
I hear the Democrats also steal candy from babies and try to steal Christmas.

Trying to say that the Democrats are the cause of the recession is absurd. Why do you think the bailouts happened? The credit system started throwing out loans and all the non-existent money flying around made the damn thing collapse and the government step in to stop the bleeding. Unless Nancy Pelosi owns Lehman Brothers and AIG, I really don't see where you're coming from.

[lorimike]

From your link:
"To hear John Kerry tell it, America is mired today in the worst economy since the Great Depression."

Thats the opinion of the writer, not what you claimed it was.

And there's no way any politician or the media destroyed consumer sentiment. The credit market meltdown destroyed consumer sentiment by the market dropping 7000 points of value and the banks holding their business loans. That was because of systemic economic problems(allowing subprime mortgages in the first place, then allowing banks and investment firms to tie themselves to all of these toxic mortgages with the Credit default swaps), not because any politician or party was trying to push the economy into meltdown(which would be impossible).


Source Below. If I had a nickel for everytime I heard a liberal pundit utter " it's the worst economy since the great depression " I'd be a rich man











http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_makes_bogus_comparison_to_great_depression.h tml

[PyroGenic]

I'd also consider the fact that Wallstreet was unchecked, unregulated, and even allowed to get away with activities that took a recession to instigate an investigation from the FBI. Not having proposed regulatory legislation pass isn't new, but this should point to where the blame falls: the financial industry. They did this to the country, not some clandestine agenda concocted by a political party.

[lorimike]

I hear the Democrats also steal candy from babies and try to steal Christmas.

The liberal plot to ban the christmas holiday is alive and well. We are only a few years away from having the Christmas holiday changed to Ramahankwanzmas

Trying to say that the Democrats are the cause of the recession is absurd. Why do you think the bailouts happened? The credit system started throwing out loans and all the non-existent money flying around made the damn thing collapse and the government step in to stop the bleeding. Unless Nancy Pelosi owns Lehman Brothers and AIG, I really don't see where you're coming from.<<<

It is not absurd at all. Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall act allowing the growth of exotic mortgages and derivatives. The banking committe chairmen-Sen Chirs Dodd (D) and rep. Barney Frank (D) defended federally chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from charges that they were taking on too much risk and prodded the companies to back riskier loans. All Republican efforts to rein in the predatory lending were threated with a filibuster by the Democrats.

[PyroGenic]

Source Below. If I had a nickel for everytime I heard a liberal pundit utter " it's the worst economy since the great depression " I'd be a rich man











http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_makes_bogus_comparison_to_great_depression.h tml



What's with the spacing? Anyway, is it not? Even then, it's still subjective to a degree. The funny thing about economics is that you can have two "experts" take two completely different stances on a subject and have both sides make sense. You have to look at the situation yourself to make sense of it. Plus the media is a business, hyperbole and panicky reactions are what get people's attention and are always going to be a part of it. This is nothing new and it's employed by any news source, be it liberal or conservative.

[Ibleedburgundy]

<<<

It is not absurd at all. Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall act allowing the growth of exotic mortgages and derivatives. The banking committe chairmen-Sen Chirs Dodd (D) and rep. Barney Frank (D) defended federally chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from charges that they were taking on too much risk and prodded the companies to back riskier loans. All Republican efforts to rein in the predatory lending were threated with a filibuster by the Democrats.

That may be true but to say the Republicans were powerless to write new laws after Clinton left and they controlled congress is laughable. You are saying the reason why no legislation ever made it out of the Republican controlled committees at the times when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, is because the Democrats were hell bent on deregulation? You realize whoever controls the House controls Fannie and Freddie, right?

[lorimike]

What's with the spacing? Anyway, is it not? Even then, it's still subjective to a degree. The funny thing about economics is that you can have two "experts" take two completely different stances on a subject and have both sides make sense. You have to look at the situation yourself to make sense of it. Plus the media is a business, hyperbole and panicky reactions are what get people's attention and are always going to be a part of it. This is nothing new and it's employed by any news source, be it liberal or conservative.<<<<

The point was to prove that John Kerry was calling our economy the worst since the great depression back in 2004. The daily barage of negative news by the MSM is not helpful. They've been doing these stories every day since 2000. For example when gas prices were high we saw stories about people having to choose between food or gas. Now that gas prices have plummented ($1.45 here in south Jersey) we don't see stories about how much people are saving

[lorimike]

That may be true but to say the Republicans were powerless to write new laws after Clinton left and they controlled congress is laughable. You are saying the reason why no legislation ever made it out of the Republican controlled committees at the times when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, is because the Democrats were hell bent on deregulation? You realize whoever controls the House controls Fannie and Freddie, right?

I don't disagree with you. What irritates me is that the Dems claim to be blameless in this economic situation. To put the blame solely on President Bush is rather unfair. But hey, thats politics

[akhhorus]

Source Below. If I had a nickel for everytime I heard a liberal pundit utter " it's the worst economy since the great depression " I'd be a rich man

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_makes_bogus_comparison_to_great_depression.h tml

1-This still isn't proof of what you claimed. You're taking one quote from Kerry about job losses and trying to use it as evidence of a general push by one party.
2-Thanks for not responding to what I and Keino wrote about the economy.

<<<

It is not absurd at all. Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall act allowing the growth of exotic mortgages and derivatives. The banking committe chairmen-Sen Chirs Dodd (D) and rep. Barney Frank (D) defended federally chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from charges that they were taking on too much risk and prodded the companies to back riskier loans. All Republican efforts to rein in the predatory lending were threated with a filibuster by the Democrats.

You're wrong on a lot of counts here:
1-Fannie and Freddie didn't give out enough loans to be the cause. In fact, what got them into trouble was guaranteeing the bad loans(thank you Gramm-Lugar), but they were trying to fix things. It was the banks like WaMu and Long Beach Financial that caused this meltdown.
2-Repealing Glass-Steagall didn't start the CDM, it was Gramm-Lugar which allowed banks and investment firms to get into areas that they have been traditionally banned from.
3-Dodd is corrupt as hell with the banks, but so are a number of senators from both parties. Gramm especially and anyone who sat on the banking committee. Considering it was Dick Shelby who was the chair of the banking committee from 02-06, he's at least as guilty as Dodd.
4-Please show when the Dems(or anyone) tried to filibuster any changes to the mortgage industry. I can't recall the Senate even remotely considering any legislation that would have prevented this.

[akhhorus]

<<<<

The point was to prove that John Kerry was calling our economy the worst since the great depression back in 2004. The daily barage of negative news by the MSM is not helpful. They've been doing these stories every day since 2000. For example when gas prices were high we saw stories about people having to choose between food or gas. Now that gas prices have plummented ($1.45 here in south Jersey) we don't see stories about how much people are saving

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that people have gotten hurt so badly economically that it doesn't matter how much on gas they're saving, no?

[akhhorus]

I don't disagree with you. What irritates me is that the Dems claim to be blameless in this economic situation. To put the blame solely on President Bush is rather unfair. But hey, thats politics

Everyone is to blame at the end of the day. Bush deserves some more blame because he put his finger on the scale with the executive branch regulators(OTS, SEC, etc) to favor non-inteference, something no one could stop him from doing.

[lorimike]

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that people have gotten hurt so badly economically that it doesn't matter how much on gas they're saving, no?<<<<

Well that cuts both ways. I must have missed the story about how high gas prices were proof of roaring economy. The low gas prices helps everyone regardless of their situation. Fuel costs is in everthing you buy. Fuel surcharges had dropped considerably since July meaning that it's not just your gas that is cheaper but your food costs go down as well.

[lorimike]

1-This still isn't proof of what you claimed. You're taking one quote from Kerry about job losses and trying to use it as evidence of a general push by one party.
2-Thanks for not responding to what I and Keino wrote about the economy.<<<

Akhhorus you must not have been listening these past few years. What John Kerry stated was parroted throughout the Mainstream media. And you are most welcome for my non-response!



You're wrong on a lot of counts here:
1-Fannie and Freddie didn't give out enough loans to be the cause. In fact, what got them into trouble was guaranteeing the bad loans(thank you Gramm-Lugar), but they were trying to fix things. It was the banks like WaMu and Long Beach Financial that caused this meltdown.
2-Repealing Glass-Steagall didn't start the CDM, it was Gramm-Lugar which allowed banks and investment firms to get into areas that they have been traditionally banned from.
3-Dodd is corrupt as hell with the banks, but so are a number of senators from both parties. Gramm especially and anyone who sat on the banking committee. Considering it was Dick Shelby who was the chair of the banking committee from 02-06, he's at least as guilty as Dodd.
4-Please show when the Dems(or anyone) tried to filibuster any changes to the mortgage industry. I can't recall the Senate even remotely considering any legislation that would have prevented this.

Link below. Fillibuster was threatened by dems.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2122312/posts

[akhhorus]

<<<<

Well that cuts both ways. I must have missed the story about how high gas prices were proof of roaring economy.

Huh? Thats not relevant. Gas prices don't rise because of economic growth. They rise from supply/demand and speculation(which caused the massive oil prices this past summer).

The low gas prices helps everyone regardless of their situation. Fuel costs is in everthing you buy. Fuel surcharges had dropped considerably since July meaning that it's not just your gas that is cheaper but your food costs go down as well.

You're right, but you're wrong. Yes, fuel costs coming down should lower consumer prices(whether they will is another story), but that almost doesn't matter with the damage done to people's purchasing power already.

Akhhorus you must not have been listening these past few years. What John Kerry stated was parroted throughout the Mainstream media.

Thats still not what you claimed.

And you are most welcome for my non-response!


I suppose you actually don't understand basic econ. Your posts here show that you don't and you're reduced to parroting what you read/hear from someone else who doesn't understand econ.

Link below. Fillibuster was threatened by dems.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2122312/posts

Thats not a legit source, thats someone's speculation/claim. The fact that they're accusing Frank and Pelosi of threatening a filibuster undermines any credibility they have.

[lorimike]

Huh? Thats not relevant. Gas prices don't rise because of economic growth. They rise from supply/demand and speculation(which caused the massive oil prices this past summer).<<<<sure they do. More people driving taking trips, more people driving in India and China etc increases demand




You're right, but you're wrong. Yes, fuel costs coming down should lower consumer prices(whether they will is another story), but that almost doesn't matter with the damage done to people's purchasing power already. <<<

Lower fuel costs help. I don't know why you are contesting this. Fist time home buyers also have a great opportunity.



Thats still not what you claimed.
Yoo are slicing and dicing just to be disagreable.

I suppose you actually don't understand basic econ. Your posts here show that you don't and you're reduced to parroting what you read/hear from someone else who doesn't understand econ.
Are you telling me this with a straight face?

Thats not a legit source, thats someone's speculation/claim. The fact that they're accusing Frank and Pelosi of threatening a filibuster undermines any credibility they have.

That was widely reported in a variety of news outlets. Do some research

[Keino]

I don't disagree with you. What irritates me is that the Dems claim to be blameless in this economic situation. To put the blame solely on President Bush is rather unfair. But hey, thats politics

So you complain about politics while pointing the finger at the Dems and playing politics? Hypocrisy much?

[Keino]

<<<<

Well that cuts both ways. I must have missed the story about how high gas prices were proof of roaring economy. The low gas prices helps everyone regardless of their situation. Fuel costs is in everthing you buy. Fuel surcharges had dropped considerably since July meaning that it's not just your gas that is cheaper but your food costs go down as well.

Only the cost of food is not cheaper, because most trucks who ship it run on diesel fuel and diesel is still as high as it ever was.

Fact of the matter is that we are currently in the worst economy since the Depression and so the decreased gas prices have been helpful but do not overshadow the depth of hurt that many Americans are feeling right now.

[lorimike]

Ahkhourus try this one and see if the dems own words is proof enough for you





http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/devastating-dems-refuse-to-reform.html

[akhhorus]

sure they do. More people driving taking trips, more people driving in India and China etc increases demand

That would be demand increasing, not economic growth. Demand for gas increases regardless of economic situation. We've been in a recession for a year, but gas prices both rose and fell dramatically regardless of the economic situ.

Lower fuel costs help. I don't know why you are contesting this.

That assumes the sellers are actually lowering their prices because of the market price of gas. There's little evidence of that. Feel free to show some proof otherwise.

Fist time home buyers also have a great opportunity.


If they have the credit or capital to actually afford a mortgage. Thats the problem, but this is basic economics--something you appear clueless about.

Yoo are slicing and dicing just to be disagreable.


You said X, you offered a quote saying Y, pointing out that you didn't back up what you claimed isn't being disagreeable or slicing/dicing.

Are you telling me this with a straight face?


Yes. You clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to economics.

That was widely reported in a variety of news outlets. Do some research

Its on you to prove your claim, please show which bill out of conference or committee in which congress the dems threatened to filibuster. That shouldn't be too difficult if what you say is true.

And do some research: Barney Frank or Pelosi cannot possibly be involved in any filibuster whatsoever. Thats like complaining about Jason Campbell not contributing to the pass rush.

[akhhorus]

Ahkhourus try this one and see if the dems own words is proof enough for you

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/devastating-dems-refuse-to-reform.html

Davis, Frank and Waters don't have enough power to take seriously(especially Davis, who was a benchbench freshman that term). Anyone who actually follows politics would know that. They, in 2004, would still need the GOP to help them since the gop was in control of both houses of congress.

Oh, and like I said: everyone's hands are dirty. Freddie and Fannie gave money to EVERYONE, and their chief lobbyist was Mccain's campaign manager(and Rahm Emmanuel was a board member of both from 2000-2002).

[lorimike]

Only the cost of food is not cheaper, because most trucks who ship it run on diesel fuel and diesel is still as high as it ever was.

Fact of the matter is that we are currently in the worst economy since the Depression and so the decreased gas prices have been helpful but do not overshadow the depth of hurt that many Americans are feeling right now.
My fuel surcharge last week was 13%. In July it was 37.5%. DOE index for diesel fuel is below $ 2.40. In July it was above $ 4.75. I have been in the trucking business for 20 years.

[Keino]

And do some research: Barney Frank or Pelosi cannot possibly be involved in any filibuster whatsoever. Thats like complaining about Jason Campbell not contributing to the pass rush.


Lorimike -

What Akh is telling you here is that Filibusters do not occur in the House of Representatives, of which Frank and Pelosi are members. They only occur in the Senate, and haven't occurred in the House since prior to 1842, when the House adopted rules restricting debate as a matter of procedure. In other words, as a function of procedure in the House, it is impossible to talk a bill to death and preventing moving on to new business.

[Keino]

My fuel surcharge last week was 13%. In July it was 37.5%. DOE index for diesel fuel is below $ 2.40. In July it was above $ 4.75. I have been in the trucking business for 20 years.

Diesel in FL is still $3.50 and above and we have not seen decreases in our food prices as a result, and much of our food is domestically produced (Beef, Butter, Produce and Dairy).

[akhhorus]

My fuel surcharge last week was 13%. In July it was 37.5%. DOE index for diesel fuel is below $ 2.40. In July it was above $ 4.75. I have been in the trucking business for 20 years.

And your costs are going down since your industry is directly tied to the price of gas, but retailers are not required by law to reduce their prices as their costs go down.

[lorimike]

Diesel in FL is still $3.50 and above and we have not seen decreases in our food prices as a result, and much of our food is domestically produced (Beef, Butter, Produce and Dairy).<<<

The fuel surcharges are Department of Energy averages that come out every Monday and we publish our new LTL and Truckload fuel surcharge every Tuesday. They have come down substantially. I am under no obligation to lower my prices but if I don't then the price for my service will not be competitive. Same principles are at work in retail and grocery

[lorimike]

And your costs are going down since your industry is directly tied to the price of gas, but retailers are not required by law to reduce their prices as their costs go down.<<<<

I am not obligated by law to lower my fuel surchage. The trucking industry was de-regulated in 1980 by Jimmy Carter.

[akhhorus]

<<<<

I am not obligated by law to lower my fuel surchage. The trucking industry was de-regulated in 1980 by Jimmy Carter.

Then why do you think that falling fuel prices mean lower consumer prices across the board? There's no law forcing anyone to do so and its in the interest of the retailers to keep prices high(since people psychologically get used to higher prices and don't link A and B).

[lorimike]

Lorimike -

What Akh is telling you here is that Filibusters do not occur in the House of Representatives, of which Frank and Pelosi are members. They only occur in the Senate, and haven't occurred in the House since prior to 1842, when the House adopted rules restricting debate as a matter of procedure. In other words, as a function of procedure in the House, it is impossible to talk a bill to death and preventing moving on to new business.<<<

I understand that but what Akh is denying is that the Democrats stood in the way of common sense regulation of the mortgage Industry. Here is another link below proving that Senate Democrats stood in the way of mortgage regulation.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/ken_taylor/2008/09/17/john_mccain_warned_of_mortgage_collapse_in_2005

[lorimike]

Then why do you think that falling fuel prices mean lower consumer prices across the board? There's no law forcing anyone to do so and its in the interest of the retailers to keep prices high(since people psychologically get used to higher prices and don't link A and B).
<<<

I thought I explained this for you but I will try again. Everything is on a truck at some point in it's journey from manufacturer to the store or your house. Lowering fuel costs are transferred to the retailer or distributor in the form of lower freight invoices. The retailer can choose to pass on this savings or not to pass on this savings. But due to competition another retailer could choose to take advangtage of their lower costs in the form of lower prices thus fueling revenue growth at their store and greater purchasing power for the inventory that they buy.

[Keino]

<<<

I understand that but what Akh is denying is that the Democrats stood in the way of common sense regulation of the mortgage Industry. Here is another link below proving that Senate Democrats stood in the way of mortgage regulation.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/ken_taylor/2008/09/17/john_mccain_warned_of_mortgage_collapse_in_2005


As someone who has been involved in the Mortgage industry, I can tell you that while real estate was still increasing in value, nobody was interested in regulating the industry, and by 2005, the collapse was already inevitable, so McCain was not warning us of anything Greenspan hadn't been warning us of for the better part of 5 years (and his tinkering with the interest rates also played a role here too). You can somewhat blame the Clinton administration for pushing for expanded homeownership initiatives which led to some of the less stringent underwriting criteria, but only to a point. It's a true cluster and there are no clean hands here....

[akhhorus]

<<<

I understand that but what Akh is denying is that the Democrats stood in the way of common sense regulation of the mortgage Industry. Here is another link below proving that Senate Democrats stood in the way of mortgage regulation.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/ken_taylor/2008/09/17/john_mccain_warned_of_mortgage_collapse_in_2005

That bill never got out of committee, and the Dems couldn't possibly have blocked it in committee(since you can't filibuster a bill still in committee and the GOP controlled the banking/finance committee votes). Let us know when you understand how bills become laws in the US.

[akhhorus]

<<<

I thought I explained this for you but I will try again. Everything is on a truck at some point in it's journey from manufacturer to the store or your house. Lowering fuel costs are transferred to the retailer or distributor in the form of lower freight invoices. The retailer can choose to pass on this savings or not to pass on this savings. But due to competition another retailer could choose to take advangtage of their lower costs in the form of lower prices thus fueling revenue growth at their store and greater purchasing power for the inventory that they buy.

You're right in theory, but in the real world, retailers don't automatically reduce their prices based on their costs. Food and energy prices have gone down a little bit in October and November(about 1%), but the rest of the prices haven't gone down significantly(about 0.1%).

Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm.

[lorimike]

That bill never got out of committee, and the Dems couldn't possibly have blocked it in committee(since you can't filibuster a bill still in committee and the GOP controlled the banking/finance committee votes). Let us know when you understand how bills become laws in the US.<<<<

How about you re-read the article and spare me your blather.
You sir have been roundly discredited on all your points. later

[lorimike]

You're right in theory, but in the real world, retailers don't automatically reduce their prices based on their costs. Food and energy prices have gone down a little bit in October and November(about 1%), but the rest of the prices haven't gone down significantly(about 0.1%).

Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm.
<<<<<

And so I have proven right once again.

[akhhorus]

<<<<

How about you re-read the article and spare me your blather.
You sir have been roundly discredited on all your points. later

Its a blog post that claims the Senate Dems blocked it. The Thomas page on it(the Library of Congress' OFFICIAL record of the bill):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s190:
All the action on the bill:
S.190
Title: A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.ALL ACTIONS:

1/26/2005:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S599-600)
1/26/2005:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

7/28/2005:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

It never got out of committee. Which means the GOP killed it(with or without Democratic help). Please to be a dear and explain how it was filibustered by the Senate Dems when it never made it on the floor. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't and you're just been proven to be a poser who's cribbing talking points off of someone else.

[lorimike]

As someone who has been involved in the Mortgage industry, I can tell you that while real estate was still increasing in value, nobody was interested in regulating the industry, and by 2005, the collapse was already inevitable, so McCain was not warning us of anything Greenspan hadn't been warning us of for the better part of 5 years (and his tinkering with the interest rates also played a role here too). You can somewhat blame the Clinton administration for pushing for expanded homeownership initiatives which led to some of the less stringent underwriting criteria, but only to a point. It's a true cluster and there are no clean hands here....

I hear this a lot from liberals over the mortgage crisis. In my opinion if they admit there is enough blame to go around then they are probably 90% guilty of the policies that allowed it to happen. What amazes me is that any politician gets re-elected.

[akhhorus]

<<<<<

And so I have proven right once again.

You have yet to be proven right. I just pointed out that food/energy prices went down all over 1% in total(which isn't much) but the rest of the sectors went down 0.1%(which is nothing). Considering oil prices went down 78% from the summer peak prices, how exactly are you right that consumer prices only went down 1%(I don't expect consumer prices to go down 78%, but 1% is way out of scale with the presumed drop in prices)?

[akhhorus]

I hear this a lot from liberals over the mortgage crisis. In my opinion if they admit there is enough blame to go around then they are probably 90% guilty of the policies that allowed it to happen. What amazes me is that any politician gets re-elected.

:lol1: So, when Keino(or anyone) says that everyone is to blame, you believe thats an admission of guilt? What are you? 7 years old?

[lorimike]

Its a blog post that claims the Senate Dems blocked it. The Thomas page on it(the Library of Congress' OFFICIAL record of the bill):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s190:
All the action on the bill:
S.190
Title: A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.ALL ACTIONS:

1/26/2005:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S599-600)
1/26/2005:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

7/28/2005:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

It never got out of committee. Which means the GOP killed it(with or without Democratic help). Please to be a dear and explain how it was filibustered by the Senate Dems when it never made it on the floor. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't and you're just been proven to be a poser who's cribbing talking points off of someone else.

It never got out of committee because the Democrats were going to fillibuster the bill. It passed in the house. Please re-read the article

[lorimike]

:lol1: So, when Keino(or anyone) says that everyone is to blame, you believe thats an admission of guilt? What are you? 7 years old?
<<

As vicious as politics is I would say that when you get the other side of the aisle to admit some guilt there is a lot more to it. Now I have proven to you the sentiments of the democrats to continue policies that got us into this mess time and time again. You sure love to argue

[akhhorus]

It never got out of committee because the Democrats were going to fillibuster the bill.

A threat to filibuster a bill doesn't affect its committee status. The Majority leader doesn't have to bring any bill to the floor after it leaves the committee. The bill NEVER left committee-which means Shelby killed it, not the Dems or Frist.

And considering the composition of the Senate in 2005, the GOP would have only needed 5 votes to invoke cloture and break any filibusters. They didn't even TRY to do that.

It passed in the house. Please re-read the article

And Bush said he would veto the House version:
Link (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851)

H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

[akhhorus]

<<

As vicious as politics is I would say that when you get the other side of the aisle to admit some guilt there is a lot more to it. Now I have proven to you the sentiments of the democrats to continue policies that got us into this mess time and time again. You sure love to argue

You haven't proved anything. All you've shown is that you don't know how the government or the economy actually works. You've offered nothing but blog posts to support your comments, and no facts.

[lorimike]

You haven't proved anything. All you've shown is that you don't know how the government or the economy actually works. You've offered nothing but blog posts to support your comments, and no facts.<<<<

I have shown you video tape of Democrats basically stating they were going to stand in the way of that bill. No amount of proof is enough for you. Even McCain mentioned this while on the campaign trail. I am not the one pulling this out of mid air

[akhhorus]

It never got out of committee because the Democrats were going to fillibuster the bill.

A threat to filibuster a bill doesn't affect its committee status. The Majority leader doesn't have to bring any bill to the floor after it leaves the committee. The bill NEVER left committee-which means Shelby killed it, not the Dems or Frist.

And considering the composition of the Senate in 2005, the GOP would have only needed 5 votes(4 plus lieberman) to invoke cloture and break any filibusters. They didn't even TRY to do that.

It passed in the house. Please re-read the article

And Bush said he would veto the House version:
Link (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851)

H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

[akhhorus]

<<<<

I have shown you video tape of Democrats basically stating they were going to stand in the way of that bill. No amount of proof is enough for you. Even McCain mentioned this while on the campaign trail. I am not the one pulling this out of mid air

None of those dems had the power to stand in the way of anything in 2004 or 2005(especially since it passed the house in 2005!), not even Barney Frank-who was the minority ranking member of the banking committee(which means he has precisely zero power in fact in that committee). So, once again, you have no clue what you're talking about or how government is run in the US.

[lorimike]

None of those dems had the power to stand in the way of anything in 2004 or 2005(especially since it passed the house in 2005!), not even Barney Frank-who was the minority ranking member of the banking committee(which means he has precisely zero power in fact in that committee). So, once again, you have no clue what you're talking about or how government is run in the US.
<<<

You are too funny. I like how you stick to this nonsensical position despite video proof. Here's more for you.







http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=1454

[Biggie]

<<<<

How about you re-read the article and spare me your blather.
You sir have been roundly discredited on all your points. later
No he hasn't. All you've accomplished is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how the process of legislation takes place.

[akhhorus]

<<<

You are too funny. I like how you stick to this nonsensical position despite video proof. Here's more for you.

You can have a video of a Dem saying that he wanted to kill the bill to help Fannie and Freddie skim cash for his retirement fund, it doesn't change anything: none of the people you accuse here were in a position to do anything or block anything. The Dems were in the minority in 2004 and 2005. The house GOP passed a bill(so much for any House Dems attempting to block anything in 2005), which died in the the GOP controlled Senate banking committee and the Republican president was threatening to veto. Are you being purposefully dense to try and push an agenda, or do you actually not know what the House and Senate have the power to do? Because you sure are sounding like you really have no clue what a congressman or a Senator can actually do.

I'm dealing with the reality of the situation, you're showing that you don't know how government works.

[lorimike]

You can have a video of a Dem saying that he wanted to kill the bill to help Fannie and Freddie skim cash for his retirement fund, it doesn't change anything: none of the people you accuse here were in a position to do anything or block anything. The Dems were in the minority in 2004 and 2005. The house GOP passed a bill(so much for any House Dems attempting to block anything in 2005), which died in the the GOP controlled Senate banking committee and the Republican president was threatening to veto. Are you being purposefully dense to try and push an agenda, or do you actually not know what the House and Senate have the power to do? Because you sure are sounding like you really have no clue what a congressman or a Senator can actually do.

I'm dealing with the reality of the situation, you're showing that you don't know how government works.

Now you are just silly. Those congressmen had no power? Wow what a considerable waste of time to have such hearings.


Here is another link for you from Shelby himself

http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=d324c3f9-802a-23ad-4764-d3e83b01d3dc

[lorimike]

You can have a video of a Dem saying that he wanted to kill the bill to help Fannie and Freddie skim cash for his retirement fund, it doesn't change anything: none of the people you accuse here were in a position to do anything or block anything. The Dems were in the minority in 2004 and 2005. The house GOP passed a bill(so much for any House Dems attempting to block anything in 2005), which died in the the GOP controlled Senate banking committee and the Republican president was threatening to veto. Are you being purposefully dense to try and push an agenda, or do you actually not know what the House and Senate have the power to do? Because you sure are sounding like you really have no clue what a congressman or a Senator can actually do.

I'm dealing with the reality of the situation, you're showing that you don't know how government works.

The video included several democrats voicing their disapproval of regulating Fannie. Quite damning evidence I would say and further proof of sentiments of Democrats at the time. The bill never got out of committee because It was going to be fillibustered. What do you not understand about this?

[akhhorus]

Now you are just silly. Those congressmen had no power? Wow what a considerable waste of time to have such hearings.

Those congressmen were on the minority side of a committee. They have zero effective power considering that the chairman of the committee could cut them off at any time and decided what the committee did and did not do. Those hearings were called by the GOP(since they were in control of the House then), and no matter how much Davis or Frank swore to do, they couldn't do anything without the GOP's help.

If this explanation of what happens in a committee is the first you're hearing of this, then maybe you should take a basic civics class before making accusations.

Here is another link for you from Shelby himself

http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=d324c3f9-802a-23ad-4764-d3e83b01d3dc

Funny that Shelby doesn't mention the 2005 bill that died in the committee he was chairman of...

[akhhorus]

The video included several democrats voicing their disapproval of regulating Fannie. Quite damning evidence I would say and further proof of sentiments of Democrats at the time. The bill never got out of committee because It was going to be fillibustered. What do you not understand about this?

Thats not how the Senate works. You're really clueless. Those dems weren't in a position to vote on a filibuster since they are house members, NOT Senators. And bills don't die in committee because of a threat of a filibuster. That threat kills bills after the committee approves it and the majority leader refuses to bring the bill to the floor. No bill gets killed in committee because of a filibuster threat. Considering how many GOP senators they were in 2005(55), the Dem's threat was hollow(Frist got plenty of bills past filibuster that term also).

[lorimike]

Thats not how the Senate works. You're really clueless. Those dems weren't in a position to vote on a filibuster since they are house members, NOT Senators. And bills don't die in committee because of a threat of a filibuster. That threat kills bills after the committee approves it and the majority leader refuses to bring the bill to the floor. No bill gets killed in committee because of a filibuster threat. Considering how many GOP senators they were in 2005(55), the Dem's threat was hollow(Frist got plenty of bills past filibuster that term also).<<<<

I think you are arguing a technical point without realizing the broader point I was trying to make. That Democrats essentially did all they could to block legislation to control and regulate Fannie and Freddie. Here is more proof for you from the NY Times. Otherwise known as the gospel in liberal circles





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[akhhorus]

<<<<

I think you are arguing a technical point without realizing the broader point I was trying to make.

No, you're blaming the Dems for disrupting legislation that could have regulated Fannie/Freddie(nevermind that it wouldn't have stopped anything). You clearly smoked pot during high school civics class, because you think that the the House and Senate can do similar things.

That Democrats essentially did all they could to block legislation to control and regulate Fannie and Freddie.

There is more proof that the GOP blocked legislation. They were in control of the House and Senate at the time, and despite all comments from the Dems, they had zero power in the House from 1994-2006 to do anything to block the GOP and little power in the Senate from 02-06. There weren't enough Dems in the Senate in 2005 for the filibuster threat to be taken seriously(especially since Frist had enough power to invoke cloture many times during that session).

Here is more proof for you from the NY Times. Otherwise known as the gospel in liberal circles
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

There's nothing there that proves anything, especially since Bush threatened a veto of the 2005 bill on the topic(it took 2 years for anyone to do anything on this topic in congress).

[Keino]

<<<<

I think you are arguing a technical point without realizing the broader point I was trying to make. That Democrats essentially did all they could to block legislation to control and regulate Fannie and Freddie. Here is more proof for you from the NY Times. Otherwise known as the gospel in liberal circles





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print


And you are ignoring the fact that the Congress was controlled by the GOP and that the Dems were not really in a position to block anything. You are blaming the Dems for blocking something that was never up for a vote. The bill passed the house and was killed by a GOP chaired Senate Committee and the GOP president indicated he had no intentions of signing it into law. HOw is that on the Dems?

[lorimike]

No, you're blaming the Dems for disrupting legislation that could have regulated Fannie/Freddie(nevermind that it wouldn't have stopped anything). You clearly smoked pot during high school civics class, because you think that the the House and Senate can do similar things.



There is more proof that the GOP blocked legislation. They were in control of the House and Senate at the time, and despite all comments from the Dems, they had zero power in the House from 1994-2006 to do anything to block the GOP and little power in the Senate from 02-06. There weren't enough Dems in the Senate in 2005 for the filibuster threat to be taken seriously(especially since Frist had enough power to invoke cloture many times during that session).



There's nothing there that proves anything, especially since Bush threatened a veto of the 2005 bill on the topic.


Sounds like there was a preliminary vote of the 2005 bill. Here is more evidence for you. I've shown you democrats on tape protesting regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Here is more for you. I say you protest too much



http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2008/10/01/bill-clinton-blames-dems-for-mortgage-crisis/

[akhhorus]

Sounds like there was a preliminary vote of the 2005 bill.

I posted the official record of the bill, there was no Senate vote on the bill-either on the floor or in committee.

Here is more evidence for you. I've shown you democrats on tape protesting regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Here is more for you. I say you protest too much

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2008/10/01/bill-clinton-blames-dems-for-mortgage-crisis/

From your link:
ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.

WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad — these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.

ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire.

If all the republicans voted for it, it would have passed the committee. It never came to a vote in the committee, so that person has no credibility.

Oh, and he was interviewing a person from AEI, AEi opposed the senate bill regulating Freddie/Fannie and was pushing for Bush to veto it if it was passed.

[Keino]

Sounds like there was a preliminary vote of the 2005 bill. Here is more evidence for you. I've shown you democrats on tape protesting regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Here is more for you. I say you protest too much



http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2008/10/01/bill-clinton-blames-dems-for-mortgage-crisis/

Forgetting for a moment that your blog is purely opinion, did you read the entry underneath the one you linked to?

This "Reverend" posterd clearly understands the issues that you are pawning off on the Dems.


The authentic problem, as opposed to one simply grasped at for partisan purposes, came about in December of 2000 in a budget funding bill which could not be vetoed. Investment banks were spared any oversight….and mortgage sellers could move their paper however they desired….catalyzing the bundling, buying, selling and gambling on…mortgage backed securities.

In addition, Alan Greenspan lowered prime rates so many times and to such a low figure…..Americans couldn't resist borrowing. Add to that the fact that Greenspan, no liberal, cheerled for sub-prime junk and trick ARM's…..you know, using the GOP mantra of "more choices".

December 2000 was a wholly GOP controlled congress. Discuss.

[lorimike]

Forgetting for a moment that your blog is purely opinion, did you read the entry underneath the one you linked to?

This "Reverend" posterd clearly understands the issues that you are pawning off on the Dems. <<<<<

I posted actual video footage of comments from Democrats. There was no sentiment for regulation of the mortgage industry by Democrats which is why the bill died in the Senate committee. It was going to be fillibustered by the Democrats.



December 2000 was a wholly GOP controlled congress. Discuss.<<<

Well that is true but without supermajorities there is much legislation that can be blocked.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Lorimike, your argument is tantamount to believing there is no accountability for bills that don't pass unless one party has a supermajority in the Senate, a majority in the house, and the whitehouse. If you are going to make excuses for the Republicans during the times when they had complete control, then the Democrats are not responsible for the next 2 years.

Seems to me the Republicans ought to be held accountable for 2002-2006 and the Democrats should absolutely be held accountable for 2008-2010. No excuses.

[akhhorus]

<<<

Well that is true but without supermajorities there is much legislation that can be blocked.

If that was the case, nothing would get done in Congress. Supermajorities in the Senate are extremely rare.

[lorimike]

If that was the case, nothing would get done in Congress. Supermajorities in the Senate are extremely rare.<<<

The Senate can block anything if they filibuster. In most cases the Senate does not filibuster.

[akhhorus]

<<<

The Senate can block anything if they filibuster. In most cases the Senate does not filibuster.

Thats why they have cloture votes to see if they can block filibusters. You're still wrong though about 2005: the gop had 55 votes and enough moderate/conservative dems who didn't like filibustering(to the point where Frist thought he had the votes to eliminate filibusters altogether) where they could get cloture without much trouble.

[Keino]

<<<

The Senate can block anything if they filibuster. In most cases the Senate does not filibuster.


Again, Akh is telling you that cloture in the face of a Supermajority defeats an attempted filibuster. 3/5 majority is required for Cloture (60 votes) if the Senate is full (meaning no vacant seats).

The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:

* A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
* The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
* The clerk reads the petition.
* The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
* On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
* The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
* The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority.

After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

* No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[8]
* No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
* No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
* All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
* Certain debates on procedure are not permissible.
* The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
* No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

Edit: The above came from Wiki, as that was the easiest place to find the info.

[Ibleedburgundy]

BTW GS employees are getting 2.9% for 2009 and core compensation employees are getting 3.9%. That's before the locality increase which generally adds another 1%.