[34f3f3f]

Doesn’t read well so I’ve rehashed it.

It’s looks to be so, here is the except from the bill regarding foreign banks.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Inquiring minds are verifying the above in the Bailout Bill Resolution Draft. Here is the language under discussion.
SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institution that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

SEC. 101. PURCHASES OF TROUBLED ASSETS.
8 (a) OFFICES; AUTHORITY.—
9 (1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is authorized to establish a troubled asset relief program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
4 AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

That’s better!

There have been several casualties in Europe as a result of the US subprime crisis. Of course, places like Spain, Ireland and the UK have created their own mess, and due to the international nature of finance many banks share the same sheets over this. I would imagine bail outs that extend to banks based on foreign shores is to protect US interests, and avoid lengthy litigation battles.

The Irish government has recently made a bold move to guarantee all deposits of its major banks. It can’t actually afford to do this, but if one bank defaults the insurance kicks in. The Irish government insists this is not a bail out, but is key to stabilizing the banking industry in Ireland. With banks like Anglo Irish offering up to 5% on the US dollar savings accounts, plus a government guarantee that makes Ireland one of the best places to put you money.

[34f3f3f]

Doesn’t read well so I’ve rehashed it.

It’s looks to be so, here is the except from the bill regarding foreign banks.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Inquiring minds are verifying the above in the Bailout Bill Resolution Draft. Here is the language under discussion.
SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institution that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

SEC. 101. PURCHASES OF TROUBLED ASSETS.
8 (a) OFFICES; AUTHORITY.—
9 (1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is authorized to establish a troubled asset relief program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
4 AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

That’s better!

There have been several casualties in Europe as a result of the US subprime crisis. Of course, places like Spain, Ireland and the UK have created their own mess, and due to the international nature of finance many banks share the same sheets over this. I would imagine bail outs that extend to banks based on foreign shores is to protect US interests, and avoid lengthy litigation battles.

The Irish government has recently made a bold move to guarantee all deposits of its major banks. It can’t actually afford to do this, but if one bank defaults the insurance kicks in. The Irish government insists this is not a bail out, but is key to stabilizing the banking industry in Ireland. With banks like Anglo Irish offering up to 5% on the US dollar savings accounts, plus a government guarantee that makes Ireland one of the best places to put you money.

[34f3f3f]

Doesn’t read well so I’ve rehashed it.

It’s looks to be so, here is the except from the bill regarding foreign banks.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Inquiring minds are verifying the above in the Bailout Bill Resolution Draft. Here is the language under discussion.
SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institution that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

SEC. 101. PURCHASES OF TROUBLED ASSETS.
8 (a) OFFICES; AUTHORITY.—
9 (1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is authorized to establish a troubled asset relief program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
4 AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

That’s better!

There have been several casualties in Europe as a result of the US subprime crisis. Of course, places like Spain, Ireland and the UK have created their own mess, and due to the international nature of finance many banks share the same sheets over this. I would imagine bail outs that extend to banks based on foreign shores is to protect US interests, and avoid lengthy litigation battles.

The Irish government has recently made a bold move to guarantee all deposits of its major banks. It can’t actually afford to do this, but if one bank defaults the insurance kicks in. The Irish government insists this is not a bail out, but is key to stabilizing the banking industry in Ireland. With banks like Anglo Irish offering up to 5% on the US dollar savings accounts, plus a government guarantee that makes Ireland one of the best places to put you money.

[34f3f3f]

Doesn’t read well so I’ve rehashed it.

It’s looks to be so, here is the except from the bill regarding foreign banks.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Inquiring minds are verifying the above in the Bailout Bill Resolution Draft. Here is the language under discussion.
SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institution that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

SEC. 101. PURCHASES OF TROUBLED ASSETS.
8 (a) OFFICES; AUTHORITY.—
9 (1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is authorized to establish a troubled asset relief program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
4 AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

That’s better!

There have been several casualties in Europe as a result of the US subprime crisis. Of course, places like Spain, Ireland and the UK have created their own mess, and due to the international nature of finance many banks share the same sheets over this. I would imagine bail outs that extend to banks based on foreign shores is to protect US interests, and avoid lengthy litigation battles.

The Irish government has recently made a bold move to guarantee all deposits of its major banks. It can’t actually afford to do this, but if one bank defaults the insurance kicks in. The Irish government insists this is not a bail out, but is key to stabilizing the banking industry in Ireland. With banks like Anglo Irish offering up to 5% on the US dollar savings accounts, plus a government guarantee that makes Ireland one of the best places to put you money.

[34f3f3f]

Doesn’t read well so I’ve rehashed it.

It’s looks to be so, here is the except from the bill regarding foreign banks.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Inquiring minds are verifying the above in the Bailout Bill Resolution Draft. Here is the language under discussion.
SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institution that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

SEC. 101. PURCHASES OF TROUBLED ASSETS.
8 (a) OFFICES; AUTHORITY.—
9 (1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is authorized to establish a troubled asset relief program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
4 AND CENTRAL BANKS.
The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

That’s better!

There have been several casualties in Europe as a result of the US subprime crisis. Of course, places like Spain, Ireland and the UK have created their own mess, and due to the international nature of finance many banks share the same sheets over this. I would imagine bail outs that extend to banks based on foreign shores is to protect US interests, and avoid lengthy litigation battles.

The Irish government has recently made a bold move to guarantee all deposits of its major banks. It can’t actually afford to do this, but if one bank defaults the insurance kicks in. The Irish government insists this is not a bail out, but is key to stabilizing the banking industry in Ireland. With banks like Anglo Irish offering up to 5% on the US dollar savings accounts, plus a government guarantee that makes Ireland one of the best places to put you money.

[34f3f3f]

Two down, one to go.

[34f3f3f]

Two down, one to go.

[34f3f3f]

Two down, one to go.

[34f3f3f]

Two down, one to go.

[34f3f3f]

Two down, one to go.

[34f3f3f]

McCain had the upperhand in foreign affaires, which is to be expected, and his arguments were strong. I think just walking out of Iraq without a phased withdrawal could be dangerous, but McCain’s reasons for staying in Iraq are still driven more by military instincts than politics, such as ‘we will win this war’, rather than we made a mistake and it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to clear it up. I also think he is right in that some sort of precondition needs to be set before meeting with the leaders of states such as Iran. But Obama may have been rebelling against what he sees as preconditions that are belligerent, and not conducive to dialogue. Maybe he believes in that old expression, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Obama made veiled references to the cost of the Iraq war, which hasn’t received the same publicity as the current financial crisis. So a big boost to him there.

Neither touched on the current financial crisis, which is wise given the number of people who were duped into believing the Iraq war was the right thing to do.

On health care, Obama wins hands down, but that is my own personal bias. The US has possibly the worst health care system in the developed world. I am sorry if that displeases anyone, but I feel very strongly that that is the case, and with some credentials to back it up.

On the issue of how their personas come across, Obama comes across as being perhaps a little naive that being nice to McCain will work in his favor. He is calm, but every now and then pauses, and seems a little unsure of himself. His answers were rehearsed, but only a fool is going to attempt to improvise in a presidential debate. McCain’s body language really lets him down. He is awkward, faltering, nervous, which all puts the spotlight on his age. He has an almost Churchillian way about him. One thing the media did not pick up on was he rarely if at all looked at his opponent. This made him look arrogant, and some will say he is a racist.

So in conclusion, no really clear winners but youth and judgement, may just have had the edge on experience and tradition.

[34f3f3f]

McCain had the upperhand in foreign affaires, which is to be expected, and his arguments were strong. I think just walking out of Iraq without a phased withdrawal could be dangerous, but McCain’s reasons for staying in Iraq are still driven more by military instincts than politics, such as ‘we will win this war’, rather than we made a mistake and it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to clear it up. I also think he is right in that some sort of precondition needs to be set before meeting with the leaders of states such as Iran. But Obama may have been rebelling against what he sees as preconditions that are belligerent, and not conducive to dialogue. Maybe he believes in that old expression, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Obama made veiled references to the cost of the Iraq war, which hasn’t received the same publicity as the current financial crisis. So a big boost to him there.

Neither touched on the current financial crisis, which is wise given the number of people who were duped into believing the Iraq war was the right thing to do.

On health care, Obama wins hands down, but that is my own personal bias. The US has possibly the worst health care system in the developed world. I am sorry if that displeases anyone, but I feel very strongly that that is the case, and with some credentials to back it up.

On the issue of how their personas come across, Obama comes across as being perhaps a little naive that being nice to McCain will work in his favor. He is calm, but every now and then pauses, and seems a little unsure of himself. His answers were rehearsed, but only a fool is going to attempt to improvise in a presidential debate. McCain’s body language really lets him down. He is awkward, faltering, nervous, which all puts the spotlight on his age. He has an almost Churchillian way about him. One thing the media did not pick up on was he rarely if at all looked at his opponent. This made him look arrogant, and some will say he is a racist.

So in conclusion, no really clear winners but youth and judgement, may just have had the edge on experience and tradition.

[34f3f3f]

McCain had the upperhand in foreign affaires, which is to be expected, and his arguments were strong. I think just walking out of Iraq without a phased withdrawal could be dangerous, but McCain’s reasons for staying in Iraq are still driven more by military instincts than politics, such as ‘we will win this war’, rather than we made a mistake and it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to clear it up. I also think he is right in that some sort of precondition needs to be set before meeting with the leaders of states such as Iran. But Obama may have been rebelling against what he sees as preconditions that are belligerent, and not conducive to dialogue. Maybe he believes in that old expression, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Obama made veiled references to the cost of the Iraq war, which hasn’t received the same publicity as the current financial crisis. So a big boost to him there.

Neither touched on the current financial crisis, which is wise given the number of people who were duped into believing the Iraq war was the right thing to do.

On health care, Obama wins hands down, but that is my own personal bias. The US has possibly the worst health care system in the developed world. I am sorry if that displeases anyone, but I feel very strongly that that is the case, and with some credentials to back it up.

On the issue of how their personas come across, Obama comes across as being perhaps a little naive that being nice to McCain will work in his favor. He is calm, but every now and then pauses, and seems a little unsure of himself. His answers were rehearsed, but only a fool is going to attempt to improvise in a presidential debate. McCain’s body language really lets him down. He is awkward, faltering, nervous, which all puts the spotlight on his age. He has an almost Churchillian way about him. One thing the media did not pick up on was he rarely if at all looked at his opponent. This made him look arrogant, and some will say he is a racist.

So in conclusion, no really clear winners but youth and judgement, may just have had the edge on experience and tradition.

[34f3f3f]

McCain had the upperhand in foreign affaires, which is to be expected, and his arguments were strong. I think just walking out of Iraq without a phased withdrawal could be dangerous, but McCain’s reasons for staying in Iraq are still driven more by military instincts than politics, such as ‘we will win this war’, rather than we made a mistake and it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to clear it up. I also think he is right in that some sort of precondition needs to be set before meeting with the leaders of states such as Iran. But Obama may have been rebelling against what he sees as preconditions that are belligerent, and not conducive to dialogue. Maybe he believes in that old expression, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Obama made veiled references to the cost of the Iraq war, which hasn’t received the same publicity as the current financial crisis. So a big boost to him there.

Neither touched on the current financial crisis, which is wise given the number of people who were duped into believing the Iraq war was the right thing to do.

On health care, Obama wins hands down, but that is my own personal bias. The US has possibly the worst health care system in the developed world. I am sorry if that displeases anyone, but I feel very strongly that that is the case, and with some credentials to back it up.

On the issue of how their personas come across, Obama comes across as being perhaps a little naive that being nice to McCain will work in his favor. He is calm, but every now and then pauses, and seems a little unsure of himself. His answers were rehearsed, but only a fool is going to attempt to improvise in a presidential debate. McCain’s body language really lets him down. He is awkward, faltering, nervous, which all puts the spotlight on his age. He has an almost Churchillian way about him. One thing the media did not pick up on was he rarely if at all looked at his opponent. This made him look arrogant, and some will say he is a racist.

So in conclusion, no really clear winners but youth and judgement, may just have had the edge on experience and tradition.

[34f3f3f]

McCain had the upperhand in foreign affaires, which is to be expected, and his arguments were strong. I think just walking out of Iraq without a phased withdrawal could be dangerous, but McCain’s reasons for staying in Iraq are still driven more by military instincts than politics, such as ‘we will win this war’, rather than we made a mistake and it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to clear it up. I also think he is right in that some sort of precondition needs to be set before meeting with the leaders of states such as Iran. But Obama may have been rebelling against what he sees as preconditions that are belligerent, and not conducive to dialogue. Maybe he believes in that old expression, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Obama made veiled references to the cost of the Iraq war, which hasn’t received the same publicity as the current financial crisis. So a big boost to him there.

Neither touched on the current financial crisis, which is wise given the number of people who were duped into believing the Iraq war was the right thing to do.

On health care, Obama wins hands down, but that is my own personal bias. The US has possibly the worst health care system in the developed world. I am sorry if that displeases anyone, but I feel very strongly that that is the case, and with some credentials to back it up.

On the issue of how their personas come across, Obama comes across as being perhaps a little naive that being nice to McCain will work in his favor. He is calm, but every now and then pauses, and seems a little unsure of himself. His answers were rehearsed, but only a fool is going to attempt to improvise in a presidential debate. McCain’s body language really lets him down. He is awkward, faltering, nervous, which all puts the spotlight on his age. He has an almost Churchillian way about him. One thing the media did not pick up on was he rarely if at all looked at his opponent. This made him look arrogant, and some will say he is a racist.

So in conclusion, no really clear winners but youth and judgement, may just have had the edge on experience and tradition.

[Author]

Posts