BS: The Bailout

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:13 PM

Schumergate:

On July 11, the Office of Thrift Supervision seized IndyMac, making it the second-largest bank in U.S. history to go under. The agency's director, John M. Reich, blamed Schumer for hastening IndyMac's demise, calling the public dissemination of the letters "reckless and grossly irresponsible."

That cry was taken up this week by a group of 51 former IndyMac employees, who said in a letter to California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown: "Because of a malicious, politically motivated act of Charles Schumer, our lives have been shattered."

Did Schmucky Chucky precipitate the meltdown?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:22 PM

Conradgate:

NYT June 14, 2008

When Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota wanted a mortgage for his beach house, he turned to a Washington insider, James A. Johnson, former head of Fannie Mae, the government mortgage giant, who then put the senator in touch with Angelo Mozilo, chief executive of the mortgage lender Countrywide Financial.

The ensuing telephone call between Mr. Conrad and Mr. Mozilo led to two Countrywide mortgages, including one in which the company bent its rules to give Mr. Conrad a loan.

Those loans are now among a number of Countrywide mortgages at the center of an examination into whether a number of top politicians in Washington — members of Congress, the cabinet and celebrated advisers — received favorable deals from a company whose lax lending standards are at the center of the subprime mortgage crisis.

This week, Mr. Johnson, whom Mr. Conrad turned to for help, was forced to step down as head of Senator Barack Obama's vice-presidential selection committee in part over Countrywide home mortgage loans that Mr. Johnson had received at favorable rates.

At the center of the scrutiny is Countrywide's "V.I.P." program, also known as the "Friend of Angelo" program, in which Countrywide appeared to bend its lending rules for prominent people. Now, many of those receiving Countrywide home mortgages say they were not aware the company might have been working behind the scenes to give them favorable loan terms.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a leader in the effort to help homeowners caught in the mortgage crisis, denied on Friday that he received preferential treatment for his two Countrywide loans. A spokesman for Mr. Dodd, Bryan DeAngelis, said that neither Mr. Dodd nor his wife had spoken to Mr. Mozilo about their loans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bee
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:41 PM

http://www.financialpost.com/small_business/succession/Story.html?id=866521

"In a desperate bid to help U. S. banks recapitalize, Washington is dropping its inhibitions and reaching out to Canadian financial institutions to gauge their willingness to participate in rescue operations.

The Federal Reserve Board has activated a back channel that puts the central bank in direct contact with chief executives at Canada's largest banks and insurers, according to a person familiar with the dialogue.

They are approaching "banks with major assets in the U. S. like [Toronto-Dominion Bank] and Royal [Bank of Canada], because when they have a bailout situation they want everyone who is a potential buyer to look at it," the source said."

Back channel?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 04:05 PM

The reason S.900 would have become law anyway even had the Democrats not voted on the Committee Report is because the bill had already passed in the Senate with just the Republican votes. The Committee Report was just a vote on the language of the bill, not on the passage of the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

And the title of the bill is pretty irrelevant to the question of who supported and who did not support the bill. The bill was the bill, the title is just a title. McCain voted for the bill. It really doesn't matter what the bill was called when he voted for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 04:13 PM

Our bank is one of the Canadian ones with a US presence. Last couple of times I went to the bank, all of the employees were smiling broadly. They consider themselves to be extremely fortunate to be working for a Canadian bank right now. I'm very thankful our bank is Canadian as well. JtS says that Canadians would never get themselves into the kind of situation the US has gotten itself into, financially.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: heric
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 05:05 PM

American Spirit:

"The crisis on Wall Street is unprecedented. But is it all bad news? Or do opportunities exist for law firms and their clients who
understand how to position themselves for new business under the
Treasury Department's sweeping new authority? . . . Join us for an overview of what you need to know to position your firm and your clients to best address the changes ahead."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 10:00 PM

Wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 02:18 AM

According to Government records the bill passed Nov 4th.

November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passes the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 02:29 AM

And according to the government, the bill also passed on May 6, 1999 (in the Senate).


Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended )
Vote Number:         105        Vote Date:         May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM
Required For Majority:         1/2        Vote Result:        Bill Passed

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 02:31 AM

What you say about Canadian banks being safer appears to be correct, Carol. There have been some articles here about it. The Canadian banks are subject to much stricter government regulation regarding their lending practices, so they can't get themselves into trouble nearly as easily, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 02:43 AM

Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 02:46 AM

McCain May 25, 2006, RE: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

    Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

    The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

    For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

    I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.

    I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 02:53 AM

Jan 26, 2005 Chuck Hagel [R-NE] Introducing S. 190 co sponsored by Mccain, Dole and Sununu

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators SUNUNU and DOLE, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
  There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high.
  The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages.
  The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt.
  It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement.
  At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency.
  Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would:
  Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected.
  This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 03:05 AM

GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law

   ......................
1. Members from each house form a conference committee and meet to work out the differences. The committee is usually made up of senior members who are appointed by the presiding officers of the committee that originally dealt with the bill. The representatives from each house work to maintain their version of the bill.
   2. If the Conference Committee reaches a compromise, it prepares a written conference report, which is submitted to each chamber.
   3. The conference report must be approved by both the House and the Senate.

"The bill would have become law even if they had not done that"<>must be approved by both the House and the Senate

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 03:16 AM

The bill would have become law even had the Democrats not voted for the Commission Report because the Commission Report (the vote that happened on November 4) had enough votes from Republicans to pass.

The votes from the Democrats were not needed in order for the vote on the Commission Report to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 03:18 AM

Correction to my previous post - Committee Report (not Commission Report).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM

"Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible."


                     Carol - I would agree that the Canadians act a lot more like grownups than the Americans do, but Bill Clinton was reasonably fiscally responsible.
                     His one big mistake was Kosovo, in my opinoin, and we are paying for that in Georgia now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:21 AM

Clinton may have been fiscally responsible, but he was a globalist. His signing of NAFTA is to a great extent responsible for the large influx of undocumented workers from south of the border, their livelihoods having been destroyed by the corn and other agricultural products, subsidized by the US government, that flooded their countries.

I used to think that President Clinton was the greatest president of my lifetime. Now I think he wasn't all that much better than Reagan or Bush I. And I think they both sucked as presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:10 AM

Well, I still think Clinton was a good president. No one does everything right. Ronald Reagan was a person who I really came to hate--I mean hate--and I simply think George W. Bush is an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:17 AM

Indeed Clinton sucked jobs out of this country by the millions.

I always thought he sucked. He demanded others suck up to him since he sucked up to every new world bank order to globalize our jobs and minimize jobs for all Americans who did try to retrain. WHile millions tried to retrain, he felt our pain.

His wife sadly belongs to the same foreign relation commitee, tri lateral commision and world bank scheme as Bill.

After all the sucking up the Clintons did, you would think he would have gotten more credit than to be sickeningly impeached by overt perverts who titillated themselves vicariously with the Starr report.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:28 AM

Oh, I think Clinton was way better than George W. It was Pappy Bush I was referring to in my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:30 AM

OVER AND OVER AGAIN

we were told we do not have 7 billion dollars to cover health care for the children in America.
we do not have 7 billion dollars to cover health care for the children in America.



Our treasury Secretary easily and quickly slipped 180 billion dollars to help AIG corporation pay off some of the winners of investment bets that firms like Goldman Sachs made.

Yep AIG made bets to good ol Goldman Sachs the same corporation that our Treasury Secretary raked in $500 million in "salary".

What kind of bets? Bets like Lehman Bros. will not be able to cover their bets...after a month of whispering rumors.
The parasites and predators turned on each other as if it was sort of Highlander game. There can only be one.




Sorry we can't spare the $7 billion to children's health care...fuck em...
AIG NEEDS MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and AIG got more. They claim they are too big to fail. Children are too little to bail out of accident and disease.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:35 PM

"The votes from the Democrats were not needed " So what was the reason for the vote?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:37 PM

Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02:

"...the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier...
... during the Clinton Administration the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped, deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 05:54 PM

The purpose of that vote was not the passage of the bill itself, but to agree on the language of the bill, as I have repeatedly said. They were not voting on the merits of the bill. They were voting on how the bill would be worded. The merits of the bill were voted on in May when the Democrats voted against the passage of the bill. This is what I have been saying repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:10 PM

Actually, George Bush spent alot of energy in 2000 trying to talk the economy down....

But nevermind that... The major problem with the last 8 years is that there was no fiscal responsibility by either the corporatist or their puppet government... The so-called growth of the economy was false as it was based on borrowing...

Any accountant worth his or her salt will tell you that if you borrow and borrow that doesn't mean that you are healthy from a financial point... We've had 8 years of "bogus growth" and now we're going to have to pay for it... Same thing happened when Reagan was president... Didn't work then and it ain't worked this time either... Time for a new model... This one is badly flawed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:47 PM

Bobert, You are 100% orrect that there was no respondisibility, oversight or regulation.

I hope others will soon understand that this was worse than deliberate. The actual financial instruments that were invented such as the double derivitives and the credit default swaps were created and scientifically modeled to do exactly what they have done.

I could repeat that but I believe it is clear enough.

Treasury Secretary Paulson of Goldman Sachs appointed his buddy Neel Kashkari to dole out the bail out. Neel was VP for Goldman Sachs and helped model some of these weapons of financial of mass destruction , which is exactly what Warren Buffet calls them.
You see he had nuclear physics math to aid his economic modeling.

Guess who the first people were to get the bail out money. AIG? Yep but they immediatly gave it to Goldman Sachs which is who AIG was most deeply in debt.

The first 200 billion flies out the door and already we don't hav clear accounting of where it goes after person 1 gets it.

Bobert, we have seen natural disasters, this is not one of them.
This is murder in the first degree with forthought.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM

"This is what I have been saying repeatedly"

What you haven't been saying at all is why the Democrats changed their votes from Nay to Yea.

If voting Yea is some Sort of wrong thing to do, why did they do it?

How can you vote on the wording of something without voting on the meaning of the wording.?

And why was there a need to vote on it at all, as if you say, it would have passed anyway?

This is a flip flop Kerry defense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:41 PM

"Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible."

Canada has a $6.3 billion trade surplus. It exports more than it imports. They have lots of money to spend on socialized medicine etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:28 AM

They didn't change their vote from nay to yea. The first vote was on the merits of the bill, and on the passage of the bill.. They voted nay on the merits of the bill and on the passage of the bill.

The second vote was on the language of the bill that had already been passed on its merits. On the second vote, they were agreeing to allow the Committee Report (on the language of the bill) to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 06:33 AM

So let me see..


Canada is wise and to be praised as more knowledgable than the US finacially for having a trade surplus- But Palin is to be criticised and condemned as unknowledgable finacially for Alaska having a trade surplus.


Must be logical to somebody.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:14 AM

Nobody's praising Canada for having a trade surplus. Canada is being praised for being fiscally conservative. The trade surplus is simply helping them have more money to manage responsibly. But it's the responsible management (being fiscally conservative), combined with strict regulation of the banking industry that is the reason Canada's banks are in such good shape.

The US, on the other hand, has been engaging in reckless deregulation and criminal fiscal irresponsibility, and that's why the banking system in the US is in the toilet, Alaska's trade surplus notwithstanding (Alaska is still a part of the US, as far as I am aware).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:02 AM

So it looks like Palin is on the right track. Too bad we can't get her into office sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:04 AM

On the right track because Alaska is still part of the US? That's true, it is, but no thanks to the Palins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:36 AM

the DOW is going down a 100 points a minute this morning.

the whacky Cramer advised everyone to sell yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM

after 30 minutes its only down 600

I am going to guess it bottoms out at 7,000 by closing bell.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:57 AM

Went to 79xx, now at 8365....

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:00 AM

If it goes to 4500 I would be astonished. There is too much inate hope in the human spirit to go that low.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:12 AM

It swung back up 600 points in 30 seconds,

wow ain't computers great!

I wonder who bought?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:20 AM

If GLBA would have passed regardless of the vote on Nov 4th, Why was a vote needed?

I see nothing official to substantiate the claim that the bill would have passed anyway.

All I see is a vote. When a vote is taken it indicates that the voters are deciding if something passes or not.

If Democrats objected to GLBA and it voting for GLBA was wrong, Democrats should have voted against it Nov 4th 1999, even if they were only voting on the language of the bill which they should have disagreed with if the bill was wrong.

Wikipedia:
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines   Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). After adopting Democratic proposals for negotiations with the Senate, the House passed the bill on an uncounted voice vote. The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act [This was after May 6, 1999] and address certain privacy concerns. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This "veto-proof" legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Obviously the Democrats changed their minds do to some CRA goodies put in the bill after May 6th and before Nov 4th.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:37 AM

And McCain voted for it (S. 900) when it passed in the Senate. McCain supported the bill, and helped it to become law.

The Community Reinvestment Act basically requires that any bank that receives FDIC insurance must comply with anti-discrimination guidelines (which means they were no longer allowed to engage in "redlining").

As we can see, S. 900 easily passed in both the House and Senate without any help at all from the Democrats. They knew it was a done deal and S. 900 was going to become law. So they made a deal and agreed to vote for the bill in return for an agreement from the Republicans to help them strengthen the CRA. So, in essence, they voted against S. 900, and for strengthening the CRA. Perhaps the Republicans were looking for a veto-proof majority. Clinton didn't like S. 900 (although he warmed up to it a bit after the agreement was made to strengthen the CRA).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:40 AM

However, it was, from beginning to end, a Republican initiative, and it was the Republicans who crafted it and pushed it along until it became law.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bee
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:49 AM

Regardless of how fiscally responsible Canada has been, our economy is taking a beating as a result of the American debacle. Our trade surplus relies quite a lot on Americans having money to purchase our commodities. This is why we should be much more diversified as to trading partners.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

what upsets the Europeans and the foreigners is that the US plan has done nothing at all about the debt crisis itself. It's bailed out the creditors, but not a penny of the actual debts, the subprime mortgage debts, are addressed. Without any of the media knowing, the Federal Reserve over the last few months has given $850 billion of cash for trash already. This is what the $700 billion discussion in Congress was supposed to be about, but the Fed, without anyone knowing, has already been exchanging these securities. And the securities essentially have been swapped by the US bankers to their pals and not done anything at all to write down the actual subprime debts. There's a big attempt to blame the victim now. And if you add up all of the subprime bad loans and defaults, that's altogether $1 trillion. So far, the government has given away $6 trillion already to Wall Street. That's much more than any of the subprime debt. And the volume of derivative trade has been estimated at $450 trillion, an unbelievable amount. So nobody has any idea about how much money is at stake.

And what really triggered a lot of this was the way in which Lehman went bankrupt. The day-and this has not been discussed either in America, but it's all over the European press. The day before Lehman went bankrupt, it basically looted all of its foreign offices. For instance, in England, it emptied out the English account of a few billion dollars, leaving the English employees only with the money they-the little cards they had to use in the vending machines. No salaries were paid. The London office was closed down immediately. And the next day, Lehman used the money that it took from London to pay its closest associates to redeem the derivative trades that it had done. So the English bankers came out and said, in England, we have an ethic: it's lend to the person, not against the asset. And they've come to the conclusion that the American bankers-well, we won't say "crooks," but let's say they're cronies who deal among themselves and are willing to screw the foreigner.

And this has created such mistrust abroad that Europeans and Asians and OPEC country investors are simply pulling their money out of the US, because they don't have a clue as to the solvency of the banks. We're seeing the end result of the Alan Greenspan deregulatory revolution, where he said markets are all self-regulating. Right now, you're seeing the markets self-regulate themselves. And the result is a wipeout of the American pyramiding." And there's more here (1)

Government keeps saying that this is only financial, and that our industries and businesses are still sound-that is a blatant lie! This could not be happening here if the US had a manufacturing or an industrial base of any kind: But our once formidable American commercial infrastructure has been outsourced, with the full approval and encouragement of this government; causing massive loses in American jobs for those American workers that have now been thrown on the trash-heaps of history.

Any 'Republic' that no longer has a system of checks & balances or anything remotely resembling 'oversight' of what they create to run the nation, is no longer a country-it is only a fascist police-state in waiting!

"Senator Chris Dodd, the banking committee chair has no plans to subject the new Bailout Czar, Neel Kashkari to conformation hearings. Kashkari is the thirty-five year old Treasury official, tapped by Henry Paulson, to oversee the more than 700 billion-dollar bailout. Like Paulson, Kashkari is a former employee of Goldman-Sachs. Kashkari graduated from business school six years ago."

Given this fact: it is now clear that we can forget about the political campaigns because whoever "wins" that farce will not even come close to having the kind of power that this 35 year old insider will be able to have, when he begins handing out "450 Trillion dollars" to the money-changers at the expense of every one of us! There's a huge difference between the $850 Billion they told us about and the $450 Trillion that is the actual amount of the problem! That's more money than any economy could ever envision, much less ever have: and yet that's the payoff that this Depression was designed to create!

And Senator Dodd does not think that we even ought to have a hearing to see if this Goldman-Sachs insider is even qualified for anything, much less this job that will clearly make the US presidency into the standing joke that it already is!

Americans at all levels of this nightmare are hurting badly, some far more than others. The meltdown has cut into 401K's, into investments, retirement funds, savings accounts, mutual funds, and stock option plans not to mention the number of homes and jobs that will be lost in this massive war against the people of the United States, and by extension the world. Hundreds of Trillions will be doled out before this is done, but not one cent will be given to real people to protect them in any way from what has already destroyed over twenty percent of the retirement savings that had to be earned over many decades!

According to CBS News this morning "we have lost $8 Trillion so far this year, and the markets have fallen 40% from where they were just one year ago today." This Depression is not remotely near the end, as the automotive and airlines and the insurance shortfalls will also be demanding bailouts ­ notwithstanding the fact that the subprime mortgages have still not even been addressed. What happened to Impeachment or anything to do with challenging these people on anything they've done! This is happening - because we have remained silent and obedient throughout the last eight years of this completely criminal regime, in the face of war-crimes by the hundreds, and outrages that defy all the human sensibilities on which the community of nations was built.

So much money being paid out-all in secret of course-and nothing to help real people survive the coming depression. Once more the global money-changers are being bailed-out with no thought at all to saving the very people that are being forced to pay off these eternal bandits that have declared "All out War" upon the global economy and the global- population who will suffer or die because of this new outrage!

This situation screams for resolutions: yet all we get are platitudes amid the chaos of failing markets, and no one in authority is even remotely in any danger of even getting fired! If 'resolutions' fail then the only choice left to the real people of this world will be a global demand for Revolution, along with total control over all bankers and politicians of any stripe-forever!

If this sounds impossible or implausible then please just think about this completely other proposal, from Benjamin Fulford:

"With a brand new financial system built from scratch, it would be possible to end world poverty and stop environmental destruction within a month. The reason is simple, we have been blinded from reality by a hypnotic pyramid scheme known as the world financial system. The financial system is nothing more than the process of deciding what humanity will do in the future. In other words, it is fundamentally nothing more than mass psychology. Thus, if humanity changed their collective psychology about how to run the planet, it could decide, within a few days, to care for the poor and stop destroying nature. It is simply a matter of making the collective decision to do so. That is all."

If this Depression is not averted, then we must act, because there's a total lack of responsibility in the continued fleecing of the public and of everything we have all worked for all our lives! This must not be allowed to reach its designed conclusion ­ not that is ­ if we are planning to have a future of any kind, for our selves or for any of our descendants!

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:32 PM

"it was, from beginning to end, a Republican initiative, and it was the Republicans who crafted it and pushed it along until it became law."

That is true but in the end all but 7 democrats voted for the final version of the bill which was changed from the original bill voted for on May 6th. Evidently they wanted it to become law.

And McCain did not vote for the final revised CRA enriched bill on Nov when it passed. Maybe he would have if he was there but he did not.

And who heeded Chuck Hagle's bill for regulation "This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require." and McCains speech in support of that bill calling for regulation "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."? They hit the nail right on the head.

Democrats had the majority then. Theheir bill never got out of committee because Chris Dodd "Friend of Angelo" and recipient of $13,163,356 in contributions from the finance, real estate and insurance sector, was Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. See any conflict of interest there?

And who heeded the 10 calls for regulation by the Bush administration from 2001 to 2007?

You can blame the Republican or the Democrats but both are responsible and if they can divide the US people into thinking one or the other is right, they will continue the bullshit partisan politics that benefit one part of the American people by screwing the other.

I think I am turning into one of the Purple People.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:37 PM

"You can blame the Republican or the Democrats but both are responsible and if they can divide the US people into thinking one or the other is right, they will continue the bullshit partisan politics that benefit one part of the American people by screwing the other."

BINGO!

Therein lies the genius of the partisan adversarial $ySStem. It works just like a football playoff series...every time...and no matter which team wins, the League still runs the game, owns the stadium, fleeces the divided public, and reaps the rewards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:29 PM

The original quote that we have been arguing about all this time did not say he voted for the Gramm Leach Bliley act. The original quote did not name the bill, it only described what the bill did. And McCain, when he voted for the bill in the Senate in May, did vote for a bill that was as described in my original quote.

But whether or not he voted for the Committee Report for S. 900 is entirely irrelevant to the question of McCain's involvement in the deregulation of our banking industry. He was up to his wispy little comb-over in the deregulation of our banking industry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:43 PM

Here's the original quote that I posted all that long time ago that we have been arguing about ever since...

It is doubly interesting though, because McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St


This quote is a true statement. McCain did vote for the bill that deregulated Wall Street. He voted for S. 900 in May of 1999. The only thing that changed about that bill from when he voted for it and when it was made into law, was the addition of the part that strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act. So, in fact, it's only the part that strengthened the CRA that he didn't vote for. He voted for all of the rest of it in May.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: heric
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM

"There's all kinds of stuff stacked up on docks right now that can't be shipped because people can't get letters of credit," said Bill Gary, president of Commodity Information Systems in Oklahoma City. "The problem is not demand, and it's not supply because we have plenty of supply. It's finding anyone who can come up with the credit to buy."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=866310