BS: The Bailout

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 03:43 PM

In case you haven't checked this "monstrous" proposal out, here it is--The Bailout Proposal

A quick read will show you that there is no sort of proposal or plan at all--it appropriates a nearly unimaginable amount of money for the Secretary of the Treasury to buy up whatever he wants-"The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act" without having to account for any of it--"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

By it's very nature, it is illegal and unconstitutional, and, if that's not enough, it's not even a plan--

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 03:25 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 03:09 PM

According to my favorite economist, Joseph Stiglitz, the proposed bailout will only make things worse. He says that the way to solve the problem is to help homeowners renegotiate the conditions of their mortgages, and he proposes a few other solutions, as well as explaining why the current proposals won't work...


A Better Bailout
By Joseph E. Stiglitz

September 26, 2008

(This is an excerpt)

Paulson and others in Wall Street are claiming that the bailout is necessary and that we are in deep trouble. Not long ago, they were telling us that we had turned a corner. The administration even turned down an effective stimulus package last February--one that would have included increased unemployment benefits and aid to states and localities--and they still say we don't need another stimulus. To be frank, the administration has a credibility and trust gap as big as that of Wall Street. If the crisis was as severe as they claim, why didn't they propose a more credible plan? With lack of oversight and transparency the cause of the current problem, how could they make a proposal so short in both? If a quick consensus is required, why not include provisions to stop the source of bleeding, to aid the millions of Americans that are losing their homes? Why not spend as much on them as on Wall Street? Do they still believe in trickle-down economics, when for the past eight years money has been trickling up to the wizards of Wall Street? Why not enact bankruptcy reform, to help Americans write down the value of the mortgage on their overvalued home? No one benefits from these costly foreclosures.

The administration is once again holding a gun at our head, saying, "My way or the highway." We have been bamboozled before by this tactic. We should not let it happen to us again. There are alternatives. Warren Buffet showed the way, in providing equity to Goldman Sachs. The Scandinavian countries showed the way, almost two decades ago. By issuing preferred shares with warrants (options), one reduces the public's downside risk and insures that they participate in some of the upside potential. This approach is not only proven, it provides both incentives and wherewithal to resume lending. It furthermore avoids the hopeless task of trying to value millions of complex mortgages and even more complex products in which they are embedded, and it deals with the "lemons" problem--the government getting stuck with the worst or most overpriced assets.

Finally, we need to impose a special financial sector tax to pay for the bailouts conducted so far. We also need to create a reserve fund so that poor taxpayers won't have to be called upon again to finance Wall Street's foolishness.

If we design the right bailout, it won't lead to an increase in our long-term debt--we might even make a profit. But if we implement the wrong strategy, there is a serious risk that our national debt--already overburdened from a failed war and eight years of fiscal profligacy--will soar, and future living standards will be compromised. The president seemed to think that his new shell game will arrest the decline in house prices, and we won't be faced holding a lot of bad mortgages. I hope he's right, but I wouldn't count on it: it's not what most housing experts say. The president's economic credentials are hardly stellar. Our national debt has already climbed from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion in eight years, and the deficits for 2008 and 2009--not including the bailouts--are expected to reach new heights. There is no such thing as a free war--and no such thing as a free bailout. The bill will be paid, in one way or another.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/stiglitz


Joseph Stiglitz: Bailout Scam "Monstrous"

By Congress Check in Uncategorized on September 26th, 2008

Zogby International
September 26, 2008

Economy Nobel Prize Joseph Stiglitz last weekend said that the current bail out plan for the U.S. financial sector would be "monstrous" for US taxpayers.

"This plan is nothing else but a short term solution," said Stiglitz in a Sunday interview with Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS). "We're turning risk investment funds into the hands of taxpayers," pointing out that since no private investor wants to take responsibility for "risk investments, we're simply wall papering them on to the taxpayer, and this is monstrous".

According to Stiglitz the current crisis marks the end of a "disastrous economic model" and the end of the ideology "by which free and deregulated markets always function." As a consequence of the current situation the US financial system as well as the US government "has lost all credibility."

Stiglitz argues that to rescue the system and bring stability to markets, the US government is planning to buy from banks and financial institutions all "non liquid" assets that nobody wants and were the origin of one of the greatest and deepest crises ever faced by Wall Street and the US economy, the Great Depression of 1929.

For this reason, the Bush administration has requested from Congress US$700 billion for a special fund to purchase these assets and bring stability to financial markets. However, private estimates believe the cost of the final bill could be well over US$ one trillion.

But Stiglitz, who is currently a professor at the Columbia University in New York, the Bush proposal will not help solve the problem: "there's every chance that other banks could also be affected."

Stiglitz believes the root of the current situation is the sub prime housing problem and that government assistance must be directed at the mortgage problem. "This is only the beginning of the crisis," he said, and predicted that the US is on the brink of a prolonged recession.

The solution is not bailing out banks by eliminating "toxic" debts, but rather helping home owners renegotiate conditions of their mortgages.

http://www.congresscheck.com/2008/09/26/joseph-stiglitz-bailout-scam-%E2%80%9Cmonstrous%E2%80%9D/


More from Stiglitz...

http://www.bworldonline.com/BW100108/content.php?id=145

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/bailouts/2008/08/07/119915.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:43 PM

Michael has a point.
In a way, our whole credit and loan system is a pyramid. The top is blamed for shortcomings at the base, but the top is only partly to blame.
To make a long story out of it-
Low-cost Building Inc. makes arrangements with the local First Bank of Podunk to provide mortgages with no or small down payment ("just closing costs") to people who buy the houses. The mortgages are very short term, and may be a fraction of a percent lower than those offered elsewhere. The house is sold. The bank sells its mortgages at a small discount to a company such as AIG or Fannie or Freddie because it needs operating capital now in order to give out more loans.
The house buyer may lose his job or have emergency expenses and can't pay. Or the short term mortgage has to be renewed, but the rates are higher, and the house buyer can't fit the extra cost into his tiny budget.
The many Low-cost Building Inc. construction companies overbuild, and supply exceeds demand. Those who have already bought can't afford mortgage renewal. The local factory closes, or businesses may trim staff in order to operate 'more effectively'.
Home owners can't sell, and the mortgage lapses, and the bank takes over the house, which it can't sell or must sell at a loss.

All the paper on these loans has been shuffled upward, and soon AIG or whomever is choked with worthless assets- or assets which may regain their value at some time in the future, but not soon enough to maintain solvency. All those small $250,000 mortgages end up as $trillions in paper assets in the hands of the big boys.
The big boy can't get capital and folds. Everybody blames just the big boys ("Wall Street") but many are to blame.
And no regulation from a sleeping government.
Oversimplified, but part of the story.

Now the government is taking over the 'toxic' assets, and hopes to keep the credit market liquid, and prevent a collapse into full recession. Perhaps years down the road, the cost wil be recouped.
---------------------------------------------

An interesting comment in the NYTimes.com today, "This Economy Does Not Compute," Mark Buchanan, Op-Ed Contributor, Oct. 1, 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Goose Gander
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:28 PM

"The problem is not in the individual mortgages. It is in the derivatives, whose value is lost as the market values of the houses shrinks and the value of the serivative assets becomes unkjnowable, and therefore un-creditworthy as collateral for capital acquisition."

I have no background in finance, but even I knew that housing values would not go up indefinately. I think they used to call this sort of thing a 'pyramid scheme' . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM

I believe the actual foreclosure rate is around three percent.

The problem is not in the individual mortgages. It is in the derivatives, whose value is lost as the market values of the houses shrinks and the value of the serivative assets becomes unkjnowable, and therefore un-creditworthy as collateral for capital acquisition.

This means large companies (and eventually smaller ones) will be hard put to get capital from banks to tide them through the seasons of their fiscal year, because the banks won't be ablet o get capital from other banks or the Fed to tide them through their give-and-take cycles. That's why WaMu and the others folded. As this earthquake resonates down the tree, more pain will be felt at smaller levels.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Goose Gander
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:44 PM

Response to 'blame low-income loans' argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Goose Gander
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:38 PM

Sawzaw -

I realize that it is emotionally satisfying to blame Bill Clinton and 'minorities' for the current debacle, but it just doesn't make a great deal of sense. First of all, only 7 or 8% of mortgages are in foreclosure. Most of us are paying our bills. Secondly, foreclosures are spread all around demographically. And Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are far from the only institutions to have gotten themselves in trouble with questionable lending and banking practices. Clearly, there is a LOT more going on than some shaky loans to black and hispanic families.

Even if I take your implied arguement seriously, this sounds like an argument for MORE regulation, which is the antithesis of the 'free market' ideology we've had shoved down our throats by right-wing tools for decades now. I'm agnostic on this point for now, because I really don't understand exactly how we got into this predicament.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM

There should absolutely not be institutions functioning as banks that are not regulated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:19 PM

Hey Henry's 1/2 billion account is down by half like the rest of us. He's gonna need that 19 million.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:18 PM

The sharp downward drop of the DOW market today has nothing to do with Congress.

Today is the reporting day for the super secret totally unregulated HEDGE FUNDS.

They hold about 2 trillion or more and have suffered about a 50% loss.

The minimum bet on a hedge fund is a million.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:16 PM

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
STEVEN A. HOLMES NYT September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent......

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:20 AM

Heck of a job, Henry!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:47 AM

From MoneyNews.com

Treasury's Henry Paulson Gets $19 Million Bonus
The gift was for six months of work...

Monday, July 3, 2006 10:40 a.m. EDT

Incoming U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was awarded an $18.7 million cash bonus for six months of work as Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s chief executive, the investment bank said Monday.



                      Maybe if Paulson gave this money back, people would take his proposals more seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:39 AM

"Why is logic never even tried?"


            It's too often perverted with the irrational injection of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:22 AM

Seldom has America's governing elite been more united in response to a national challenge. The president, the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve were adamant about the need for government to purchase illiquid assets that are clogging the arteries of the credit markets. The leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress, after some reasonable modifications, endorsed the plan. Both presidential candidates also supported it -- one suspending his campaign to push for it. Even young conservative firebrands in the House such as Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, after gaining significant concessions, came to reluctantly embrace it.

The consensus included everyone who matters -- except 133 mainly conservative House Republicans, along with 95 Democrats, who combined to destroy it.

There can now be little doubt that Nancy Pelosi has an unrivaled record for lacking achievement. In retrospect, it seems incomprehensible that Democrats chose a grating, partisan San Francisco liberal to lead both parties in the House. During the bailout debate, Pelosi used her last breath to channel the shade of Henry Wallace, attacking conservative economics as a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation." When one thinks of the skills of the speaker of the House, rubbing your face in it before a vital vote is not usually high on the list. House conservatives were insulted -- then watched as some of Pelosi's committee chairmen and closest political associates voted against the bill. Seeing Democrats saving their political hides provided little encouragement for Republicans to risk their own.


That risk, in the current political environment, was not an easy one. Some House Republicans I talked with reported little sense of urgency among bankers and financial leaders in their own districts -- the real economy in many places has not reached the level of panic on Wall Street. Public reaction to the plan was overwhelmingly negative, which is not irrelevant to politicians facing the voters in about a month. And some ideological objections were deeply felt. "During the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) on the floor, "the slogan was 'Peace, land, and bread.' Today, you are being asked to choose between bread and freedom."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002319.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:07 AM

First, he is far from hopeless, and far from inexperienced. Second, the notion that "nonpassage would help Obama" is a little bizarre--his numbers are exactly the same as they were when everyone thought it was a done deal, an average 4.8 points up on McCain. So its highly unlikely--not say bleeding schizo--to imagine that was on Pelosi's mind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:23 AM

"I got the porkchops, she got the pie
She ain't no angel and neither am I
Shame on your greed, shame on your wicked schemes
I'll say this, I don't give a damn about your dreams

Thunder on the mountain heavy as can be
Mean old twister bearing down on me
All the ladies in Washington scrambling to get out of town
Looks like something bad gonna happen, better roll your airplane down"

... excerpt from Thunder on the Mountain by B. Dylan


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:08 AM

..."the hopelessly inexperienced Senator from Illinois".    Oh, you mean the one who has faced this crisis calmly, with reasonable suggestions--while the "experienced" Senator has been all over the map, changing his stance daily, if not hourly. Among other things, placing himself at the head of the insurgents, then finally coming out in favor of the bailout--but still not having the clout, despite his "leadership", to get the majority of his own party to support it.   Just as he waffled amazingly on whether, on what conditions, etc. he would attend the debate. Perhaps his fellow Republicans thought it wasn't necessary to support the bailout--they'd just have to wait for him to change his mind yet again--and stop bothering them.

The "experienced" Senator who bragged to one audience that his personal intervention had improved the bailout bill substantially, and that he had personally saved it.

But it turned out neither was true.

But I suppose we can't expect more from somebody who confessed a while ago that he didn't know much about economics.   Too bad.

And Mr. Gramm may not be the best teacher.





You certainly are the perfect negative indicator. Do you ever do any research? As Lerner said in another context: "Why is logic never even tried?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:21 PM

Isn't Yellowcake already subsidised?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:57 PM

Subsidies for cake!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:54 PM

Oh - and a chicken in every pot. Done deal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:47 PM

"'We are not babies who suck their thumbs," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) called the idea that Pelosi's speech changed votes "ridiculous.'"


                The problem with this simplistic analogy is, once Pelosi said what she'd said, it would have looked to the voters back home as if their representative was rolling over and playing dead at the feet of the speaker.

                Chuck Todd made the observation that the members who voted against the bill in both parties were from hotly contested districts. The ones who voted for it were mostly from "safe" districts. If Pelosi had been more patriotic, and less partisan, she might have gotten the few extra votes that it would have taken to get the bill to pass.

                Some of us wonder is she didn't want the bill to pass, because she thought the "non-passage" would benefit Obama. And it has for the moment, but that being the case, it would seem that when and if a bill does pass, the tides will turn against the hopelessly inexperienced senator from Illinois.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:44 PM

The package before the Senate will be similar to the House version, with these additions, the New York Times reported in its online edition:
The higher limit for insured bank deposits sought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which asked to raise the cap to $250,000 from $100,000, to quell opposition by individual and small-business depositors.
Tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy, part of a package that has been caught in a stalemate in the House of Representatives. The Senate version of the gridlocked tax legislation would cost more than $100 billion and extend and expand many individual and business tax breaks, including tax credits for the production and use of renewable energy sources, like solar energy and wind power, the Times said. It would also extend the business tax credit for research and development, expand the child tax credit, protect millions of families from the alternative minimum tax and provide tax relief to victims of recent floods, tornadoes and severe storms, according to the Times..

--------------------------------

Throw in some stuff about protecting bunny rabbits, and the whole concept can suddenly be sound and prudent, no later than Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:41 PM

Hmm. I think I got confused by all those zeroes. That's what probably got Crowe, too.

Sheesh! Time for a nap!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:35 PM

"in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates"

I thought the IMF was owned by the US rich people...


It's easy to put down those who do not agree with you. Those voting against the idea may be the sanest most intelligent around - if it weren't for the fact they actually told us that they only voted no because the voters told them they would kick them out for voting yes... :-)


"the voters kept re-electing him. The only four term president."
So the other Party ensured that the Rules were changed so THAT could never happen again...


Great parody Freda.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:30 PM

That makes so much sense that there has to be something wrong with it.

But I'll be damned if I can see it.

Except, of course, that it would mean the usual clowns rooting around in the Wall Street trough wouldn't get their hooks on it.

Oh, yeah. That's what's wrong with it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:06 PM

Crowe's plan to cure US financial crisis

Crowe's plan to cure US financial crisis

By Peter Mitchell in Los Angeles

AAP October 01, 2008 08:40am

RUSSELL Crowe has an Oscar and is co-owner of the Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team, but maybe his next job should be US treasury secretary.

The New Zealand-born actor announced, during a US TV talkshow appearance, a plan to cure America's financial crisis.

"I have been intently watching the political process,'' Crowe told talkshow host Jay Leno.

Crowe believes the US Government should give each American $US1 million ($1.26 million).

His reasoning was that the US has a population of about 300 million, and a $US300 million ($377.05 million) outlay was a fraction of the $US700 billion ($879.78 billion) financial bailout package rejected by politicians in Washington DC yesterday.

"I was thinking,'' Crowe said. "If they want to stimulate the economy and get people spending so they can look after their mortgage ... give everyone $US1 million.''

He should have thought a little harder though - a $US1 million handout to 300 million people would cost $300 trillion.

Crowe is in the US to promote his new spy thriller with Leonardo DiCaprio and director Ridley Scott, Body of Lies, which opens in Australia on October 9.

The actor is preparing for another film with Scott, Nottingham, based on Robin Hood, and has grown his hair past shoulder length.

"I'm going to play Maid Marion,'' Crowe, twirling his long hair, told Leno.

Crowe will play the Sheriff of Nottingham and Sienna Miller has been cast as Maid Marion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:47 PM

"Yesterday, in a 205-228 vote, the House failed to pass the Wall Street bailout package, leading to a 777 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and an overall nine percent drop in stocks -- "the worst single-day drop in two decades." Despite the passionate urging of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Republicans voted nearly two-to-one against the deal, dooming it to failure. The New York Times reports that "lawmakers on both sides pointed to an outpouring of opposition from deeply hostile constituents," as "House members in potentially tough races and those seeking Senate seats fled in droves." The vote "marked a dark moment in a month that has shaken the financial system to its core and forced the government to take a host of ad hoc measures to shore up confidence." Yesterday evening, the Australian stock market plunged more than five percent in the first 30 minutes of opening, to close with a $55 billion loss. Immediately following the House vote, the minority leadership held a news conference to start pinning the blame, pointing the finger at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for allegedly making an overly "partisan speech" on the floor before the vote. The move followed a pattern conservatives have adopted of blaming everyone from illegal immigrants to community organizers -- all while refusing to acknowledge the role that conservative deregulate-at-all-costs policies played in creating the financial crisis.

BLAME IT ON PELOSI: Immediately after the failed vote, some House conservatives declared the failure Pelosi's fault. "Right here is the reason why this vote failed," Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, holding up a copy of the speech before the television cameras. "[T]his is Speaker Pelosi's speech that, frankly, struck the tone of partisanship that was inappropriate in this discussion." An aide to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called Pelosi's floor speech "one of the most reckless acts I've seen from a congressional leader in twenty years on the Hill." In fact, Pelosi condemned the "unbridled" free market that "some in the Republican party, not all" support and also praised her "Republican colleagues" for working so diligently on the bill. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) ridiculed the blame game: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country." Frank added, "I'll make an offer. Give me those 12 people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they'll now think about the country." Other conservatives also rejected the idea that Pelosi's speech colored their votes. "We are not babies who suck their thumbs," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) called the idea that Pelosi's speech changed votes "ridiculous."
"

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:45 PM

And the "welfare mothers" and their kids may bloody well go hungry and homeless without some assistance, whereas the CEOs undoubtedly have a few millions stashed away in a sock somewhere (Switzerland? Cayman Islands?).

I've heard it said that you can judge the moral character of a country by how it treats its neediest citizens.

How we doin', folks?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:33 PM

The difference is, corporate welfare is a lot more expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:16 PM

I never have minded helping out someone down on their luck. Been there myself all too often. I don't mind helping them until they're back on their feet, and if for some legitimate reason (e.g., physical handicap) they're unable to support themselves, why, I'll be right there helping out.

Now a few years back, during the administration of R****d R****n and others unmentionables, it was said that we had no need to support "welfare mothers" and "welfare cheats" and those to whom welfare had become a way of life.

So instead of using taxpayer money to help out poor folks, the government used taxpayer money to help out Chrysler and a few airlines. This cost few millions, but of COURSE it was worth it.

Now a bunch of millionaires and billionaires come to the government and want a handout, a little something to prop them up, someone to take the bad debts off their shoulders, the debts THEY assumed.

Has corporate welfare replaced welfare mothers and welfare cheats? And what the HELL is the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:12 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/97674415.html

U.S. Bailout Will Gut Science Funding, Experts Fear
Richard A. Lovett
for National Geographic News
Updated September 29, 2008

"With the U.S. Congress wrangling over a $700-billion bailout plan for
the financial crisis this week, the final contours of any bailout are
hard to predict. But some experts say that any bailout—or even no
bailout at all—may decimate funding for science.

The concern isn't that Congress will turn anti-science, observers note.

Lawmakers' attitudes toward scientific research have always been
"fairly positive," said David Goldston, former chief of staff for the
U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology. (See a gallery of the
best science photos of 2008.)

But there simply might not be enough money to go around. "The biggest
factor is what's happening with overall domestic spending," Goldston
said.

John Marburger, science adviser to U.S. President George Bush, agreed.
"The problem is that if the discretionary budget shrinks, then to keep
science whole something else has to shrink even more," he told
National Geographic News.

And science is a field in which spending may not pay off for many years.

"In the meantime, [the concern is] I'm losing my house, I'm losing my
job," said Kevin Finneran, editor in chief of the National Academy of
Sciences journal Issues in Science and Technology...."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:06 PM

Many peculiar practices. One is to borrow money short-term from a bank to meet the payroll, standard practice with many employers.
(Don't ask me how this got started or why, I vaguely recall from school too many years ago that there was a reason).

Just checked Webster's Collegiate- bail-out is the correct spelling.
On Monday the House of Representatives defeated the bill, Tues-Thurs is the hyphen, on Friday they will probably vote yes
(OH, well, my sense of humor is missing on a cylinder or two).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:49 PM

I've been pondering this "liquidity" thing, too. Is it too hard for us to understand, or is it not? Could someone really have the balls to ask for $700 billion without real justification? Could he really be so stupid as to need it on a couple of days' notice, if he's so smart?

It is freaky stuff. Note, however, that four European banks were bailed out by their respective governments yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:14 PM

Now, as I understand what is being said, credit is getting tighter because banks and other such places want to be repaid. Tighter credit means less expansion of businesses and less credit available to buy houses. These are Bad Things.

Where is it written that everyone is entitles to a house of their own? Shelter, yes, undoubtedly. But if you don't have the money, or the credit to obtain the money, to buy a house why should you be allowed to do so?

Where is it written that a business needs to expand? If a business is poorly run, has a poor product, or only stays afloat because of borrowed money, why shouldn't that business be allowed to fold? Why can't a businessman accept a failure and start over, as both Harry Truman and Ulysses Grant (among others) did?

And where is it written that the money I paid and will pay in taxes should be used to rescue the incompetent or impulsive from themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 06:20 PM

This is the best explanation I have read. It comes from Dennis "My Hero" Kucinich:"

"Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

"The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

"Confused?

"This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

"The banks needed Congress' approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

"Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

"The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom.

"Under the failed $700 billion bailout plan, Wall Street's profits are Wall Street's profits and Wall Street's losses are the taxpayers' losses. Profits are capitalized. Losses are socialized.

"We are at a teachable moment on matters of money and finance. In the coming days and weeks, I will share with you thoughts about what can be done to take us not just in a new direction, but in a new direction which is just."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 03:41 PM

The Handout or the Sellout. Take your pick.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 03:26 PM

Investors are taking their money out of the stock market and putting it in Treasury bills. With so much money being put into government coffers, maybe now is the time to stimulate the economy by investing in our infrastructure, and by helping the homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes to be able to keep up their mortgage payments.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 03:22 PM

The reason the Democrats don't pass that particular bill on their own is because some of the Democratic members of the House think it's a bad bill and won't vote for it.

What the Democrats should do is craft a better bill and then get that one passed on their own.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:53 PM

I was intrigued to note that every Republican-offered alternative involved a cut in Capital Gains Taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:23 PM

The long-overdue conversation between the government and the governed has yet to materialize. It would have to be a conversation about the relationship between the economy and values, about regaining what has been lost instead of expanding. The word frugality -- which disappeared from the vocabulary of the Uninhibited -- should be reintroduced.

But there is no sign of any of this happening. Today's America is too American to survive in its current form. But today's America is also too proud to realize it. The faithful will hardly allow themselves to be converted.

And so our understanding of the events continues to get less and less clear. A dangerous game with time has begun.

(Excerpt from an essay on Der Spiegel on the current contractions).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM

Actually, the entire Barney Frank quote was really funny, but I can't remember now how he put it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:08 PM

"...it was the speech that Nancy Pelosi gave before the vote that caused the bill to fail."

CAUSED? You have a weird view of causility, Rig! Those Republicans would have voted differently if she had not said out loud what they knew she was thinking? She didn't put a gun to their heads....THAT would be one order of causality....Sheesh....
Barney Frank said that he'd come by and talk oh so nicely to them if it would help their poor, hurt feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:05 PM

SUre, Rig, wot the hell. :D LOL


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:59 PM

"How soft-headed do you take the Congress to be, to be thrown off by one speech?"


                      Amos - Do you really want an answer to this?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM

Sawzall:

Get your head together, lad. THe opposition to the bill was completely bipartisan, including over 100 Republicans. Trying to make partisan hay out of it won't wash, sorry.

And I seriously doubt Pelosi's speech had much to do with it, Rig. It's an easy blame trip, but not accurate. How soft-headed do you take the Congress to be, to be thrown off by one speech?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Goose Gander
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:46 PM

Banks in 'Miser Mode'(?)

"Central banks around the world have been ramping up their lending in an effort to keep the markets functional. On Monday, the Federal Reserve said it was doubling the total amount of cash loans to banks to $300 billion, and making $620 billion available to other central banks through currency swap arrangements, up from $290 billion.

Those efforts, however, have done little to encourage lending.

"There's so much liquidity in the system — unfortunately, the liquidity is not opening up lenders at all," said Kim Rupert, managing director of global fixed income analysis at Action Economics. "It's the epitome of credit turmoil. There's too much fear in the market. Everybody is hoarding their cash, hoarding their reserves, not trading funds with each other."

Is a lack of credit really the problem? Or is there a lack of nerve behind the crisis?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:33 PM

Why Won’t Democrats pass the Bailout Bill Without the Republicans?

....Democrats are afraid to "go it alone" on this bill. They see the polls and they know that the American people are against bailing out Wall Street. Yet they are afraid that because they have been a do-nothing congress for the last two years that they will once again be labeled a do-nothing congress on this issue unless they do "something".

That is where their dilemma lies. They desperately want to appear as though they have done something, but they aren’t willing to risk losing the American people who are against this bill. So they are trying to come up with a bill that will drag the Republicans back towards the bill.

That is because they don’t want to take the blame alone once this bailout is followed by the next one. They don’t want to take the blame alone when this bailout rises well above one trillion dollars. They want to be able to at least say that it was a bipartisan effort, that both parties are to blame for the failure of this bailout.

Democrats could pass this bill if they wanted to, but they don’t want to. If this issue was as urgent as the president, the politicians, and the media wants us to believe than the Democrats would pass this bill without the Republicans. It would be a political goldmine. But they are afraid because this is not a political goldmine and Democrats are afraid to hold a position contrary to the will of the American people alone.

Democrats want to so "something" but they know that this isn’t the "right thing." They want to drag the Republicans down with them, but the house Republicans aren’t biting....

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:30 PM

Of course, it was the speech that Nancy Pelosi gave before the vote that caused the bill to fail. Did she do this to try to help Obama? And what will that do to the Democratic candidate once the public figures this out?