BS: The Bailout

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:38 PM

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:45 PM

"Sorry, folks - China has just invaded Japan, but we will come back and talk about it after Ramadan and Christmas."


                Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:21 AM

Administraton unveils sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Updated Monday, March 31st 2008, 12:24 PM

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration Monday proposed the most far-ranging overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression.

The plan would change how the government regulates thousands of businesses from the nation's biggest banks and investment houses down to the local insurance agent and mortgage broker.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unveiled the 218-page plan in a speech in Treasury's ornate Cash Room, declaring, "A strong financial system is vitally important — not for Wall Street, not for bankers, but for working Americans."

The administration's plan drew criticism, however, from Democrats who said it did not go far enough to deal with abuses in mortgage lending and securities trading that were exposed by the current credit crisis. Some state officials criticized what they saw as unwanted federal intrusion on their turf.

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin blasted Paulson's approach as "a disastrous backward step that would put the investor in jeopardy" because it would pre-empt state regulation of securities and insurance.

The administration said that it planned to work with Congress to have constructive conversations, but officials would not predict when any aspects of the proposal could be enacted into law.

Asked if Bush's goal was to get the overhaul approved before he leaves office, presidential press secretary Dana Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One, "We'll have to see. It is a big attempt."

The plan, which would require congressional approval for its biggest changes, seeks to trim a hodge-podge collection of overlapping jurisdictions that date back to the Civil War.

It would give the Federal Reserve more power to protect the stability of the entire financial system while merging day-to-day bank supervision into one agency, down from five at present.

It also would create one super agency in charge of business conduct and consumer protection, performing many of the functions of the current Securities and Exchange Commission.

It would propose eliminating the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, merging their functions into other agencies.

It would ask Congress to establish a federal Mortgage Origination Commission to set recommended minimum licensing standards for mortgage brokers, many of whom now operate outside of federal regulation, and it would also take a first step toward federal regulation of the insurance industry by asking Congress to establish an Office of Insurance Oversight inside the Treasury Department.........

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:25 AM

The representative for our district, who is a fairly progressive Democrat, voted against it. He said he thinks we should examine some other ways of dealing with the problem for which he says banks in this state (North Carolina) maintain there is a much less expensive solution. I'm kind of proud of my representative.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM

"the object of the bill was to correct an economic crisis. The object is to treat the illness, not kill the patient by inaction and attempt to raise him from the dead at some future date." - Q

Never a truer word spoken. I also liked Q's appraisal of effects in the post previous to the one above.

If the US Congress had been in a rowing boat with a leak they would have had to abandon ship by now following their actions, or more correctly stated their inaction, up to now and taking some of the advice and comments on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,Guest-John
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 02:51 AM

Help me out here. I'm pretty sure from reading the posts to this thread that it is really, really important to distinguish the good guys and the bad guys.

Are the republicans the bad guys because Bush just wants to protect his rich buddies? Or are they the good guys because they voted against the bill? Or does that make them the bad guys because the economy will collapse because they are so partisan?

Are the Democrats the good guys because a big bunch of them voted for the bill? Or are they the bad guys because the rest of them didn't? Fannie and Freddie were protected by Democrats weren't they? Or were the Republicans to blame because they controlled congress when they repealed Glass-Steagal? Or was that Clinton's fault 'cause he was president?

Or maybe I should like the left-wing Democrats who want more protection for victimized borrowers and disadvantaged groups impacted by the crisis? Or are they the problem because they could have supported a bill that would have saved us all?

Should I hate the Republicans for the "failed policies of the Bush administration?" Or should I hate the Democrats who can't actually do anything about anything because every time they talk in public they spend all their time talking about "the failed policies of the Bush administration?"

Help me out here. 'Cuz if you don't I'm liable to think that the whole congress is a bunch of politicians who don't deserve my money or my trust and that depending on this outfit to create anything useful to me is like expecting to find gold in the DC storm sewers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 04:39 AM

My buddy Kucinich had some interesting things to say about the bailout plan...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:43 AM

First of all, the term "trickle down" to a Republican is as inflamatory as the word "liberal" is to a progressive... They hate it and will go way beyond reality in trying to whitewash the obvious and that is the redistribution of wealth to the upper 5%... That';s it in a nutshell... They can write reems and reems of bullsh*t but in the end they are still trying to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t... That is reality and we've seen 3 decades of it...

But beyond that, yeah, Wall Street has gotten itself in a pickle... But can anyone argue that they didn't know that making bad loans was stupid??? I mean, let's get real here... Wall Street knew what it was doing and thought they had the firepower within the governemnt to bail thenm out when ***their*** party was over... Problem is that they miscalculated the discontent of the electorate from 30 years of Boss Hog's abuse...

Now here is a sane idea: Pump the money into FHA, hire real loan people who know a good loan from a bad one and use what is necessary to correct the housing market and the "credit crisis"... Use the interest to shore up Social Security while paying back the taxpayers the principle and portion of the interst that the US has to pay to borrow money... Yeah, that would work just fine...

(But that is socialism, Bobert...)

Yeah, it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:49 AM

Let me see... There is a vast public outcry against the bailout, and those Reps. that are worried about reelection vote against it.

Seems like maybe they were (trying to) represent those people.

Isn't that what they were elected to do????



So now we have to complain that Representatives are actually voting as the people who elected them want??????

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:20 AM

"The market lost"

Trillions of paper losses means nothing if you don't sell... they will go back up ... eventually...

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:31 AM

One thing has become fairly clear: Party leadership--especially for the Republicans--has essentially vanished. The split seems to be much more on ideological grounds than Party politics. WHich may, if we survive, be a good thing. It would be a relief to be able to vote for clear-cut issues than for compromise-laden party platforms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:42 AM

bruce...it is hard to make a single simple statement about what the responsibilities of the elected representatives are.

Yes, they are sent to 'represent' the voters, and to a certain extent, do what the voters want. But since not all the voters who voted for them will agree on every issues, and don't even understand every issue (as in this case), members of Congress are also expected to be able to sort out things and use common sense to figure out what is best.

It may be in certain cases, that the 'best' thing to do may be at odds with a majority of their constituents...(something that reflects the national interest rather than local interests of the 3rd district of "your state's name here")...what is the proper think to do then?

   Sadly, most elected officials will vote the way that they consider will most likely get them re-elected. That is happening a lot in this vote. I saw an analysis that said that most of the vote against the bailout were from representatives who were most concerned about their chance for re-election - they did not want to be on record as voting FOR a bill that might not work.

   Whatever the reasoning, it ain't an easy choice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:48 AM

Today's Irish Times would appear to support your analysis Bill

'Leaders of both parties had wrung concessions from treasury secretary Hank Paulson in recent days, winning more oversight over how the plan would operate, capping the pay of top executives in firms that would receive financial help and adding a number of measures to help homeowners to avoid having their homes repossessed.


The concessions were not enough to reassure nervous congressmen, all of whom face re-election in November and many of whom had received hundreds of phone calls and e-mails from constituents, who were overwhelmingly opposed to the plan.


"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan told fellow congressmen in his speech in support of the Bill.

"Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it - not me'. " '

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 08:49 AM

One of the most important reasons most House Republicans don't know what they are talking about or facing is because the average age of their staff is 23 years old.
Sure they may have gone to Regents College but the advice and research they give is patheticly low on history and high on God and supply side myths.

WW II era Congressional Staffers were typicly in their 40's and fifties and had some real experience.

The age and role of staffers is still suffering from the purge way back in the Reagan administration.

These kids on the hill won't denigrate themselves nor is it their fault but People who have been on the hill for 20 years will tell you exactly what I have now told you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:43 AM

"Credit markets have frozen almost solid, banks are toppling like dominoes and brokerage houses are vanishing like props in a magic act. And who was one of the paramount leaders of the manic anti-regulatory charge that led to this sorry state of affairs? None other than Mr. Gramm himself, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Where is Mr. Gramm now? Would you believe that he's the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the investment banking arm of the Swiss bank UBS? Of course you would. A New York Times article last spring noted that the "elite private bankers" of UBS "built a lucrative business in recent years by discreetly tending the fortunes of American millionaires and billionaires."

Toadying to the rich while sabotaging the interests of working people was always Mr. Gramm's specialty. He was considered a likely choice to be treasury secretary in a McCain administration until he made his impolitic "mental recession" comment. He also said the U.S. was a "nation of whiners."

The tone-deaf remarks in the midst of severe economic hard times undermined Senator McCain's convoluted efforts to reinvent himself as some kind of populist. But they were wholly in keeping with the economic worldview of conservative Republicans.

The inescapable disconnect between rhetoric and reality is often stark. Senator McCain has been ranting recently about the excessive pay and "bloated golden parachutes" of failed corporate executives. And yet one of his closest advisers on economic matters is Carly Fiorina, who was forced out as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. Her golden parachute was an estimated $42 million.

Voters have to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the economic mess the country is in. Too many were willing, for whatever reasons, to support politicians who spat in the eye of economic common sense. Now the voodoo that permeated conservative economic policies for so many years has come back to haunt us big-time.

The question voters should be asking John McCain is whether he has stopped serving his party's economic Kool-Aid, which has taken such a toll on working families, and is ready to change his ways. Is his sudden populist transformation the real thing or just a mirage?

In the gale force winds of a full-fledged economic hurricane, it's fair to ask Senator McCain whether he still considers himself a conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealot. Or whether he's seen the light. " (Herbert, NYT)

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

"The rejected bailout bill that was on the floor after a weekend of hard negotiating was objectionable in many ways, but it was a Republican-generated bill and was improved from the administration's original version. Sixty percent of House Democrats voted for the bill, enough to easily pass the measure if the Republicans had not decided to put on their display of pique and disarray.

The question now is whether the stock-market plunge that followed the House's failure to lead — and a renewed credit freeze — will be enough to get the 133 Republicans who voted against the measure to change their minds. And, more important, whether the damage that the no vote has inflicted is readily reversible.

Republican no votes were rooted less in analysis or principle than in political posturing and ideological rigidity. The House minority leader, John Boehner, conceded as much: "While we were able to move the bill drastically to the right, it wasn't good enough for our members."

It's not clear what would be good enough for the Republicans since there was very little talk of substance on Monday after the bill died on the floor of the House. Instead, the Republicans tried to blame their revolt on a speech given before the vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who connected the current crisis to the fiscal and economic mismanagement of the Bush years. It may not have been the perfect moment to say that, but it was true.

Republicans were also upset that serial bailouts represent a rejection of free-market principles. They do. That's because the free market in finance, unregulated and unsupervised, has failed. And, in its failure, it is inflicting greater damage on an already weak economy.

No amount of amendments to the bailout package will change the administration's disastrous economic record or erase the manifest failure of the Republicans' free-markets-above-all ideology.

Since last week, this page has urged Congress to take the time to get the bailout right. Over all, lawmakers have given too little consideration, in public at least, to alternatives to the Treasury's plan to buy up the bad assets from various financial firms.

In the bill rejected on Monday, the unlimited powers that the Treasury Department had initially sought were curbed, and Congressional oversight was added. But judicial review of Treasury's purchases was not adequately ensured. The courthouse door was not closed entirely; lawyers could still seek effective remedies for actions that violate the Constitution. But that's a much higher hurdle than the already formidable barriers in place to discourage lawsuits against the government.

Homeowners were also given short shrift with provisions that mainly urged lenders and the Treasury to do more to help them. That's unconscionable. The financial crisis is as much a problem for homeowners as for Wall Street investment bankers. Appeals to lenders' better natures have not worked to bring lasting relief to homeowners. If they are still not working in the coming months, Congress will have to revisit the issue.

Taxpayer protections are also iffy, such as a requirement that in five years, the president must give Congress a plan for recouping any losses from financial firms. What will happen then is anyone's guess. Lawmakers could decide at that point that taxpayers are the only pit bottomless enough to absorb those losses.

Still, the imperfections in this bill are the result of a democratic process that can be rethought, revisited and reworked. It is better than nothing, which is what some backward-looking House Republicans gave Americans on Monday." NYT Ed

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:17 AM

I met a traveller from a bankrupt land
Who said: "Two vast and empty safes of steel
Stand in the vault. Near them on the screen,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled brow of one has-been
Tell a photographer well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that fought them and the wallet that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Dubya, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:48 AM

Awww, Freda, 's BOOFUL!!!


President Bush is clamoring with some desperation for bailout action.

Not to discourage intervention, but I wonder if this would have been different if Bush had beren raised on more rigorous principles about not wallowing in debt, being frugal, or at least living within your means. He must know, at some level, that he has been part of the charade that ultimately has crashed the markets for credit and for equity, by running the nation on a course of deficit spending and hollow economics. He's "the decider", and this was one of his decisions: the ration of paper to actual value is not important.

Surprise, George. Ethics matters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Goose Gander
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM

Amos, whatever are you talking about? ALL we have to do is stroll out to the Money Tree and harvest a few hundred billion more . . . carry it back to the house in big, whicker baskets. Then there'll be plenty for all!

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:20 PM

America, where it pays to fail (A two-part article from DER SPIEGEL)

The same short-term way of thinking that triggered the disaster in the first place is now supposed to bring it to an end. The government is attempting to put out the fire with fuel, not water. In fact, it is precisely the same fuel that sparked the flames on Wall Street in the first place: borrowed money....
American-style capitalism hasn't died yet, but it is merely preparing its own demise. The history of these days is the history of a death that has already been announced....

A part of America has still not understood that in the long run a market economy works better with controls. A government who pays for the losses of the overly greedy with the (not yet earned) taxes of the masses should at least in compensation request the right to control in future how this money is used.

Wolfgang

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?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:05 PM

SUre, Rig, wot the hell. :D LOL


A

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 03:41 PM

The Handout or the Sellout. Take your pick.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:33 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:35 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 - 10:41 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: 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: 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 - 10:54 PM

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

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

Subsidies for cake!