BS: The Bailout

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM

And Obama as well- he took the time to make a speech about his support.


So, if McCain is at fault for voting for this, what does that mean about Obama????


Or are we back to only applying standards to the other candidate???

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:18 PM

"how eagerly McCain...is to sign"- I thought he was in the Senate.
Our dearly beloved maximum leader GWB will be the signer.
Obama voted yes, so he likes pork as well?

NY Times this morning:
The senate version "includes a wide range of tax breaks, as well as financial aid for certain rural schools and a measure requiring health insurance companies to provide more generous coverage to many people with mental illnesses."
"...extend the business tax credit for research and development..." Tax credits for investing in solar and wind energy were due to expire at the end of the year.
..."expand the child tax credit and protect millions of middle income families from the alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at high income families."
"It would also provide tax relief to victims of recent natural disasters, including floods, tornadoes and severe storms."

"The Senate tax package would cost $150.5 billion over ten years. Of that amount about $43.5 billion would be offset."

"The Senate bill includes several revenue-raising provisions. It would, for example, keep hedge fund managers from using offshore corporations to defer taxes on compensation for their investment services."
"It would freeze a tax deduction that oil and gas companies get for certain domestic production activities. The deduction, now 6 percent, is scheduled to rise to 9 percent in 2010."

"To increase tax compliance, the bill would require brokerage firms to track and report the cost basis of stocks, bonds and other securities sold during the year. .... When people overstate the original value or purchase price of stock, they may pay less tax than they should."

"Another sweetener added to the bailout bill would extend the "secure rural schools" program, which compensates counties for the loss of revenues they had been receiving from the sale of timber on federal lands." (Some counties had cut back services and some employment since authority for the program, which provides money for schools and roads, expired this year).

Will the House pass the legislation, or slice and dice? Some House Democrats, "led by the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, had insisted that the cost of tax breaks be fully offset by revenue increases or spending cuts. But it appeared that they were going to lose their yearlong fight with the Senate...."

Crisis Puts Tax Moves Into Play," Robert Pear, NY Times, 0ct 2, 2008, Business section.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:43 PM

I think the difference is that being against pork is one of the central pillars of McCain's platform. So by supporting pork, he is being duplicitous.

I don't approve of either McCain or Obama's support of the bill. That kind of thing is one of the reasons I'm still a Kucinich supporter (even though I will probably vote for Obama).

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM

"I think the difference is that being against pork is one of the central pillars of McCain's platform. So by supporting pork, he is being duplicitous."


So, the fact that Obama does NOT claim to be against pork is a good thing??? It seems that you are willing to vote for someone who is in favour of pork: Obama supporters do not expect Obama to change the present system, as long as he gives the pork to the "right" (ie, the Left) people.



"I don't approve of either McCain or Obama's support of the bill. "

I agree with you on this point.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:59 PM

I don't know what Obama's position on pork is. But pork isn't the reason I will either vote for or not vote for Obama. Obama has many other positions that are more important to me. McCain, on the other hand, hasn't got any other positions except for his war positions. So if one of his two main positions isn't really his position, that leaves only his war positions as his entire platform.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 02:34 PM

I likewise do not agree with either McCain or Obama's support for the bill. I prefer Obama for president if I would have to choose between the two of them, for a variety of reasons, but I do not agree with his or McCain's support of the Bailout.

I agree with Dennis Kucinich's position on the Bailout.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 02:35 PM

Time to present the Q Solution.

Give everyone a voucher to purchase a new automobile. A key industry and employer.

This will set up a chain reaction.
Auto factories will hire and expand. Many new jobs.
Mining and fabrication plants will all expand. More jobs.
Fabric, leather and plastics industries will expand. More jobs.
Highways to everywhere (or nowhere) will employ large numbers of construction workers.
All forms of energy research and production will grow exponentially.
Service companies, insurance agencies, registration, traffic control agencies, all will expand.
Pollution control enterprises will provide many new jobs.
Houses on the market will be snapped up and new housing estates will proliferate.

Tax revenues from the new jobs will pay for all sorts of pork, as well as health care and all that stuff.

Replace automobiles every three years. Tremendous growth in recycling industries.

End result- full employment, everybody a home owner, every working man a king!

Match this, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 02:35 PM

Pork isn't what has brought about this mess... Lousy regulations on the lenders, the constant PR drum of the Bush administration telling people to become part of an "ownership society" and the Bush administartion running the governemnt on borrowed money is what has brought US this mess...

But given that this legislation may be Boss Hog's last money grab for a while I don't find it surprising that every time you turn around there is more and more money being offered to buy Republican votes???

Like I've said, this is a terrible idea... Absolutely terrible...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 03:12 PM

My plan is like digging a tunnel from each end at once instead of digging downhill and hauling the millings back up.

You could all have it.

Wjat about inflation?


The inflation outcome will occur no matter what paln we use.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 04:19 PM

What Carol said. I was amused by McCain's vote solely because, in the debate, his solution to the fiscal problem was to eliminate pork. With his rusty old pen.

I think it was a foregone conclusion that both Mccain and Obama would vote for some version or other of the bailout---I agree that it's a lousy solution. The pork makes it lousier.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 05:05 PM

Donuel, inflation will occur as long as the money supply increases. The money supply will increase as long as the banks are allowed to create new money out of thin air by lending money that doesn't exist until the moment they lend it and by charging interest on their loans.

In order to prevent inflation you must maintain a given (and limited) number of dollars in circulation...tied to real assets that are held in reserve to back them...real assets such as gold, silver, etc.

If you simply let the major lending institutions create new money out of thin air...which they do every time they make a loan...then you WILL have constant inflation and your dollars will proportionately keep losing their value.

And the bankers will get very, very rich...UNLESS so many people become unable to repay their loans and the interest that the whole Ponzi scheme blows up like an overinflated balloon...and that's what is beginning to happen now.

The Bailout intends to pardon and reward the bankers for their own usury by bailing them out of the mess that their creation of vast amounts of fictional money has created in the first place. This is a case of rewarding the fraudulent for the fraud they themselves perpetrated on the general public.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 05:12 PM

It's too bad there isn't some way to punish the bankers without screwing everybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 05:27 PM

Indeed.

It would require major government intervention and the replacement of the existing system with something radically different. That won't happen, because the present system is dependent on maintaining itself in the style of powerbrokering it has become accustomed to.

That is to say: the richest run the show as it presently exists. Why would they choose to punish themselves when they can punish someone else (meaning the general public) instead? What despot ever voluntarily gives up his power just in order to "do the right thing"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 05:38 PM

Yeah, Rigs, that would have been part of a much better package... Jail the crooks and refi anyone in jepeordy of forclosure... Simple... No pork... Money back into the banks and the US tax payer gettin' a return on his investment...

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 06:12 PM

Indeed, "pork" is trivial compared to other sources of wasting money--like the tax cuts McCain wants to extend--and add to, as Obama noted at the first debate. Added to which, "pork" is in the eye (or on the plate?) of the beholder. Programs which were formerly supported by the federal government--including many worthwhile programs--have been gutted by budget cuts. If they serve a need in a particular area, they then have to be restored by "earmarks". The "Bridge To Nowhere" is McCain's poster child--the cliche whipping boy--but many of the children bear no resemblance to it.

Added to which, McCain may be simon-pure on "earmarks" but he has advocated programs for Indian tribes-- who happen to live in Arizona. May well be entirely worthwhile programs--but the difference between that and "pork" is tenuous.

More bumper-sticker politics. It's time to leave it behind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 07:47 PM

The whole banking system should be Nationalised.

"What's really required is an entirely different kind of government intervention in the economy.

For starters, the banking system should be nationalized. This could provide immediate relief for the international credit squeeze, in which banks are choking off economic growth by refusing to lend to one another.

The next order of business: ban the Wall Street casino for high-stakes gambling on incomprehensible investments like "collateralized debt obligations" and "credit default swaps." The banks' ability to damage our livelihoods with their speculation should be ended immediately.

Nationalized banks are nothing new. For much of the second half of the 20th century, they were the norm in Western Europe, and they remained capitalist institutions to boot. But a nationalized banking system would at least provide more public accountability over the operations of these institutions and subject them to greater political pressure.

What's more, it's hard to describe the federal government's recent adventures in the banking industry as something other than nationalization. In the past week, the FDIC seized control of Washington Mutual (the largest savings and loan in the country) and sold it to Bank of America at a bargain-basement price, and then put Wachovia (the fourth-largest bank) out of its misery with a forced sale to Citigroup.

But to sweeten the latter deal, the FDIC had to agree to cover any losses in excess of $42 billion out of the $312 billion of bad debt on Wachovia's books. Yet Citigroup gets to keep the profits from having a bigger share of the market. Why shouldn't taxpayers get the gains from this merger, instead of just the losses?

After three decades of free-market dogma pushed by both Republicans and Democrats, nationalization of the banks might seem unthinkably radical for the U.S. But it was the Wall Street conservative Republican Paulson who presided over the nationalization of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and the insurance giant AIG.

Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan is also a form of nationalization, but one that socializes the banks' losses at taxpayers' expense, while leaving the profits in private hands. Why not take control of the banks outright, and send their corrupt and incompetent executives packing?

An economic bailout on pro-worker terms would include much more than nationalizing the banks.

There would be a moratorium on home foreclosures, mandatory renegotiations of adjustable-rate mortgages, and incentives to convert empty, newly constructed condominiums into affordable rental housing. Also badly needed is a plan to create jobs, starting with a public works infrastructure program that could rebuild schools and housing in run-down inner cities. The expansion of public transportation and government investment in alternative energy would also be priorities.

Such a program is a long way from what's being discussed in Washington. For their part, Democrats from Barack Obama on down are content to attack the Republicans as the source of the economic catastrophe. That may be enough to get them elected, but the policies they promote don't even begin to address the scale of the problem.

This economic crisis is still in its early stages, but it's already clear that the old ideology of the free market is out. However, nothing has appeared to replace it, and so the mainstream political and economic discussions are a muddle of old ideas and half-baked schemes.

We need to start the debate on the real alternatives now — to raise the ideas, the strategies and the organization that working people need to resist the attempt to make them pay for the crisis"

Lee Sustar ...Socialist Worker. Whole article

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 07:48 PM

A little Wes Ginny Math to follow:

Bailout fails by 12 votes so...

The House adds $150B in pork...

...which equals $12,500,000,000 per vote!!!

Bad idea all the way around...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 07:57 PM

Nice article, Ake...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 08:09 PM

Yes Bobert, but action must be taken soon while Capitalism is exposed and in disarray.

As Sustar says, electing appeasers like Obama will be counter productive, someone from the radical left is needed to rally the people. Is Nader radical enough?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 08:29 PM

A cabinate position for Ron Paul sould be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:11 PM

Fannie's Perilous Pursuit of Subprime Loans
By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 19, 2008; Page D01

In January 2007, as years of loose mortgage lending were about to send the nation's housing market into devastating decline, Fannie Mae chief executive Daniel H. Mudd wrote a confidential memo to his board.

Discussing the company's successes, Mudd said one of Fannie Mae's achievements in 2006 was expanding its involvement in the market for subprime and other nontraditional mortgages. He called it a step "toward optimizing our business."

A month later, Fannie Mae outlined plans to further expand its activities in the subprime market. The company recognized the already weak performance of subprime loans but predicted that they would get better in 2007, according to another Fannie Mae document.

Internal documents show that even late in the housing bubble, Fannie Mae was drawn to risky loans by a variety of temptations, including the desire to increase its market share and fulfill government quotas for the support of low-income borrowers.

Since then, Fannie Mae's exposure to loosely underwritten mortgages has produced billions of dollars of losses and sent its stock price plummeting, prompting the federal government to prepare for a potential taxpayer bailout of the company. This month, Fannie Mae reported that loans from 2006 and 2007 accounted for almost 60 percent of its second-quarter credit losses.

Fannie Mae documents from the period, obtained by The Washington Post, paint a picture of a company with the dual incentives of fostering affordable housing and making money, and of one caught between the imperatives of increasing its market share while avoiding excessive risk. In a bid to juggle these demands, the company's executives took on risks they either misunderstood or unduly minimized...........

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

I find it interesting that some people focus exclusively on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while ignoring the vastly larger number of other mortgage lending agencies that made the same bad decisions and experienced the same fallout as Fannie and Freddie.

People who are engaging in such a one-sided focus don't seem to care about the fundamental problems, and seem to only be interested in making some people look bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:04 PM

McCain May 25, 2006:

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: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:16 PM

McCain also worked very hard to deregulate Wall Street. John McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm, is one of the people who is responsible for the deregulation that allowed the sub prime mortgage crisis to happen in the first place. Without the deregulation that these two people are responsible for, the current crisis would never have happened.

In the deregulated financial environment created by Phil Gramm and John McCain, the sub prime mortgage crisis would have happened even if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had not bought sub prime mortgages.

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

Wiki:

Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) buy loans from mortgage originators, such as banks and non-bank mortgage firms. It repackages the loans, as mortgage backed securities, and sells them on the secondary mortgage market, with a guarantee that the interest and principal will be paid, whether or not the original borrower pays. Also, Fannie Mae may hold the purchased mortgages for its own portfolio. By purchasing the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide banks and other financial institutions with fresh money to make new loans. This gives the United States housing and credit markets flexibility and liquidity.

In order for Fannie Mae to provide its guarantee to mortgage backed securities it issues, it sets the guidelines for the loans that it will accept for purchase, called "conforming" loans. Mortgages that don't follow the guidelines are called "non-conforming"; typically the secondary market for non-conforming loans deals in mortgages larger (termed "jumbo") than the maximum mortgage that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will purchase.

This was not written by me:
"I have worked in the mortgage industry for many years and have personally witnessed the contributions that Fannie and Freddie have made to the current mortgage crisis. Their automated underwriting systems (AUSs) have encouraged lenders to throw common sense out the window. Lenders feed info into the AUSs and as long as the loan receives a robotic stamp of approval, it gets pushed through, often without requiring sufficient documentation to substantiate the info that was used to arrive at the automated decision. That is simply asking for trouble!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:04 AM

From the same person who wrote the bit quoted in the above post...

In the mean time, I very much agree with Krugman that the most egregious problems were not caused by anything Fannie or Freddie themselves did.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:05 AM

I should say that it was written by the same person who wrote the last paragraph in the above post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:13 AM

Yes, the current Republican line was that Fannie and Freddie caused the entire problem. Of course people who are not complete idiots note that Fannie and Freddie were bailed out weeks ago and the problem persists. In fact the problems grow more and more extensive and expensive. So obviously some people in other high places made a lot of bad decisions.

Fannie and Freddie did not hold a gun to Country Wide's or WaMu's heads and force them to make bad loans. They did not create those insane derivatives or force the bond rating agencies to commit fraud. Phil Gramm opened the way for the derivatives and Bush told the regulators to look the other way.

Would more regulation on Freddie and Fanny have made a difference?

I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:06 AM

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:05 PM

It should be noted that Phil Gramm is John McCain's chief economic advisor.

Another thing worth noting - John McCain is so profoundly opposed to the bailout bill that the Senate just voted on, having said that the bill is "putting us on the brink of disaster", and saying that Bush should veto the bill, he is so profoundly opposed to it, he voted FOR it.

This, of course, after the McCain campaign criticized Obama for both supporting the bill, and blaming him for its failure in the House. I think there is no doubt that John McCain has completely lost his mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:17 PM

Phil is right about the recession, it is an emotional or as he put it 'a mental depression'. People feel blue when their savings, jobs, home, heat, fuel, college dreams and prosperity are gone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:59 PM

g'bye Bailout thread , we knew you well but not well enough.
The bill was signed by our fearless President and Comamander & Chef George Walker Bush today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Acorn4
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:59 PM

This is a contribution from the UK, but we're all in the same boat over this, aren't we?

I've not much of a detailed knowledge of banking - I worked in one for about a year after I left school, but nearly contracted terminal boredom counting other people's money.

As I understand the situation, a group of people have lent a load of money they haven't got to a group of people who can't afford to pay it back - as a result they have actually achieved practically everything that Al Qaeda have been trying to bring about.

This is , I realise over -simplistic.

On the subject of some sort of justice for those responsible, there was a good example in the reign of King James l. A man called Giles Mompesson was found guilty by Parliament of gross corruption by way of the accumulation of monopolies, which involved the selling of over-priced basic commodities to consumers.

As a result of public outrage he was "fined £20,000, imprisoned and forced to walk down Whitehall with his head in a horse's anus."

Food for thought there , eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:10 PM

1. Did anyone REALLY believe that Congress would NOT bail the bastards out?

2. I think that was an awful thing to do to friendly horse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:12 PM

Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is hiring as many as 10 asset-management firms to join the lawyers and bankers he is recruiting to jumpstart the government's new $700 billion bank-rescue program.

The Treasury began implementing the plan within an hour of the House of Representatives vote giving Paulson the extraordinary powers he had sought to combat the U.S. financial crisis. Paulson is seeking to assemble a team to determine which toxic securities to target, how to value them and how to arrange purchases.

``This is something that, for a typical company, would take no less than five years,'' said Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant at the Securities and Exchange Commission. ``Anyone who thinks they can do this in two weeks is insane.''

Ed Forst, the former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Paulson hired to head the transition team, started work last week and is charged with establishing the new Office of Financial Stability.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:41 PM

"Office of Financial Stability"

Section 1. Short Title
"Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"

"Section 101. Purchases of Troubled Assets.
Authorizes the Secretary to establish a Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP") to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. Establishes an Office of Financial Stability within the Treasury Department to implement the TARP in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the secretary of Housing and Urban Development."

"Requires the Treasury Secretary to establish guidelines and policies to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Includes provisions to prevent unjust enrichment by participants of the program."

"Section 102. Insurance of Troubled Assets." .........


Now you know.

From Washington Post, pre-amended version, but I doubt that this section was changed.

Subject: CALIFORNIA GOES BUST
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:50 PM

The Govenor of CA just asked the feds for &7 billion to keep the lights on and the doors open in California.

Calfornia or Bust was the saying in the great Depression\\
California goes bust in 2008


"Hey Henry, save me a slice, I'll be baack for Moore"
Arnold

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM

Office for Financial Stability-

Suggestion from Paul C. Light, "The Capital Times"
"Set a timetable for converting the Office of Financial Stability into an independent agancy. The Treasury Dept. can incubate the office for a time, but it does not have the institutional memory to manae and oversee this kind of high-transaction operation. Unless and until Congress breaks it free, the Office of Financial Stability will be buried under six layers of political appointees, hardly a harbinger of speed and accountability."
Other recommendations-
Raise the agency to the same level as the Social Security Admin. and Environmental Protection Agency.
Give the agency head a seven-year term with removal only for cause.
Agency director selected solely for expertise (like the Comptroller General).
Etc.
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/guest/307203.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Emma B
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM

Bank bailouts around the world
Reuters Oct 1

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Alan Day
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:42 PM

For a number of years various TV programs have been teaching viewers how to invest in properties Many times they have featured some idiots taking huge gambles that have paid off, buying up properties,tarting them up,putting them back on the market and making huge profits.Others have been buying dozens of properties for the to let market,running up massive overdrafts to finance the next deal or deals.These people have been featured on TV explaining how it is done and saying if you do not take a gamble you will never make money.Thousands have followed this teaching and copied what they thought would make them millionaires.I do not remember any advice that explained the pitfalls of this thinking.
So suddenly we get massive panic by the banks.So massive a panic that house,prices tumble,builders and associated trades work dries up.Instead of a slow and managed response by the banks we get a total shut down of all borrowing.This results in no houses being sold and house prices tumbling,forcing many of the bank borrowers to go out of business and increasing the bank problems.
So am I right in saying that not only the banks dropped a huge bollock in lending the money in the first place for crazy schemes they have now compounded there problems by their sheer panic and their decisions after they realised their mistakes.It may even been cheaper for us all if they had helped those people who had a loan shortfall and were more careful in their future mortgage loans.
No doubt I have it all completely wrong,but I am one of those people who's pension is effected by this balls up, and millions of folks around the World.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:19 PM

Well, my wife's annuities have had some oh-so-slight drop in value....

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:40 PM

Thos day will go down as one of the worst in American history...

Yeah, Boss Hog is feelin' as if things aren't going to be like they have been for a while and maybe forever so he rigged this entire thing, histronics and all, for one last cash grab before his boy's are out of power...

Sad day for America...

Good day for Boss Hog...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:46 PM

Alan,   "Tarting up houses" as you put it are still being shown on Cable TV. Shows like Flip this House are on almost daily.


I am also seeing big expensive TV commercials for banks that no longer exist or if they do exist are already swallowed by other banks.

ITs like I am looking at ghosts. Most Republicans still tout their deregulated Free Trade, Free Market globalisation schemes and supply side Super Capitalism voodoo as the answer.

Talking heads everywhere are chanting the talking point that pointing the finger of blame is useless....well if I were one of those talking heads and didn't want to go to a REAL prison I suppose I would say that too.

We need a Nuremberg style court that will prosecute the gross offenders as well as the enablers who profited greatly.

For these crooks to make $100,000 in commission they had to defraud buyers of about 10,000,000 dollars. To profit relatively so little at such a great cost to the world should demand a large punishment.

Chinese justice employs capital punishment in a heartbeat...literally.
We should be more forgiving by no means should we EVER consider white collar prisons for these scum.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:52 PM

Yeah, a very slight drop of about 40% in one and 20% in the other. I'm glad I'm still working, and I don't see any time in the future when I'll be able to retire.

Oh well. My daddy died in a job-site accident and I'll probably collapse at my desk. I guess retirement's for weenies. But I AM very, very glad that we have enough in T-bills to cover the mortgage and even a little over.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:58 PM

I've been predicting that retirement is out for future Americans going back as long as I've been here... This is part of Boss Hog's big scheme for US...

Right now, Boss Hog has had a very good day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:50 PM

"Phil Gramm is John McCain's chief economic advisor"

Gramm resigned in July 2008 after his "nation of whiners" remark.

I think he is a jerk that should be hung by the balls.

Carly Fiorina who ran HP stock down 50% and bailed out with a golden parachute, is now McCain's advisor.

She needs to be hung up by the feet and used for an ash tray.

Palin: "We are going to reform the way Wall Street does business and stop multi-million dollar payouts and golden parachutes to CEOs who break the public trust."

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:18 PM

Bailoutgate:

"Yer doin' a good job, Barney"

"Under the leadership of our chairman, Barney Frank, as I called him on the floor, a maestro, we were able to make improvements, working in a bipartisan way, making improvements in the legislation, and then make more improvements in the legislation before it came back to the floor today."

Love, Nancy

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:31 PM

Gramm no longer serves the McCain campaign in an official capacity, but he still is McCain's primary economic advisor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 06:53 AM

For the past 11 years, the US Government Accountability Office has declined to sign off on the accounts of the Federal Government.

While the nominal US economy has been growing at a compound annual rate of 5 per cent for seven years, the liabilities of the US Government have been expanding at a compound rate of 13 per cent.

In 2000, the Government had debts of $US29 trillion of guarantees, insurance obligations and projected future payments to Medicare and Social Security recipients. Seven years later, the grand total of such projected future obligations and payments was $US67 trillion.

The cost of insuring against the risk that the US might fail to repay holders of its 10-year Treasury bonds has risen to 20, 30, and now 37 basis points in recent days. Thirty-seven basis points is 0.37 of a per cent. The comparable cost on French government debt is 20; on German it is 13.

(these comments are summarised from an article from today's Sydney Morning Herald)
America's century: is the sun setting on an epoch?

Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 07:16 AM

Yeah, Carol... Like what was that all about, anyway??? One day Grahm is callin' working folks "whiners", the next he is asked to leave McCain's campaign and then he sneaks back in as if no one is watchin'???

Seems purdy brazen on both John and Phil's part and certainly material for Obama to use in the upcominf debates... That is, should Obama choose to use this, which IMO, he should...

B~

p.s. and, unless someone beat me to it...

...300...