|
23 Sep 08 - 12:03 PM (#2448211) Subject: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL $700 BILLION "The plan would allow the Treasury to buy up troubled assets from U.S.-based companies and foreign firms with big U.S. operations. The aim is for the government to buy the securities at a discount, hold onto them and then sell them for a profit." I am so confused and I suspect our Senators and Congressmen are too. Has anyone given us a list of the companies involved? Who decides? What are the criteria? Will baby bush's buddies once again walk away with my tax dollars? Wh do they think the US government will make on a profit on crap securities that no one else will buy? Why do some think that the CEOs and executives of these companies are entitled to huge bonuses? I am not looking for political tirades. If someone has some answers I will be grateful and promise to read them carefully. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 12:09 PM (#2448213) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger If we'd known the taxpayers were going to bail out the stock market, it would have been just fine to privatize Social Security. You have to wonder if they knew this is where things were headed then, which would explain why they made such a concentrated effort to make the privatization thing happen. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 12:16 PM (#2448218) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D at the moment, Treas. Sec. Paulson is pushing for a quick approval to let HIM decide all the details, with a provision that the setup be immune fron question by any court or individual....(28 words, I believe) needless to say, some have reservations about this, suspecting that 'certain' people & companies will get preferential treatment...etc. There is much debate going on as we type as to exactly how fast/soon something has to be decided and whether input from congress is necessary. Obviously, "the devil IS in the details" in this one! If you go to MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/)and read transcripts and listen to replays of yesterdays programs (Olbermann, Maddow...etc..) you can see some of the issues involved...no doubt there will be much more today. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 12:20 PM (#2448222) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D see here |
|
23 Sep 08 - 12:37 PM (#2448247) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos I just had the opportunity to phone in to a D.C. NPR program in which Rep Mario Diaz Bellart, a Republican from Florida who sits on the national Budget Committee, was fielding questions about national security versus economic security. I asked him what kind of hard data he had to understand the situation and, essentially, how he knew Congress wasn't just being stampeded by companies unwilling to inherit the harvest of their own bad management. He tapdanced around like mad and essentially said there was no set of hard data, that they had to rely on the analysis by experts. He also did not answer the question, and he left me with the impression that he rerally did NOT know whether this was a curveball stampede act or a genuine national emergency. A |
|
23 Sep 08 - 12:38 PM (#2448248) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL Been there; done that. But no one is mentioning the names of the companies involved. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 12:49 PM (#2448265) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL While the economy collapses around us, the Treasury Dept rolls out both a bail out pland and...wait for it A NEW PENNY! Just weeks after an artcle appeared about the cost ofr making a penny being higher than the value of the coin itself, the Treasury Dept rolls out not 1 but 4 new pennies. SIGH. How much did that cost us? |
|
23 Sep 08 - 01:09 PM (#2448288) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D Yep, SINSULL...we need no more pennies...many folks refuse to carry them around anyway.I have been asserting for YEARS that we need to get rid of the $1 bill and make the $1 coin the only choice...make a $2 bill. It would save many millions. The ONLY objection is tradition & nostalgia...and a small amount of superstition about $2 bills being unlucky. Since almost no one uses half-dollar coins, NOTHING would have to change in cash registers... |
|
23 Sep 08 - 01:11 PM (#2448293) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos A few comments from NYT Readers: "I'm sorry, but I don't trust Paulson and I certainly don't trust Bush. What if it were Goldman Sachs that went under instead of Bear, Lehman or Merrill Lynch? Do we want to hand this much money to the same guys (Paulson) who are responsible for this crisis? And the last time we trusted Bush with this kind of responsibility, we wound up in a war everyone knew was coming but we were somehow unprepared for. — Posted by Frunobulax 7.September 23rd, 2008 10:17 am My opinion of the Wall Street bailout is for the US government to seize of freeze all the assets of the big wig Wall Street people who made Billions of Dollars getting us in to this mess. Leave them with their primary residence and two automobiles and their 401K money. Everything else goes to the Federal Reserve to help bailout the companies they reaped their huge profits from. The US taxpayer should not be burdened with the bailout. — Posted by Fred 8.September 23rd, 2008 10:17 am Double metaphor of the day: HE WHO TAKES THE RISK MUST PAY THE PIPER. The mortgagor loses his house and the mortgagee gets bailed out. What is wrong with that picture. Regards, Ben — Posted by ben schwartz 9.September 23rd, 2008 10:17 am For all 'The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling' comments from Bernanke and Paulson, its now been 3 days since the meltdown and as far as I can tell the sky hasn't fallen. In any negotiation, and as we've seen throughout the Bush Administrations time in office, everything is an emergency and requires extreme actions without consideration, usually right before a recess for an election. To our representatives, I implore you please for all of our sakes slow down and start again, not from this administrations framing of problem and solution. They got us into this situation,they are not qualified to get us out. Even more disturbing are Sen. Obama's remarks that he may not be able to pursue his agenda once in office as a result of the bailout. This is the entire point of the bailout, to tie the hands of the next administration and to ensure that a progressive agenda which pro-actively seeks to improve the American project can never be implemented. — Posted by Rob 10.September 23rd, 2008 10:21 am Absolutely outrageous. Here is what blows me away and gives the lie to the urgent necessity of this stunning taxpayer bailout of private companies and their scoundrel executives in the first place. Paulson is objecting to the provision placing limits on executive compensation, the "golden parachite" rule. His reason for that objection is his concern that such limits would discourage companies from participating in the plan. Well. I can only conclude they don't REALLY need our help. End of story. They want OUR charity, my money, to pay for their imcompetence and recklessness, and they want it on their terms, with the right to take sweet deals, or they will just walk away. Don't do us any favors, pal. Let them die a slow death, then. The only solution is to buy the companies, void the compensation packages, and throw the bums out on their ears. Paulson's plan is criminal and un-American. — Posted by joe 11.September 23rd, 2008 10:26 am I would feel a lot better about this "bailout" if the bankers were crying at the begging table, not gleefully lining up! And having their lobbyists line up to sniff the rears of Congressman, 2 months before an election is probably criminal and certainly in bad taste! The token sacrifice of Lehman is not enough to satify a decade or more of greed and self-serving Ponzi scheme actibities, not enough atonement for the gloating Billion dollar bonuses! When I see shanty towns in near suburbs of NYC and for sale and foreclosure signs on the McMansions of Greed…then I might relent! Why do we need Wall Street and its bastions of sleaze? I'm not sure we would not be much better off if the whole mess was flushed! I remember when my money was in the local bank and we knew the banker! What do you think?? — Posted by Chaotician 12.September 23rd, 2008 10:29 am I have absolutely no, repeat NO, none, zilch faith that Bush and Friends is telling us the truth. I recall the last time Bushie used this "let's do this now without further debate" attitude — and we went to war with Iraq on distorted WMD evidence, deceitful statements and erroneous information. As a by-product, Secretary of State Colin Powell's career was irreparably damaged because he bought the Bushie li(e)ne. And why shouldn't these bankers feel some financial pain? Thousands of citizens who pay their fair-share of taxes have seen their stock values plummet — so methinks it's only fair that these same execs who are clamoring for our/my money to bail them out should be de-compensated as well. I feel any bank who participates in this program should have a max compensation of whatever the President makes for any executive. And no loopholes, either. This rush to judgment doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I'm no longer buying my government's line that they know best (at least until Senator Obama and HIS team gets elected). The present administration has demonstrated repeatedly it's ignorant and can only provide cardboard statements and platitudes. Where is the "truth" in lending these days? Seth J Hersh NYC " |
|
23 Sep 08 - 01:30 PM (#2448305) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert This entire situation makes me sick because it reminds me of Iraq with the Bush administartion presenting yet another my-way-ot-the-highway policy proposal... Why does it have to be their way??? How much is Paulson worth??? $600M, that's how much... If you want to fix this crap do it from bottom up... If you bad loans then restructure them with programs, that while assisting the homeowners with taxpayer "loans" to head off forclousers, also adds an element of trickle-up economics... Yeah, let the banks get it back in small doses... I'd rather see US spend $700B by helping people stay in their homes than giving the thugs who made the bad loans... But then again, I'm a commie... B~ |
|
23 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM (#2448308) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander Bobert, really, this is America - we have socialism for the rich, not the blue-collar slobs or the desparate middle class. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 01:43 PM (#2448321) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, I know what we have and, like I said, "it makes me sick"... Bunch of thieves... This is yet another money grab by the folks who have owned the Bush administration... The sad part about it is they screwed it up so bad that now they have scared everyond in the world that life, as we know it, will end and we will return to the days of 1929 if we don't go along with ****their*** plan... Screw ****their plan****... I don't give a flying fig if Bush wants this passed and on his desk by Friday... It's time to take a deep breath and think outside the box... Shoring up the debts of home owners will do alot more toward settling down the financial crisis, fueled by the housing crisis, then pumping more money into banks so they can make more bad loans... If we pump the money into the homeowners it will "trickle up" to banks and in time those payments will give them the money they need to make more loans.... Actually, with a homeowners assistence program, just bringing up the arrearages will pump billions and billions into the banks and ****stop the forclouseures*** at the same time... B~ |
|
23 Sep 08 - 01:54 PM (#2448328) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Richard Bridge Trickleup sounds good but it is not the long-term soundness of the loan that is preventing the one useful thing that the Capitalist institutions are supposed to do. Those institutions are supposed to recycle debt, by lending to each other, so that each borrower institution can in turn lend to others. When the money-go-round stops, no-on can borrow and all loans have to be called in. That depends on lender confidence in institutional borrowers. That depends on each institutional borrower being able to borrow today and tomorrow, rather than receiving payment on its consumer loans in due course. A smaller bailout (the institutions need cash NOW or they will fold) plus federal guarantee of home loans of under $xxx (fed being subrogated to lender rights) might work, and might help prevent the creation of depression ghost towns. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM (#2448331) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Wesley S It must be the end of the world. I heard Newt Gingrinch on NPR yesterday and I agreed with his misgivings about the whole affair. Did anyone else hear him? He thinks this whole thing is being rushed through and that we should be very cautious. He said the same folks who having been saying that there isn't a problem for the last year or two are now the ones who want to fix it right away with no oversight. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM (#2448340) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos A few comments from readers at ABC: "Gramm, Davis and Black (and the 23 other banking lobbyists running Mccain's campaign) had a thousand times more to do with this mess than ANYONE of the dem side so stop. Posted by: dl (the real one) | Sep 23, 2008 1:57:38 PM 1st trillion McCain keating S&L and deregulation lobby 2nd trillion Mccain Bush Iraq War 3rd trillion Mccain Gramm, Davis , Black,...and the rest of the deregulation lobby (ugh again!) how many trillions does a candidate have to be involved in losing befor ewe say he should not have the keys to the economic engine of the world.?" |
|
23 Sep 08 - 02:32 PM (#2448345) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Merkel Says Washington Helped Drag Europe into the Credit Crisis Response to Washington's multibillion-dollar Wall Street bailout has involved a lot of skeptical grumbling in Germany and the UK. German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the Bush administration has mishandled Wall Street, and that its refusal to adopt stricter rules led to the current crisis. The United States government is campaigning around the world for support for its multibillion-dollar Wall Street rescue package. The reaction has been skeptical at best -- and in Europe the plan has been met with bareknuckled criticism. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has accused the US government of serious failures which she believes contributed to the current credit crisis. In particular she blamed Washington for resisting stricter regulation. On Monday she also said the crisis could hurt the German economy. "The whole thing is going to set the pace for the economy in the coming months and perhaps years," Merkel said at a meeting of her party, the conservative Christian Democrats. Over the weekend the US said it would provide $700 billion to cover bad debt on Wall Street and ensure the survival of some financial institutions. On Sunday US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson then called on foreign governments to launch similar bailouts for their own banks. "We are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things and I believe a number of them will," Paulson told ABC News. But the governments of Germany and Great Britain have shaken their heads. While her finance minister said German banks would not need a similar bailout, Merkel said the world community should react by forging international agreements that could be voluntary rather than anchored in law. "The crisis on the international financial markets shows us that you can do some things on the national level, but the overwhelming majority must be agreed to on the international level." Instead of codifying these deals in law, Merkel suggested binding agreements between major economic players. "This is about greater transparency," she said. A day earlier, during a visit to Austria, the German chancellor had even firmer words. "I'm criticizing the self-image of the financial markets -- which have unfortunately resisted voluntary rules for too long with the support of the governments of Great Britain and the United States." (Der Spiegel) |
|
23 Sep 08 - 03:00 PM (#2448363) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Art Thieme The milatary and the police have always stood behind the money people. As capitallism implodes, who do they support? |
|
23 Sep 08 - 03:20 PM (#2448388) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton More regulation means less growth...You're fucked whichever way you turn! Open your eyes, the system is rotten, the Parties are rotten, the candidates are rotten. They all knew what was about to happen. One would have to be a complete idiot not to know. Oh I hear you ...the dems will fix it,,,,,T'hell they will!! |
|
23 Sep 08 - 03:37 PM (#2448401) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Wesley S I saw Naomi Klein on Bill Mahr's show the other night. Her book "The Scock Doctrine" sounds interesting. Here's a summery from her website: Shock Doctrine The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America's "free market" policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries. At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq's civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country's vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the "War on Terror" to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans's residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of "the shock doctrine": using the public's disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don't succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets. Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, "shock and awe" warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay. The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas though our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 03:40 PM (#2448404) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,KP Interesting (if slightly scary) view from the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23sorkin.html?em KP (from Scotland, where we seem to be losing banks as well...) |
|
23 Sep 08 - 03:47 PM (#2448409) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Paulson is willing to have Congressional oversight over the mmoney and even be transparent regarding the REVERSE auction of the trash derivitives. BUT he wants NO judical reveiew or court authority over anything they do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
23 Sep 08 - 04:25 PM (#2448432) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk Dennis Kucinich put out this statement today on the bailout: Dear Friend, The U.S. government has been turned into an engine that accelerates the wealth upwards into the hands of a few. The Wall Street bailout, the Iraq War, military spending, tax cuts to the rich, and a for-profit health care system are all about the acceleration of wealth upwards. And now, the American people are about to pay the price of the collapse of the $513 trillion Ponzi scheme of derivatives. Yes, that's half a quadrillion dollars. Our first trillion dollar compression bandage will hardly stem the hemorrhaging of an unsustainable Ponzi scheme built on debt "de-leverages." Does anyone seriously think that our public and private debts of some $45 trillion will be paid? That the administration's growth of the federal debt from $5.6 trillion to $9.8 trillion while borrowing another trillion dollars from Social Security has nothing to do with this? Does anyone not see that when we spend nearly $16,000 for every family of four in our society for the military each year that we are heading over the cliff? This is a debt crisis, not a credit crisis. Just as FDR had to save capitalism after Wall Street excesses, we have to re-invigorate our economy with real - not imaginary - growth. It does not address the never-ending war on the middle class. The same corporate interests that profited from the closing of U.S. factories, the movement of millions of jobs out of America, the off-shoring of profits, the out-sourcing of workers, the crushing of pension funds, the knocking down of wages, the cancellation of health care benefits, the sub-prime lending are now rushing to Washington to get money to protect themselves. The double standard is stunning: their profits are their profits, but their losses are our losses. This bailout will not bring real jobs back to America. It will not bring back jobs that make things. It does not rebuild our schools, streets, neighborhoods, parks or bridges. The major product of this financial economy is now debt. Industrial capitalism has been destroyed. In the next few days I will push for a plan that includes equity for every American in any taxpayer investment in this so-called bail-out plan. Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, I have proposed the creation of a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American. I will also insist that all of the following issues be considered in whatever Congress passes: Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down: a) resignations of management b) givebacks of executive compensation packages c) limitations on executive compensation d) admission by CEO's of what went wrong and how, prior to any government bailout Demands for transparencey a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the companies down b) with respect to Treasury's dealings with the companies pre and post-bailout An equity position for the taxpayers a) some form of ownership of assets Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying. A sunset clause on the legislation Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust. A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts And, most importantly, some mechanism for direct assistance to homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in undergoes foreclosure. These are just some thoughts on the run. You will hear more from me tomorrow. Dennis J Kucinich www.Kucinich.us 216-252-9000 877-933-6647 |
|
23 Sep 08 - 04:29 PM (#2448439) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D ake says:"More regulation means less growth" and so? Growth is a luxury under certain conditions, and cannot be infinite. The problem is that many businesses are structured on adding to their base each year and always 'growing' .....it's the American free enterprise system...it's the incentive for innovation, for goodness sake! Except that, everyone wants THEIR share to grow, no matter what the market in general does. NO ONE wanted to be first to stop making shaky loans, as long as cash-flow was still happening. Now look. Sorry, but when the big institutions cannot be trusted to be careful when dealing with financial manipulations that can affect everyone, there MUST be oversight **AND** regulation! I flatly DO NOT CARE if the conservatives think it violates their mantra of "less government"! Seriously huge amounts of money are just too much temptation to allow clear thinking when walking near the edge of financial danger. If you cannot be careful, you WILL be regulated! |
|
23 Sep 08 - 04:59 PM (#2448460) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus I typical Bush terms, think of it as a War on Bankruptcy. That way, martial law and draconian measures are the norm. Personally, If I'm asked to lend money to somebody or something, I want to know what I'm getting back for it. And when. |
|
23 Sep 08 - 06:12 PM (#2448495) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert What Dennis said!!! That's what I'm talkin' about, too... Trickle up, folks... We have 26 year history of trickle down and it has beena complete failure except to those folks in the upper 5%... If that was a test score then it got 5 outta 100 questions right!!! Ya'll need to think about that before signing on with this... And, Ake... Growth ain't worth jack if the only 5 outta 100 people are positively effected by it... B~ |
|
23 Sep 08 - 06:38 PM (#2448521) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Dennis is fundamentally correct. THIS is a debt crises. So many words have been changed in this scheme's presentation to the public. If it were a credit crises then we would be seeing millions of Americans getting letters telling them that they may no longer use their credit card. We don't see this. The trust of the world is damaged and looming in total collapse. Barbaric as it seems sometimes blood shows good faith. In other words if we had a French solution we would take the thousands of Ponzi scheme criminals and put them to the public Guillotine. China does it to their business criminals and in Japan, failed CEOs have in fact committed hari cari. The world would see we are serious with convicting humdreds if not thousands of people. Afterall they have defeated this nation more than terrorism. Then repairing the mass theft could be done in the fullness of time. One last thing about punishment... give George and Cheney Amnesty, all the people not so lucky would still have them to look at with hate in their heart. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) The Paulson scheme that demands no regulation from agencies or courts is not the answer. The answer is blood AND money...that is if I were to dispense justice and attemmpt remedy. Honestly is it in reality too harsh??? |
|
23 Sep 08 - 07:23 PM (#2448551) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out. I wonder... |
|
23 Sep 08 - 08:10 PM (#2448574) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe "Those institutions are supposed to recycle debt, by lending to each other, so that each borrower institution can in turn lend to others. When the money-go-round stops, no-on can borrow and all loans have to be called in." This is, of course, exactly the reason that we are in the mess! It's also called 'leveraging' - loaning more money to others than you can cover yourself - it can only work while the merry go round keeps speeding up! Stop the World! I want to get off! "in Japan, failed CEOs have in fact committed hari cari." In 1929, those in the USA who had a conscience, also jumped out the window. To quote a certain famous British Comedy Duo - "Jump, You F*****, Jump!" (Now we'll see who knows their comedy!) |
|
23 Sep 08 - 11:00 PM (#2448646) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel I wonder if any of the Wall Street Traitors respondsible for the gigantic ponzi scheme that left America in worse shape than from the attack of 9-11 could be found to be enemy combatents or terrorists under the Patriot Act??? |
|
23 Sep 08 - 11:10 PM (#2448652) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos More regulation does not mean either more or less growth. Sane regulation means sane growth and excessive regulation (too much) means stifled growth. Excessive regulation in the other direction, too little, means lizard brains come out and the growth steers us into catastrophic excesses of greed. There is a middle ground for everything. No-one wants to be stifled, but not many benefit from cancer, either. A |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:00 AM (#2448696) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Barry Finn The Wall Street CEO's are ready to jump out the windows & off the roofs, again, but this time they're looking to land softly & on their feet with a golden parachute on their backs & a shit eating smile as they walk off laughing all the way back to "THEIR BANKS". They're also looking to be involoved in the restructuring of this failed economy (that they fucked up) thus double dipping into the 700 billion that they're all lining up for. And we're supposed to just trust them to not fuck it up again? Where's that Turnip Truck we all just fell off of? The "trickle-up" won't happen unless the failing housing market gets the shot in the arm instead of Wall St. I'd love to see a nation wide mass resistence directed towards those that fucked us up in the 1st place. If homeowners across the nation stopped paying their mortgages & demanded the government bail them out instead of Wall St by remortgaging at better terms & lower rates & let the CEO's land face first in the gutter the country would be in a better place alot faster. It was the Banks & Lenders (along with their political counterparts) that put straw on the camel's back. But it started long ago & continued with the Energy Industry writting their own tickets & laws, with the Insurance, Health & Drug Industries deceiding who plays God & Lording over the public, with their partners in Government. Along with the creation of a well placed & well needed war with huge no bid contract & the outsourcing of the military that's cost the tax payer billions per month & there's no oversite of those that are reaping the benies. Another Government overnight knee jerk response that had to be pushed through, again with no recourse, responsibility, repayment or justice if it's another failure. None of this would've been possible without those partnerships! Obama's plan to invest in a Green Industry, bring jobs back into this country, give the working classes a tax break seeing as we've been carring the rich on our backs for so long while they receive all the good breaks, put people back to work on our infrastructures, etc, this is what will get the nation going again. When a small business fails the government steps in alright, to pull every drop of blood it can out while it's on it's way down & then it puts the employer & their employees out on the street while they make sure for the next 10 yrs they get paid with interest & the employee's (see Enron) are the least & last to be cared for. So this time let them (the Ex's) fall from the roofs & out the windows & pound the pavement like John Q Public does each time a recession hits. Did the Bush administration see the foreclosures ahead of time when they rearranged the Bankruptcies Laws? Did they see this coming when they kept hollaring for deregulation seeing/knowing they had a saftey net that included a golden parachute when the time came to cash in. Did they see this coming when they passed the Patriot Act? Their timing was certinally perfect. So their worst nightmare may come home to bite them on the ass if the Gov doesn't bail them out, then again if they get the bail out they hedged the best bet in US history while we get the pay off. They get this bail out they will own not only all the mortgages but they'll also own all the houses as well as the land they sit on while we pay rent to survive in what once was our own. Then the bitter end will be when they've drained us of all that they can we'll get evicted. Wait the worst in not here yet. Then we'll have to labor/slave away for them during the rest of our days & shop at their company store by night. A funny thing happened on the way to the Bank! Where's the WMD's when you really need one???? Barry |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:30 AM (#2448704) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Richard Bridge You mean there is no blanket, F? |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:34 AM (#2448706) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Barry Finn There is but it's full of holes. It was eaten away with rot! Barry |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:54 AM (#2448709) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Bobert...I agree with you 100%, as I do in most of what you write, but without growth, Capitalism cannot survive. What caused the huge use of credit both in the US and USA?. Was it simply a few greedy fat cats? Do you think that government, and the faceless criminals who pull the strings of government were unaware of what was going on? I don't think so. Capitalism must keep selling to survive, and it doesn't particularly care whether its cash or credit, or whether the credit can be repayed, just so long as the wheels keep turning. At the end of the day, the string pullers know that Capitalism must be bailed out, so that the public can continue to live in "Fairyland"......Amazingly even here on Mudcat, the majorty still think it can all be fixed, by a little regulation.....an inspiring leader....just a tweek on the advance/retard mechanism. Christ I've been hearing that shit for 50 fuckin' years. This latest disaster is what happens when Capitalism reaches the end of the cycle. In the West, Capitalism has become UNSUSTAINABLE, the string pullers know it and people need to learn it damned quick. We need to take action now to protect ourselves and our children and I don't mean our sickening wasteful lifestyle ....I mean our very existence.....Ake |
|
24 Sep 08 - 05:22 AM (#2448780) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe I see some of you remember Derek & Clive (aka Peter Cook & Dudley Moore) - Now it's a Music Thread! DEREK: (plays piano and sings:) #As I was walking down the street one day I saw a house on fire There was man, standing at an upper-storey window Shouting and screaming at the crowd that was gathered there below For he was sore afraid #Jump! You f*****, jump! Jump into this here blanket what we are holding And you will be all right He jumped, hit the deck, broke his f***ing neck - There was no blanket #Laugh?! We nearly shat! We had not laughed so much since Grandma died Or Auntie Mabel caught her left tit in the mangle We are miserable sinners Fi-i-ilthy f***ers #Ahhhrrrr-soles Gee I remember when that was banned.... :-) |
|
24 Sep 08 - 12:47 PM (#2449037) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ebbie I listened to Warren Buffet, a man I usually admire, give his rationale for buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs. He said that in his investments he looks for brains, and that there is no better firm than GS. He also said that he is betting that the "government will do the rational thing and act promptly" in its bailout. He said that if he didn't believe that, he wouldn't be buying "this week", instead he might be looking to divest himself of some things. What say you? |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM (#2449091) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bee-dubya-ell I'm not knowlegeable enough about this mess to know a good idea when I hear it, but I'm smart enough to know when I hear a dumb one. One that particularly leaves me going "Huh?" is the idea of salary caps for executives of "bailed out" corporations. I agree that some of them have obscene compensation deals, but the idea most often floated is that they should have their compensations capped at $400,000, an amount equal to the salary off "the highest paid federal official", meaning the President of the US. Now, $400K is around ten times what most of us make, but it's peanuts to the top execs of most Fortune 500 companies. Do our congressfolks think anyone's going to take that sort of cut in pay without going job hunting? Is Congress so out of touch that it thinks it can somehow force people to stay on the job for what, to them, is peanuts? Last time I checked, the only people in the US who are legally prohibitted from saying, "Take this job and shove it!" are members of the US military services. Offer most CEOs $400K and they'll laugh in your face. Yes, they may have driven their companies into the ground, but any of them can pack their bags and find jobs elsewhere making way more than $400K. The public may labor under the impression that the failures of the businesses they ran have made them "radioactive" and that nobody else would hire them, but the fact is that the boards of most companies evaluate potential top execs in the same way owners of NFL football teams view potential head coaches; it doesn't really matter if they've has some failures as long as they've also had some successes and it looks like they'll "fit". If it's really in our best interest that these companies be resurected, then what's needed are the best people for the job; the ones with the most smarts and talent. Those people don't come cheaply. If someone wants to fire the presidents of the failed firms and hire new people to take their places, fine. Just don't expect to get the best qualified people to replace them for way less than what the competition is willing to pay. Anyway, when someone says that the President of the US is paid $400,000 per year, I think he's leaving out a few things like a free mansion to live in, free meals cooked by gourmet chefs, virtually unlimited household and clothing allowances, a fleet of limos, a fully crewed private Boeing 747 and all the jet fuel it can burn, a helicopter to fly where the 747 can't go, personal security provided by some of the best-trained bodyguards in the world, and health care provided by the best doctors in the US? You don't really think Bush paid for that bag of pretzels out of his own pocket, do ya? |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:09 PM (#2449094) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Hey...400 K? I'll take it. A |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:16 PM (#2449096) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Don't worry, be happy By Philip J. Rappa Online Journal Contributing Writer Sep 24, 2008, 00:19 There is no need to be a forensic pathologist to understand the cause of death of America's financial institutions and our credibility abroad. The only thing required is a familiarity with our history. Over the past 29 years, beginning with the 96th Congress and concluding with the 106th, there has been a systematic concerted effort by our elected officials to unravel the remaining vestiges of our institutions that represented our sovereignty as a nation. If we just round up these usual suspects, based on reasonable suspicion, we can begin to delineate more than just probable cause, but most importantly the direct cause of our misfortune. Following the stock market crash of 1929, laws were enacted to prevent another debacle: The Glass-Steagall Act and the creation of the FDIC. Both officially named the Banking Act of 1935. These laws set in motion the apparatus separating commercial banks from investment banks; this arrangement worked for 64 years. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) included banking reforms some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q allowed The Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts. In 1980, congress in all its wisdom repealed the FDIC reforms by enacting the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. Then on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. From that moment it only took Wall Street and K-Street nine years to destroy our financial institutions and our credibility abroad. The only noteworthy fact that is prologue to this disaster is that each generation preceding us has had their own financial calamity ushered in by unencumbered and unbridled capitalism. Each time profit trumped public interest. The agents of our despair have treated their oath of office as if it were an antiquated notion giving their allegiance as well as aid and comfort to the free market, while the working man became little more than an expendable asset. Each generation had its own brand of corporate and government corruption and cronyism, and an understanding of the collusion between the government, industry, military and the bankers. Even to a casual observer, a pattern seems to emerge. Humanity has struggled for centuries to unshackle themselves from the subjugation of kings, popes, empires and raw capitalism. In one generation, we have idly watched as these same elected officials dismantled our nation's industries sending them, our jobs and our technology to foreign shores to be made on the cheap. America's labor force has been disemboweled, placed on a pyre fueled by vapors of a gossamer web that once epitomized America's "Promise": that of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The "Promise," once the tapestry of this nation's domestic social contract, which was won by the blood, sweat and tears of those who came before us, has been shredded by an unregulated corporate free-market fanaticism. We on Main Street shall be left to pay the piper due to the treasonous actions of our elected officials and our own individual participation in this Ponzi scheme. ... |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:52 PM (#2449115) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander The 'smartest people for the job' are the ones who got us into this mess. If compensation reflected performance, these people would be selling apples on street corners. |
|
24 Sep 08 - 02:54 PM (#2449117) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yo, Ake, I guess in an acadmeic sense you are correct that cpaitalism cannot survive without growth because people would not invest if there would be not return on the investment and return in theory is growth... However in the real world, we don't have capitalism anyway... We have a bastardized hybrid of capitalism and socialism with a unhealthy dose of corruption sprinkled on top... Either way, I would agree that growth is important but growth is no something that is confined exclusively to capitalism... One can have growth with communism and socialism... As for the bailout, it looks as if Congress has survived the "my-way-or-the-highway" phase of the proposal and it also looks as if most of the ideas that Barrak Obama has been talkin' about are finding their way into the mix... B~ |
|
24 Sep 08 - 03:45 PM (#2449167) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Don Firth Amos, good piece there at your post of 24 Sep 08 - 02:16 p.m. Thank you! Don Firth |
|
24 Sep 08 - 04:02 PM (#2449180) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel The Bail out blues (spoken) Alcoholic Wall St. went on a bender. Whew did they get drunk. When they woke up they went to their blender and their poor heart sunk (sung) They lost all they had other people's homes and a billion loans. The Bush Brokers had an idea We know how to bail you out A$700,000,000,000. drink is what its all about The neighbors all chipped in and the Bush brokers bought the booze they opened Wall Street's mouth like money down the kitchen sink Ask them why they need your money they will smile but they won;t blink Chorus Hands in the air you taxpaying jerk I need all your dough Hurry up you ass holes and no one here gets hurt. |
|
24 Sep 08 - 05:16 PM (#2449245) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus If we're buying the store, we should fire the old shopkeepers. Parachutes? HA! |
|
24 Sep 08 - 05:26 PM (#2449253) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Don Firth Well, now. There are two kinds of "bailouts." One is when you strap on a parachute and jump out of a damaged airplane in order to save your life. When you've landed safely, the ordeal is over. The other is when your boat is sinking and you have to grab a bucket and scoop water out. You hope you can scoop it out faster than it pours in, but a large part of the problem is that, until the leak is fixed, you have to keep scooping. Hmm. . . . Don Firth |
|
24 Sep 08 - 06:16 PM (#2449283) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel John McCain has more experience bailing out than Obama ...from 20,000 feet |
|
24 Sep 08 - 06:16 PM (#2449284) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel The first mono DEBATE |
|
24 Sep 08 - 07:02 PM (#2449301) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz Hi Kids: Want to have an interesting week on Wall Street? Don't bail 'em out. Take the 700 Billion and disburse it to the Taxpayers...Money doesn't talk...It SCREAMS... This creative "correction" would have the Stock Market Spendos doing some fancy dancing right quick... Let the people vote with $$$...bob p.s. Does anybody else besides me find it "unusual" that somehow the Government has bucks for Wall Street, but comes up short on Healthcare, Roads, Schools, Arts, etc.???? BR |
|
24 Sep 08 - 07:26 PM (#2449305) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel We would get about 12,000 bucks apiece unless a bank has a lein on your tax returns. |
|
24 Sep 08 - 07:35 PM (#2449309) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D economic theories from the.......past? |
|
24 Sep 08 - 07:50 PM (#2449325) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Have you gorren this letter yet? Treasury Dept. |
|
24 Sep 08 - 07:50 PM (#2449326) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Hey... In other words, bail ***this*** out, dude... But ya'll be sure to watch Georgie Porge on the TV at 9:00 for his version of the "The Sky is Falling"... I think he's going do it in G so eceryone can sing right along... Opps... Gotta go put some new strings on the Martin so I'll sound good... B~ |
|
24 Sep 08 - 08:37 PM (#2449358) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos EO pay: What those involved in the financial meltdown made Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks and Chris Casacchia http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/22/daily24.html?f=et73&ana=e_du As Congress considers a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street and the banking sector, there are calls to restrict the pay and severance packages for CEOs at investment houses, banks and mortgage lenders poised to be benefit from the plan put forward by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Executives from some of the major investment and commercial banks involved in the financial upheaval and bailout earned hefty paychecks last year, according to proxy statements outlining their salaries, bonuses and stock options: * Lehman Brothers Chairman and CEO Richard Fuld Jr. made $34 million in 2007. Lehman (OTC:LEHMQ) filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection earlier this month. * Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), which Sunday gained Federal Reserve Bank approval to become a bank holding company, paid its Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein $70 million last year. Co-Chief Operating Officers Gary Cohn and Jon Winkereid were paid $72.5 million and $71 million, respectively. * American International Group's chief executive Martin Sullivan got a $14 million compensation package in 2007. He was ousted in June. The insurance giant (NYSE:AIG) is on the receiving end of an $85 billion federal bailout. Edward Liddy took over as AIG's chief executive earlier this month. * Morgan Stanley Chairman John Mack earned $1.6 million. Chief Financial Officer Colin Kelleher got a $21 million paycheck in 2007. Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) also received approval to become a banking holding company, a shift that allows Morgan and Goldman to bring in bank deposit assets which offer more solid financial footing. * Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain was paid $17 million in salary, bonuses and stock options in 2007. Merrill (NYSE:MER) is being acquired by Bank of America (NYSE:BAC). BofA CEO Kenneth Davis earned $25 million in 2007. * JP Morgan Chase & Co. Chairman and CEO James Dimon earned $28 million in 2007. Chase (NYSE:JPM) acquired troubled investment house Bear Stearns earlier this year with the federal government promising to take on as much as $30 billion in Bear assets to help get the deal done. * Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd received $11.6 million in 2007. His counterpart at Freddie Mac, Richard Syron, brought in $18 million. The federal government announced earlier this month it was taking over the mortgage backers with Herbert Allison to serve as Fannie CEO and David Moffett the new CEO at Freddie. * Wachovia Corp. Chairman and CEO G. Kennedy Thompson received $21 million in 2007. He was succeeded by Robert Steel as CEO in July. Steel is slated to get a $1 million salary with an opportunity for a $12 million bonus, according to CEO Watch. Wachovia (NYSE:WB) is one of the banks that could be sold in the midst of the financial crisis. * Seattle-based Washington Mutual (NYSE:WAMU) will pay its new CEO Alan Fishman a salary and incentive package worth more than $20 million through 2009 for taking the helm of the battered bank, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal. * CEOs of large U.S. corporations averaged $10.8 million in total compensation in 2006, more than 364 times the pay of the average U.S. worker, according to the latest survey by United for a Fair Economy. In 2007, the CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company received, on average, $14.2 million in total compensation, according to The Corporate Library, a corporate governance research firm. The median compensation package received was $8.8 million. The Puget Sound Business Journal, a sister publication, contributed to this story. |
|
24 Sep 08 - 09:38 PM (#2449382) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz 12 Grand would be life changing for a lot of people...And it would be mind boggling to have that much cash injected into the economy in a bunch of ways; debts paid off, businesses started, goods and services purchased, etc. All at the same time... Sure would be fun to watch it happen...BR |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:49 AM (#2449451) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Barry Finn Imagine how much they would've gotten paid had they done a good job? Barry |
|
25 Sep 08 - 02:56 AM (#2449465) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos " New York Times liberal columnist Bob Herbert put it nicely. "Does anyone think it's just a little weird to be stampeded into a $700 billion solution by the very same people who brought us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?" The American people should revolt against business as usual and rule by the Lords of Finance by inundating Congress with the demand to stop the insanity now. " |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM (#2450001) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Art, the police support the guys who sign their checks. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM (#2450002) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus Re growth- Isn't there a medical term for unregulated growth? Begins with a big C |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:22 PM (#2450003) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel The Bail out is now officially a done deal W has to sign it. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:27 PM (#2450011) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/bushcancer.jpg From: dick greenhaus - PM Date: 25 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM Re growth- Isn't there a medical term for unregulated growth? Begins with a big C |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM (#2450017) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel With the inflation that now must result... if your income was 100K it will be as though you have the spending power of 50K the numbers won't change but what you can buy with the new dollar, will be nearly half. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:44 PM (#2450030) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: maire-aine I listened to George Bush's address to the nation last night, and I don't believe a word out of that man's mouth. This is just another case of fear-mongering by the Republican neo-cons and their greedy Wall Street cohorts. Bush listed off a whole litany of terrible things that supposedly will happen if the taxpayers don't immediately bail out the fat cats in the corner offices. This sounds suspiciously like the run up to the ill-fated Iraq War, when Bush insisted that Congress immediately pass the "resolution for the use of force". The result was a war that began the downward spiral of the U. S. economy. And now he wants the taxpayers to give him a blank check for $700 billion? I only hope that the Congress can grow a spine, and put the necessary controls in place. This is not a time to reward Wall Street for their bad behaviour. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 01:53 PM (#2450044) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Alice The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling! Give us a blank check! |
|
25 Sep 08 - 02:07 PM (#2450057) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,petr hey didnt things turn out ok the last time we gave GWB the benefit of the doubt? tom tomorrow |
|
25 Sep 08 - 02:14 PM (#2450063) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos A European perspectiver from der Spiegel: As the world grapples with the fallout from Wall Street's shenanigans, there's no shortage of consternation, and even anger. But so far the international image of the U.S. economic model has shown amazing resilience. Lehman Brothers may be in the morgue and AIG on government-funded life support, but most businesspeople think the U.S. is more about Silicon Valley and Hollywood than the erstwhile dynamos of Wall Street. Even in China -- where broadcaster CCTV-2 has been running two hours of special programming every night about the financial crisis -- the U.S. is still a land to be emulated. "I see two Americas: One is wealth-creating, innovative, with people like Bill Gates, and the other is made up of speculators," says Wang Jianmao, an economics professor at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai. "China should learn more from wealth-creating America." The prospect of a diminished U.S., though, is sobering. What will take its place as a beacon of free enterprise? Not Europe, which still speaks with too many voices to play a leadership role. Not China or Russia. Their economies are still developing, the motives of their leaders suspect. So as businesspeople survey the rubble on Wall Street and look for an alternative, they don't see any nation that's as accommodating to innovators and entrepreneurs -- or as rich in expertise. For instance, Ulf Mark Schneider, CEO of German health-care provider Fresenius, remains a fan of the likes of Morgan Stanley, which handled a recent acquisition in India. "When it comes to democracy and free market economics, the U.S. is still the original article," says Schneider. "Nobody wants to see it fail." Of course, it hasn't taken long for critics to descend on the carcass of U.S. finance. Fredmund Malik, an influential Swiss management consultant who has long criticized U.S. business practices, dispatched an e-mail to clients on Sept. 19 reminding them that he predicted the collapse of U.S. investment banking back in 2004. Others are using the crisis to flog an agenda. German Chancellor Angela Merkel took the occasion to renew her calls -- in the past largely ignored by other Group of Seven members -- for more regulation of international banking. "The current financial crisis will nudge the whole liberalization process backwards," says Liu Jing, a finance professor at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing. Where will the Best and Brightest Go? Most often, the reaction abroad has been jaw-dropping disbelief. Hope Chen, a partner at venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson China in Shanghai, spent the weekend of Sept. 13-14 glued to coverage of the crisis. "I was shocked and very concerned to be sure," says Chen. Still, she has no plans to sell the home she owns near San Francisco nor stop sending her two kids to the U.S. every summer. A long-term issue for the U.S. may be the attitudes of future masters of the universe. America's extraordinary ability to attract the smartest people in the world could be eroded if the globe's overachievers decide that the center of the universe is no longer Manhattan. Sally Gong, a 25-year-old working in the Beijing office of a small American investment bank, has postponed plans to attend grad school in the U.S. "There are more opportunities in China," she says. In some areas, Wall Street's comeuppance is a plus: It vindicates Europe's less profitable -- but less risky -- banking practices. Either because they were more prudent or because regulators tied their hands, the likes of Germany's Deutsche Bank and Spain's Banco Santander look strong. But Deutsche CEO Josef Ackermann isn't writing off his American rivals. "I wouldn't bet against U.S. banks," he says in an e-mail. "It's still unclear who the winners of this crisis will be." It's important to remember that in much of the world, crises are met with parliamentary dithering at best, or at worst opaque decision-making by an unaccountable elite. So among foreign bankers and citizens alike there is admiration for the way Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tossed out decades of Republican free-market dogma and pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the banking system. "The speed with which America has moved over the past 8 to 10 days is truly phenomenal," says Uday Kotak, vice-chairman at Mumbai's Kotak Mahindra Bank. "I don't think any other country could have done that." To foreign eyes, the crisis has brought a humbler, more cooperative U.S. After nearly eight years of a George W. Bush White House not known for multilateral decision-making, foreign leaders are pleasantly surprised by the degree to which U.S. officials have kept everyone in the loop. "I've had several conference calls with Hank Paulson over the last few days, and there have been daily -- and nightly -- calls between our respective deputies," says French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde. .." |
|
25 Sep 08 - 02:38 PM (#2450087) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,petr that is why I see the latest speeches by Bush and Paulson - to act now and quickly comparisons with the depression as scare tactics. Or rather this shock doctrine that Naomi Klein has written about. the fact is only weeks ago Paulson was confident in the economy thinking it is fundamentally strong.. They have no clue what theyre doing. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 02:53 PM (#2450101) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ed T When its government financial help for a citizen or small business, its called welfare or socialism. When it is a big business bailout, its sold as a government business investment to help everyone. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 03:01 PM (#2450112) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Amos not just Europe but now India has a banking system which shine like the paragon of virtue. Petr The Bush cure is to give a passed out alscoholic Wall Street bum, A HUGE drink of booze. they call it 'hair of the dog'? |
|
25 Sep 08 - 05:50 PM (#2450291) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger In any even, McCain will fix everything! |
|
25 Sep 08 - 06:05 PM (#2450313) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC LOL "Fix" c: castrate 7 b: to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods (the race had been fixed) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fix With Gramm as his economic advisor, I expect one of the two meanings above to apply. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 06:17 PM (#2450323) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: MaineDog I am sorry, I apologize. I can see clearly that I, and others like me, are entirely responsible for the present economic woes. This is because we have selfishly refused to participate in much of the economy, so that we could avoid wasting money on non-essentials. I admit, and confesse, to, the following sins, as well as others I can't think of right now.... 1) I have never taken out a car loan. However, since I have owned about 10 of them during my lifetime, I have probably cheated the now defunct banks out of about $150,000 IN INTEREST PAYMENTS. am sorry, but now that I am old, and you are eating away at my 401k, I can't afford to pay it back. 2) I own 3 houses, and none of them is mortgaged. I realize that this situation will cheat the poor bankers out of about $1.0 MILLION IN UNPAID INTEREST, but once again, I must beg off due to current economick conditions, for which I realize I am largely responsible. 3) I regularly cheat the credit card companies out of HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS each month by paying my bills mostly on time, and so not paying late fees or interest. I keep in investments (?) the monies I have failed to pay out, so, now, of course, they are machinating to take it away from me. But I guess that's what you get if you are stupid enough to follow the rules. Think ! MD |
|
25 Sep 08 - 06:44 PM (#2450335) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D MD...never fear. Your sins will not go unpunished. Now that we realize you probably are pretty comfortable in your hoarded millions, we will be over for supper. ☺ |
|
25 Sep 08 - 06:49 PM (#2450342) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus A radical thought...how about privatizing the private sector? |
|
25 Sep 08 - 06:59 PM (#2450345) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Barack Obama held a press conference about our current financial crisis and the principles we need to uphold as Congress works to resolve it. Meanwhile, John McCain has suspended his campaign and wants to postpone Friday's debate on national security. Watch the video of Barack's remarks: http://my.barackobama.com/latestremarks |
|
25 Sep 08 - 07:41 PM (#2450391) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,petr maindog,, the credit card companies have a name for people who pay of their debt before the end of the month.. deadbeats.. cause they cant make any money off them. |
|
25 Sep 08 - 07:42 PM (#2450394) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "...cause they cant make any money off them." They don't "make" money anyway; they steal money! |
|
25 Sep 08 - 10:43 PM (#2450510) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Amos, ..Clinton is now supporting McCain...imagine that! Stupid circus of con men and fools, crooks, and liars..... |
|
25 Sep 08 - 10:57 PM (#2450517) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos An analysis of the real problems behind the "sucker punch", by a Motley Fool analyst. A |
|
26 Sep 08 - 09:57 AM (#2450811) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos In his first days in office, Hoover said, "Americans are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of the land." Oops. And just before he was swept to the dunce corner of history, Hoover said, "No one has yet starved." At the time, people in rural America were eating brined tumbleweed and road-kill rabbits; the unemployment rate was 25 percent. But the larger lesson is how Wall Street brought down Main Street. Banks were largely unregulated then, free to gamble people's savings on stock market long-shots. When the market collapsed, the uninsured deposits went with it. By the end of 1932, one fourth of all banks were shuttered, and 9 million people lost their savings. In this century, thanks to the deregulatory demons released by former McCain adviser Phil Gramm and embraced by just enough lobbyist-greased Democrats, Wall Street was greenlighted again to act like a casino. Banks in the heartland passed on their mortgages to Wall Street, where they were sliced and diced in hundreds of largely incomprehensible ways. And while few people understand how those investment giants made money, this much is clear: it was a killing. In 2006 alone, Wall Street firms paid out $62 billion in bonuses. With all the urgency of that famous National Lampoon magazine cover that showed a cute pooch with a gun to its head, and the line "If You Don't Buy This Magazine, We'll Kill This Dog," President Bush says the biggest bailout in American history must be passed now or the world will crumble. He said a similar thing in the run-up to war. Just once, it might be worthwhile to listen to a dirt farmer like Jon Tester, who wonders why the same breathless attention is not given to the concerns of average Americans. Ah, but he's only been in the Senate two years. Give him another term and he may start quoting Phil Gramm with approval. NYT |
|
26 Sep 08 - 10:10 AM (#2450823) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos McCain's political dance spoils progress. A |
|
26 Sep 08 - 11:01 AM (#2450873) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ebbie GtS, "Clinton is now supporting McCain"? I don't find it. Any info? |
|
26 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM (#2451025) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/bail-in.jpg |
|
26 Sep 08 - 02:15 PM (#2451036) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel WAMU bank went under because of a run of 16 billion dollars on their bank by depositers |
|
26 Sep 08 - 05:19 PM (#2451179) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus Today's question is whether or not McCain can reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans. |
|
26 Sep 08 - 05:20 PM (#2451182) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel LOL to the 3 power |
|
26 Sep 08 - 05:21 PM (#2451184) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk Chongo is the one who can most effectively reach across the aisle. He has longer arms than either McCain OR Obama. |
|
26 Sep 08 - 11:07 PM (#2451354) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Yeah, but admit it, he'd never get past security. A |
|
27 Sep 08 - 03:09 PM (#2451718) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: Ebbie Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:01 AM GtS, "Clinton is now supporting McCain"? I don't find it. Any info? It was on the news. We all sat and watched it, with amazement. |
|
27 Sep 08 - 04:33 PM (#2451756) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus "...and this offer is good only until midnight. Act now!" Would you buy a used car from these guys? |
|
27 Sep 08 - 06:32 PM (#2451806) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger It's amazing how worked up people have become about this ACORN thing. |
|
27 Sep 08 - 07:16 PM (#2451832) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: MaineDog Yes, its true, I am a "deadbeat" according to some, because I don't like to pay interest. Credit card companies do nasty things to us deadbeats. One of them tracked my history, and concluded, correctly, that I wouldn't be home during a certain period last year. They confirmed their conclusion by noticing several out-of-state gasoline purchases in a row, far from home (BTW that's a great waltz...) Then they sent me a notice saying that my payment dates were being "updated", and I was now delinquent, and owed them a late fee. So I stopped using that account, and got several new ones. Now I spread my travel business around, to make it harder for them to pull this stunt again. Its a jungle out there. Osama finds all this very immoral, and wants do destroy us for our evil financial habits. The man isn't stupid you know, only somewhat misguided. MD |
|
27 Sep 08 - 08:30 PM (#2451872) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger I had a credit card that came due once a month, then they went on a 28 day cycle, like they were afraid of getting pregnant or something. Was Obama behind that? |
|
27 Sep 08 - 08:54 PM (#2451883) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, ya' gotta watch the credit card companies like a hawk... They ***are*** out to get us... We use 'um but pay them off every month so no interest is involved and that makes 'um mad, mad, mad... So they change our payment dates every two to 3 months trying to get somethin' outta us... So far we've beaten them but I reckon it's just a matter of time before our luck runs out and one sneaks a $25 late charge in 'cause they expected payment before the statement went out??? B~ |
|
27 Sep 08 - 08:58 PM (#2451885) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos I believe what happened is that CLinton made a few complimentary remarks about McCain. This has been wildly exaggerated by overheated jukeboxes posing as human beings with brains. A |
|
28 Sep 08 - 08:25 AM (#2452068) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, looks as if "The Fix" is in this morning with all the big shots in the House huddled in front of the microphone saying such... And almost everything that the Dems wanted, it seems as if they have gotten" ownership, no golden parachutes, assistence for the forclosed... Looks as if the Repubs got: emphisis on private capital but I'm not sure how they expect to enforce a law that is going to require private money to be directed into "The Fix"... Guess the devil is in the details... At any rate, yeah, I still support Obama this election but I'm not too happy with "The Fix"... B~ |
|
28 Sep 08 - 09:49 AM (#2452097) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger At one point, some of the Dems. wanted to direct money to "La Raza" to finance low cost housing. I hope they got that out. People calling their organization "The Race" might want to rethink their tactics. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 12:48 PM (#2452188) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos An interesting essay on some of the root patterns behind the current infection. A |
|
28 Sep 08 - 01:05 PM (#2452193) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger We need to put out a public works contract to fix all the multi-storied buildings on Wall Street so the windows can be opened from the inside. That way all the crooked buffoons could jumpt to their demise and the crisis would be over. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 02:30 PM (#2452264) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Bloomberg: "ept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama each deserve credit for a breakthrough in talks on a $700 billion plan to revive the credit markets, their advisers said today. Republican McCain worked with party members in the House to achieve plan changes such as government insurance of mortgage- backed securities and a phase-in of federal aid, Senator Lindsey Graham said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' television program. ``The fact is the House Republicans were not in the mix at all'' until McCain arrived at the talks, said Graham, a South Carolina Republican. McCain ``was decisive in regards to the House being involved.'' Senator John Kerry, an Obama adviser, disagreed. McCain said ``he was going to interrupt his campaign to come down and save the negotiations,'' according to the Massachusetts Democrat. ``What he did was interrupt the negotiations to come down and save his campaign.'' Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said in a CNN interview today that McCain's trip was ``a political stunt'' that ``delayed and slowed down this process.'' Obama was supportive of negotiations in a ``mild'' and constructive'' way by calling in over eight or nine days of talks, said Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat. Advancing the Talks Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said on CNN that McCain and Obama both helped advance talks with their presence in Washington. The two candidates ``focused Americans' attention'' on the severity of the financial crisis and also ``gave focus to Congress,'' Gregg said. After talks at the Capitol ended after midnight, lawmakers said they had made a breakthrough and expect to announce an agreement on legislation later today. The House may vote tomorrow. The plan would let the Treasury begin purchasing distressed debt securities from financial companies affected by the record number of home foreclosures. After five years, if there was a net loss to taxpayers, the president would have to submit a plan to Congress to recoup the funds, according to a plan outline." |
|
28 Sep 08 - 03:11 PM (#2452277) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ed T Banks are like apples on trees. The best ones are at the top of the tree. Most government folks don't want to reach to the good ones near the top because they are afraid of falling and getting hurt. Instead, they just pay attention to the rotten apples (banks) on the ground that aren't as good, but easy to see....... Seeing this, the apples at the top think something is wrong with them, because government pays more attention to the rotten ones and rewards them. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 04:04 PM (#2452308) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel This money should tide the ruling class over a democratic regime while at the same time the next administation will be economicly hog tied . |
|
28 Sep 08 - 05:04 PM (#2452336) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw CBS News: Sep 27, 2008 "The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office." |
|
28 Sep 08 - 05:51 PM (#2452361) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." 2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 2003 September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements. November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." 2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." 2005 April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." 2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." |
|
28 Sep 08 - 06:17 PM (#2452373) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw US Congress passes 25 bln loan guarantees to automakers 5 hours ago DETROIT, Michigan (AFP) — The US Senate Saturday approved 25 billion dollars in loan guarantees for the financially strapped US auto industry, intended to spark a wave of automotive innovation. The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 07:13 PM (#2452406) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street's largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down. Enlarge This Image Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News Christopher Cox, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, testifying before the Senate banking panel on Tuesday. Multimedia Interactive Feature Three Weeks of Financial Turmoil Related Times Topics: Credit Crisis Add to Portfolio Bank of America Corp Morgan Stanley Goldman Sachs Group Incorporated Go to your Portfolio » The S.E.C.'s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve, though the commission will continue to oversee the brokerage units of investment banks. Also Friday, the S.E.C.'s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency's performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was "fundamentally flawed from the beginning." "The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work," he said in a statement. The program "was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate" of the program, and "weakened its effectiveness," he added. Mr. Cox and other regulators, including Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, have acknowledged general regulatory failures over the last year. Mr. Cox's statement on Friday, however, went beyond that by blaming a specific program for the financial crisis — and then ending it. On one level, the commission's decision to end the regulatory program was somewhat academic, because the five biggest independent Wall Street firms have all disappeared. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 07:57 PM (#2452421) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel All these posts about the blame phase of this crisis circus need to be seen as desperate partisan attempts to plead not guilty. SOme of the alibis are more laughable than others. A Congressman said today that Wall Streets gambling thefts are the fault of Barny Franks. Ads claim its all Obama's fault. The voodoo economics that began in earnest during the Reagan administration and even earlier by Nixon have cast a spell on the country that will never be earsed. It will make the history books. Super capitalism, the ownership society, the out sourcing strategy, the trickle down, the supplu side WHATEVER you want to call it, it is the wholesale legal theft by the wealthy ruling class that has brought poverty and desperate infrastructure to this land. pointing fingers to the point of doing nothing has an intersting outcome! The Dems won't pass the bail out (now redefined as the buy in) unless half the republican house will pass it. I wondered.... WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A STALEMATE it will leave the high fundctioning moron President to declare an emergency Code Red and TAKE THE MONEY by executive order. In a state of emergency he could even suspend the election but one precedant at a time is plenty |
|
28 Sep 08 - 08:13 PM (#2452428) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Dear Ms. Sawz What do you think the average political & intellectual age of maturity is for the United States. I believe it is below 21. Sarah Palin , with all her accoplishments of rising to a govenorship aside, often sounds like she is 16 years old. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 08:16 PM (#2452431) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel again... WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A STALEMATE it will leave the high fundctioning moron President to declare an emergency Code Red and TAKE THE MONEY by executive order. In a state of emergency he could even suspend the election but one precedant at a time is plenty Dumping this all back in the President's lap does not help mainstreet or either party... It would add impetus to throw away both parties and begin anew. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 10:48 PM (#2452494) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw NYT .....In 1999, the lawmakers adopted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which broke down the Depression-era restrictions between investment banks and commercial banks. As part of a political compromise, the law gave the commission the authority to regulate the securities and brokerage operations of the investment banks, but not their holding companies. In 2002, the European Union threatened to impose its own rules on the foreign subsidiaries of the American investment banks. But there was a loophole: if the American companies were subject to the same kind of oversight as their European counterparts, then they would not be subject to the European rules. The loophole would require the commission to figure out a way to supervise the holding companies of the investment banks. In 2004, at the urging of the investment banks, the commission adopted a voluntary program. In exchange for the relaxation of capital requirements by the commission, the banks agreed to submit to supervision of their holding companies by the agency. |
|
28 Sep 08 - 11:21 PM (#2452503) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Economic Bailout SCAM Chris Dodd $13,205,556 Barney Frank $2,494,611 Roy Blunt $2,000,000 Jud Greg $1,000,000 |
|
28 Sep 08 - 11:33 PM (#2452510) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger It looks like Chris Dodd is the run-away winner. Is that just because he's been there longer? |
|
28 Sep 08 - 11:39 PM (#2452511) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Bailout Bill: Full Text Of Plan |
|
29 Sep 08 - 12:47 AM (#2452536) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos What do those numbers represent, Sawz? Actually? It's not clear what you are saying here... A |
|
29 Sep 08 - 07:26 AM (#2452675) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: beardedbruce "but I'm not too happy with "The Fix"..." Damn! I hate it when I agree with Bobert! |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:28 AM (#2452779) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel The bailout is cut by mre than half. 250 billion is the maximum amount to be given at any time. Odd Behavior Dept. : Henry Paulson got down on his knees and pleaded with Congressional leaders.\\\\ He also had an anxiety attack and was in such respiratory distress that some people called for an ambulance that was not used. The freefall of bank failures will continue and the bail outs will not prevent anything except for a few pigs being fed by the sheep. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:27 AM (#2452881) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos "In the crash of 1929 the Dow Jones industrials ($INDU:Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 40% in two months; this time around it has taken a year to fall 22%. The jobless rate jumped to 25% by 1933; it is little more than 6% today. The gross domestic product shrank by 25% during the early 1930s; it is up over 3% during the past year. Consumer prices fell by about 30% from 1929 to 1933; and the last time I looked they were still rising. Home prices dropped more than 30% during the Depression vs. about 16% today. Some 40% of all mortgages were delinquent by 1934 compared with 4% today. In the 1930s, more than 9,000 banks failed compared with fewer than 20 over the past couple of years. Remember also it was policy errors, not the stock market crash, that caused the Great Depression: Instead of increasing the money supply, the Federal Reserve of that era reduced it by one-third. Instead of lowering taxes, Herbert Hoover raised them. And to channel whatever demand was left into U.S.-made goods, the government enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to keep out foreign products; this only provoked our trading partners to do the same. Add to this today's automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance and Social Security, the FDIC to insure bank deposits and circuit breakers to keep stocks from falling too quickly, and you can see why this is not a depression in any way shape or form. While I am at it, I would like to take issue with the almost ubiquitous use of the word "bailout" to describe the government's rescue package. Folks, this is not a bailout of anyone, not Wall Street, not Main Street, and certainly not the so-called "fat cats." It's an infusion of liquidity, designed to unclog the financial markets. In doing so, it will benefit everyone, business and consumers alike. Also, the $700 billion bandied about will not be immediately handed over to the Treasury secretary; he will simply have a line of credit, similar to what the typical business might have. Finally, this package may not even cost $700 billion. For that matter, it may wind up costing nothing. It all depends on the price the government pays for these distressed assets and what it winds up selling them for. As for whom to blame for this mess, there is plenty to go around. In the words of that great philosopher, Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us." ... Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:35 AM (#2452891) Subject: DELAYED REACTION From: Donuel The toxic fallout from the current financial crisis will start hitting the ground this December and worsen over two years. The stagnationand inflation will cause deep oain for decades. IT will seem even worse fo visionary people who will see what could have been as well as what it has become. Jobless rates will spike at about 18% "Prediction is hard especaily when its about the furure" Yogi Beara. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM (#2452894) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel THe US is down by 28% today. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM (#2452896) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL I agree Amos. It started as a bailout but the unexpected and very vocal objections from both sides of Congress and the American people forced enough changes to produce a bitter but digestible pill for all to swallow. Now we watch and see. I found myself reading the bill and looking for loopholes that I might crawl through to get my mortgage paid off. I can't be alone. We'll see. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:44 AM (#2452910) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Lonesome EJ Does it strike anyone how hypocritical it is for Big Business to rail against government interference on the one hand, and then cry for government help when their own greed pushes them into bankruptcy? Hypocrisy on a Biblical scale. Are we as citizens still going to stand for a huge Reagan Monument in Washington DC? |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:47 AM (#2452916) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel I've noticed All scales today are enormous compared to all biblical scales. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM (#2452934) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Well, on a personal level, Mary, I wish you good luck with that. A |
|
29 Sep 08 - 12:26 PM (#2452947) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Lonesome EJ Are you in default on your mortgage, Sinsull? |
|
29 Sep 08 - 12:40 PM (#2452964) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel EJ I made a 3D plan for the Reagan Memorial as I did for the W memorial. The central fountain is full of gold dust that trickels down out of reach from the public. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 01:02 PM (#2452991) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL No, EJ. My comment was only slightly facetious. Past experience tells me that half of Wall Street is sitting down with their attorneys today looking for a way around the Golden Parachute paragraph. Just thought I might get in on the plunder. Yes, the hypocrisy is on a biblical scale. But even worse is the claim from politicians that the financial institutions should be bailed out and then left unencumbered by regulation - let the free market work. HUH? |
|
29 Sep 08 - 01:32 PM (#2453031) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Lonesome EJ Those being plundered rarely get to receive a share of the plunder, Sins. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 01:40 PM (#2453040) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus The golden parachutes are generally contractual obligations undertaken by the companies that hire big-name CEOs. Apparently the only such agreements that can be abrogated have to do with employee's pensions. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 03:06 PM (#2453106) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Looks as if the House has voted against the Bailout by 19 votes, as of last count... B~ |
|
29 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM (#2453112) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL Not that it matters now but the Golden Parachute clause was to prevent any new agreements from being made by any financial institution eligible for funds should they see fit to dump any of their top five executives. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 03:30 PM (#2453127) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Genie Yep. It failed to pass in the House. That's the good news, IMO. (The bill was way too much of a rescue for the fat cats and big business, too little help for the average citizen, and only a short-term band-aid for a system that needs fundamental overhaul.) The bad news is that it was mostly "conservative Republicans" who killed it. The "liberals," "populists," and Democrats should have solidly opposed it too, but only a minority did. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 03:48 PM (#2453141) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D Barney Frank: (paraphrased)"By a strange coincidence in numerology, the number of conservatives who were 'personally offended' by the bill and who then put party politics ahead of the country, was exactly equal to the number of votes needed to reverse this result" |
|
29 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM (#2453151) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: M.Ted Is it good news that the stock market just took a monumental dive? I dropped someone off at the train station today, and saw an entire row of newspapers with 1929-like headlines. The New York Times financial section had a half page banner as follows: "Wall St. RIP"--I am not sure there is any good news anywhere-- |
|
29 Sep 08 - 04:12 PM (#2453163) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, there really isn't much in the way of good news 'cept that something will have to get done and now I'm looking for a "trickle up" package to be put forth that the Dems can get really get behind... It should be noted that about 90 Dems voted no for this bill... The problem with a trickle up bill is that Bush won't sign it unless there is enough dough in it to keep Boss Hog happy... I'm kinda looking for Obama to put together an alternative plan... McCain would love to but he doesn't understand the economy well enough to sell one... B~ |
|
29 Sep 08 - 05:28 PM (#2453224) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus And now McCain is accusing Obama of having failed as a leader in pushing the bailout. Which was killed by the Republicans in the House. Which ticket is McCain running on, anyway?, |
|
29 Sep 08 - 05:29 PM (#2453225) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton I suppose the good news is that the $ystem has been exposed for what it is. Also exposed, are the priorities of the politicians. Does anyone think the public really understand what this will mean? We still have people on here spouting pro Dem/pro Pub garbage. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 05:41 PM (#2453239) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Republican House John Colberson said today that when the Jews go home to have their New Year's party, the House Republicans will be hard at work drafting an alternative bill. As a fiscal conservative I will not burdon my children and grandchildren with the current bail out. The market lost 1.1 Trillion dollars of value today. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 05:54 PM (#2453252) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Well YOU understand Don! |
|
29 Sep 08 - 07:19 PM (#2453303) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Bobez: Just to keep the record straight, a hundred Republicans also said no. A |
|
29 Sep 08 - 07:46 PM (#2453326) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, I know, Amos.... Chuck Todd made an interesting observation this evening on the NBC news and that was that the folks who voted for the bailout were folks in safe voting districts and the ones who voted against it were in competitive districts... Really had little do do with party affiliation??? Hmmmmmmmmmm??? Seems folks voted more on the possibility of losing their jobs than any other reason.... B~ |
|
29 Sep 08 - 07:50 PM (#2453329) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,number 6 fear of communists fear of terrorists . fear of losing your job. biLL |
|
29 Sep 08 - 07:59 PM (#2453336) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) Well, the public lost 1.2 trillion in the market today- these are individual investors, or individuals invested through mutual funds, pension funds and other savings plans which all depend on the market. More will be lost tomorrow. People stop buying, manufacturers can't market their products, stores can't sell, and employees are laid off. For many, that kills sending the kids to college, kicks the stuffing out of retirement savings, or plans to pay off the mortgage, and may throw them on the dole and the food bank. Recriminations and finger-pointing won't help. Without severe corrective action, the U. S. and others are doomed to a long recession. Forget improved education, universal health care and increased job opportunities. If the engine won't go, all plans are dead. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 08:05 PM (#2453342) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Hmmmmmmm, Q??? You can track the decline of the standard of living of the working class with the beginning of trickle down economics so I don't see where another $700B of more failed trickle down economics will do any better than the last 30 years of it... Insanity = Repeating a behavior expecting different results... B~ |
|
29 Sep 08 - 08:17 PM (#2453350) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz Prosperity & Abundance... |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:27 PM (#2453385) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger It's obviously not important. If it was, they wouldn't put the whole thing on hold for the sake of the Jewish Holidays. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:30 PM (#2453388) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Charley Noble This may give us all pause for thought! "Yeah, the locusts sang and they were singing for me Singing for me, well, singing for me." Charley Noble |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:30 PM (#2453389) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Don Firth Well, there's always trickle-up economics, along with imposing a few traffic rules on the wheeling-and-dealing. Some president back in the 1930s seemed to do pretty well with that approach. Lotsa people bad-mouth him now, and they sure don't want to talk about him and how he did it, but I figure he couldn't have been that bad, because the voters kept re-electing him. The only four term president. Don Firth |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:44 PM (#2453396) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Charley Noble For the banks are all broken they say And the merchants are all up a tree When the big-wigs are brought To the Bankruptcy Court What hope for a squatter like me. Charley Noble |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:46 PM (#2453397) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) Tricke-Down Nonsense! As these comments by Sowell show, there is no such critter. Trickle down ignorance But ignoring the economics 101 bullshit, 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. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 09:51 PM (#2453399) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,heric >It's obviously not important. If it was, they wouldn't put the whole thing on hold for the sake of the Jewish Holidays. < No shit, eh Rig? WTF is that?? Sorry, folks - China has just invaded Japan, but we will come back and talk about it after Ramadan and Christmas. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 10:02 PM (#2453406) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel There has to be an upside. There is always an upside, maybe not. hmmm The ruling class got an upside today. 5 more bank failures will help concentrate banking family wealth. With a 50% loss of spendable money by mddile class families they will not be sending their upstart children to college who might someday challenge the ruling class. Perhaps we can get the House Republicans to accept a new deal by using the Howie Mandel Deal or no Deal format and guess which briefcase has the $700 billion dollars. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:38 PM (#2453456) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis. |
|
29 Sep 08 - 11:45 PM (#2453462) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "Sorry, folks - China has just invaded Japan, but we will come back and talk about it after Ramadan and Christmas." Exactly! |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:21 AM (#2453476) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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......... |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:25 AM (#2453479) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM (#2453489) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus "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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 02:51 AM (#2453506) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Guest-John 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 04:39 AM (#2453554) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 07:43 AM (#2453644) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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~ |
|
30 Sep 08 - 07:49 AM (#2453646) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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?????? |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:20 AM (#2453665) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe "The market lost" Trillions of paper losses means nothing if you don't sell... they will go back up ... eventually... |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:31 AM (#2453676) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:42 AM (#2453690) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:48 AM (#2453697) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Emma B 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'. " ' |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:49 AM (#2453698) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:43 AM (#2453742) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos "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) |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:47 AM (#2453746) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos "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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:17 AM (#2453769) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: freda underhill 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 11:48 AM (#2453845) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos 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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM (#2453879) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander 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! |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:20 PM (#2453881) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:30 PM (#2453890) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger 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? |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:33 PM (#2453895) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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.... |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:46 PM (#2453908) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander 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? |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM (#2453925) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos 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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 12:59 PM (#2453937) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "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? |
|
30 Sep 08 - 01:05 PM (#2453945) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos SUre, Rig, wot the hell. :D LOL A |
|
30 Sep 08 - 01:08 PM (#2453950) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D "...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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM (#2453961) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Actually, the entire Barney Frank quote was really funny, but I can't remember now how he put it. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 01:23 PM (#2453964) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos 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). |
|
30 Sep 08 - 01:53 PM (#2454002) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus I was intrigued to note that every Republican-offered alternative involved a cut in Capital Gains Taxes. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 03:22 PM (#2454069) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 03:26 PM (#2454072) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 03:41 PM (#2454090) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Stringsinger The Handout or the Sellout. Take your pick. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 06:20 PM (#2454237) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: katlaughing 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." |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:14 PM (#2454332) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee 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? |
|
30 Sep 08 - 08:49 PM (#2454342) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,heric 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:06 PM (#2454346) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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). |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:12 PM (#2454348) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos 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...." |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:16 PM (#2454349) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee 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? |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:33 PM (#2454368) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger The difference is, corporate welfare is a lot more expensive. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:45 PM (#2454377) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Don Firth 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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 09:47 PM (#2454378) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos "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." " |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:06 PM (#2454389) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:30 PM (#2454401) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Don Firth 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 |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:35 PM (#2454404) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe "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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:41 PM (#2454408) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Don Firth Hmm. I think I got confused by all those zeroes. That's what probably got Crowe, too. Sheesh! Time for a nap! Don Firth |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:44 PM (#2454411) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,heric 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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:47 PM (#2454417) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "'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. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:54 PM (#2454423) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,heric Oh - and a chicken in every pot. Done deal. |
|
30 Sep 08 - 10:57 PM (#2454424) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,heric Subsidies for cake! |
|
30 Sep 08 - 11:21 PM (#2454434) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe Isn't Yellowcake already subsidised? |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:08 AM (#2454457) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ron Davies ..."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?" |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:23 AM (#2454460) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,number 6 "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 |
|
01 Oct 08 - 01:07 AM (#2454464) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos 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 |
|
01 Oct 08 - 07:22 AM (#2454608) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: beardedbruce 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 |
|
01 Oct 08 - 08:39 AM (#2454689) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "Why is logic never even tried?" It's too often perverted with the irrational injection of religion. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 08:47 AM (#2454698) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 11:20 AM (#2454835) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus Heck of a job, Henry! |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:16 PM (#2454891) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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...... |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:18 PM (#2454895) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel 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. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:19 PM (#2454900) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Hey Henry's 1/2 billion account is down by half like the rest of us. He's gonna need that 19 million. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM (#2454903) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger There should absolutely not be institutions functioning as banks that are not regulated. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:38 PM (#2454921) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander 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. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 12:44 PM (#2454928) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander Response to 'blame low-income loans' argument. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM (#2454966) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos 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 |
|
01 Oct 08 - 01:28 PM (#2454979) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander "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' . . . |
|
01 Oct 08 - 02:43 PM (#2455052) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 03:09 PM (#2455071) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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 |
|
01 Oct 08 - 03:25 PM (#2455079) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: M.Ted |
|
01 Oct 08 - 03:43 PM (#2455088) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: M.Ted 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-- |
|
01 Oct 08 - 03:50 PM (#2455092) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: beardedbruce "Text of Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink Published: September 20, 2008 " That was the original proposal, much modified by Congress. But the new one is still not what is needed. Why doesn't the US government just buy up all the properties in default ( freeing up the sub-prime mortgages) and make it public housing, with subsidized rent to low income families? Any repairs can be done by a modern equiv. of the CCC, so it provides employment as well. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 04:05 PM (#2455099) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel What I saw and wrote about on the first day Sarah was introduced and gave a little talk was that "she is great at telepromoter messages but is very weak whenever she is off script". |
|
01 Oct 08 - 04:23 PM (#2455110) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel The Bail out /rescue plan that everone would embrace My plan is to give half of 700 billion to the banks as needed and the other to every taxpayer in America which comes to 107,000 apiece (twice that when husband and wife are both taxpayers). THIS is a plan that every single god fearing and independant thinking person would support and pay taxes on...even though inflation would reduce purchasing power by about half. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 04:36 PM (#2455115) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel There is a conspiracy of bankers and politicians whose self-interest is masquerading as sophisticated policy. They want us to believe that they have the keys to salvation. I have not seen a scrap of evidence to confirm this. There will, of course, be a renewed effort in Washington to push through a package of national deliverance. Concessions will be made. The US taxpayer will be offered improved terms. And, having made their point, having stood up for "traditional American values", some of the naysayers in the House of Representatives will cross over, enabling a deal to be done. Their consciences will be salved, but the crisis will not be solved. UNLESS MY PLAN of a top down and BOTTOM UP rescue is brokered. A top down and BOTTOM UP rescue is half to the banks and half to taxpayers at 107,000 dollars apiece. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 04:55 PM (#2455129) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel NO takers? well thats folk singers for ya. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 06:08 PM (#2455196) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos I'LL TAKE IT!!! Where do I sign up? A |
|
01 Oct 08 - 06:15 PM (#2455203) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20080930-0732-financial-psychology-.html Experts Say Herd Mentality Rules in Financial Crisis from the San Diego Union-Tribune (Registration Required) WASHINGTON (Reuters)—Herd mentality rules during a financial crisis because people are wired to follow the crowd when times are uncertain, experts say. Brain and behavior studies clearly show that when information is scarce and threats seem imminent, people often stop listening to their own logic and look to see what others are doing. "People are afraid, and the reason they are afraid is there is tremendous uncertainty right now in the markets," Gregory Berns, a neuroeconomist at Emory University in Atlanta who studies the biology of economic behavior, said in a telephone interview. Berns puts people in magnetic resonance imaging or MRI scanners while he tests their responses to various scenarios, and studies patterns of their brain activation. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 06:20 PM (#2455207) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) Gee, $107,000! One could make a down payment on a villa in Turks and Caicos. ? 350,000,000,000 to taxpayers. $107,000 each. That works out to 6.5 million taxpayers. Gee. I thought there were more taxpayers than that. Obviously the rich are overtaxed. (My math carries no guarantee) |
|
01 Oct 08 - 06:35 PM (#2455218) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert I'm with ya', Donuel... I've been posting such a plan as long as we've been talkiing about this... But I'd go even further... I'd put up to $700B in FHA and let it become a lender and refinance borrowers who can demonsrate they they are in danger of forclosure... FDR had a program like that back in the 30's called the Home Owners Loan Corp. and it worked... Now here is why i8t is good for Wall Street, too... If FHA refi's all these loans by paying of the principle then that puts a lot of $$$$ back into the banks... Then finace these loans at 6% fixed for 30 years and in the long run this will not only return every dime you put into the program but also give US a return on our investmwent... That return can be used to shore up Social Security... (But, Bobert, some of these homes aren't worth the principle that you will be paying off!!!) Yeah, and some will but that is irrelevent because the goal is to stabilize both the housing market and the banks and when that happens the real estate inventory will dry up some and the values of houses will go back up... Law of supply and demand... (But, Bobert, that's socialism!!!) And a bailout ain't??? B~ |
|
01 Oct 08 - 07:00 PM (#2455230) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bill D Pat Oliphant's recent cartoons on the situation He hits hard.. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 08:01 PM (#2455267) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) Digression- 2007 figures- 138 million taxpayers in U. S., one-third of whom pay zero tax. In other words, about 90 million pay federal taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 36.9% of federal taxes. The top 5% pay 57% of taxes (they have about 57% of the wealth). The bottom 50% pay 3.3% of taxes. For wage earners, the payroll tax system (FICA) imposes a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $97,500 and a 2% Medicare tax, thus acts regressively. Three-fourths of U. S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. The Tax Foundation has stated that the burden of the corporate income tax (a 15%-39% tax) falls on customers and workers of the corporations, who are often not rich. Jus a few figures for my own information. Most from Wikipedia, "Taxation in the United States." (Add state and local taxes. Congressionally enacted tax credits skew the system. Etc.) |
|
01 Oct 08 - 08:51 PM (#2455290) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert I don't buy those figures at all, Q... Yeah, you might find some right winged tax hater who has accumulated them, ot shifted thru real data thryu some kind of lense and come up with them but I have read repeatedly about figures that have the upper 5% controlling 80% of the wealth... The Tax Foudation is a right winged tax haters lobby that wants to continue fleecing the working class... This is all bullsh*t... The working class, if you know anytning about it, knows differently... All America sess the absolute grotesque display of abundance that the rich have proudly rubbed in it's face... The Tax Foundation is a bunch of liars and the rich know it, you know it and everyone in the universe knows it... But one thing is for sure is that my college Stats professor was right... 1 dan be made to equal 2 and any stat can be amnipulated to prove anything... Glad yer rich, tho... Try being part of the working class, whcih despite any protestations on your part, every working class person in the universe knows that you aren't... Then maybe you'll get it that it's bad enough to be greedy but worse to lie about it... And you can take that to the bank... You and your folks days are numbered because even Southern Man is seeing thu the Tax Foundation liars... B~ |
|
01 Oct 08 - 10:36 PM (#2455334) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The problem with any plan that involves large sums of money, regardless of what's done with it, is that the money would have to be borrowed from the banks, and then we would have to pay interest on it. So if we borrowed that money and then gave ourselves half of it, it would be like maxing out a credit card for all taxpayers and then having to pay a mountain of interest on that card (and probably our kids would have to pay it, too). A better solution would involve not having to borrow any money from the banks. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 10:45 PM (#2455340) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) The figures can be verified at U. S. Government sites. Businesses control the wealth. Big businesses like Exxon-Mobil or Hewlett-Packard or Goldman-Sachs are not a handful of rich people; they have hundreds of thousands of shareholders who must be kept happy (probably includes you indirectly if you have have any investments, pension funds, retirement income, bank savings, etc., etc.; the payments come from these investments). Not to mention providing work and comfortable retirement for hundreds of thousands of the 'working' (excuse me, middle) class. Where the hell is my share of that "80%"? Worked for a salary throughout most of my working life, so I guess I am 'working class', whatever that is. Not in the top 5%, but probably worked into the top 10% at the end. Comfortable, yes, but can't afford that lovely Bentley Continental. But I'll grit my teeth and drive my mid-range SUV. Own my home. No debts. Educated the kids and helped them set up. Yep, normal working (middle) class. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM (#2455346) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: TIA Bobert, I do buy Q's figures, but let's think about them for a moment. Of course the wealthy pay more taxes - because they are wealthy. The indigent don't pay much of the total tax -- because they are indigent. DUH! from Wikipedia (I know, I know.....): In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. In describing tax systems, it is important to distinguish between the percent of taxes paid on a given income, and the percent of taxes paid by a person with a given income. For example, if a person earns $1,000,000 and is taxed at a rate of 10%, they will owe $100,000 in taxes. On the other hand, if a person earns $10,000 and is taxed at a rate of 20%, they will owe $2000 in taxes. The person with the greater income is taxed at a lower rate but pays a higher tax. The person with the lesser income is taxed at a higher rate but pays a lower tax. The United States has a tax system which is a mixture of progressive taxation and regressive taxation. The income tax is progressive, capital gains tax, at a lower rate than the income tax, is regressive, as is the sales tax, since the less wealthy spend a greater percentage of their income. In 2003, the one percent with the highest salaries paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the ten percent with the highest salaries paid more than 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% of paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%). This is an inevitable consequence of the concentration of wealth. *****People who do not have much money cannot pay high taxes, even when they pay a greater percentage of their earnings in taxes*****. *****EMPHASIS BY TIA********* |
|
01 Oct 08 - 10:53 PM (#2455348) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "...but can't afford that lovely Bentley Continental." Why would you want one? |
|
01 Oct 08 - 10:54 PM (#2455349) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: TIA P.S. Own my home. No debts. Educat(ed)ing the kids and help(ed)ing them set up. Yep, normal working (middle) class. |
|
01 Oct 08 - 11:57 PM (#2455387) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ron Davies "irrational injection of religion". As usual, you have somehow managed to miss the point--in fact you have a perfect record of doing so. The point is that you are behaving totally irrationally if you claim to oppose organized religion, yet do not fervently oppose McCain, who believes the US was founded as a Christian state, and his chosen second in command, who looks forward to the "End Times", and is at least as much a fundamentalist as Jerry Falwell ever was. So you are either totally irrational or a total hypocrite. It's a hard call--both seem quite likely. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 12:04 AM (#2455390) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ron Davies Also, BB--- your 7:22 AM contribution is a bit disingenuous, to say the least. It's not an "article" but a column by Mr Gerson, who as I recall was a main speechwriter for GWB. He doesn't like Obama. Surprise, surprise. Citing columns doesn't wash as providing facts--it's too obvious any "facts" are cherry-picked--if not totally misleading--or dead wrong. Next time, try citing an actual article. Your credibility needs some work. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 12:13 AM (#2455393) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ron Davies Obviously, "irrational" was not aimed at BB. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 12:18 AM (#2455395) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: M.Ted The numbers that our beloved Q offers from Wikipedia(which he is usually skeptical of) seem to have come from this document Income Taxes and What They Pay which is promulgated by Americans for Tax Reform, and seems to have been written by one Peter Ferrara, who served in the Administrations of Reagan and Bush. The actual source for the information is vaguely attributed to "Internal Revenue Service Data 2006" and no method for deriving the percentages is offered, and no further descriptions are offered to clarify what the actual dollar amounts that the statistics represent. Also, the terms used in the piece, which are not terms that the IRS uses, are not defined. The piece is full of goodies like this: "President Bush further cut income tax rates for the lowest income taxpayers by 33%, while only reducing income tax rates for the highest income earners by 11%. That certainly did not favor the rich, contrary to so much silly, crass political rhetoric." So Bobert is right. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 12:49 AM (#2455408) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "your implied arguement" It was written in the Washington Post in 1999. Here is but one call for more regulation Here are 10 more: 2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." 2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 2003 September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements. November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." 2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." 2005 April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." 2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." |
|
02 Oct 08 - 10:57 AM (#2455539) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert TIA, The figure I was referring to wasn't "reported" income by the upper 5%, which is grossly under-reported but the amount of wealth corraled by the upper 5%... Income is not a fair baraometer suince the rich have so many ways to avoid paying taxes... Off-shore accounts is one way the rich hide hundreds of billions of dollars and it's all perfectly legal... So here's the rub... If we tax wealth then the if 5% control 80% and pay only 57% of the taxes we have a mammouth under participation by the upper 5%... In other words, inspite of many flowery sounding anti-tax organizations, the upper 5% have never had it so good... I, for one, would love to see the the off-shore loophole that rich people take advantage of completely closed and those hundreds of billions be subject to tax... I'd also like to see rich people have to pay for the stadiums for their sports teams rather than the working class... BTW, that is where George W. made his money in fleecing the taxpayers in Arlinton, Texas outta $16M... And these assests which the working class disporportionately and regressively end up paying for end up on the wrong side of the balance sheet and benefit the rich but for which the rich have not risked any capital... Like I said, we should be taxing wealth and the upper 5% aren't pulling their weight... If they were then we wouldn't be in this mess and we'd be able to have things like national health care, daycare for single moms, R&D money for environmentally friendly energy producrion and lots of other stuff... That is my point... Getting bogged down with the "phrasing" about how much the upper 5% pay misses the entire story... B~ |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:11 AM (#2455556) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC While I don't agree with the politicians who were against regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more thoroughly, if anyone is trying to suggest (and it appears that some are) that Fannie and Freddie are the cause of the economic meltdown we are currently experiencing, they are being dishonest. Fannie and Freddie are a small fraction of the problem. The same politicians who were being so vocal about stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie were also working very hard to deregulate the rest of Wall Street. And it's the rest of Wall Street that is the main problem. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:23 AM (#2455571) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: TIA Right you are Bobert. My beef is with the people who cite figures to show that "the wealthy pay most of the taxes" as if this is an unfair burden. Of course they do - they have nearly all the wealth. And, the burden is not only not-unfair, they are obscenely *under* taxed in many cases (e.g. your example of offshore wealth). Our founders (having thrown off the yoke of governments run by a wealthy ruling class) tried to set up a society with no wealthy ruling class. But here we are. Where are the "strict constructionists" on this issue? hmmmmmm. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM (#2455575) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Carol - Why do you think so. Everything I hear points the finger at the mortgage melt-down as the start of the problem. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:42 AM (#2455597) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Goose Gander So we're told, but only a small fraction of mortgages are in foreclosure - 3 to 8 percent - depending on whose figures you cite - and foreclosures are spread around demographically. So you can't blame Fannie and Freddie for bringing down the economy and expect to be taken seriously. Is the problem a lack of liquidity in credit? I have a problem with this analysis as well. According to an article I cited earlier, there is a lot of money available for lending, but banks are skeered to lend it (waiting for the bailout like children on Christmas Eve?) . . . Besides, has anyone considered the inflationary effects of all this 'out of thin air' money? Housing prices were ridiculously inflated due to (among other reasons) easy credit. There will HAVE to be an adjustment, unless we all think we can have our cake and eat it, too. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:46 AM (#2455604) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Yes, but FMA and FMAC were not majo vectors in the mortgage problem--they were later in the cascade of events. A |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:49 AM (#2455608) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The mortgage meltdown was the start of the crisis. But Fannie and Freddie are hardly the only entities that contributed to the mortgage meltdown. Countrywide is the biggest mortgage lender in the US and it is in trouble because of subprime mortgages. In 2006, more than 100 subprime mortgage lenders either failed or filed for bankruptcy. Since 2006, more than 280 major US lending operations have "imploded". When US politicians try to pin all of the blame on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they're doing so to deflect attention away from their own culpability in helping to create the crisis. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 12:28 PM (#2455641) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus Well, it may slide through the House, greased by $100,000,000,000 worth of pork, in the form of tax cuts to the wealthy. Innaresting how eagerly McCain, the arch-enemy of earmarking and pork, is to sign , |
|
02 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM (#2455693) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: beardedbruce 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??? |
|
02 Oct 08 - 01:18 PM (#2455700) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) "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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 01:43 PM (#2455728) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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). |
|
02 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM (#2455734) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: beardedbruce "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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 01:59 PM (#2455748) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 02:34 PM (#2455771) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 02:35 PM (#2455772) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 02:35 PM (#2455773) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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~ |
|
02 Oct 08 - 03:12 PM (#2455809) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 04:19 PM (#2455857) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: dick greenhaus 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 05:05 PM (#2455883) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 05:12 PM (#2455886) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger It's too bad there isn't some way to punish the bankers without screwing everybody else. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 05:27 PM (#2455896) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk 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"? |
|
02 Oct 08 - 05:38 PM (#2455903) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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... |
|
02 Oct 08 - 06:12 PM (#2455924) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 07:47 PM (#2455962) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton 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 |
|
02 Oct 08 - 07:48 PM (#2455964) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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~ |
|
02 Oct 08 - 07:57 PM (#2455975) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Nice article, Ake... B~ |
|
02 Oct 08 - 08:09 PM (#2455987) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton 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? |
|
02 Oct 08 - 08:29 PM (#2456003) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel A cabinate position for Ron Paul sould be a start. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 10:11 PM (#2456038) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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........... |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:02 PM (#2456049) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:04 PM (#2456050) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:16 PM (#2456056) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
02 Oct 08 - 11:37 PM (#2456076) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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!" |
|
03 Oct 08 - 12:04 AM (#2456096) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 12:05 AM (#2456097) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC I should say that it was written by the same person who wrote the last paragraph in the above post. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 12:13 AM (#2456106) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 10:06 AM (#2456396) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 12:05 PM (#2456484) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 12:17 PM (#2456495) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 03:59 PM (#2456650) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 04:59 PM (#2456699) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Acorn4 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? |
|
03 Oct 08 - 05:10 PM (#2456705) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 05:12 PM (#2456709) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 05:41 PM (#2456727) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) "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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 05:50 PM (#2456730) Subject: CALIFORNIA GOES BUST From: Donuel 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 |
|
03 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM (#2456737) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM (#2456738) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Emma B Bank bailouts around the world Reuters Oct 1 |
|
03 Oct 08 - 06:42 PM (#2456760) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Alan Day 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 |
|
03 Oct 08 - 07:19 PM (#2456774) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee Well, my wife's annuities have had some oh-so-slight drop in value.... |
|
03 Oct 08 - 07:40 PM (#2456784) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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~ |
|
03 Oct 08 - 07:46 PM (#2456789) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 07:52 PM (#2456793) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee 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. |
|
03 Oct 08 - 07:58 PM (#2456797) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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~ |
|
03 Oct 08 - 10:50 PM (#2456851) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "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." |
|
03 Oct 08 - 11:18 PM (#2456855) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw 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 |
|
03 Oct 08 - 11:31 PM (#2456859) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Gramm no longer serves the McCain campaign in an official capacity, but he still is McCain's primary economic advisor. |
|
04 Oct 08 - 06:53 AM (#2456987) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: freda underhill 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? |
|
04 Oct 08 - 07:16 AM (#2456996) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 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... |
|
04 Oct 08 - 08:19 AM (#2457020) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee Ya know, at this point I think I RATHER be in a socialist country. At least in, say, Ireland, I'd get to take home enough for a pint. I got my first paycheck yesterday under the WOW! 1%! raise the city gave this fiscal year. I'm earning forty bucks per pay period less that I was last Fiscal Year. At least they continued medical insurance. |
|
04 Oct 08 - 08:50 AM (#2457035) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, Rap, at least Boss Hog ain't closed all the libraries yet but not to fear... They are in Boss Hog's sights... Right after he blows the crap outta Social Security... Hnag in there, Bud, and remember to keep yer powder dry... B~ |
|
04 Oct 08 - 10:29 AM (#2457104) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Happy new Fiscal Year everybody. bam whump crash I'll get me coat.. |
|
04 Oct 08 - 10:33 AM (#2457107) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel GIANT BAND AID picture http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/overdose.jpg |
|
04 Oct 08 - 10:34 AM (#2457109) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee Laugh a bit: Following the problems in the sub-prime lending market in America and the run on Northern Rock in the UK, uncertainty has now hit Japan. In the last 7 days Origami Bank has folded, Sumo Bank has gone belly up and Bonsai Bank announced plans to cut some of its branches. Yesterday, it was announced that Karaoke Bank is up for sale and will likely go for a song, while today shares in Kamikaze Bank were suspended after they nose-dived. While Samurai Bank fell on its sword, Ninja Bank is reported to have taken a hit, but they remain in the black. Furthermore, 500 staff at Karate Bank got the chop and analysts report that there is something fishy going on at Sushi Bank where it is feared that staff may get a raw deal. |
|
04 Oct 08 - 10:52 AM (#2457115) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: freda underhill Great,ju$t what I needed! :-D |
|
04 Oct 08 - 11:03 AM (#2457120) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Emma B LOL a great account! |
|
04 Oct 08 - 03:00 PM (#2457233) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel GOOD NEWS maybe the kind of good that being in the eye of a hurricaine without wind but good none the less. Someone, no one knows who, stuck the best possible option for us all into the bail out bill that George Bush unwittingly signed. It is the option for the Treasury Secretary to opt to implement stock share buy ins (like what Warren Buffet does) instead of only buying traxh with tax payer money. You see banks don't want the government moving into their house with the authority to throw out the freeloader crook. They just want cash via the free for all Paulson program. The option clause was worded very wisely but and its a big BUT Henry Paulson will have 60 days to dispose of as much of the 800 billion dollars as possible. A new Treasury secretary will then be able to use the stock clause to truely let taxpayers invest instead of giving cash to the compulsive gamblers to supposeldy pay off their gambling debt. So Good news if we use the inserted option and if Paulson doesn;t blow all the money in two months.. A |
|
05 Oct 08 - 12:36 AM (#2457468) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) The text of the bill may be found here (Huffington Post): Emergency Economic Stabilization Act Most posters here seem to prefer to invent their own fantasy versions, but one or two may be interested in the provisions of this long term plan and its ramifications. A little easier to comprehend is the 'breakdown' published by the Washington Post: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act Amendments added in the Senate, bringing the bill to 451 pages- Senate Amended Pages 197-451. The "pork," so-called, is in these pages. Without it, the bill would not have passed. Paulson is given "broad latitude to purchase any assets from any firms at any price and to assemble a team of individuals and institutions to manage them." Washington Post article by Montgomery and Kane. If my links fail, google will find the articles easily. |
|
05 Oct 08 - 12:49 AM (#2457471) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "Yer doin' a good job, Barney" ....Democratic victories in the House of Representatives last fall (2006) landed him in the chairman’s seat on Financial Services. From this position, Frank will play a major role in drawing up legislation and setting the political agenda on corporate governance issues of all types. Outraged at what he considers hubristic excess in executive pay, he promises a tougher line on remuneration. Populist-minded, he is committed to backing shareholders as they seek greater influence over board selection and a say in limiting C-suite perquisites. With Frank in charge, the little guy is likely to get a break.... “Chairman Frank is a very thoughtful man and a sophisticated policy player. Labels like ‘liberal’ don’t have much consequence,â€쳌 says Damon Silvers, associate general counsel for the AFL-CIO. “He’s aware of the linkage between good corporate governance and a good economy. How do we put our country in a good place globally? The country desperately needs leadership that thinks this way.â€쳌 Then there’s the fact that by far the biggest contributors to Frank’s political campaigns have been members of the financial services sector, which is strongly represented in Massachusetts. In the 2006 election, finance and insurance companiesâ€"including audit giants KPMG, Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopersâ€"forked over $519,434, compared with the $90,498 that came in from organized labor. Perhaps reflecting his dual loyalties, Frank has introduced a new twist into corporate governance discussions with his so-called “Grand Bargain,â€쳌 which is designed to find common ground between the working man and management. Although it is somewhat vague, the compromise would involve business’ tolerating greater union organization, minimum wage hikes, housing aid and protections for American workers against free-trade job loss. In exchange, federal legislators would be sensitive to Corporate America when writing trade bills by taking into consideration business’ views on immigrant labor and other employment issues. They would also ease up on costly rules such as Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Frank intends to hold hearings on the Grand Bargain this year to generate support for the conversation and to fine-tune its specifics. It has the full support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And Barney has done ___________________________________________ Well, I forgot there was a male prostitution ring run from his apartment. Gobie's dream has come true. His accusation that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment became national news after it was first reported Friday by the Washington Times. Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm Oh, and his significant other at one time was Herb Moses at Fannie Mae Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae and had been at the forefront of relaxing lending restrictions at the company for rural customers, according to the Feb. 23, 1998, issue of National Mortgage News (NMN). |
|
05 Oct 08 - 12:59 AM (#2457475) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw There is one person who's been consistent on reform issues and that has been John McCain. |
|
05 Oct 08 - 02:59 AM (#2457498) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric Yes, The People's Pork! God bless us, everyone! |
|
05 Oct 08 - 10:08 AM (#2457640) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel http://thisamericanlife.org/ available monday |
|
05 Oct 08 - 10:33 AM (#2457651) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Land of the $20 million per movie stars, financially irresponsible California is next: California: Hollywood hunk Arnold Schwarzenegger may have battled all the bad guys on celluloid and won but the California Governor just can't seem to beat the credit crunch. Schwarzenegger, often called the Governator, after his famous Terminator series of Hollywood flicks, is now looking for a federal bailout. He says his state will run out of money for key programs by the end of this month. In an unusual and unprecedented move by a state, Schwarzenegger on Thursday sent Treasury Secretary of the US, Henry Paulson a letter warning that California may need an emergency loan. Schwarzenegger pegs his state's requirement at US $7 billion if the state is not able to get the short term loans it normally relies on at this time of the year. "That's something that happens every year and other states it also the only thing is right now because liquidity has dried up doesn't exist so therefore it's very hard not to get that loan so if we can't get that loan through the normal course we will go the federal government and ask for help," he said. Schwarzenegger says that his state, California is buckling under pressure caused by the housing crisis, the global credit freeze and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. "Seven billion is the amount that we knew we needed two months ago. We need it now. So there's nothing new with the amount it's just that we need that money and cash is running out," added Schwarzenegger. This translates into a potential inability to make payrolls in the coming months, to teachers, law enforcement and hospital workers and others. According to UCLA economist, Dan Mitchell, the situation does not paint a very sunny picture. "In this case, if we went without our loan for some significant period of time there would be a lot of people who would essentially get IOU's and they would have to try to take those IOU's to their banks and hope that somebody would give them a loan for that period," explains Mitchell. That is a scary thought for Los Angeles Maintenance Worker, Edwardo Soto. He worries that he will not be able to pay bills with an IOU. "We're not going to stay over here and wait and see if they have money or not. We can go somewhere else," said Soto. But jobs are tight already! 20,000 lay off notices have gone out to California teachers and the next year, many more may face the same fate. Sacramento county employee Kim West worries that the city and county workers will also feel the impact. "I would be very upset. I'm upset now because I'm getting the indirect effects of it and I wouldn't be able to afford my home. I also wouldn't be able to provide for my family," said a fearful West. The Governor will be holding a special meeting with state legislators next week to make sure that does become a reality. |
|
05 Oct 08 - 11:03 AM (#2457676) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess ...ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and "direct action" that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we're in. ACORN does many things under the umbrella of "community organizing." They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare workers (that is, those welfare recipients who are obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts (always for Democrats, of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history." "The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms." |
|
05 Oct 08 - 11:09 AM (#2457680) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee I'd like a bailout from all these bailouts and blame-casting. Solve the goddam problems NOW and let the historians fix the blame. Jayzuz, with the energy being wasted on "who's to blame" I could light the bloody planet! PLEASE!! |
|
05 Oct 08 - 11:27 PM (#2458088) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "Yer doin' a good job, Frankie" Maxine Waters: "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines" |
|
05 Oct 08 - 11:39 PM (#2458093) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 'In recent days, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been promising to "put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street." This is an interesting development for McCain, who before this week was a champion of deregulation. It is doubly interesting though, because McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St. and allowed such "reckless conduct" to occur in the first place. And one of the bill's architects was McCain economic adviser, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX). In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which abolished "all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat." Specifically, this act "destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies." Yesterday, a group of economists, including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, slammed Gramm for having a "mentality that doesn't understand the nature of systemic risks in financial systems," and said that his bill helped create the current financial turmoil: Economic experts say that Gramm and others are to blame for the current crisis that is shaking Wall Street. Gramm's successful effort to pass banking reform laws in 1999, which reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities, helped to create the current economic crisis. "As a result, the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem that we're facing now," Stiglitz says. Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, said that "we were setting up this bonfire years ago — the deregulation, the inordinate amount of liquidity given to the system all set the stage for the bubble and the bust." So McCain is promising to put an end to the "reckless conduct" that he voted to allow, while being advised by a team that still believes rampant deregulation is the way to go.' http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/20/economists-blame-gramm/ John McCain - "I'm glad I deregulated Wall Street" http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/21/mccain-deregulation/ |
|
05 Oct 08 - 11:41 PM (#2458094) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Maxine Waters: Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in 1992 has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM (#2458104) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St" As per the Senate records, the GLBA, s900 passed 90 to 8 on November 4, 1999 These are the 8 Nays and McCain did not vote Boxer (D-CA) Bryan (D-NV) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Mikulski (D-MD) Shelby (R-AL) Wellstone (D-MN) Not Voting - 1 McCain (R-AZ) Schumer, Dodd, Kerry, Reid, Biden voted Yea. According to the Senate Banking committee records: # November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57. Here is the vote. Pelosi voted Yea, Barney Frank voted Nay.
|
|
06 Oct 08 - 12:29 AM (#2458115) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 'But it's really no surprise that McCain is divorced from the reality of America's faltering economic system. Just take note of who advises his campaign on economic matters. The Wonk Room has assembled a report on John McCain's Econ Team — from those who helped spur the mortgage meltdown to those still blissfully unaware that anything is wrong with the economy: Phil Gramm: McCain's "Econ Brain," who called America "a nation of whiners" in a "mental recession," former Senator Gramm was behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The former made legal "the mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector," while the latter "destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies." As The Nation wrote, "those two acts effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community." Rick Davis: Before becoming McCain's campaign manager, Davis "served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation." As noted in the Progress Report, "During his tenure, Davis moved to challenge even the smallest measures to make sure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are be held more accountable for their actions." Donald Luskin: Like McCain, Luskin believes that "things today just aren't that bad," and everyone should "quit doling out that bad-economy line." In a Washington Post Op-ed on Sunday, he wrote that "we have surely become a nation of exaggerators," despite agreeing that "the foreclosure rate is the worst since the Great Depression." Douglas Holtz-Eakin: Though occasionally exhibiting an off-message honest streak (like admitting that McCain will have to raise taxes), this former director of the Congressional Budget Office now spends his time incorrectly claiming that McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term, trying to justify the $2.8 trillion gap between McCain's economic proposals and what he says on the stump, and saying "Main Street is hanging in there," despite significant evidence to the contrary. Carly Fiorina: As CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP), Fiorina exploited a corporate loophole to hold more than $14 billion in profits overseas, a loophole that McCain is against closing. She was forced out of HP after a merger with Compaq "failed to bring Hewlett the profits that Ms. Fiorina had forecast," resulting in "tumbling shares." Nancy Pfotenhauer: As the Wonk Room has previously noted, Pfotenhauer's resume includes work for "Americans for Prosperity (founded by Koch), and the Independent Women's Forum (funded by Koch)." On the IWF/AFP agenda, and one of the major facets of McCain's economic plan, is a cut in the corporate tax rate, which will deliver $175 billion in tax breaks to America's corporations. William Timmons: A consummate Washington insider, Timmons, who McCain tapped to head his presidential transition team, was a lobbyist with Timmons and Co., and lobbied for, among others, Freddie Mac. According to Time, "He has registered to work on bills that deal with the regulations of troubled mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae." In all, McCain has 159 lobbyists working for or raising money for his campaign, including representatives of Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, AIG, Bank of America, and Lehman Brothers.' http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/mccain-econ-team/ |
|
06 Oct 08 - 01:11 AM (#2458130) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Tricky tricky... McCain did vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The link in a previous post was not to the roll call for passage of the bill, but rather to the roll call for on the question of whether or not to agree to the conference report. Quoting directly from the link in the 06 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM post... U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On the Conference Report (S.900 Conference Report ) Vote Number: 354 Vote Date: November 4, 1999, 03:30 PM Here is the roll call for the vote to pass the bill. McCain was present for this vote, and he voted Yea... U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended ) Vote Number: 105 Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea Arkansas: Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Nay California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Yea Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Roth (R-DE), Yea Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Mack (R-FL), Yea Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Nay Coverdell (R-GA), Yea Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Present Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay Michigan: Abraham (R-MI), Yea Levin (D-MI), Nay Minnesota: Grams (R-MN), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Nay Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Missouri: Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea Bond (R-MO), Yea Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Yea Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Kerrey (D-NE), Nay Nevada: Bryan (D-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea New York: Moynihan (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Nay Helms (R-NC), Yea North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Not Voting Nickles (R-OK), Yea Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Rhode Island: Chafee, J. (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Nay Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay Virginia: Robb (D-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea Washington: Gorton (R-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105 I don't blame McCain supporters for wanting to lie about his record on this vote, however. It's a horrendous record to have to live with. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 01:22 AM (#2458134) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Here's another way to break that one down... Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---54 Abraham (R-MI) Allard (R-CO) Ashcroft (R-MO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Chafee, J. (R-RI) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Coverdell (R-GA) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH) Domenici (R-NM) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Gorton (R-WA) Gramm (R-TX) Grams (R-MN) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Jeffords (R-VT) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Mack (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Roth (R-DE) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) not that all of the yea votes except one, are from Republicans NAYs ---44 Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Bryan (D-NV) Byrd (D-WV) Cleland (D-GA) Conrad (D-ND) Daschle (D-SD) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerrey (D-NE) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Note that all of the nay votes are from Democrats. Only two people did not vote, and they were both Republicans... Present - 1 Fitzgerald (R-IL) Not Voting - 1 Inhofe (R-OK) The Republican Party almost single handedly (with the help of one Democrat) got rid of the Glass Steagall Act by creating and passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 01:51 AM (#2458143) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC John McCain, Crisis Enabler In 1982, the same year John McCain entered the Senate, a bill was put forward that would substantially deregulate the savings and loan industry. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was an initiative of the Reagan administration, and was largely authored by lobbyists for the S&L industry--including John McCain's warm-up speaker at the Republican National Convention, Fred Thompson. The official description of the bill was "An act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans." Considering where things stand in 2008, that's enough to make you wince. It should. Seven years later, the S&L industry was collapsing. What was the cause? Garn-St. Germain had handed the S&Ls a greatly expanded range of capabilities, allowing them to go head to head with full service banks, but it hadn't handed them the bank's regulations. Left to operate in an anarchistic gray area, S&Ls had chased profits, indulged in amazing extravagances and cranked out enough cheap mortgages to fuel a real estate boom. They had also experimented with lots of complex, creative--and risky--investments, even though they didn't have the economic models to really determine the worth of the things they were buying. The result was a mountain of bad debts and worthless "assets." Does any of that sound eerily (or nauseatingly) familiar? It wasn't a foregone conclusion. In 1985, three years after the deregulation of the S&Ls, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board saw that the situation was already looking bad, with potential to get much worse. To try to head off disaster, he instituted a rule to limit the amount and types of investments S&Ls could carry on their books. However, many savings and loans--among them Lincoln Savings & Loan Association of Irvine, California, which was headed by a fellow named Charles Keating--promptly ignored these rules. Now enters a familiar cast of characters. First to pop up was the universally beloved Fed-chief-to-be Alan Greenspan. Greenspan argued against the loan board's new rules, and persuaded Reagan to appoint one of Keating's pals to the board to blunt the requirements. A quintet of senators, among them John McCain, began having meetings with both the management at Lincoln and the regulators at the loan board. With their help, Lincoln was able to stay in business an additional two years, at the end of which they failed--taking the life savings of 21,000, mostly elderly, investors with them. How involved was John McCain? McCain and Keating had known each other since 1981 and had become fast friends. Of all the "Keating Five," it was McCain who really moved into the life of the Lincoln S&L chief. The two men vacationed together multiple times, with the whole McCain clan (babysitter included) heading out for Keating's private Caribbean property on Keating's private jet. McCain didn't think to actually report these trips, or pay for them, until the investigators were breathing down his neck. And McCain took payment in more than just vacations. Keating and other members of Lincoln's parent company padded McCain's pockets with $112,000 in campaign contributions. In John McCain's biography, he called his meetings with Keating and regulators "the worst mistake of my life," though from the text you'd think this was a spur-of-the-moment decision, not something that McCain did repeatedly over a space of years. Still, you might think that a "worst mistake" would stay fresh in his memory. It certainly didn't fade quickly for the country. Following the S&L crisis, the Resolution Trust Company was formed to swallow up the debt of Lincoln and 746 other S&Ls gone wild, and taxpayers were left holding a $125 billion bag. The resulting budget deficit forced cutbacks in other programs. The artificial real estate boom collapsed, and housing starts fell to their lowest levels in decades. Finally, the whole nation settled in for a period nasty enough that three years later someone could still campaign around the idea "It's the economy, stupid." Even so, by 1999 Phil Gramm--who had entered the Senate only a couple of years after McCain and become friends with the Keating Five maverick--put forward the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This act passed out of the Senate on a party-line vote with 100 percent Republican support, including that of John McCain. (To be fair, the bill eventually passed again with a wide margin following revisions in the House.) This act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act. This may sound like a bunch of Congressperson soup, but the gist of it is that Glass-Steagall was put in place in 1933 to control the rampant speculation that had helped cause the collapse of banking at the outset of the Depression, and to prevent such consolidation of the banks that the nation had all its eggs in one fiscal basket. Gramm-Leach-Bliley reversed those rules, allowing not only more bank mergers but for banks to become directly involved in the stock market, bonds and insurance. Remember the bit about how S&Ls failed because they didn't have the regulations that protected banks? After Gramm-Leach-Bliley, banks didn't have that protection either. Gramm wasn't done. The next year he was back with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was slipped into a "must pass" spending bill on the last day of the 106th Congress. This act greatly expanded the scope of futures trading, created new vehicles for speculation and sheltered several investments from regulation. As with both Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Garn-St. Germain, large parts of this bill were written by industry lobbyists. This included the "Enron loophole" that exempted energy trading from regulation, and was written by (big surprise) Enron lobbyists working with Gramm. Not coincidentally, Senator Gramm, the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Enron, was also key to legislating the deregulation of California's energy commodity trading. Thanks to this fortunate trifecta of Gramm-crafted legislation, Enron was able to create "EnronOnline" and trade electricity in California with absolutely no oversight or transparency. They quickly worked out how to game the system. Previously, there had been only one Stage 3 rolling blackout in the history of California. Within months, the system had been manipulated by traders to generate thirty-eight such blackouts and wholesale electrical prices had gone up more than 3000 percent. Despite production capacity equal to four times the demand during winter, energy traders even engineered a blackout in mid-January. During the confusion of these deliberate "shortages" and "price spikes," the California administration of Gray Davis--blind to speculator manipulations because of the walls erected by Gramm's legislation--was forced to sign energy contracts at enormous rates. There was little choice, because most of California's public utilities were on the brink of bankruptcy from the rising wholesale prices. In a single year, the legislation allowed speculators to bring the state to its knees. Enron alone looted California of $11 billion. The manipulations of the energy market were also a major factor in Davis getting the hook, helped usher the governator into power, and they still have repercussions in California's budget battles today. By the end of that year, the depth of Enron's deception could no longer be hidden, and the whole company came crashing down in the largest bankruptcy in history--at the time. This brought more billions lost in mutual funds and pension funds across the country, and played a major role in the economic downturn of 2001. But that was only the second act. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/sumner |
|
06 Oct 08 - 02:37 AM (#2458154) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw # March 4, 1999 -- Senate Banking Committee approves the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. # April 28, 1999 -- Senate Banking Committee formally files the Financial Services Modernization Act in the Senate. # May 6, 1999 -- The Senate approves S. 900, Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. # July 1, 1999 -- The House of Representatives approves H.R. 10. # July 23, 1999 -- Senate Banking Committee's 20 members named to conference. # July 30, 1999 -- House appoints members to conference. # August 3, 1999 -- Conference committee holds first meeting. # October 12, 1999 -- Chairmen Gramm, Leach and Bliley release chairmen's mark. # October 22, 1999 -- Conference committee holds final meeting; names bill the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. # November 2, 1999 -- Conference report signed by majority of conferees, clearing way for votes in House and Senate. # November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passes the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57. CC is referring to a vote on May 6, 1999, not the vote on November 4, 1999. It was not known as GLBA in May. It is confusing and I could be wrong but in all the great oratory on the subject, I hear November 4, 1999 is when the final version of the bill passed. Wiki: Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999 Washington Post, October 13, 1999: "House and Senate Republicans yesterday unveiled a newly revised version of a bill to revamp banking law, but the White House said the proposed legislation inadequately protected consumers, didn't resolve other issues and would still result in a presidential veto. 'The administration is disappointed,' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said of the bill and of the Republicans' decision to work on it behind closed doors without the help of Democrats." Democrats only acceded to the newly veto-proof bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and correct privacy concerns the original version failed to address. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 03:55 AM (#2458184) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC It is correct to say that John McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, because he did vote for it. On May 6, 1999. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 03:56 AM (#2458186) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Or rather, he voted for the original version of the bill that became known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 03:58 AM (#2458187) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC So this statement, "McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St", is entirely correct. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 07:02 AM (#2458256) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Yeah, and McCain was doing pretty good until the economy blew a fuse. One has to wonder if George Soros is behind this too. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 09:44 AM (#2458363) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw #1. It was not Known as GLBA May 6th. #2. It is correct to say only 7 Democrats voted against GLBA. #3. If the second and final vote does not mean anything, Why even vote for it? And if you were against it, why vote for it the second time? #4 Democrats wanted some CRA extras added and then they voted for it after they voted against it. Who's baby is CRA? The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 09:57 AM (#2458370) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,bigrickpa in 329 posts sofar, i've only seen 1 mention of what is coming due.these derivitives that the fatcats on wall st. manufactured to sell these mortgage-backed "investment vehicles" could only be sold with a "crs", a credit relief swap. a crs is a clause in the sales agreements that was supposed to provide some protection for these investors, like an insurance policy. why was it called a swap, instead of a insurance policy? because if it were called insurance, it would have been regulated. but if called a swap, it's unregulated.so they got insurers like aig into these "investment vehicles". only problem was,because of no regulation, nobody forced the insurers to form a pool of capital to cover this, in case of a loss.now as these things were sold back and forth, with each seller taking a profit, the lack of protection only gauranteed that the true cost would escalate, until nobody in their right fiscal mind would lend them the money to cover the losses.the bill is now coming due, to the tune of about 40 TRILLION dollars. now, what exactly is a derivitive?it is a scheme developed by these fatcats to market bundles of subprime mortgages that were developed by not accountants or economists, but PHYSICISTS AND MATHEMETICIANS! these agreements are hundreds of pages long, and so arcane that virtualy nobody can understand them. but they had crs' in them, so there was protection built in, right? WRONG! with no regulation, the protection that the investors thought they had was not worth the paper they were written on. still think that deregulation is the answer? if these numbers are correct, 700 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the real bill coming! i'm reminded of a saying a salesman friend once told me, "if you can't dassle em' with brilliance, baffle em' with bullshit" |
|
06 Oct 08 - 10:41 AM (#2458406) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Stringsinger Thom Hartmann's solution: 1/2% tax on investments of all kinds including investors and sellers. What we have now is Wall Street robbery. And 150 bill on top for pork. We've been had. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 01:45 PM (#2458540) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) It is now becoming apparent that a world-wide recession cannot be avoided. All markets continue to sink. The U. S. package is too little, too late, to help. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 01:58 PM (#2458559) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Apple stock is at 89 dollars down from 201 this summer. I do not see it ever going below 80 IF you have 1000 bucks to bet that Macintosh computers are here to stay, it would be a wise stock to buy and hold. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 02:30 PM (#2458582) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The article I quoted didn't call it the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The article I quoted only said that "McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St". Which a poster is trying to say is incorrect by saying it wasn't called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on May 6th. The article I posted is entirely correct when it says that McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall Street. Because he did. McCain was and is a de-regulator, first and foremost, and as such, he helped to create the financial crisis that we face today. And if he tries to say he was/isn't, he's lying. |
|
06 Oct 08 - 03:14 PM (#2458623) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, Carol, McCain was boasted of being a deregulator... Well, at least until perhaps recently when being a deregulator isn't in favor... But seems that McCain ain't talking too straight these days as he is willing to say purdy much whatever might get him back in the race... But maybe that's why he isn't back in the race??? B~ |
|
06 Oct 08 - 07:13 PM (#2458798) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger And that's why he was so erratic last week, he wasn't being regulated. |
|
07 Oct 08 - 03:05 AM (#2458992) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Well, a couple of days ago I said the bailout might work for a month or a year....Seems I was being optimistic. The markets continue to fall. How do we inspire confidence into the banking system? Do they deserve to survive? Would we really be worse off if they were allowed to fail and the fat cats punished. Or was it all a desperate attempt to salvage some "political capital" from the chaos.....Ake |
|
07 Oct 08 - 09:24 AM (#2459215) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: meself Remember, though, that the bailout has not yet taken effect - in other words, the financial institutions have not yet been handed the taxpayers' hard-earned money (um - exactly where is this money at the moment? under a mattress in the White House?). On the other hand, they have been 'promised' the money, and you'd think that would make a difference. And maybe it has ... or maybe not ... |
|
07 Oct 08 - 11:32 AM (#2459327) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw McCain did not vote for GLBA. He was not in town. Only 7 Democrats voted against it. I thank them for that. Give them a medal. Put them in charge. Schumer, Dodd, Kerry, Reid, Biden and Pelosi voted for it. |
|
07 Oct 08 - 11:56 AM (#2459336) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC John McCain voted for S.900, which was also named the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and... -- Financial Services Modernization bill -- ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999 -- Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999 -- Prime Act -- Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999 The bill was passed in the Senate on May 6, 1999 (McCain voted for it on May 6, 1999). Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended) It passed in the House on July 20, 1999. The differences were resolved on November 4, 1999 (that's when the vote on the Committee Report was taken, and this is the vote McCain was not present for. This was not the vote on the bill or on the merits of the bill in the Senate - that had already occurred - it was only a vote on the language of the bill. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900 The Democrats (except one) did not vote for the bill itself. They only voted to accept the language of the bill. The bill would have become law even if they had not done that. All of the Democrats but one voted against the bill itself. That vote took place on May 6, 1999. McCain voted for the bill on May 6, 1999. He voted on the merits of the bill on that day, and he voted to pass the bill on that day. The only vote he did not make was on the language of the bill - how the bill would be worded. |
|
07 Oct 08 - 11:57 AM (#2459337) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC But I can surely understand why McCain and his supporters would want to run away from his record in the Senate. It's a shameful record. |
|
07 Oct 08 - 01:19 PM (#2459406) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Latest news ....Federal Reserve is by-passing the American banking system and buying-in to top American companies with your dollars. Better get the revolution started quick comrades, or "you'll be sure be left behind, when we're sailing through the air" Is Mr Obama another "Che".....I think not, I'll follow the lady with the gun.....Ake |
|
07 Oct 08 - 02:41 PM (#2459477) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: irishenglish Well, a couple of days ago I said the bailout might work for a month or a year....Seems I was being optimistic. The markets continue to fall. How do we inspire confidence into the banking system? Do they deserve to survive? Would we really be worse off if they were allowed to fail and the fat cats punished. Or was it all a desperate attempt to salvage some "political capital" from the chaos.....Ake Neither here nor there, but I believe most people realized that it was going to get worse before it got better, and things would still look dire. I think thats whats going on here now. |
|
07 Oct 08 - 06:07 PM (#2459654) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger At least the illegal immigrants are leaving! |
|
07 Oct 08 - 06:44 PM (#2459683) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Carol, Yes, NMcCain's record in the Senate is shamefull... Perhaps that's why he's all but quit voting on anything... B~ |
|
07 Oct 08 - 06:55 PM (#2459691) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The lady with the gun is another Che? ( ...no, she's just hot) |
|
08 Oct 08 - 12:54 PM (#2460314) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw S900 was not named GLBA May 6 1999. McCain did not vote for GLBA. He voted for S900. I suppose you could say that he voted for a bill that turned into GLBA. If the bill would have passed on Nov 4, even if everybody voted against it, why did Dems change their vote form Nay to Yea? Why didn't they vote against it again? Why even go through the motions of a vote when I would pas regardless of the vote? It says "Differences Resolved Nov 4, 1999" I assume that means the Democrats agreed to the contents of the bill and passed it Nov 4. Do you want to cherry pick the votes so you can say Dems actually voted against the bill before they voted for it? November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passes the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57 |
|
08 Oct 08 - 01:20 PM (#2460331) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw NYT Oct 10 1999 ..."Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said: "The bill has strong support, but we are down to one, or two, people who are standing in the way of the first real successful effort to modernize our banking system in 20 years. It's frustrating."... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. How could anybody be standing in the way of a bill that would pass anyway? And why was the Blame Gamer Dodd, in favor of the bill? |
|
08 Oct 08 - 01:28 PM (#2460336) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Doddgate: Christopher Dodd took control of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in January 2007.... ....Dodd pledged to conduct oversight of the Federal Reserve and an alphabet soup of agencies - FDIC, OCC, HUD, OTS, SEC, NCUA, FHFB and OFHEO - that are supposed to ensure that financial institutions and markets operate in a safe, transparent and efficient manner.... .....Since 1989, Dodd has raised $43 million for his federal campaigns, including $13.2 million from the financial services sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Among his top contributors have been executives of Wall Street giants now in trouble: Bear Stearns, $351,950; American International Group, $281,438; Goldman Sachs, $264,116; Morgan Stanley, $209,725; JP Morgan Chase, $180,173; and Lehman Brothers, $160,400, according to the center. Dodd also has been criticized for receiving special treatment from Countrywide Financial Corp. when he refinanced mortgages in 2003. The company, one of the nation's largest subprime lenders, included Dodd in a VIP program it aimed at currying favor with congressional leaders by providing cut-rate loans, waiving fees and erasing points..... |
|
08 Oct 08 - 02:13 PM (#2460386) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Schumergate: On July 11, the Office of Thrift Supervision seized IndyMac, making it the second-largest bank in U.S. history to go under. The agency's director, John M. Reich, blamed Schumer for hastening IndyMac's demise, calling the public dissemination of the letters "reckless and grossly irresponsible." That cry was taken up this week by a group of 51 former IndyMac employees, who said in a letter to California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown: "Because of a malicious, politically motivated act of Charles Schumer, our lives have been shattered." Did Schmucky Chucky precipitate the meltdown? |
|
08 Oct 08 - 02:22 PM (#2460398) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Conradgate: NYT June 14, 2008 When Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota wanted a mortgage for his beach house, he turned to a Washington insider, James A. Johnson, former head of Fannie Mae, the government mortgage giant, who then put the senator in touch with Angelo Mozilo, chief executive of the mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. The ensuing telephone call between Mr. Conrad and Mr. Mozilo led to two Countrywide mortgages, including one in which the company bent its rules to give Mr. Conrad a loan. Those loans are now among a number of Countrywide mortgages at the center of an examination into whether a number of top politicians in Washington — members of Congress, the cabinet and celebrated advisers — received favorable deals from a company whose lax lending standards are at the center of the subprime mortgage crisis. This week, Mr. Johnson, whom Mr. Conrad turned to for help, was forced to step down as head of Senator Barack Obama's vice-presidential selection committee in part over Countrywide home mortgage loans that Mr. Johnson had received at favorable rates. At the center of the scrutiny is Countrywide's "V.I.P." program, also known as the "Friend of Angelo" program, in which Countrywide appeared to bend its lending rules for prominent people. Now, many of those receiving Countrywide home mortgages say they were not aware the company might have been working behind the scenes to give them favorable loan terms. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a leader in the effort to help homeowners caught in the mortgage crisis, denied on Friday that he received preferential treatment for his two Countrywide loans. A spokesman for Mr. Dodd, Bryan DeAngelis, said that neither Mr. Dodd nor his wife had spoken to Mr. Mozilo about their loans. |
|
08 Oct 08 - 02:41 PM (#2460415) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bee http://www.financialpost.com/small_business/succession/Story.html?id=866521 "In a desperate bid to help U. S. banks recapitalize, Washington is dropping its inhibitions and reaching out to Canadian financial institutions to gauge their willingness to participate in rescue operations. The Federal Reserve Board has activated a back channel that puts the central bank in direct contact with chief executives at Canada's largest banks and insurers, according to a person familiar with the dialogue. They are approaching "banks with major assets in the U. S. like [Toronto-Dominion Bank] and Royal [Bank of Canada], because when they have a bailout situation they want everyone who is a potential buyer to look at it," the source said." Back channel? |
|
08 Oct 08 - 04:05 PM (#2460505) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The reason S.900 would have become law anyway even had the Democrats not voted on the Committee Report is because the bill had already passed in the Senate with just the Republican votes. The Committee Report was just a vote on the language of the bill, not on the passage of the bill. |
|
08 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM (#2460508) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC And the title of the bill is pretty irrelevant to the question of who supported and who did not support the bill. The bill was the bill, the title is just a title. McCain voted for the bill. It really doesn't matter what the bill was called when he voted for it. |
|
08 Oct 08 - 04:13 PM (#2460513) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Our bank is one of the Canadian ones with a US presence. Last couple of times I went to the bank, all of the employees were smiling broadly. They consider themselves to be extremely fortunate to be working for a Canadian bank right now. I'm very thankful our bank is Canadian as well. JtS says that Canadians would never get themselves into the kind of situation the US has gotten itself into, financially. |
|
08 Oct 08 - 05:05 PM (#2460555) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric American Spirit: "The crisis on Wall Street is unprecedented. But is it all bad news? Or do opportunities exist for law firms and their clients who understand how to position themselves for new business under the Treasury Department's sweeping new authority? . . . Join us for an overview of what you need to know to position your firm and your clients to best address the changes ahead." |
|
08 Oct 08 - 10:00 PM (#2460724) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Wonderful! |
|
09 Oct 08 - 02:18 AM (#2460805) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw According to Government records the bill passed Nov 4th. November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passes the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57 |
|
09 Oct 08 - 02:29 AM (#2460806) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC And according to the government, the bill also passed on May 6, 1999 (in the Senate). Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended ) Vote Number: 105 Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105 |
|
09 Oct 08 - 02:31 AM (#2460807) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk What you say about Canadian banks being safer appears to be correct, Carol. There have been some articles here about it. The Canadian banks are subject to much stricter government regulation regarding their lending practices, so they can't get themselves into trouble nearly as easily, it seems. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 02:43 AM (#2460809) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 02:46 AM (#2460812) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw McCain May 25, 2006, RE: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 02:53 AM (#2460814) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Jan 26, 2005 Chuck Hagel [R-NE] Introducing S. 190 co sponsored by Mccain, Dole and Sununu Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators SUNUNU and DOLE, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high. The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages. The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt. It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement. At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency. Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would: Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected. This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 03:05 AM (#2460820) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law ...................... 1. Members from each house form a conference committee and meet to work out the differences. The committee is usually made up of senior members who are appointed by the presiding officers of the committee that originally dealt with the bill. The representatives from each house work to maintain their version of the bill. 2. If the Conference Committee reaches a compromise, it prepares a written conference report, which is submitted to each chamber. 3. The conference report must be approved by both the House and the Senate. "The bill would have become law even if they had not done that"<>must be approved by both the House and the Senate |
|
09 Oct 08 - 03:16 AM (#2460827) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The bill would have become law even had the Democrats not voted for the Commission Report because the Commission Report (the vote that happened on November 4) had enough votes from Republicans to pass. The votes from the Democrats were not needed in order for the vote on the Commission Report to pass. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 03:18 AM (#2460829) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Correction to my previous post - Committee Report (not Commission Report). |
|
09 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM (#2460969) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible." Carol - I would agree that the Canadians act a lot more like grownups than the Americans do, but Bill Clinton was reasonably fiscally responsible. His one big mistake was Kosovo, in my opinoin, and we are paying for that in Georgia now. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 08:21 AM (#2460979) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Clinton may have been fiscally responsible, but he was a globalist. His signing of NAFTA is to a great extent responsible for the large influx of undocumented workers from south of the border, their livelihoods having been destroyed by the corn and other agricultural products, subsidized by the US government, that flooded their countries. I used to think that President Clinton was the greatest president of my lifetime. Now I think he wasn't all that much better than Reagan or Bush I. And I think they both sucked as presidents. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 09:10 AM (#2461009) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Well, I still think Clinton was a good president. No one does everything right. Ronald Reagan was a person who I really came to hate--I mean hate--and I simply think George W. Bush is an idiot. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 09:17 AM (#2461012) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Indeed Clinton sucked jobs out of this country by the millions. I always thought he sucked. He demanded others suck up to him since he sucked up to every new world bank order to globalize our jobs and minimize jobs for all Americans who did try to retrain. WHile millions tried to retrain, he felt our pain. His wife sadly belongs to the same foreign relation commitee, tri lateral commision and world bank scheme as Bill. After all the sucking up the Clintons did, you would think he would have gotten more credit than to be sickeningly impeached by overt perverts who titillated themselves vicariously with the Starr report. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 09:28 AM (#2461022) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Oh, I think Clinton was way better than George W. It was Pappy Bush I was referring to in my previous post. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 09:30 AM (#2461023) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel OVER AND OVER AGAIN we were told we do not have 7 billion dollars to cover health care for the children in America. we do not have 7 billion dollars to cover health care for the children in America. Our treasury Secretary easily and quickly slipped 180 billion dollars to help AIG corporation pay off some of the winners of investment bets that firms like Goldman Sachs made. Yep AIG made bets to good ol Goldman Sachs the same corporation that our Treasury Secretary raked in $500 million in "salary". What kind of bets? Bets like Lehman Bros. will not be able to cover their bets...after a month of whispering rumors. The parasites and predators turned on each other as if it was sort of Highlander game. There can only be one. Sorry we can't spare the $7 billion to children's health care...fuck em... AIG NEEDS MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and AIG got more. They claim they are too big to fail. Children are too little to bail out of accident and disease. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 01:35 PM (#2461232) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "The votes from the Democrats were not needed " So what was the reason for the vote? |
|
09 Oct 08 - 01:37 PM (#2461238) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02: "...the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier... ... during the Clinton Administration the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped, deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..." |
|
09 Oct 08 - 05:54 PM (#2461470) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The purpose of that vote was not the passage of the bill itself, but to agree on the language of the bill, as I have repeatedly said. They were not voting on the merits of the bill. They were voting on how the bill would be worded. The merits of the bill were voted on in May when the Democrats voted against the passage of the bill. This is what I have been saying repeatedly. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 06:10 PM (#2461484) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Actually, George Bush spent alot of energy in 2000 trying to talk the economy down.... But nevermind that... The major problem with the last 8 years is that there was no fiscal responsibility by either the corporatist or their puppet government... The so-called growth of the economy was false as it was based on borrowing... Any accountant worth his or her salt will tell you that if you borrow and borrow that doesn't mean that you are healthy from a financial point... We've had 8 years of "bogus growth" and now we're going to have to pay for it... Same thing happened when Reagan was president... Didn't work then and it ain't worked this time either... Time for a new model... This one is badly flawed... B~ |
|
09 Oct 08 - 06:47 PM (#2461517) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel Bobert, You are 100% orrect that there was no respondisibility, oversight or regulation. I hope others will soon understand that this was worse than deliberate. The actual financial instruments that were invented such as the double derivitives and the credit default swaps were created and scientifically modeled to do exactly what they have done. I could repeat that but I believe it is clear enough. Treasury Secretary Paulson of Goldman Sachs appointed his buddy Neel Kashkari to dole out the bail out. Neel was VP for Goldman Sachs and helped model some of these weapons of financial of mass destruction , which is exactly what Warren Buffet calls them. You see he had nuclear physics math to aid his economic modeling. Guess who the first people were to get the bail out money. AIG? Yep but they immediatly gave it to Goldman Sachs which is who AIG was most deeply in debt. The first 200 billion flies out the door and already we don't hav clear accounting of where it goes after person 1 gets it. Bobert, we have seen natural disasters, this is not one of them. This is murder in the first degree with forthought. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM (#2461693) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "This is what I have been saying repeatedly" What you haven't been saying at all is why the Democrats changed their votes from Nay to Yea. If voting Yea is some Sort of wrong thing to do, why did they do it? How can you vote on the wording of something without voting on the meaning of the wording.? And why was there a need to vote on it at all, as if you say, it would have passed anyway? This is a flip flop Kerry defense. |
|
09 Oct 08 - 10:41 PM (#2461696) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "Looks like Canadians are the real fiscal conservatives, while the US government (under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) are the ones who are fiscally irresponsible." Canada has a $6.3 billion trade surplus. It exports more than it imports. They have lots of money to spend on socialized medicine etc. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 12:28 AM (#2461750) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC They didn't change their vote from nay to yea. The first vote was on the merits of the bill, and on the passage of the bill.. They voted nay on the merits of the bill and on the passage of the bill. The second vote was on the language of the bill that had already been passed on its merits. On the second vote, they were agreeing to allow the Committee Report (on the language of the bill) to pass. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 06:33 AM (#2461883) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: beardedbruce So let me see.. Canada is wise and to be praised as more knowledgable than the US finacially for having a trade surplus- But Palin is to be criticised and condemned as unknowledgable finacially for Alaska having a trade surplus. Must be logical to somebody. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 07:14 AM (#2461918) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Nobody's praising Canada for having a trade surplus. Canada is being praised for being fiscally conservative. The trade surplus is simply helping them have more money to manage responsibly. But it's the responsible management (being fiscally conservative), combined with strict regulation of the banking industry that is the reason Canada's banks are in such good shape. The US, on the other hand, has been engaging in reckless deregulation and criminal fiscal irresponsibility, and that's why the banking system in the US is in the toilet, Alaska's trade surplus notwithstanding (Alaska is still a part of the US, as far as I am aware). |
|
10 Oct 08 - 08:02 AM (#2461973) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger So it looks like Palin is on the right track. Too bad we can't get her into office sooner. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 08:04 AM (#2461980) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC On the right track because Alaska is still part of the US? That's true, it is, but no thanks to the Palins. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 09:36 AM (#2462066) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel the DOW is going down a 100 points a minute this morning. the whacky Cramer advised everyone to sell yesterday. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM (#2462074) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel after 30 minutes its only down 600 I am going to guess it bottoms out at 7,000 by closing bell. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 09:57 AM (#2462078) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: GUEST,beardedbruce Went to 79xx, now at 8365.... |
|
10 Oct 08 - 10:00 AM (#2462084) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel If it goes to 4500 I would be astonished. There is too much inate hope in the human spirit to go that low. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 10:12 AM (#2462100) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel It swung back up 600 points in 30 seconds, wow ain't computers great! I wonder who bought? |
|
10 Oct 08 - 10:20 AM (#2462105) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw If GLBA would have passed regardless of the vote on Nov 4th, Why was a vote needed? I see nothing official to substantiate the claim that the bill would have passed anyway. All I see is a vote. When a vote is taken it indicates that the voters are deciding if something passes or not. If Democrats objected to GLBA and it voting for GLBA was wrong, Democrats should have voted against it Nov 4th 1999, even if they were only voting on the language of the bill which they should have disagreed with if the bill was wrong. Wikipedia: The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). After adopting Democratic proposals for negotiations with the Senate, the House passed the bill on an uncounted voice vote. The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act [This was after May 6, 1999] and address certain privacy concerns. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This "veto-proof" legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. Obviously the Democrats changed their minds do to some CRA goodies put in the bill after May 6th and before Nov 4th. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 10:37 AM (#2462119) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC And McCain voted for it (S. 900) when it passed in the Senate. McCain supported the bill, and helped it to become law. The Community Reinvestment Act basically requires that any bank that receives FDIC insurance must comply with anti-discrimination guidelines (which means they were no longer allowed to engage in "redlining"). As we can see, S. 900 easily passed in both the House and Senate without any help at all from the Democrats. They knew it was a done deal and S. 900 was going to become law. So they made a deal and agreed to vote for the bill in return for an agreement from the Republicans to help them strengthen the CRA. So, in essence, they voted against S. 900, and for strengthening the CRA. Perhaps the Republicans were looking for a veto-proof majority. Clinton didn't like S. 900 (although he warmed up to it a bit after the agreement was made to strengthen the CRA). |
|
10 Oct 08 - 10:40 AM (#2462123) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC However, it was, from beginning to end, a Republican initiative, and it was the Republicans who crafted it and pushed it along until it became law. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 10:49 AM (#2462135) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bee Regardless of how fiscally responsible Canada has been, our economy is taking a beating as a result of the American debacle. Our trade surplus relies quite a lot on Americans having money to purchase our commodities. This is why we should be much more diversified as to trading partners. |
|
10 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM (#2462429) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel what upsets the Europeans and the foreigners is that the US plan has done nothing at all about the debt crisis itself. It's bailed out the creditors, but not a penny of the actual debts, the subprime mortgage debts, are addressed. Without any of the media knowing, the Federal Reserve over the last few months has given $850 billion of cash for trash already. This is what the $700 billion discussion in Congress was supposed to be about, but the Fed, without anyone knowing, has already been exchanging these securities. And the securities essentially have been swapped by the US bankers to their pals and not done anything at all to write down the actual subprime debts. There's a big attempt to blame the victim now. And if you add up all of the subprime bad loans and defaults, that's altogether $1 trillion. So far, the government has given away $6 trillion already to Wall Street. That's much more than any of the subprime debt. And the volume of derivative trade has been estimated at $450 trillion, an unbelievable amount. So nobody has any idea about how much money is at stake. And what really triggered a lot of this was the way in which Lehman went bankrupt. The day-and this has not been discussed either in America, but it's all over the European press. The day before Lehman went bankrupt, it basically looted all of its foreign offices. For instance, in England, it emptied out the English account of a few billion dollars, leaving the English employees only with the money they-the little cards they had to use in the vending machines. No salaries were paid. The London office was closed down immediately. And the next day, Lehman used the money that it took from London to pay its closest associates to redeem the derivative trades that it had done. So the English bankers came out and said, in England, we have an ethic: it's lend to the person, not against the asset. And they've come to the conclusion that the American bankers-well, we won't say "crooks," but let's say they're cronies who deal among themselves and are willing to screw the foreigner. And this has created such mistrust abroad that Europeans and Asians and OPEC country investors are simply pulling their money out of the US, because they don't have a clue as to the solvency of the banks. We're seeing the end result of the Alan Greenspan deregulatory revolution, where he said markets are all self-regulating. Right now, you're seeing the markets self-regulate themselves. And the result is a wipeout of the American pyramiding." And there's more here (1) Government keeps saying that this is only financial, and that our industries and businesses are still sound-that is a blatant lie! This could not be happening here if the US had a manufacturing or an industrial base of any kind: But our once formidable American commercial infrastructure has been outsourced, with the full approval and encouragement of this government; causing massive loses in American jobs for those American workers that have now been thrown on the trash-heaps of history. Any 'Republic' that no longer has a system of checks & balances or anything remotely resembling 'oversight' of what they create to run the nation, is no longer a country-it is only a fascist police-state in waiting! "Senator Chris Dodd, the banking committee chair has no plans to subject the new Bailout Czar, Neel Kashkari to conformation hearings. Kashkari is the thirty-five year old Treasury official, tapped by Henry Paulson, to oversee the more than 700 billion-dollar bailout. Like Paulson, Kashkari is a former employee of Goldman-Sachs. Kashkari graduated from business school six years ago." Given this fact: it is now clear that we can forget about the political campaigns because whoever "wins" that farce will not even come close to having the kind of power that this 35 year old insider will be able to have, when he begins handing out "450 Trillion dollars" to the money-changers at the expense of every one of us! There's a huge difference between the $850 Billion they told us about and the $450 Trillion that is the actual amount of the problem! That's more money than any economy could ever envision, much less ever have: and yet that's the payoff that this Depression was designed to create! And Senator Dodd does not think that we even ought to have a hearing to see if this Goldman-Sachs insider is even qualified for anything, much less this job that will clearly make the US presidency into the standing joke that it already is! Americans at all levels of this nightmare are hurting badly, some far more than others. The meltdown has cut into 401K's, into investments, retirement funds, savings accounts, mutual funds, and stock option plans not to mention the number of homes and jobs that will be lost in this massive war against the people of the United States, and by extension the world. Hundreds of Trillions will be doled out before this is done, but not one cent will be given to real people to protect them in any way from what has already destroyed over twenty percent of the retirement savings that had to be earned over many decades! According to CBS News this morning "we have lost $8 Trillion so far this year, and the markets have fallen 40% from where they were just one year ago today." This Depression is not remotely near the end, as the automotive and airlines and the insurance shortfalls will also be demanding bailouts notwithstanding the fact that the subprime mortgages have still not even been addressed. What happened to Impeachment or anything to do with challenging these people on anything they've done! This is happening - because we have remained silent and obedient throughout the last eight years of this completely criminal regime, in the face of war-crimes by the hundreds, and outrages that defy all the human sensibilities on which the community of nations was built. So much money being paid out-all in secret of course-and nothing to help real people survive the coming depression. Once more the global money-changers are being bailed-out with no thought at all to saving the very people that are being forced to pay off these eternal bandits that have declared "All out War" upon the global economy and the global- population who will suffer or die because of this new outrage! This situation screams for resolutions: yet all we get are platitudes amid the chaos of failing markets, and no one in authority is even remotely in any danger of even getting fired! If 'resolutions' fail then the only choice left to the real people of this world will be a global demand for Revolution, along with total control over all bankers and politicians of any stripe-forever! If this sounds impossible or implausible then please just think about this completely other proposal, from Benjamin Fulford: "With a brand new financial system built from scratch, it would be possible to end world poverty and stop environmental destruction within a month. The reason is simple, we have been blinded from reality by a hypnotic pyramid scheme known as the world financial system. The financial system is nothing more than the process of deciding what humanity will do in the future. In other words, it is fundamentally nothing more than mass psychology. Thus, if humanity changed their collective psychology about how to run the planet, it could decide, within a few days, to care for the poor and stop destroying nature. It is simply a matter of making the collective decision to do so. That is all." If this Depression is not averted, then we must act, because there's a total lack of responsibility in the continued fleecing of the public and of everything we have all worked for all our lives! This must not be allowed to reach its designed conclusion not that is if we are planning to have a future of any kind, for our selves or for any of our descendants! kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net |
|
11 Oct 08 - 02:32 PM (#2463115) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "it was, from beginning to end, a Republican initiative, and it was the Republicans who crafted it and pushed it along until it became law." That is true but in the end all but 7 democrats voted for the final version of the bill which was changed from the original bill voted for on May 6th. Evidently they wanted it to become law. And McCain did not vote for the final revised CRA enriched bill on Nov when it passed. Maybe he would have if he was there but he did not. And who heeded Chuck Hagle's bill for regulation "This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require." and McCains speech in support of that bill calling for regulation "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."? They hit the nail right on the head. Democrats had the majority then. Theheir bill never got out of committee because Chris Dodd "Friend of Angelo" and recipient of $13,163,356 in contributions from the finance, real estate and insurance sector, was Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. See any conflict of interest there? And who heeded the 10 calls for regulation by the Bush administration from 2001 to 2007? You can blame the Republican or the Democrats but both are responsible and if they can divide the US people into thinking one or the other is right, they will continue the bullshit partisan politics that benefit one part of the American people by screwing the other. I think I am turning into one of the Purple People. |
|
11 Oct 08 - 02:37 PM (#2463120) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Little Hawk "You can blame the Republican or the Democrats but both are responsible and if they can divide the US people into thinking one or the other is right, they will continue the bullshit partisan politics that benefit one part of the American people by screwing the other." BINGO! Therein lies the genius of the partisan adversarial $ySStem. It works just like a football playoff series...every time...and no matter which team wins, the League still runs the game, owns the stadium, fleeces the divided public, and reaps the rewards. |
|
11 Oct 08 - 04:29 PM (#2463195) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The original quote that we have been arguing about all this time did not say he voted for the Gramm Leach Bliley act. The original quote did not name the bill, it only described what the bill did. And McCain, when he voted for the bill in the Senate in May, did vote for a bill that was as described in my original quote. But whether or not he voted for the Committee Report for S. 900 is entirely irrelevant to the question of McCain's involvement in the deregulation of our banking industry. He was up to his wispy little comb-over in the deregulation of our banking industry. |
|
11 Oct 08 - 04:43 PM (#2463204) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Here's the original quote that I posted all that long time ago that we have been arguing about ever since... It is doubly interesting though, because McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St This quote is a true statement. McCain did vote for the bill that deregulated Wall Street. He voted for S. 900 in May of 1999. The only thing that changed about that bill from when he voted for it and when it was made into law, was the addition of the part that strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act. So, in fact, it's only the part that strengthened the CRA that he didn't vote for. He voted for all of the rest of it in May. |
|
11 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM (#2463396) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric "There's all kinds of stuff stacked up on docks right now that can't be shipped because people can't get letters of credit," said Bill Gary, president of Commodity Information Systems in Oklahoma City. "The problem is not demand, and it's not supply because we have plenty of supply. It's finding anyone who can come up with the credit to buy." http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=866310 |
|
11 Oct 08 - 11:19 PM (#2463402) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "He was up to his wispy little comb-over in the deregulation of our banking industry." As was all but 7 of the Democrats that voted for GLBA and all of the Democrats that ignored the warnings from the administration, McCain, Hagel, Sununu and Dole. And whatever you do, don't mention The Community Reinvestment Act, brainchild of Democrats starting with Carter. If you did admit to that then it would mean that both Democrats and Republicans are at fault and partisan bickering is fueling them on. And physical features have what to do with government unless you want to use that as a tool to back up a shaky position. FDR was in a wheel chair so he must have been a real geek. |
|
12 Oct 08 - 12:47 AM (#2463430) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Dodd and Countrywide WSJ: Former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg says Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential. He also says he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's then-CEO. That a "Friends of Angelo" program existed is not in dispute. It was crucial to the boom that Countrywide enjoyed before its fortunes turned. While most of the company was aggressively lending to risky borrowers and off-loading those mortgages in bulk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Feinberg's department was charged with making sure those who could influence Fannie and Freddie's appetite for risk were sufficiently buttered up. As a Banking Committee bigshot, Mr. Dodd was perfectly placed to be buttered. In response to the charge that he knew he was getting favors, Mr. Dodd at first issued a strong denial: "This suggestion is outrageous and contrary to my entire career in public service. When my wife and I refinanced our loans in 2003, we did not seek or expect any favorable treatment. Just like millions of other Americans, we shopped around and received competitive rates." Less than a week later he acknowledged he was part of Countrywide's VIP program but claimed he thought it was "more of a courtesy." Mr. Feinberg, who oversaw "Friends of Angelo" from 2000 to 2004, begs to differ. He told us that as the loan officer in charge he was supposed to make sure that the "VIP" clients knew at every step of the process that they were getting a special deal because they were "Friends of Angelo." "People are referred into that department as 'very important people.' You're told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the 'Friends of Angelo department,' [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a 'Friend of Angelo,'" he says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that "Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues." As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got "a float down," which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. "They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it," Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he "always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were 'Friends of Angelo.'" All of this matters because Mr. Dodd was one of those encouraging Fan and Fred to plunge into "affordable housing" loans made by companies like Countrywide. One indicator of his influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions -- more than to any other politician -- that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal. But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be. Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was "hypocritical" and he says, "I just thought, 'This is wrong.'" Mr. Dodd hasn't yet released his copies of the mortgage documents, though he promised to do so more than two months ago. His office told us this week they'd get back to us on that. Meanwhile, presumably the Justice Department can have Mr. Feinberg's Countrywide documents, if it's interested. |
|
12 Oct 08 - 03:02 AM (#2463463) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC The Community Reinvestment Act simply prevented the kinds of discrimination that was known at that time as "redlining". Most people are not aware that a lot of people who ended up with the sub-prime mortgages were actually eligible for the regular kind of mortgages, but that predatory lenders were not being honest with them about what they were eligible for, preferring, instead, to convince them to take out the sub-prime mortgages. The kind of deregulation that made that possible was not the result of the GLBA. It was the result of other efforts on the part of the Republicans. I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the Democrats are the ones who are for more regulation, and the Republicans are the ones who are for less regulation. Anyone who wants proof of that only has to look at the campaign rhetoric of any number of Republicans from previous elections. |
|
12 Oct 08 - 03:05 AM (#2463465) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC And by the way, the GLBA didn't have anything to do with people pushing sub-prime mortgages. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not issue sub-prime mortgages. |
|
12 Oct 08 - 04:14 PM (#2463861) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger This from CBS News: (US News) Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. |
|
13 Oct 08 - 05:23 AM (#2464204) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC What, specifically, were Bush and the other Republicans trying to regulate within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Because what I have been reading is that what they were trying to regulate had nothing whatever to do with the problems in those companies that caused their eventual meltdown. At any rate, the Republicans wanted to increase regulations on only those two things... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But those two companies only comprise a very small percentage of the problem. And it was deregulation of all of the rest of the banking industry that, A. the Republicans not only supported, but that was their initiative from start to finish, and B. that is responsible for the vast majority of the problems that caused the start of the whole crisis. I will reiterate: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not issue the kinds of mortgages that are responsible for the problems. The problem mortgages did not originate with them. So when people try to make it look like it was Democrats trying to get loans for poor people through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they are lying. The reason Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac went under wasn't because of the kinds of loans they were issuing. They went under because of the kinds of bad loans made by other companies that they were buying from other people. Or rather, the kinds of investment products they were buying that included bad loans that were issued by other people. The Republicans have good reason to want to run away from their records. They are responsible for seriously damaging the economies of quite a few countries (including the US), and killing at least one. And they are responsible for a hell of a lot of people losing a hell of a lot of money. What utterly astonishes me is that after doing all of that, there are still people who are stupid enough to support them. |
|
13 Oct 08 - 06:20 PM (#2464776) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "What utterly astonishes me is that after doing all of that, there are still people who are stupid enough to support them..." When it comes to the presidential race, the alternative is worse! |
|
13 Oct 08 - 06:54 PM (#2464794) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric Look at what we have here. How can it possibly have come to this??? The Secretary of the Treasury says: "Quickly, I need $700 billion. I need it within days. There will be meltdown if you don't let me do exactly what I want without oversight, review or repercussions." But sir, how could you have let it come to the point where you need such an unfathomable sum in such a short time? "It just happened, and I know what to do. I am going to buy deflated, almost worthless assets that are sinking the investment banks, to free up credit. I will not be buying stakes in the companies – that's not what's needed." $700 billion, sir? The entire budget is only around $2 trillion. You're going to raise it by almost a third?" "Yes, trust me. Let me do this." A bit later, after we have taken the time to think about this, and said okay: 'Mr. Paulson, Germany and the UK both are going to buy stakes in the banks with their bailout money." "Yes, okay. That's the right thing to do. I will do that, too." |
|
13 Oct 08 - 11:35 PM (#2464963) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "Democrats are the ones who are for more regulation, and the Republicans are the ones who are for less regulation" Read the bill that Sununu, Hagle, Dole and later McCain proposed. Then read their speeches and tell me where they wanted to deregulate. Then tell me what Mr $13+mil doantion recipient, Dodd did to regulate other than to ignore the proposed bill calling for regulation. Tell me which of the ten requests from the administration calling for regulation was heeded. Tell me one damned thing Democrats have done to regulate. GLBA strengthened the CRA which forced banks to give loans to people that could not afford them. "Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act" What was strengthened? |
|
13 Oct 08 - 11:46 PM (#2464971) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to "communities of color" disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of "outdated" risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were "communities of color" required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of "subprime" loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets. In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora's Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment. In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife's lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama. |
|
14 Oct 08 - 07:02 AM (#2465131) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Part 1... Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html |
|
14 Oct 08 - 07:05 AM (#2465133) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Part 2... During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages. Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market. About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve. Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans. In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems. "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html |
|
14 Oct 08 - 07:09 AM (#2465136) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC When They Say 'Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac', They Mean 'Brown People' "'Operation Hide Behind The D**kies', my ass!" If you've been wondering why the Republicans have been yammering about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being the alleged root of the financial meltdown when they really weren't, there's a passage in this McClatchy article (h/t Atrios) that provides a clue: WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems. Ah, but is this true, or is this yet another GOP effort to blame poor brown people for things rich white people did? Signs point to the latter being the case: Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. If the GOP's bogus arguments sound familiar, it's because they used the same easily-debunked nonsense to try and blame the current crisis on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (because it allegedly forced nice upstanding bankers to give money to black people! Quelle horreur!) -- even though the vast majority of the bad loans out there had nothing to do with the CRA. In other words, it's like the "Operation Hide Behind The D**kies" scene in the South Park movie, with the main difference being that it was a lot easier for the maligned black people in the movie to successfully fight back. The reason the Republicans are dipping into the race-baiting barrel once again isn't just because it's their favorite thing to do. It's because they have to hide their lead role in ripping out all the finance-industry laws that had saved America from stock market meltdowns during the latter half of the last century. Phil Gramm, John McCain's go-to guy for financial wisdom, is the lead villain of the piece, as he successfully pushed to kill the Glass-Steagall Act that had kept us and our money safe for so many decades. If most Americans understood this -- and that Gramm would likely be Treasury Secretary in a hypothetical McCain administration -- then not only would McCain go down in flames, so would the GOP's downticket races, effectively handing firm control of Congress to the Democrats for a generation. So out come the sleazy race-based bogosities on the CRA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's their only hope. http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/13/operation-hide-behind-the-darkies-redux-when-they-say-fannie-maefreddie-mac-they-mean-brown-people/ |
|
14 Oct 08 - 08:57 AM (#2465192) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel There seems to be evidence that a trillion dollars has ALREADY been exponged from the goverment to deal with the economy. As for fannie and freddie, no matter what was done even 8 years ago the housing bubble was so big that Greenspan called it FROTH. What Allan did was continue the bubbles growth by lowering interest rates and grow the problem exponentially hoping it would pop in the next administration. |
|
14 Oct 08 - 01:34 PM (#2465468) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Stringsinger Krugman (Nobel winner on Economics) says that it's important to inject funds into the bank like they are doing in Britain. However, the taxpayer is left to hang out to dry. McCain is a deregulator. He is responsible (with Phil Gramm) for the economic condition we find ourselves. |
|
14 Oct 08 - 03:54 PM (#2465611) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee Sept. 1929 "There is no cause to worry. The high tide of prosperity will continue." Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury Oct. 14, 1929 "Secretary Lamont and officials of the Commerce Department today denied rumors that a severe depression in business and industrial activity was impending, which had been based on a mistaken interpretation of a review of industrial and credit conditions issued earlier in the day by the Federal Reserve Board". New York Times Dec 5, 1929 "The Governments business is in sound condition." Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury Dec. 28, 1929 "Maintenance of a general high level of business in the United States during December was reviewed today by Robert P. Lamont, Secretary of Commerce, as a indications that American Industry had reached a point where a break in New York stock prices does not necessarily mean a national depression." Associated Press dispatch January 13, 1930 "Reports to the Department of Commerce indicate that business is in a satisfactory condition, Secretary Lamont said today." News Item January 21, 1930 "Definite signs that business and industry have turned the corner from the temporary period of emergency that followed deflation of the speculative market were seen today by President Hoover. The President said that reports to the Cabinet showed the tide of employment had changed in the right direction." News dispatch from Washington Jan. 24, 1930 "Trade recovery now complete President told. Business survey conference reports industry has progressed by own power. No Stimulants Needed! Progress in all lines by the early spring forecast." New York Herald Tribune March 8, 1930 "President Hoover predicted today that the worst effect of the crash upon unemployment will have been passed during the next sixty days". Washington Dispatch May 1, 1930 "While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There is one certainty of the future of a people of the resources, intelligence and character of the people of the United States-that is prosperity." President Hoover June 29, 1930 "The worst is over without a doubt." James J. Davis Secretary of Labor. Aug. 29, 1930 "American labor may now look to the future with confidence". James J.Davis Secretary of Labor. Sept. 12, 1930 "We have hit bottom and are on the upswing" James J. Davis Secretary of Labor. Oct. 16, 1930 "President Hoover today designated Robert W. Lamont Secretary of Commerce, as chariman of the President's special committee on unemployment." Washington dispatch Oct. 21, 1930 President Hoover has summoned Col. Arthur Woods to help place 2,500,000 persons back to work this winter." Washington Dispatch Nov. 1930 "I see no reason why 1931 should not be an extremely good year." Alfred P. Sloan Jr. General Motors Co. Jan 20, 1931 "The country is not in good condition"- Calvin Coolidge. June 9, 1931 "The depression had ended"- Dr. Julius Klein, Assistant Secretary of Commerce. Aug. 12, 1931 "Henry Ford has shut down his Detroit automobile factories almost completely. At Least 75,000 men have been thrown out of work" - The Nation |
|
14 Oct 08 - 05:47 PM (#2465683) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Despite conservatives claiming otherwise, federal records show that the subprime lending boom which led to the current financial crisis was initiated by "the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies" like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The subprime lending crisis was enhanced "by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages" a federal report found Friday. (The Progressive) |
|
14 Oct 08 - 10:27 PM (#2465881) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: reggie miles My latest offering just posted to YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCdWEHqZJuw Wall Street Bail Out Blues by Reggie Miles © 2008 Everybody's talkin' 'bout The economic downturn Who's getting' bailed out And who's gonna get burned Wall Street millionaire Vultures comin' home to roost They want more corporate welfare To pad their golden parachutes Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Bear Stearns and AIG A blank check is all they lack For their next spending spree Everybody's frettin' 'bout The stock market crashin' down Who's gonna get a handout And who they're gonna let drown Fat cats with hats in hand Swimmin' in toxic debt A little help is all they ask And, 700 billion should cover it They're cryin' help us Main Street Our market shares are fallin' fast You may be losin' your house next week But we're all about to lose our ass Everybody's bloggin' 'bout The 2008 recession It's a who's who of who's lost everything And who's gonna get possession They want cheap cash to make it right To fuel their speculation Free from any oversight And any regulation We all know who the real losers are You can see them very clear No, you don't have to look so far Just check out any mirror Everybody's freakin' 'bout The credit crunch crisis Who's down for the count And who's going to survive this Welcome to your plutocracy Government by and for the rich Who made this mess for all to see Thank George that S-O-B and the GOP Will the greedy kings of Wall Street Run out of credit this time Or will they keep panhandlin' Main Street Hey buddy can you spare a dime Everybody's worried 'bout Our financial situation But I guess it don't apply to me In my present occupation When you ain't got nothin' There's nothin' left to lose That's why I'm sittin' here on Main Street Singin' these Wall Street bail out blues |
|
14 Oct 08 - 10:37 PM (#2465884) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Rapparee BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE A DIME? (E.Y. Harburg and J. Gorney) They used to tell me I was building a dream And so I followed the mob When there was earth to plough or guns to bear I was always there, right on the job They used to tell me I was building a dream With peace and glory ahead Why should I be standing in line Just waiting for bread? Once I built a railroad, I made it run I made it race against time Once I built a railroad, now it's done Brother, can you spare a dime? Once I built a tower, up to the sun Bricks & mortar & lime Once I built a tower, now it's done Brother... (bridge) Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell Full of that Yankee-Doodly-duni Half a million boots went slogging through Hell And I was the kid with the drum Say, don't you remember, you called me "Al" It was "Al" all the time Say don't you remember, I was your pal Brother... |
|
15 Oct 08 - 12:37 AM (#2465934) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "During those same explosive three years, private investment banks � not Fannie and Freddie � dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages," How can that be when Freddie and Fannie hold half of the mortgages in the US? Are they not responsible to check them to see they are good when they buy the mortgages? NYT: The bailout plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now hold or guarantee about half of the country’s mortgages. At a 2004 hearing of the Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, then-Chairman Rep. Richard Baker, Louisiana Republican, predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae if nothing was done. Baker called for more regulation, something Democrats claim Republicans never wanted. President Bush was calling for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his first year as president, though he also praised efforts to expand minority homeownership at a time when bad credit risks were straining the system. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said in a Sept. 25, 2003, hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services, "We do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae and in particular Freddie Mac under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines." It was Raines who took close to $100 million in "compensation" from Fannie Mae during his tenure as its CEO. In the 2004 hearing, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., called the investigation that found illegal activity at Fannie Mae a "lynching," an incendiary word, as both Clay and Raines are African-American. |
|
15 Oct 08 - 12:44 AM (#2465939) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw "if anyone is trying to suggest (and it appears that some are) that Fannie and Freddie are the cause of the economic meltdown we are currently experiencing, they are being dishonest." In 2005, Congress rejected a Republican-sponsored bill aimed at curbing risky investments by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thanks to resistance from mostly Democrats. It was the latest in a string of unsuccessful attempts to rein in the two agencies. In this case, Congress ignored Greenspan's warning about the financial risks Fannie and Freddie were taking on. The agencies were designed to expand homeownership by injecting money into the home mortgage market and encouraging banks to lend more. They buy loans from banks and guarantee them, holding some in their portfolios and selling others as mortgage-backed securities. With implicit government backing, Fannie and Freddie have been able to borrow money at below-market rates. In recent years, the companies borrowed to buy billions' worth of complex mortgage-backed securities. The investments earned big returns. Fannie and Freddie's stock soared. Their executives were paid tens of millions of dollars. Republicans sought to reduce the size of the companies' portfolios, arguing they were too risky. Then the housing bubble burst. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the financial meltdown, but they fueled it by becoming one of the biggest purchasers of toxic mortgage products, says Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff. "There was tremendous coddling of Fannie and Freddie in the face of a lot of evidence that they really weren't helping homeowners all that much," Rogoff says. "I think it was very, very clear what was coming, and that they were a huge, huge risk to the American financial system. … It really was criminal neglect." Fannie and Freddie spent $175 million on lobbying in the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The companies' employees and PACs gave nearly $5 million in contributions since 1989, by the center's count. Until they were taken over, Fannie had 13 lobbying firms on its payroll this year; Freddie had 33. Both packed their boards with politically connected people such as Democrat Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton aide who joined Freddie's board in 2000 before he became a congressman. Both hired well-connected lobbyists such as Rick Davis, now McCain's campaign manager. In seeking to crack down on Fannie and Freddie, Republicans were encouraged by banks that didn't want government-subsidized competition. But there also was a chorus of warnings that the highly leveraged corporations could pose a risk to the economy. In 2003 and 2004, both companies were wracked by accounting scandals that led to the ouster of top managers. In 2005, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., sponsored legislation to shrink the agencies' portfolios. McCain later added his name as a co-sponsor. The bill passed the Senate Banking Committee, but every panel Democrat voted against it. That signaled that the bill wouldn't get the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate. Obama was not on the banking panel; there is no record of him doing anything on the bill. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a senior member of the banking committee, is the largest recipient of political contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees and PACs, having received $165,400 since 1989, according to the center. Dodd said he backed Fannie and Freddie because they encouraged homeownership. "I've never ever in my life been affected by a campaign contribution," he said in an interview. He noted that when he became banking committee chairman, he helped pass a bill restricting mortgage agencies' investment practices in 2007. By then, it was too late to stop the financial disaster. In the House, Republicans and Democrats agreed on a different bill that passed easily. But the Bush administration opposed it, calling it weak. The effort failed. The next year, Freddie Mac paid the largest election fine ever, $3.8 million, after regulators found it used corporate funds illegally to pay for fundraisers. From 2000 to 2003, Freddie Mac held 85 events that raised $1.7 million, mostly for Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, regulators found. Rep. Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on financial services and now the chairman, says he and his colleagues were not soft on Fannie and Freddie. "Yes, they lobbied strongly, but I was one of the most successful ones in challenging them." Frank had no apologies. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., by contrast, offered a rare Washington mea culpa: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie," he said in a statement. "Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit, when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong." |
|
15 Oct 08 - 01:02 AM (#2465946) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw A bill barring derivatives from being regulated as futures contracts passed the House in October 19 2000, by a vote of 377-4. Did those mean old Republicans held a gun to the Democrats head again or did they just dangle some pork? |
|
15 Oct 08 - 06:27 PM (#2466739) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Andrew Cuomo, then Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary, held a press conference on April 6, 1998, explaining a settlement reached with a major bank on a lending discrimination case based on the CRA. Cuomo brags about how "this administration will enforce the law", but he also makes a very telling admission about the $2.1 billion in subprime loans that the bank would offer as a result of the settlement. He then admits that there would be "higher risk", and a higher default rate, on the loans the Clinton administration forced this bank to make. He also admits that the action forced this bank to lower its standards on loan qualification as a remedy to supposed discriminatory action in the past by relying on income and equity requirements. Cuomo describes everything wrong with subprime lending and reveals the government's efforts to distort private lending markets to force "fairness" in outcomes. Watch The Video |
|
15 Oct 08 - 06:59 PM (#2466767) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Stringsinger One of the notions that has been proposed is that the bad mortgages are on houses that will eventually appreciate in value and be sold at a profit for the benefit of the taxpayers. That's an assumption however. It could be that this could take many years of suffering by those being evicted and the houses do depreciate whereas the land value might appreciate in years. That's still a crap shoot. The Bailout should have been exclusively to capitalize the banks and re-negotiate the bad loans to keep people in their homes. It should have had a provision to force CEO's to give back the money they stole to the taxpayers. The interesting development will be when the stock market tanks and Wall Street is de-horned, the credit freezes up and people will have to restyle a workable form of business to suit the new financial environment that the next Depression will bring. |
|
15 Oct 08 - 06:59 PM (#2466768) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Good song, Reggie... Yeah, from lookin' at the reaction of the folks you was playin' to seems that lotta folks ain't got it yet and... ...what pisses me off is that after $700B seems that the Fat Cat whining crybabies don't either as another 700 point drop at Wall Street just today??? Like what's that all about??? Hey, I'd tell the sumabiches, "April Fools, a little early", an' take that dough and buy every friggin' mortgage out where someone is gonna get foreclosed and redo it 6%/30 year fixed and put the interest, afetr paying back the $700B into Social Security... Screw Wall Street... It represents only 18% of Americans... Oh yeah, screw the horse they rode in on, too... Bobert (bluesman, alias Sidewalk Bob) |
|
18 Oct 08 - 01:30 AM (#2468899) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Blame the Republicans! The MoveOn.org Political Action ad blames a banking deregulation bill sponsored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend and one-time adviser to McCain's campaign. It claims the bill "stripped safeguards that would have protected us." That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ad's claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds. Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. No, Blame the Democrats! Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised." The Real Deal So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault: * The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap. * Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively. * Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses. * Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes. * The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families. * Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates. * Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages. * Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral. * The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market. * An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic. * Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html |
|
18 Oct 08 - 01:40 AM (#2468905) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Fannie Mae's Patron Saint Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. Asked about Treasury's modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, "Good luck on that," and that it would never happen. There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again. At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn. In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time. Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed. Yes, they're certainly "over it" on the Street now that Uncle Sam is guaranteeing their Fannie paper, and even Fannie's subordinated debt. By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform. "What blocked it [reform] last year," Mr. Frank said then, "was the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don't think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac." What really blocked it was Mr. Frank's insistence that any reform be watered down and not include any reduction in their MBS holdings. In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding. And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall. But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests. This is also why Mr. Frank won't tolerate cutting the companies' MBS portfolios. He knows those portfolios (bought with debt borrowed at taxpayer-subsidized rates) were a main source of Fannie's profits before the housing crash, and he figures that once this crisis passes they can do it again. And this time, his fund will get part of the loot. Mr. Frank has had many accomplices from both parties in his protection of Fan and Fred. But he was and is among the most vociferous and powerful. In any other area of American life, this track record would get a man run out of town. In Washington, he's hailed as a sage whose history of willful error will be forgotten faster than taxpayers can write a check for $200 billion. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj |
|
18 Oct 08 - 09:20 AM (#2469095) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe "the bad mortgages are on houses that will eventually appreciate in value and be sold at a profit" Ah - what everyone forgets is that most of those houses are vacant - and as soon as they are vacant, they get stripped of copper, hot water heaters, air conditioners, siding, trashed, then eventually a demolition order - most of them are in fact totally worthless. Indeed, they will cost money to demolish and rebuild... :-) I'm not making this up, you know... we just had a repeat the other night of an Aussie ABC program that dealt with this... |
|
18 Oct 08 - 09:28 AM (#2469103) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: The Fooles Troupe 4 Corners Look at Video on Demand - Recent Programs - "Mortgage Meltdown" Mortgage Meltdown Reporter: Paul Barry Broadcast: 13/10/2008 "The crisis is just beginning" ... "We're nowhere near the end."... "I don't think anybody anywhere in the world is going to be immune." – from 'Mortgage Meltdown', Four Corners September 17, 2007. At the time, the words from this Four Corners program may have seemed like another all-too-gloomy, glass-half-empty prediction – but just over a year later they've turned out to be on the money. With stocks in a tailspin, credit crunched, currencies ricocheting, and confidence ebbing in the face of a looming international recession, no one knows when or how this crisis will end. Where did it start? That's another matter. Much of the current panic stems from by America's so-called sub-prime lending crisis that began surfacing in the USA in the middle of last year. It was the gluttonous climax to a big credit binge. Banks and brokers gave risky, often high interest, loans to unready borrowers who began defaulting on a massive scale. In August last year, Paul Barry went to America's mortgage belt to report on the emerging sub-prime issue for Four Corners. He found streets lined with empty houses, dying gardens and demolition notices. One real estate agent described to him the criteria for getting a loan: "Ha, breathe - fog on a mirror!" Barry explained how, in the 21st century's interconnected capital markets, the sub-prime risk might turn into a game of Russian roulette, with no one really knowing who's holding the bad debt. His report warned of a possible US recession, pointing out that $900 billion of sub-prime loans would soon re-set to higher interest rates with inevitably more defaults. A year on, the USA and many other countries are reeling. As Australians worry about how deeply they will be affected and ponder the lessons that might be drawn, Four Corners replays Paul Barry's "Mortgage Meltdown", with a new introduction, as a timely reflection on the makings of this unfolding crisis. Four Corners – at 8.30 pm Monday 13 October and about 11.35 pm Tuesday 14 October on ABC1; also at 8 am Tuesday on ABC2. Original Mortgage Meltdown program page View the original Mortgage Meltdown program page which includes extended interviews and additional resources. Video on Demand You can now watch Paul Barry's report "Mortgage Meltdown", plus his 1994 report "Money Madness", online. Program Transcript Read the program transcript from Paul Barry's "Mortgage Meltdown", broadcast 13 October 2008. Further Resources View an updated list of articles, reports and multimedia, related to Paul Barry's Mortgage Meltdown. First Broadcast 17 September 2007. |
|
18 Oct 08 - 10:08 AM (#2469119) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC LOL That factcheck.org site is run by the Annenburg foundation. Those are the same people who pal around with Bill Ayers and put him on that education board. They must be terrorists, so I guess we can't trust them. |
|
18 Oct 08 - 10:19 AM (#2469125) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC Study Finds CRA Banks Less Likely to Issue Subprime Loans A recent study by Traiger and Hinkley LLP of 2006 mortgage loans in the nation's 15 most populous metropolitan statistical areas has found that banks that are subject to the Community Reinvestment Act were two-thirds less likely to originate high cost mortgage loans for the purchase of an owner-occupied home than other types of lenders and were 58% less likely to make high cost loans to low and moderate income borrowers. In the Boston MSA the difference was even greater: only 4% of loans originated by CRA lenders to low and moderate income buyers were high cost, compared to 18.8% of loans originated by other lenders. The study noted that in addition to offering better terms on average (including lower average interest rates on high cost loans), CRA lenders denied a lower percentage of loan applications overall than other lenders. It noted that these differences may be due to the fact that CRA lenders are more than twice as likely to retain loans they originate in their own portfolio. For example, CRA lenders retained 42% of their loans to low and moderate income blrrowers, while other lenders retained less than 19%. The study also found that the presence of CRA bank branches is strongly negatively correlated with foreclosure rates (the more branches in an area, the lower the foreclosure rate). The authors theorize that the presence of branches makes it easier for borrowers to apply for conventional loans and that the CRA mandate also encourages outreach and good underwriting. http://www.traigerlaw.com/news/study_finds_cra_banks_less_likely_to_issue_subprime_loans_chpa_02-07-08.pdf |
|
18 Oct 08 - 11:15 AM (#2469164) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC CRA May Deter Risky Mortgage Lending On January 7, 2008, Traiger and Hinkley, LLP, a law firm that specializes in fair lending counsel and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) compliance, released a report titled The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis. The study concludes that CRA regulations have meant that banks that must comply with th eregulations and originate loans in their local communities, or more formally their CRA assessment areas, are substantially less likely than other lenders to make the types of loans that have contributed to the foreclosure crisis. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/northwestlaw/archives/149530.asp?from=blog_last3 'S. 190; McCain "Supported" it After it was Dead People vehemently say that McCain was a champion of regulation despite his voting record and point to S. 109, a bill introduced in 2005. The bill was introduced by Charles Hagel on the Senate floor and several months later, after it had gone to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing Urban Affairs, McCain announced a in brief speech in the Senate that he was a co-sponsor of the bill. People argue that it was over the valiant efforts of Republicans, particularly McCain, that the bill was defeated by the Democrats. The first thing that struck me as odd about this is that McCain stood up for the bill only after it had been in committee for several months and no action had been taken. He then said absolutely nothing about the bill. Could the Democrats have blocked the bill in committee? This seems like an odd thing to say of the minority party. The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs was chaired by a Republican and Republicans held a clear majority of the seats on the committee. I found the committee's rules of procedure for the year 2005 and the Republican chairman alone, without any vote could have launched an investigation into the financial trouble of the day that the bill was supposed to address. There was no investigation. According to the rules the Democrats were powerless to block anything coming out of the committee to be voted on by the Senate but there was no such vote. All it took for the bill to get out of committee was a majority, which was held by Republicans. The bill was amended somehow and reported out of the committee but was never voted on.' http://mpandgs.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-john-mccains-warning-about-fannie.html John McCain's 2005 "Warning" About Fannie, Freddie & Dems "Blocking" Regulation A bit late passing this along, but John McCain's claim that he issued a warning against the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the 2005-06 legislative year was given a "barely true" by Politifact. On 25 May, 2006, Senator McCain signed on as a co-sponsor to Chuck Hagel's effort to overhaul Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which Senator Hagel intoduced in January, 2005) following the publication of "a 340-page report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight."* However, as Politifact points out, his attempts to depict those efforts as some sort of early warning that could have lessened the current credit crisis just don't wash. All McCain was talking about then was the potential fallout of accounting troubles in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He didn't say anything about a freewheeling climate among creditors that had major financial institutions becoming badly leveraged on bad loans. Additionally, those rumors that Democrats alone blocked GOP proposal, S.190, to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Questionable claims, for the bill never got out of committee: Last Action [July 28, 2005]: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. Status: Dead So the bill was never brought to a full Senate vote. Recall that the Republicans were the majority in 2005-06, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs consisted of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats (for a full listing of the members of the 2005-06 Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, see this entry at Sourcewatch). In other words, the proposal could have been voted out of committee and brought to the Senate floor had the GOP members had supported it. * Notably, Senator Hagel reintroduced S.190 in 2007 as S.1110: Senator McCain has not publicly supported the "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007," which remains pending.' http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/07/a_fannie_freddie_debate_primer/print.html 'In 2005, bills designed to increase regulation on Fannie and Freddie were introduced in both the House and the Senate -- both controlled at the time by Republican majorities. The House actually managed to pass its version of the bill with a large 330-90 majority. The Senate? Its bill, although similar to the House's version, died in committee. The New York Times reported on Oct. 6 that Democrats vigorously opposed the Senate bill, calling it "fundamentally flawed," but I haven't found, so far, any specific Obama reference to Fannie and Freddie at the time. Still, let the record show that the Republican Party, which controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2005, was unable to pass legislation reforming how Fannie and Freddie were regulated. Mike Oxley, the House Republican who chaired the House Financial Services Committee in 2005, blamed the White House for sabotaging his bill. The Financial Times: The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership. Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatization, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.' |
|
18 Oct 08 - 11:26 AM (#2469169) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 'Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd. Here's why. The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt. Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the least-subprime housing markets in the nation. Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent. On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies, and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill Clinton's fault? Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital. At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mica asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis." Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly to rich people does.' http://www.slate.com/id/2201641 |
|
18 Oct 08 - 11:40 AM (#2469174) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC On the subject of Chuck Hagel's bill (that McCain co-sponsored) - from the American Enterprise Institute... H.R. 1461: A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law 'HR 1461--a bill that was supposed to create a "world class regulator"--is in fact a world class failure. Not only does it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), but it actually increases the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance. While the bill makes some modest improvements to the weak regulatory structure of OFHEO today, these improvements do not bring the authority of the new regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the level currently exercised by federal bank regulators. Moreover, the deficiencies of the bill so far outweigh its modest regulatory improvements that the taxpayers and the economy generally would be better off with current law. Under these circumstances, unless there is a reasonable chance that the bill can be strengthened on the House floor, in the Senate, or in conference, it does not deserve to proceed further in the legislative process.' http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22705/pub_detail.asp So had this bill become law, John McCain would have actually been responsible for weakening regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, overall, rather than strengthening it. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 09:48 AM (#2469857) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081018/ts_nm/us_fbi_resources_1 NEW YORK (Reuters) – The FBI, after years spent focusing on national security, is struggling to find agents and resources to investigate wrongdoing tied to the country's economic crisis, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions. Citing current and former FBI officials, the Times said cutbacks in its criminal investigative workforce following the September 11 attacks left the FBI weaker in areas like white collar crime. The cutbacks were the result of a shift in focus to terrorism and intelligence matters. More than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all those in criminal programs, moved into those areas, the Times said. "Clearly, we have felt the effects of moving resources from criminal investigations to national security," the newspaper quoted FBI Assistant Director John Miller as saying. "In white collar crime, while we initiated fewer cases over all, we targeted the areas where we could have the biggest impact. We focused on multimillion-dollar corporate fraud, where we could make arrests but also recover money for the fraud victims." While the FBI plans to double the number of agents working on financial crimes, people within and outside the Justice Department question where the agents will come from and whether that will suffice, the Times said. Records and interviews show that FBI officials have warned of a looming mortgage threat since 2004, and asked the Bush administration to fund such nonterrorism investigations, but the requests were denied and no new agents were approved for financial criminal investigation work, the newspaper said. Internal FBI data shows the cutbacks were especially sharp in areas of white collar crime like mortgage fraud, with more than 600 agents lost, or more than one-third of 2001 levels. According to Justice Department data, fraud prosecutions directed at financial institutions dropped by nearly one-half from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases fell 75 percent and securities fraud decreased by 17 percent, the Times said. "The administration's top priority since the 9/11 attacks has been counterterrorism," Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr told the paper. "In part, that's reflected by a significant investment of resources at the FBI to answer the call from Congress and the American public to become a domestic intelligence agency, in addition to a law enforcement agency." According to the Times, several former law enforcement officials said that senior administration officials, notably those at the White House and the Treasury Department, made clear that they were concerned the Justice Department and the FBI were taking an anti-business attitude that could inhibit corporate risk-taking. One former official said some in the administration characterized aggressive corporate prosecutions as "over-deterrence." |
|
19 Oct 08 - 12:32 PM (#2469977) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Multi screen cut and paste violator CC: "They must be terrorists, so I guess we can't trust them." When they support Obama. 2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." 2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 2003 September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements. November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." 2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore�should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." 2005 April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America� Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." 2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs � and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." |
|
19 Oct 08 - 12:37 PM (#2469981) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Obama > ACORN > CRA > Pressure on banks > Fannie&Freddie > Bailout CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions. Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets. Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 12:47 PM (#2469992) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Stringsinger The idea that ACORN was encouraging poor people to buy homes is ridiculous. ACORN's only concern is that it's seeking representation from disenfranchised voters who represent the less well-heeled citizens in the voting booth. It's simple. Republicans don't want poor people to vote. Democrats do. Republicans want to suppress the vote. Democrats want everyone to vote. If you don't believe me, just check out what Paul Weyrich has to say derisively about "goo-goo government. He doesn't want everyone to vote. In short, Republicans don't want democracy. Democrats do. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 01:19 PM (#2470030) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC ACORN actually has a program for helping low income people get home loans. And their program includes providing financial counseling to those they help. And for this reason, ACORN's clients have a much lower rate of default than the rest of the mortgage buying public, percentage wise. The figures were given in one of the videos I posted earlier in the thread. So any suggestion that ACORN is responsible for the mortgage crisis is simply a lie. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 06:06 AM (#2470559) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 'Every day (or close to it) until November 4, a series of writers and thinkers will discuss the election over instant messenger for nymag.com. Today, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi and National Review's Byron York argue over the headwinds facing McCain, what Phil Gramm had to do with the financial crisis, and the importance of credit default swaps. M.T.: So how are you feeling about McCain's chances today? B.Y.: I've just finished an article for National Review — the actual magazine — about the headwinds McCain faces. I was going to look at three, and then I started to list them. I stopped at ten. New Gallup numbers out today show that George W. Bush's job approval rating remains at 25 percent, while his disapproval rating has ticked up to 71 percent. How hard is it to succeed a two-term president of your own party who is at 25-71? We don't know because it's never been done. M.T.: Yeah, that's a damned shame, too. I feel really badly for the guy. I suppose you think the media coverage is also a headwind? B.Y.: Actually, I did not list media coverage among the headwinds. I listed the succeed-a-two-term-president problem, the right-track/wrong-track problem, the Republican-Democrat-enthusiasm gap problem, the Republican-Democrat-I.D.-gap problem, the financial meltdown, Iraq, Republican gloom on Capitol Hill, Obama's fund-raising advantage, and McCain's historical problems with the GOP base. M.T.: But all of those "headwinds," or almost all of them, are the direct result of McCain having supported policies that are now unpopular. There is absolute justice in his facing a "headwind" from the financial meltdown, from the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and so on. How is that a "headwind"? That's just self-created unpopularity. I mean, his onetime campaign co-chair and top economic adviser, Phil Gramm, basically created the credit-default-swap market back in 2000. Why shouldn't he get hammered on the financial crisis? B.Y.: Did I suggest that headwinds are unfair? But on the financial meltdown in particular, if you're suggesting that that is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground. M.T.: You don't think the unregulated CDS market was a major factor in the current crisis? Were you watching when AIG almost went under? Were you watching the Lehman collapse? B.Y.: I think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major factors. And I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats' desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans' desire to achieve an "ownership society," in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground. M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable. B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite "repeated warnings about credit risk," Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie's new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem. M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear. Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy? B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner? M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them. I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages? B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson? M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps. Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview. B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks. M.T.: Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like. B.Y.: It's National Review.' http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/matt_taibbi_and_byron_york_but.html |
|
20 Oct 08 - 07:37 AM (#2470594) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Woah!! Sharp tongues !! :D A |
|
20 Oct 08 - 02:36 PM (#2470982) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw ACORN in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively. As a New York Post article describes it: A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money. Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course. Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003. The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN. Investor's Business Daily: The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 04:28 PM (#2471086) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 04:31 PM (#2471092) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Donuel AIG got another multi billion dollar [13b] taste of free money today on top of the prior two bailouts that took nearly a third of the Congressionally approved bail out funds. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 10:13 PM (#2471384) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Q (Frank Staplin) More cash needed, Bernanke said today. Come on, boys and girls, sweeten the pot! |
|
20 Oct 08 - 11:27 PM (#2471438) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Sawz: Your assertion that it was mortgages to poor people that caused the financial collapse is naive, gullible, shortsighted and inaccurate. The problem of credit default swaps, leveraged assets and the kind of rollup packaging of subprime loans between banks that are the real elements in play are far weightier by orders of magnitude than the individual mortgages that were defaulted on. A |
|
20 Oct 08 - 11:47 PM (#2471453) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Sawzaw Amos: Got any facts and figures to back up your assertions or will you run away and hide from questions as usual? |
|
21 Oct 08 - 12:20 AM (#2471474) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: CarolC 'On the other side were consumer advocates, who said that bankruptcy abuse was minimal, and that people who file are generally forced into bankruptcy by financial problems stemming from job loss, medical conditions, or divorce... ...according to a March report by Credit Suisse, rising default and foreclosure rates are directly tied to the new bankruptcy rules. The Credit Suisse report is unequivocal that the law has driven mortgage-foreclosure rates higher. "The stringent means test ... means more delinquent loans have to go into foreclosure directly rather than into bankruptcy," it reads. "Therefore, it is directly responsible for the rising foreclosure rate since the end of 2005."' http://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12225&Itemid=42 |
|
26 Nov 08 - 09:23 AM (#2502012) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos "This financial meltdown involved a broad national breakdown in personal responsibility, government regulation and financial ethics. So many people were in on it: People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years; people who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made a fortunes doing so; and people who had no business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so. Citigroup was involved in, and made money from, almost every link in that chain. And the bank's executives, including, sad to see, the former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, were clueless about the reckless financial instruments they were creating, or were so ensnared by the cronyism between the bank's risk managers and risk takers (and so bought off by their bonuses) that they had no interest in stopping it. These are the people whom taxpayers bailed out on Monday to the tune of what could be more than $300 billion. We probably had no choice. Just letting Citigroup melt down could have been catastrophic. But when the government throws together a bailout that could end up being hundreds of billions of dollars in 48 hours, you can bet there will be unintended consequences — many, many, many. Also check out Michael Lewis's superb essay, "The End of Wall Street's Boom," on Portfolio.com. Lewis, who first chronicled Wall Street's excesses in "Liar's Poker," profiles some of the decent people on Wall Street who tried to expose the credit binge — including Meredith Whitney, a little known banking analyst who declared, over a year ago, that "Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust," wrote Lewis. "This woman wasn't saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt," he added. "She was saying they were stupid. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of borrowed money, and imagine what they'd fetch in a fire sale... For better than a year now, Whitney has responded to the claims by bankers and brokers that they had put their problems behind them with this write-down or that capital raise with a claim of her own: You're wrong. You're still not facing up to how badly you have mismanaged your business." Lewis also tracked down Steve Eisman, the hedge fund investor who early on saw through the subprime mortgages and shorted the companies engaged in them, like Long Beach Financial, owned by Washington Mutual. "Long Beach Financial," wrote Lewis, "was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self-destruct. It specialized in asking homeowners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible. In Bakersfield, Calif., a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000." Lewis continued: Eisman knew that subprime lenders could be disreputable. "What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism... 'We always asked the same question,' says Eisman. 'Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I'd always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.' He called Standard & Poor's and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S.& P. couldn't say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. 'They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,' Eisman says." That's how we got here — a near total breakdown of responsibility at every link in our financial chain, and now we either bail out the people who brought us here or risk a total systemic crash. These are the wages of our sins. I used to say our kids will pay dearly for this. But actually, it's our problem. For the next few years we're all going to be working harder for less money and fewer government services — if we're lucky. " (NYT) |
|
26 Nov 08 - 11:10 AM (#2502097) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, the one shmo who shouldn't get the blame is the poor guy who was being told at every turn that in order to be part of the "in crowd" he had to own his home... Bush made "Ownership society" a cneterpiece of administartion and there were his buddies ready put together mortgage products which would get folks into houses... These "products" were bogus from the get-go... My thinking is that we don't close Gitmo but get those folks released to various countries, including the US, and start trials immediately for the Wall Street crooks and ship 'um all doen there for a few years... No torture, mind you... But serious jail time... B~ |
|
26 Nov 08 - 11:31 AM (#2502110) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos I agree to a degree with your sentiments, Bobez; but part of being an adult in the economy is understanding value, pay, costs, and such things. You don't listen to slick salesmen when you understand those things, and if you don't know how things work, you should at least know enough to ask for independent expert advice on how these things work. Anyone who signs a legal document is, by the nature of law, responsible for it legally, and he needs to be responsible for it personally as well. A child-like faithin advertisements and salespeople is not going to cut it any more than a blind trust in Gummint is. I am sure your WV SLide Rule has reached that conclusion manmy times. A |
|
26 Nov 08 - 01:35 PM (#2502217) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Barry Finn Wrong Amos. That strawberry picker from Mexico, he was seduced into his home by a government that claimed "more homeowners" as it's banner. So the guy went for a 3/4 million dollar home, it was great while he was living in it & now that it's being foreclosed on he'll go back to Mexico after living & riding high. We opened the door & asked him to walk right in. If I could go to England & move into a 3/4 million dollar home on the seaside I'd be there in a New York second, so what if they foreclose on me 7 yrs later. I'd pack my bags & come home. Half of the loans make were very creative & made only so the broker could get fast cash & the home owner didn't even realize that with all he lawyer speak that they were getting raked. What me care? Fair practice, regulation, industry norms all went out the window & a good bit of it was criminal too. The little guy is the last one to blame if he should be blamed at all. They/we were all sold the great American dream, they shouldn't have been sold a nightmare. Barry |
|
26 Nov 08 - 03:30 PM (#2502304) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, beneath all the "Truth in Lending" laws and "Reg Zs" is the reality that the Fat Cats used some of the most bogus sales pitches in the world to get folks on the hook... Legality, when the deck is stacked with crooked law makers, isn't the issue... What is the issue is that the lenders knew that they were putting folks in houses that would be forclosed on down the road... But, like CEOs who raked in big dough for failures, these brokers werer paid upfront as if every payment was going to be made on time and the notes would go full term??? These assumptions were just that... Yeah, the CEO's company would either be bought up by a competitor or eventually make money... And all these mortgages would go full term... This is failed business logic... These folks knew it at the time but they looked around and everyone elese was being rewarded for failure so they just thought to themselves, "What the hey???" and frabbed as much dough as they saw others grabbin'... Regulators became business partners and helped these crooks craft better strategies to confirm to the "laws"... And if ya' found a regulator who was doing his job you had the option of changing regulators??? The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) is once of the worst examples of what goes wrong when the inmates and the guards conspire against the warden... So, I for one, will not buy into their story that it was the borrowers who created this nmess or even had any part in creating it... It was a trap the borrowers were lured into not only by the lenders but with the support of the federal governemnt... Shame on the Bush administration and shame on Wall Street... Gitmo for them all!!! B~ |
|
26 Nov 08 - 03:51 PM (#2502310) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Well, I hear ya Bobez, and I am not denying that the promoters were crim to the max. However, I got all the credit-card pitches, low-cost loan pitches, junk phone calls, junk mailings, popups and email spam that these creeps put out, and I always knew enough to cut them short and toss them out. Not just because I'm jaded, but because I am used to calk'latin' where the bottom line goes, jes' like you are. You didn't get sucked into this shit either. All I am saying is, the guy who took the deal has to face the fact that he took it, in addition to everything else that was responsible. Without him signing, it would not have gone down. Ya gotta own what you do, or you will never be free. A |
|
26 Nov 08 - 03:53 PM (#2502314) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger It looks to me like a bigger game than that. The tax code was changed so that the only thing you can deduct anymore is interest on a mortgage. I took a job out of the country a number of years ago, and sold my house before I left. I got raped in taxes. I had to buy another house in order to stay afloat. It wasn't always that way. |
|
27 Nov 08 - 08:42 AM (#2502840) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, deferred caspital gains has been around a long time, Rigs... I mean, going back to at least the 70's... And this isn't a bad idea either because it allows people to have that flexibility to move up the ladder in terms of housing... The concept of a "starter home" is woven into that system... Ir's not a bad thing... It's when folks see their homes as a final payout that the problem come in... I'd like to see the "deferred capital gains" modified only so that if someone has gotten too old to maintain their home and wants to move into an assisted care that the capital gains can be put into something similar to a escrow account to be used to pay the monthly charges of that facility... Other than that, that part of the tax code actually makes sense... Okay, Amos, I fully understand yer situation but you are speaking as someone who is over 50 and has been successfull in life in terms of making good financial decisions... I would expect you, like me, to not be interested in new credit cards or loans that weren't absolutely necessary... But folks like us were the targeted market for these loans... Yeah, you might have gotten a dew phone calls and some junk mail but that's only because the lenders did blanket marketing to find the right kinds of people who they could lure into the trap... Kinda like bass fishing... That old and wise large mouth bass ain't all that easy to catch but that guy with the rod and reel in his hand is casting anyway... That's the way advertsing is... B~ |
|
01 Dec 08 - 08:19 AM (#2504778) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger I wasn't actually referencing capital gains. It's the tax code. I think it was in that 1986 legislation where they made it so the only interest you could deduct of taxes--at least for an individual--was the interest on a home mortgage. Before that, you could deduct credit card interest, auto loans, and etc. The tax structure created a situation where if you weren't making house payments, you got killed in taxes. I think this created a system where older people who had paid their house off felt the need to trade up, and professional people who might otherwise rent, simply couldn't afford to. All I'm saying is, this added to the problem, but it took a long time to materialize. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 07:17 PM (#2505400) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger It's official - We're in a recession, and the Dow/Jones dropped 600 points to announce its arrival. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM (#2505404) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, Rigs... The funny thing is that the folks who now say it's official say the recession began a year ago??? What took them so long??? I guess the funnier thing is that those folks who own stock must have been on Mars for the last year or so because they obviously were clueless if it took an "officail announcement" to get that kinda market reaction??? B~ |
|
02 Dec 08 - 10:29 AM (#2505848) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger The whole thing is amazing to me. I wonder if the announcement had been earlier, if the Republicans would have fielded different candidates? |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:39 PM (#2506455) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, they certainly wouldn't have chosen the guy who proudly preclaimed that he didn't know jack about the economy... An' you can take that to the bank... That is, if yers ain't been closed down... |
|
02 Dec 08 - 10:34 PM (#2506487) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Yes, I can't argue with that. I have an account at the Bank of America. I've heard rumors that they're expecting to be the next big bank to go to Washington with a tin cup. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 05:48 PM (#2508073) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos From Bloomberg: Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- American International Group Inc., whose bonuses and perks drew fire from lawmakers after the insurer accepted a federal bailout, will make special retention payments that more than double the salaries of some senior managers, according to a person familiar with the matter. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 06:08 PM (#2508095) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick I haven't read the entire thread, but based on the title and the last few posts, I think I will toss in. First, what is being sought by the automakers is a loan, not a bailout. It comes with conditions. This is necessary for the obvious reasons of knowing where the money is going and whether we have a chance of having it paid back. It is also necessary based on watching the dismal failure of the current administration to successfully manage the money given to assist the financial industry. Paulson hands money out with no conditions, and in one case the financial institution took the money and invested it in starting a construction company in China. It boggles the mind the arrogance of these bastards. It is a loan, It should be referred to as such. The perception of "bailout" is "handout". This is not the same thing Big Mick .............. from Michigan. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 06:21 PM (#2508104) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Here's my beef... The banks come to D.C. in corporate jets and nothin' is said about it... The car companies do the same and it is the bihhest scandal since, ahhhh, Watergate??? Here's my beef, Part B... The banks come to DC with their hats in hand and the governemnt fills the hat so full of big checks that the bank have to hire big strong guys just to carry the checks back to New York... Conditions??? None The car guys come to DC with their hats in hand and the governemnt takes a big steamy dump in their hats, hands 'um back to 'um and istructs the car guys to pull the hats down over their ears.... Here's my beef, Part C... The above scenerio is exactly what Herbert Hoover did, too... B~ |
|
04 Dec 08 - 06:40 PM (#2508114) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Did Hoover bail out banks? I don't know, I'm just asking. The biggest problem with the car companies, as the media continues to point out, are their legacy costs. The foreign companies locating in the south don't have those expenses. If every auto coming out of Detroit has to generate %1,500.00 just to pay for past pensions and health care, there is no way they can build an inexpensive car and sell it at a profit. If they can't sell $40,000.00 SUV's they are facing a losing proposition. It isn't that they can't compete in the "little car" market, it's that they can't compete and continue to shoulder the legacy costs. If things continue to go the way they are, the foreign manufacurers in the south will probably have legacy costs like the Big Three have today, but they don't have them now, so the playing field is not level. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 06:41 PM (#2508117) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger All of the above having been said, I think this thread was started when the banks originally went to Washington begging for money, and that, as it turns out, really was a bailout. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 06:47 PM (#2508123) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yes, Rigs, Hoover did bail out the banks... That is all he bailed out... He told the folks who were being forclosed on to "eat cake"... As for the advantages that ther Japanese car companies have over Detroit, a great part of the problem is that by setting up assmebly plants in 14(b) states they are taking advantage of our labor force... Kinda like sening jobs off-shore 'cept it's in Alabama or Mississippi where folks will work fir very little... If 14(b) were to go then things woukld be alot fairer... This isn't free trade within the US... It is manipulated trade... Nothin' free about it... B~ |
|
04 Dec 08 - 07:15 PM (#2508136) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Oddly enough Bobert, in one way, for some completely perverse reason I do wish the US Government had followed your advice on this from day one, right across the board. The results would have been as follows: 1. The USA as you know it would be completely screwed. No money at all, nobody prepared to lend and a seige mentality benefiting very, very few - In other words Bobert you would create exactly what you have been saying has existed for years but which in actual fact hasn't. 2. A number of "catters" such as yourself and Little Hawk would be taught the object lesson that there is no such thing as "big, evil, multi-national mega corporations" who just happen to be responsible for all the ills on this planet. Because when all these banks, insurance companies and mass employers go to the wall as you suggest you will discover that the major shareholders in those "big, bad, evil, multi-national corporations" were ordinary Joes and their pension funds - You have no idea whatsoever of the spread of shot and exactly how wide the effect of following your plan would go. Some questions for you Bobert: 1. Who do people borrow from if all the Banks have been allowed to go under?? 2. If the Stock Market has gone down the tubes and companies have been wiped out. Who invests in what to generate capitial, wealth and jobs?? 3. You are not prepared to help companies that employ 1 in 10 of every person in the USA - You and the rest of the chattering left often talk of decimation, yet here you are actually advocating it. Fine let them go to the wall, 10% unemployment - how's Obama going to pay for that?? And that's only those directly employed the spread of those affected goes much wider than that. In this as with with many other topics Bobert you are a complete and utter chump, completely lacking in imagination and logic, who cannot see further than the nose on his own face. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 07:53 PM (#2508178) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert The define wrong-headedness, T-Bird... You apparently are either clueless as to what I proposed or have even less understanding about economics than you did about gettin' into Iraq... What I proposed was for the US government, if it was going to write some bigass checks, switch from the 30 year failed trickle down (supply side) economics which has gotten US here to trickle up (demand side) economics... Right now we have given the banks about $300B and don't have a clue where it went... I guess that's fine with you??? It was also fine for another guy who thinks like you... His name is Herbert Hoover... He was the guy who almost sunk the US for good with his stubborness (strange adjective...sound familair???) in supply side economics... What I proposed is somethimg akin to what FDR did... Rememeber him???... He established the Home Mortage Corp which stepped in and took over bad morgages... Given the massive distrust that Hoover created with the banks and folks not wanting their money in the banks he also established the Federail Depositors Insurance Program which still survives to this very day... But it was FDR's stepping in to assit folks who were about to be forclosed on that really made a huge difference... This is what I have proposed... And here's is why it works... When this money is used to help the working man who is about to be put outta his home where do you think that money goes, T??? Cat got yer tongue??? Well, to goes to the lender, that is where it goes... (So what, Boberdz???) Well, if the US were to buy all these mortages from the bottom up (demand side) alot of good things happen: 1. One less family is on the street creating even more burdens of Socail Services... 2. One less property is now vacant which means that property values around it aren't adversely effected... 3. One less property is on the market which means that if we take all the forclosed prioperties and refinance them thru a federal home mortage corp. then it dries up the excess inventory of houses and restores the housing market... and... 4. The money does make it back up to Wall Street as the feds, in essence, buy back these mortgaes one at a time... That koney will go into banks who will then feel a lot better lending... But there is more, T... If all these loans are refinaced thru a federal mortgage corp at 5 ot 6% as payments come in a portion of each will be amortized as either interst or pronciple... I think that part of the interest could be used to shore up Social Security while the rest going to pasy back the initial investment... Of course, all of the principle will go back to pay for the program leaving that portion to cover losses... Now, T, have at yer hole pokin'... There were lots of hole pokers in 1933, too... B~ |
|
04 Dec 08 - 07:55 PM (#2508180) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert By the by, T... If you have better plan then lets hear it... |
|
04 Dec 08 - 08:15 PM (#2508194) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Nice one Bobert, but Oh So Predictable from you - Not one single question answered. Remember Bobert you weren't going to give anything to the banks, who loans people money to enable them to do things? - Under your scheme they've gone completely, taking with them all the people who could pay and inject capital into the system because when the Banks go tits up they had to call in all their loans. So Bobert where does this capital now come from?? Remember Bobert you weren't going to give anything to the Insurance companies - Under your scheme they've gone completely, taking with them all the pension funds that invested in them - They oddly enough are the biggest investors and you have now robbed them of the place whereby they can generate the fund growth to meet their "pay-out" commitments. Remember Bobert you were against giving anything to the big three US car manufacturers - They go under, immediate consequence 10% unemployed - Hint as to how bad that would be Bobert - America has never seen such unemployment and that is only the "direct" unemployment such a collapse would create. Financial crisis - yes there is one if you need to sell - If you can afford to sit tight and ride out the storm long term predictions are not too bad - all things are relative. Will things bounce back - of course they will. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM (#2508209) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Youn have it right, T... Why give money to the rich when wwe don't have a credit crisis, we have a wage and job crisis??? Wages have been stagnant beginning the year that Ronald "The Deregulator and Union Buster" Reagan took office... That is how long that American wages have been stagnant... And that is why we are in this pickle... Then, from these deregulations, banks offered "products" which were evil... Like crdit cards to college kids... Like interest only, no downpayment, to home buyers... I mean, the schemes they came up with were so far out that the only way to describe it is "Fact is tsranger than fiction"... Then when it looked as if so9me of these were going to backfire on the lenders they bought congressman to pass the bankruptcy "reform" (hahaha) that aloowed the lenders to harrass the borrowers right into the grave??? What was that all about, T??? I've read that upwards of 500,000 promising college kids had to quit college because of the preditory credit card lenders hounding them 24/7, hauling them into civil courts, freezing their bank accounts, putting liens on thei cars, etc... Is that your idea of goodness, T??? As for the Big Three, T, seein' as Wall Street came in and fleeced the taxpayers for, ahhhhhh, who knows for sure??? $300B??? $350B??? $600B??? Who knows??? Well, sniff, I figure if we can run that much money thru the shreader then, hey, $50B to save a million jobs??? I can live with that... That is a bargain... BTW, T. I still haven't heard yer plan other than banks is where you go to borrow money??? Is that yer plan??? Well, if so then why after getting between $300 and $700B of my tax dollars aren't they, ahhhhhh, lending any money??? I hate to say this, T, 'cause you know I have a sof spot in my heart fir ya', but the stuff you post here is, ahhhhhhhh, alot of hot air with no real substance to it... And I mean, alot... You'll prolly be up all night writing more of it... So much of it that it will fill screen after screen... That will be fine... It will keep you entertained... It will be pure unatered BS but, hey, this is the BS section so have a night of it... BTW, my econmic theories aren't that far off froma economist who was just awarded a Nobel Prize for his views... You again, are one the outside looking in... B~ |
|
04 Dec 08 - 09:10 PM (#2508227) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "'Ronald "The Deregulator and Union Buster" Reagan took office...'" I prefer to call him Ronald-Pig-Fuckin'-Reagan, but that's just me... |
|
04 Dec 08 - 09:47 PM (#2508243) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Well, I heard about those piccures with Reagan and the pig, too, Rigs, but seein' as I never actually saw 'um I'll just leave it at that... Did he du*k the pig??? I donno??? Prolly did, though... Back to you, T... I have a theory that has just fallen upon me... Actually, was was practicin' a new song an broke a string... Seems every time a break a string, which ain't often, I get a little "broken-string-nugget" and this was no deviation... So, T... I forgive you... You can't help yourself... You are a, ahhhhhh, ***colonialist***... Yep, it came full circle tonight... You should have lived in the Dark Ages with lords and serfs 'cause this is the way you look at everything... There are winners and there are losers... Lords and serfs... Masters and slaves... Boss Man and Negroes... Yeah, this explains why you thought it was just peachy to invade Iraq... Control of Iraq would put the masters in control of the oil (lords) and the "sand niggers" as just that (serfs)... Fast forward to the "bailout"... Same thinking... The banks (lords) loan (ot not) to the serfish car building people... I mean, Iraq and the bailout are the same game to you, T-zer... Okay to give my dough to the lords... Not so, the serfs... In the words of "The Caveman", "I get it now"... I mean no disrespect here, T-zer.... We just look at things from entirely different perspectives... You represent the lords and I represent the serfs... Yeah, I get it now... Might have taken a few years for me to really see things the way they are but, "I once was blind, but now I see".... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 01:35 AM (#2508313) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick Well, riggie, let's see if I can answer your questions. First off, where the hell did the term "legacy costs" come from? It is a manufactured word that the big boys that come to Washington, DC, each in their company jet costing roughly $20,000 each for the trip; that are making 22 times the compensation of their Japanese counterparts make and 17 times the compensation that their German counterparts make while presiding over a failed business plan that MANAGEMENT was in charge of; that comes from having a middle management level that is bloated and ineffective, all the while presiding over incredible losses; the term legacy costs is one they came up with to describe pension and health care benefits that were fairly negotiated and for which autoworkers gave up compensation to have. These benefits, by the way were funded very well until Reagan courts presided over the rape of them by allowing the excess earnings of the pension funds (which were the workers funds that they negotiated for) to be skimmed off. We (meaning the Organized Labor/Unions) fought in court saying that their taking the earnings would be like taking the interest from our investment accounts. We warned that there would come a time when we would need those funds to pay benefits. We argued they didn't belong to the company to be used to pay exec's outlandishly, they belonged to the workers. The fucking Reagan courts decided that putting the money in the hands of the "risk takers" would result in enhancing trickle down economics. Further, the lowered the percentage required to be kept in pension funds to pay future benefits to something like 65% (I might be wrong, it could be 80%, but I am doing this from memory at 1 am in the morning) of the funds the actuaries said we would need to pay vested benefits. Fast forward to 2004. Silicone Valley goes bust, and the rest of the economic system collapses, and these asswipes make up the words "legacy costs" so that they don't have to say that the economic chickens of their stupid ass policy have come home to roost, and that they can't pay the people who made them rich what they promised them in good faith bargaining. And here is the kicker. If they had left the damned excess earnings in the plan, every retiree's healthcare and monthly income THAT THEY WORKED THEIR ENTIRE GODDAMN LIFE FOR, would be safe. Just as a kicker to that, right now the Autoworkers are again being asked for relief, when they just gave considerable concessions a year ago. And is this due to them not being productive, efficient, skilled, and hard working. Nope. Despite the perceptual bullshit, US autoworkers are still ranked the best in the world. It is because, among other things, they work for a bunch of greedy bastards, who don't use sound business practices, invested their R&D money on the wrong horse when the whole world was predicting they were wrong, and now are taking it out of the asses of the group that least deserves it, while they continue taking outlandish bonuses and perks. There are some things in the work rules that have to be changed, the job bank probably needs to go although even that is maligned unneccesarily. Why, in this friggin country, and among working stiffs do we always get the blame game wrong. Our buddy Utah Phillips always said he wanted to be the czar in charge of blame in this country. That's because we always blame those that least deserve it. We always say it is those damn union workers instead of the greedy corporate pricks that steal the money. We always say it is those dirty lazy ass welfare mothers (the ones working two jobs with not health insurance and getting no child support) instead of those that continually cut every program that could break the cycle of poverty. I have spent my entire working life really representing honest hardworking folks who are just trying to do their best for their communities, their kids, and their country. I am sick to death of simplistic know it all assholes that cast aspersions down to the folks that are trying the hardest, when these robbing bandit pricks ride in their jets and tell us that we all have to save their asses. I am sick to death of the Chrysler workers, who with the significant concessions they took saved their company, while Lee Iafuckingcocca took the credit. Yet when the company rebounded some years later and the workers attempted to regain a bit, they were told no. Some reward for loyalty. If it wouldn't hurt so many families, I would say let these bastards go and we will start over. But too many kids and families would be destroyed. Bet your are sorry you asked, eh? I need to go drink some whiskey. Mick |
|
05 Dec 08 - 01:48 AM (#2508318) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Why continue to support a system that you profess to hate so much??? |
|
05 Dec 08 - 02:00 AM (#2508321) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick ake, I don't hate the system. That is the type of typical bullshit folks like you put out to obscure the issue. What I hate is the greedy pricks that abuse the system, and the friggin' lackeys that allow them to, and the paid off criminals like Cheney who are allowed to run rampant. But here's a newsflash for you, pardner. The average folks in this country are starting to figure it out. They see shit like Paulson giving the money to banks and bankers with no controls, so that the $700 million bucks of taxpayers money ends up invested in a Chinese construction company. I would class that as damn near treasonous. They are figuring out things like Wamu, who hired a CEO two weeks before they were taken over by the Feds. Paid him a $7 million signing bonus, with a $6million golden parachute for anything other than a for cause termination. End result? $13 million in compensation for 2 weeks work. Defend that if you need to. But you don't look good doing it. As to my right to decry it in angry terms. I left blood on the ground for this country. I have worked in the system, and used the laws to try and help average folks. I have earned my right to raise hell about it. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 02:56 AM (#2508337) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Hey Bobert, this from a man I don't often agree with on this forum but, with regard to "The Big Three", in these two sentences he has it nailed to rights: "If it wouldn't hurt so many families, I would say let these bastards go and we will start over. But too many kids and families would be destroyed." - Big Mick The only flaw with it is, that with all those banks and insurance companies that you, Bobert, allowed to go to the wall earlier in the "crisis", the USA would have nothing with which to "start over". If they go, they go and are gone for good, the US only then assembles cars whose components are shipped in from elsewhere. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 03:05 AM (#2508345) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton "Helping" those exploited by Capitalism is akin to handing out goody bags to starving Africans. When Capitalism fucks up.....as it does fairly regularly, the "blood on the ground" always belongs to the weak and the poor! Don't get me confused with an apologist for the system....I hate it more than anything on earth.....thats why I was opposed to the Blair/Obama band aids Our financial and social problems require "MAJOR" surgery. Just look at the number on this forum who despite the evidence of their own eyes still see this system as "recoverable". I'm afraid the truth is that most of the left are grade one hypocrits, no matter how little they have, it's still more than the "poor folks" and they sure don't want to lose it! It can be argued that people who have worked long term in industrial relations, without attempting to change the system, are "enablers" who help keep the whole sorry show on the road. The collapse of the banking system and the unrest created by the coming recession should provide impetus for a real change, providing we are not side tracked down "Obama Drive"......The real enemy are not the fat cats of industry or finance, but the voices of the evolutionary left......Ake |
|
05 Dec 08 - 03:18 AM (#2508349) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick I have no quarrel with that statement whatsoever. During the course of my career I had more than my share of trouble because of fighting the "corporate unionists". The old "we are a team, we are in it together" lines are destroying the progressive tension created by acknowledging the inherent adversarial relationship between the interests of management, the interests of capital, and the interests those that labor. Or put another way, we don't represent the friggin' bosses, or the friggin' investors, we represent the interests of the working stiffs. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 03:41 AM (#2508366) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton The biggest fallacy of all is that change can be achieved without some degree of pain(Obama). Better that pain be suffered in the interests of the poor and in safeguarding our natural resources, than in the interests of the Capitalist system. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 07:59 AM (#2508530) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert You still aren't listening, T-Bird (pun intended here)... I never supported bailing out Wall Street directly... I have supported bailing them out indirectly like FDR did in 1933 with his Home Mortgage Corp... The way it works is really simple, T... You take the bad mortgagaes that Wall Street says are the basis of their woes and you buy them out from the bottom up... I know this is like trying to get the square pag into a round hole fir ya', T, so let me give you an example: Acme Mortgage (Wall street) loaned Charlie the Carpenter (Main St.) $250,000 to buy a house... Got it so far???... The mortage was set up as an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) which has adjusted and doubled Charlie's payments... Charlie can't pay that amount and so Acme forcloses and is stuck with an empty house... The nieghbors are also stuck with an empty house with weeds growing up around it... So here's how it works... We take the bulk of the $700B and put it into a Home Mortgage Corp. and buy back Charlie's mortgage from Acme and rework it to be a 30 year mortgage at a fixed 5 to 6% interest... Acme get back their $250,000 that they can use to loan out again... Charlie stays in his house and the interest on the mortgagae goes to: 1. shore up Social Security 2. administer the program 3. cover losses This is what ol' Bobert has been calling "trickle up" economics for years... This is smart economics... Or pragmatic, if you will... Everone gets something... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 08:49 AM (#2508559) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Eh Bobert, I do take it that you did read through that post of yours before hitting the "Submit" button. Your system and your example are so full of holes I'm stuck at just where to start. "Home Mortgage Corp" - Government sponsored "Fanny Mae" and "Freddy Mac" - A rose by any other name would sell as sweet. They f*****g well collapsed the market Bobert NOT WALL St. And they did it by giving people loans who shouldn't have had them in the first place, they wouldn't have been able to pay their mortgages anyway, oh by the bye what were the reasons and situation behind your Acme Mortgage (Wall street) doubling Charlies mortgage repayments?? You didn't go into that. It's not done on a whim, it normally only happens when something is done by the central banks to the basic interest rate, a thing that Governments are closely involved with. Another question for your example Bobert why did Acme Mortgage foreclose? They would have other options open to them that would have equally kept Charlie in his house and Acme Mortgage in pocket. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 09:14 AM (#2508580) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos I don't think so, T--what collapsed the market was Wall Street bundling massive numbers of shitty loans sold by loansharks. And you may not know how ARMS work,. but the banks oftenw ill anchor the interest rate to a prime lending rate (or only if it goes up) and raise the interest rate on an ARM based on that. And they can and will do so even if the exisitng interest rate is quite profitable for them. A |
|
05 Dec 08 - 10:10 AM (#2508620) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger "Well, riggie, let's see if I can answer your questions. First off, where the hell did the term "legacy costs" come from?" Actually, Mick, I don't disagree with anything you say in the posts above, but I think I first heard of the term "legacy costs" in reference to the airlines when they began to run into trouble after deregulation. What we've seen there is cut-rate airlines like Southwest and Jet-Blue come in with substantially reduced rates. But they also have a "newer" work force simply because the companies are younger. When they first start out, they wouldn't have any pensioners at all, unless somebody got hurt on the job, maybe. If the car companies are successful in getting loans from the government, the first thing that needs to be controlled is management salaries--I certainly agree with that--but in the overall scheme of things, that isn't enough money to do much of anything with. If Hillary's health care program could have gotten off the ground 15 years ago, just thing how much American companies could have save since then, in medical costs. Getting back to Detroit, though, I don't see how the Big Three are going to make cost effective small cars if the United Auto Workers aren't included in the restructuring. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 11:01 AM (#2508660) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert No, T, what collapsed the system was bad laons that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went merrily along with... A Home Mortgage Corp., after absorbing the worst features of these bad loans (ARM's) would provide sensible products (i.e. 30 or even 35 year fixed @ 5-6%... Beyond cleaning up Fannie and Freddie's mess the Hiome Mortgage Corp. or the various oversught agncies would restore pragmatic regulations to furure mortagages... Why is this so hard for you to understand??? Where are all thses so-called holes in what I, and many leading econimists, are recommending??? This is becoming just like another Iraq debate with you, T... You were wrong then and you are wrong now... But this time you don't have the bad intellegence to blame on it... The truth is out there in plain sight... The choices are not hard... Do we give hundreds of billions more to the moneyed class or do we do something for the workin' man??? That is the choice... It is apparent that you have cast your vote with the monied class... No wiggle in the world can change peoples perception that that is indeed where yoiu come down on this issue... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 11:16 AM (#2508668) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Bobert - If you were going to clean up the mortgage mess, how would you go about it? Some people find themselves in foreclosure because they were greedy themselves, others are simply victims of circumstance. Others are staying out of foreclosure by making super-human efforts to pay their obligations. If the government helps some people, this last group kind of becomes a victim class themselves. I think you're basically right, that it would do the most good to start at the bottom of the food-chain, but how could it be done? |
|
05 Dec 08 - 11:42 AM (#2508689) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Rigs, I understand yer frustrations and the only thing I can say to ya' is, "Yeah, some folks will benefit who shouldn't" but the laternative of throwing the baby out with the bathwater just to punish that small percentage of folks to the detrement of the economy, the housing market and the majority of folks who are just trying to play by the rules isn't going to serve anyone in the long run... I learned at a very young age (polio at age 6) that life isn't always fair... That applies to what many of us are recommending here... And I'm not saying that the program will work in every case... There were very irresponsible buyers who thought they could flip properties and used the screwed up mortgage industry to do so... Some of these folks didn't have the income to be in those homes from the jump and those folks might not be in a position to hang on to those "to-be-flipped" homes even at fixed rates and lomf terms... I don't believe that their is any lifeline for those folks... Sorry, Charlie the Carpenter, if you fall into that group... But here is another observation that warrents some discussion and comment and that is the behavior of some Republican Senators toward the CEO's of the Big Three yesterday... It was appauling and rude... If these Republican Senators think that this is one big joke then they should just say that... Wall Street came in in corporate jets, got $350B right off the bat with an agreement that their CEO's wouldn't take more than a cool million in salary a year... The Dems didn't use that as an opportunity to disrespect thr Wall Street CEO's... But yesterday's display of partisan sarcasim toward men who had agreed to basicly work for free was uncivilized... If any Senator thinks that this is a time for joking around then that Senator, IMO, doesn't deserve to be in office... I mean, really folks, yesterday display was vulgar and down-right mean spirited... But worse than that, these Repubs, in essence, were trying to shift the blame of lousy governemnt by their party, to folks who didn't creat this mess... That is unacceptable... My dad was a company man for Ford Motor Company and I'm glad he isn't alive today to have heard these Repub Senators 'er he woulda been callin' my Cousin Buddy in New Jersey to come down and have a little talk with the Senators about manners... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 01:10 PM (#2508792) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger I didn't see the hearings. I know a number of Republicans think the cure is for the companies to go through a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, and allow the court(s) to straighten things out. What that has meant for airlines has been to dump all their pensioners off onto the government, and then start over. I don't know why they would be rude to the corporate officers though. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM (#2508901) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert The worst of them was Senator Richard Shelby (R- Alabama) who used the opportunity to chastize and harass these CEOs... He asked them if thay had done the actual driving from Detroit or if they shared the driving how much driving they actaully did... He asked them why they didn't carpool... I mean, the Senator showed no class and no real evidence of having been brought up with any understyanding to manners and courtesy... That's sad becuase most Southerners pride themselves when it come to such... Shelby not only let down the Seanate and his parents (if they are still alive) but the South, as well... And good point, Rigs, on the pensions... Pensions are insured by the feds and Iheard this mornin' on NPR that if the Big Three go down that the taxpayers are gonna be on the hook for well over $100B!!! No matter how big and nasty the pill is, looks as if the choices are few... At least the Big Three are hjaving to say how the money will be spent... Who knows where the $350B went when the Wall Street bandits came a knockin'... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 03:33 PM (#2508911) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Yeah, that's the sick part. Nobody seems to know where the money went, or if the do, they ain't talkin'. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 03:37 PM (#2508915) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert If I were Obama I'd ask that a freeze be put on the rest of the $700B until the first half was accounted for... (But he ain't president yet, Boberdz..) Oh, yes he is an' if he wants the remaining $350B frozen then he can get it frozen... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 05:00 PM (#2508985) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric As for the carmakers - shouldn't we make them abandon planned obsolescence as a core philosophy? I mean really, how else are they ever going to become a going concern? And GREEN GREEN GREEN what the hell, why should we believe they can do that right if they can't do a simple internal combustion engine? We should give money to Honda, Toyota and Hyundai to build plants in the US and get this show on the road. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 06:08 PM (#2509040) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert The problems with doing that, heric, is that Honda, Toyota and Hyndai would set up assembly plants in 14(b) states and we wouldn't realy have car manufacturing plants... We would have car manufacturing plantations... And if we take this even further, by not addressing the very real problem of 30 years of working class wage stagnation we will end up not looking very much like the country that Henry Ford envisoned when he decided that if he didn't pay his workers well then who could he sell his cars to??? |
|
05 Dec 08 - 08:32 PM (#2509105) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Henry Ford was way ahead of his time. If he hadn't done that, I doubt anyone else ever would have. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 08:56 PM (#2509109) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yes, he was, Rigs... My great grand daddy went to work for Henry... My dad went to work for Henry in 1943... We need a Henry to step- to plate now and deliver that exact message in that you ain't gonna fix jack until people have jobs and can afford the stuff... Truth be known... I am tiring of the comsumption model... I'd rather see folks making more but saving more and I'd like to see our economy based more on building infastructure and schools than buying more Chinese made junk...When we have millions of mini-storage units being rented to store that excess junk there is something very, very wrong with our econmic model... Time to get back to building our country... Okay, so what it a thousand malls close??? In the big scheme of things, maybe it's time for that to happen... We have ignored our real priorties way too long ant it ain't buyin' more Chinese junk... B~ |
|
05 Dec 08 - 09:00 PM (#2509111) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Yeah, well I doubt if ol' Henry would encourage buying Chinese junk either. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM (#2509128) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert No, he wouldn't an'... |
|
05 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM (#2509129) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert ...500... |
|
07 Dec 08 - 06:20 PM (#2509799) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric I probably shouldn't comment on it, as I didn't see it, but reportedly Dodd said on face the nation that GM CEO Richard Wagoner should be replaced as a condition for federal aid. This strikes me as more incompetence from the government. Others, including GM, said they didn't interpret it as a pre-condition for federal aid, and they want Wagoner to stay in place. The bailout/loan is supposed to be an emergency bridge loan, to get them into 2009. Apparently its passage is nowhere close to given. So here we have a top Senator saying Wagoner has to go, others saying he doesn't, one more thing to fight about, huge uncertainty injected, demoralizing GM while at the same time putting the entire package at risk - destroying investor confidence when confidence is always a principal goal. If Dodd were competent he would not say anything so inflammatory and destructive unless he knew he was going to make it happen, and fast. |
|
07 Dec 08 - 08:44 PM (#2509861) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger If we had senators picking the management staff, we'd end up with nothing but political appointments. If Dodd said that, he should be replaced--but then, of course, we don't have time for that. |
|
08 Dec 08 - 07:50 AM (#2509909) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Actually, enither Dodd nor Wagnor should be replaced... But what should occur is the kind of governemnt oversight that is sorely missing from the $350B bailout of the banks... And, as I have pointed out before, if we the taxpayers are on the hook for that amount to the banks that money is somewhere in those banks yet if have some good news and some bad news... The good news is that interest rates are down... The bad news is that the banks ain't loaning none of that bailout money... Lending, duhhhhhhhhh, should have been a prerequsite for the $350B Wall Street bailout... That's exactly why that bailout was ill-cocieved... It was packages and sold to the Americans much the way the Iraq War was packaged and sold and I'm sick that the American people let our governemnt do such a stupid thing... And I'm sick of trickle down economics... They don't trickle down any better now than when the stupid Republicans changed the economic model back during Ronald Reagan... When will they ever learn, when will thay ever learn??? B~ |
|
08 Dec 08 - 08:31 AM (#2509928) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger They won't learn, in my opinion, it all worked out fine for the richest ones of them, and the rest of them are all aspiring to be like the richest. |
|
08 Dec 08 - 12:13 PM (#2510014) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Ya' know, Rigs... I hope you aren't correct but there is that chance that a "culture" has set in over the last 30 years that will not allow people of a certain generation to think any other way... Unfortunately, way too many Baby Boomers and **our** kidss fall into those generations... Obama, in that regard is a freak of his generation... He does not represent them very well as I've allready seen so many 40-somethings harden... But, I hope I am wrong and that the current circumstances will jump start US outta this culture 'cause we really ain't got much choice here... B~ |
|
08 Dec 08 - 09:35 PM (#2510321) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger The Green Party--in its most basic form--has the solution. The people who are not rich yet, and who do not stand to inherit anything, finally come to the realization that an ever expanding population to generate an ever expanding market will soon destroy the planet. Finally, everybody decides to live within their means, which promotes a level of energy and enlightenment where people are encouraged to pursue more constructive objectives. |
|
09 Dec 08 - 08:07 AM (#2510600) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, Rigs, that is why for so many years I worked for and voted exclusivelu for Green Party candidates... All the stuff that Ralph Nader has been talking about in terms of corporate irresponsibilty, going back 20 years, has proven to be correct... Even his thoughts on globalization are now very much front and center as corportaqe greed has pushed countries into a new and very damaging protectionts thinking... We don't need to be protecting our corporations from more competitive ones... We need to puch for agreements where those competitive agree to basic human rights of their workers... Wer have the same thing going on right here in the US with Southern Sanators fighting the loans to the BIg Three because of the Toyota and Hyndai plants in Mississippi and Alabma that exploit labor there... Like I have said over and over, we need to repeal 14(b) for the good of the working class... That one act would force corporations to act more responsibly within our own country... B~ |
|
09 Dec 08 - 12:28 PM (#2510807) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Bobert - Could you explain again what 14(b) is? |
|
09 Dec 08 - 01:41 PM (#2510886) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert 14(b) of the Taft Hartley Act, also called the "slave labor act" was passed over the veto of Harry Treman in 1947... It is anti-union and the 14(b) clause, also known as the "Right to Work" provison allows states to enact legislation which prevents "union shops"... It doesn't go as far as saying that a worker cannot be a member of a union but that the shop cannot be all union... What this, in essence does, is strikes a critical blow to union organizing in thatr state because, hey, why join the union if yer gonna get the same benefits as the folks who pay union dues... So why bother even trying to organize... The bottom line is that in 14(b) states you flat out don't have much, if any, union activities and Boss Hog can hire you to do whatever OSCHA says ain't outright illegal and pay you as little as he can... What this has done is create a massive wage differential betweem the states, of which there are 35 or so who don't have "Eight to Work" and the "Right to Work" states, mostly southern who do... This partially explains why there is so much poverty in the South... Now what we are seein with the Big Three is the Toyota people blowin' their horns that they can make cars cheaper than Detroit... Well, yeah, they can... Doesn't matter than many of these Toyotas are being made by workers who aren't paid enough to get them above e federal poverty threshholds... It's kinda like Detroit having to compete with Chinese or Pakistani labor but within our own country and it sets the country up to have areas where third world living qualities exist... If (14)b were to be repealed then the Northeast and the South would compete fairly and the working class in the South would do much better than they historically have done... Big Mick might be able to add a few comments here but that's it in a nutshell... B~ |
|
09 Dec 08 - 04:33 PM (#2511071) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Genie Speaking of the banking industry bailout: Workers win: Bank to give credit to Chicago plant ======== CHICAGO – Bank of America says it will extend credit to a Chicago window and door maker whose workers have occupied the factory for five days. The bank said Tuesday that it's willing to give the Republic Windows and Doors factory "a limited amount of additional loans." That's so it can resolve claims of employees who have staged a sit-in since Friday. The factory closed Friday after Bank of America canceled its financing. Workers were given three days' notice. But they refused to leave and vowed to stay there until receiving assurances they would receive severance and accrued vacation pay. The bank has been criticized for cutting off the plant's credit after taking federal bailout money. ======== See how well the money usually "trickles down" when the gummint gives breaks to the big guys? |
|
10 Dec 08 - 10:33 AM (#2511711) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Bobert - Yeah, I live in a "Right to Work" state. That's what I remember hearing it called. You're right, of course, and when Boss Hog is allowed to hire illegal immigrants, the wages go even lower. Genie - I was surprised that B of A agreed to advance additional funds for the window and door factory. The companie is obviously either in bankruptcy, or about to go into bankruptcy--if nobody is building houses, who need windows and doors. So in reality, the bank is simply giving away the money; the window and door company will just include it in the estate of the bankruptcy. I'm sure they know that, and they are only doing it to avoid the bad publicity. |
|
10 Dec 08 - 12:18 PM (#2511791) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric Yeah BoA was a surprise PR, and it turns out that that place was owned about half by JP Morgan. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 08:17 PM (#2519417) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos "THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2008 Congressman: Fed "Bamboozling" Americans The Fed is refusing to disclose the recipients of $2 trillion dollars in loans, even after Bloomberg sued under the Freedom of Information Act to get the information. As Bloomberg writes: "If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, who oversees about $14 billion at New York-based ICP Capital LLC.*** Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on the bailout efforts, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had "been bamboozled."*** "Americans don't want to get blindsided anymore," Mendez said in an interview. "They don't want it sugarcoated or whitewashed. They want the complete truth. The truth is we can't take all the pain right now." The Bloomberg lawsuit said that the collateral lists "are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression." In response, the Fed argued that the trade-secret [law] could be expanded to include potential harm to any of the central bank's customers . . . . Trade secret law? Trade secret law protects things like valuable business methods. What's the banks' secret business method here - making stupid decisions, going bankrupt and then becoming the recipient of socialist government handouts? What's next? Will the government argue that it can't disclose the details of its torture program because it needs to protect the trade secrets of the companies that make the electro-shock machines and the waterboarding platforms?" From 'George Washington's Blog' |
|
18 Dec 08 - 09:14 PM (#2519453) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Yeah, Amos... This perhaps is the worst part about the Southern Repubs taking turns at standing up and righteously attacking the UAW while Wall Street is having the bash of it life on our grandkids and their kids dime... Wish it were a dime... Every trillion dollars represents around $3,300 for every man woman and child in this country... This ain't chump change that we've seen go down the Wall Street crapper... By the time you service the debt on borrowing this kinda money it's gonna cost our grandkids more like ten grand each... And that ain't chump change either... Makes this ol' hillbilly sick... B~ |
|
18 Dec 08 - 10:59 PM (#2519480) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout ???????????? From: Donuel There is no bail out. Rather it is the largest single bank robbery by the banks in recorded history. The hiest is spear headed by the two golden boys of Goldman Sachs, Paulson and Neil Kashcari. The biggest Ponzi scheme of all time is only 1/14th as large as the Great Bank Robbery of 08. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 10:36 AM (#2519816) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL Remember when this all started? bush insisted that we had three days to approve emergency funding for the financial industry or we would fall into a depression. It took more than a few days and we didn't. Now he's giving a sizable chunk of that money to the automotive industry. They have three months to undo years of mismanagement or face bankruptcy - under Obama's governmemt. Every city should start a pile of discarded shoes to lob at him on January 20. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:09 AM (#2519854) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos SINS: We didn't?? It sure is getting close! Hmmm. If the stock market is any indication he may have been right, but not for the reasons he cited. A |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:49 AM (#2519895) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: SINSULL Not yet, Amos. Not in baby bush's reign either. When the automotive industry tanks under Obama's watch, then look for an official declaration of a depression. And we know where the blame will fall... |
|
12 Feb 10 - 06:00 AM (#2836912) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: freda underhill In 2003, a US government official called Armando Falcon warned the White House that companies such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were backing far too many dodgy mortgages, risking financial collapse and "contagious illiquidity in the market". Did the White House look at tightening up regulations? Nope. They tried to sack Falcon. He was just being "negative". An book by Barbara Ehrenreich, How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World gives an interesting angle on how management theory of the last decade the pursuit of positives, affirmations and delusional optimism contributed to big business irresponsibility. After reading this review of the book, grumpiness seems a pretty balanced option. |
|
12 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM (#2837604) Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Barbara Ehrenreich can write "An Ode to Grumpiness." |
