September 23, 2008 1:28 PM
Bernanke's choice: bailout or recession
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke gave Congress a pick-your-poison choice, saying a recession is likely unless they fork over $700 billion to fund a financial industry bailout.
Despite the warning, influential lawmakers in both parties demanded changes in the White House-backed proposal, and conservative Republicans recoiled at the prospect of federal intervention into private capital markets.Six weeks before the elections, both major party presidential contenders also insisted on alterations in the administration's prescription for the worst financial crisis in decades.
Bernanke's remarks about the risk of recession came in response to a question from Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who seemed eager to hear a strong rationale for lawmakers to act swiftly on the administration's unprecedented request.
"The financial markets are in quite fragile condition and I think absent a plan they will get worse," Bernanke said.
Ominously, he added, "I believe if the credit markets are not functioning, that jobs will be lost, that our credit rate will rise, more houses will be foreclosed upon, GDP will contract, that the economy will just not be able to recover in a normal, healthy way."
How much confidence do you have in the ability of the government to right the economy? Think taxpayers will get any of this money back? Should the plan include a freeze on executive salaries and "golden parachutes"?
September 22, 2008
9:20 AM
JMH writes:
"Some Democrats are seeking, nevetheless, to add provisions to the massive rescue bill, such as limiting pay for executives of the troubled companies in need of the bailout. And Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services panel, accused Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson of pushing too hard to get out a bill quickly."
Good, for one, there should be NO "golden parachuttes" for these greedy executives, which of course the GOP will give them. It's like rewarding a gambler for playing with someone else's money. It's bad enough we are bailing them out... lets not reward them too!
...and second, I want a real "back and forth" and some time to make sure we get this right. Ever notice Bush always tries to rush things through when he is trying to get one over on us. Happened in Iraq, he was in this big rush to invade without proof of WMD's. Why? Becasue he knew the longer we looked at things, the more we would figure out he had no case in regards to WMD's with UN inspectors on the ground finding nothing!
What are Bush and the NeoCons trying to slip by us this time?
Take your time Congress. Personally, I am against alot of this... I don't want socailism of our finacial markets, but apparently the GOP does? Seems the Democratic party is the fisically responsible one now huh? Have been for years really... The GOP spends our money like drunken sailors on leave! Enough!!!
September 22, 2008
9:23 AM
JMH writes:
"Some Democrats are seeking, nevetheless, to add provisions to the massive rescue bill, such as limiting pay for executives of the troubled companies in need of the bailout. And Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services panel, accused Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson of pushing too hard to get out a bill quickly."
Good, for one, there should be NO "golden parachuttes" for these greedy executives, which of course the GOP will give them. It's like rewarding a gambler for playing with someone else's money. It's bad enough we are bailing them out... lets not reward them too!
...and second, I want a real "back and forth" and some time to make sure we get this right. Ever notice Bush always tries to rush things through when he is trying to get one over on us. Happened in Iraq, he was in this big rush to invade without proof of WMD's. Why? Becasue he knew the longer we looked at things, the more we would figure out he had no case in regards to WMD's with UN inspectors on the ground finding nothing!
What are Bush and the NeoCons trying to slip by us this time?
Take your time Congress. Personally, I am against alot of this... I don't want socailism of our finacial markets, but apparently the GOP does? Seems the Democratic party is the fisically responsible one now huh? Have been for years really... The GOP spends our money like drunken sailors on leave! Enough!!!
September 22, 2008
9:27 AM
JMH (Bam Bam) writes:
Sorry, typing with a rock again!
September 22, 2008
9:32 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Ok, so what is the problem about limiting executive compensation? True, it flies in the face of free market competition, but so does government bailouts. These guys made wrong decisions, and now they need help. As such, they do not deserve huge compensation or bonuses. If they did, we wouldn't be in this situation. Let congress take some time and do this one right.
September 22, 2008
9:35 AM
Karl Marx writes:
See, besides alot of Republicans being closeted homosexuals, they also seem to be closeted socialists!
Nationalist Socialists! Ummm where have we heard that term before?
September 22, 2008
9:41 AM
history buff writes:
It's Christmas in September. The executives getting $20M golden parachutes paid for by the tax payers are the same people who say they should not pay a higher rate of tax than someone who makes $50,000. Well, at least with John McCain and Sarah Palin we will have a white Christmas.
September 22, 2008
9:53 AM
Tbone writes:
This bailout is the stupidest idea EVAH!!!
I heard the bill was even written in crayon.
I expect shaggy and sasquach to be here shortly to extoll the virtues of this bill, and call the rest of us socalists.
September 22, 2008
10:16 AM
Shaggy writes:
"Some Democrats are seeking, nevetheless, to add provisions to the massive rescue bill"
I am shocked by this!
Is it no surprise that the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat, received the most donations from these failed corporations?
Makes me wonder if he was receiving money to look the other way when they were handing out these loans?
I do not agree with taxpayers having to bail out failed corporations when the CEO's were walking away with Millions.
Christopher Dodd should be sued and fired by the taxpayers.
Same goes for Pelosi.
Ever since the Democrats gained control of Congress all hell has broke out in America including gas prices to double.
September 22, 2008
10:51 AM
jay writes:
more conspiracy theories, shaggy?
why don't you shock all of us today and instead of attacking the dems, justify a vote for republicans by telling us why we should vote to continue the policies that have brought us this mess under mcsame.
my guess...as usual...that you'll fail to do this simple task...as you have for months now.
September 22, 2008
11:11 AM
am 760 writes:
Hey repubs all those supposed tax breaks we've been getting the last 8 years you can pretty much kiss good buy thanks to your incompetent, crooked leaders. 700 billion bailout by taxpayers for just this debacle along w/ those that have come before and will come after, yet the moron right still thinks they are getting tax breaks under repub control. Does anyone but shag, kw, hog, etc.. believe anything that comes out of a repubs mouths these days. If you do, your the problem. Quit ruining my country by voting for repubs.
Jay your ongoing attempt to get shag or anyone from the right to debate polices once again falls on deaf ears, blind eyes, etc...
Its so sad that repubs base their politics on religious issues that should be part of the home not our government. They keep voting against theirs and everyones best economic interests because they want our government to tell people what they can do with their bodies. You people are so misinformed its pathetic. Try am 760, the truth all day everyday. You might actually learn something about your government. And facts are not hate.
September 22, 2008
11:42 AM
jay writes:
there's little to be done about willful ignorance:
"Among Republicans, 46% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 48% disapprove. Among Democrats, 97% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy and 2% approve. Among independents, 8% approve and 87% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy."
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
September 22, 2008
11:46 AM
Tbone writes:
Shaggay-
Those "provisions" that dems are clamoring for?
Oversight.
If you really don't like this bill, then you should agree with the dems on this one.
Pelosi has spoken out against it. No word from Dodd.
Bush and cheney should be sued and fired.
September 22, 2008
11:49 AM
Tree writes:
You guys are spot on today. I remember telling you guys this 3 years ago. The CEO's got the last laugh out of these liar loans all the way to pay day and we get to pay for their mess. It's Shrub's decision to invade the wrong country all over again, we pay for the mess.
September 22, 2008
11:57 AM
nrunner writes:
Limit the executive pay. Why are the middle class and all Americans having to bail out millionaires? Remember the economy is "fundamentally sound". Since all of these companies are basically bankrupt, cut all pay of all the employees making more than 75,000 a year. No golden payouts and no bonuses while the taxpayers hold the bad debt. Companies start to buy back their bad debt with interest to the taxpayers when they get their houses in order.
The GOP is the party of spend and go into debt party without any responsibility. The very same companies that did not want any regulation are now clamoring and lining up to get money from the taxpayers. Socialism? Wow how can these companies stoop to that from the GOP led Treasury and FED?
September 22, 2008
12:00 PM
nrunner writes:
Limit the executive pay. Why are the middle class and all Americans having to bail out millionaires? Remember the economy is "fundamentally sound". Since all of these companies are basically bankrupt, cut all pay of all the employees making more than 75,000 a year. No golden payouts and no bonuses while the taxpayers hold the bad debt. Companies start to buy back their bad debt with interest to the taxpayers when they get their houses in order.
The GOP is the party of spend and go into debt party without any responsibility. The very same companies that did not want any regulation are now clamoring and lining up to get money from the taxpayers. Socialism? Wow how can these companies stoop to that from the GOP led Treasury and FED?
September 22, 2008
12:04 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hey shag, lets not forget about McCain in all this. He was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that led the effort to deregulate the governments' roll in the first place. Now we are stuck with an 800 billion dollar tab. You are shocked because the dems want to be cautious? This cluster started in 2005 while grandpa was sitting idly by watching time go by.
September 22, 2008
12:04 PM
nrunner writes:
Limit the executive pay. Why are the middle class and all Americans having to bail out millionaires? Remember the economy is "fundamentally sound". Since all of these companies are basically bankrupt, cut all pay of all the employees making more than 75,000 a year. No golden payouts and no bonuses while the taxpayers hold the bad debt. Companies start to buy back their bad debt with interest to the taxpayers when they get their houses in order.
The GOP is the party of spend and go into debt party without any responsibility. The very same companies that did not want any regulation are now clamoring and lining up to get money from the taxpayers. Socialism? Wow how can these companies stoop to that from the GOP led Treasury and FED?
September 22, 2008
12:06 PM
JMH writes:
Scooby, your ignorance and blind hatred of all things Democratic is showing...
You say you are upset that the Dems want to add provisions to the bill... Well sorry little NeoCon stooge, but no more blank checks for Bush and the rest of the NeoCons. Besides, the things the Dems want to put into this bill are little things like OVERSIGHT, no "GOLDEN PARACHUTTES" and a little help for "Main Street", you know, the taxpayers like me and you who are now owners of these companies, whether we like it or not!
The horror of actually wanting some oversight and something for us little people as we once again bail out the super-rich!!!
Keep up those comsperacy theories you are getting from the likes of anti-Americans like Hannity and O'Rielly... always trying skirt responsiblity for the GOP! This is affecting us all, the NeoCons wanted a "party" on Wall Street, they got it and now they want all of us to pay for it! Way to go... maybe I could go to Las Vegas and gamble all night and you will pay for it for me shaggy? That is what is going on here. But I know this is all over your head... it's got like numbers and stuff...
You Republicans had your chance, get out f the way, so we can pick up your mess again!!!
September 22, 2008
12:06 PM
JMH writes:
Scooby, your ignorance and blind hatred of all things Democratic is showing...
You say you are upset that the Dems want to add provisions to the bill... Well sorry little NeoCon stooge, but no more blank checks for Bush and the rest of the NeoCons. Besides, the things the Dems want to put into this bill are little things like OVERSIGHT, no "GOLDEN PARACHUTTES" and a little help for "Main Street", you know, the taxpayers like me and you who are now owners of these companies, whether we like it or not!
The horror of actually wanting some oversight and something for us little people as we once again bail out the super-rich!!!
Keep up those comsperacy theories you are getting from the likes of anti-Americans like Hannity and O'Rielly... always trying skirt responsiblity for the GOP! This is affecting us all, the NeoCons wanted a "party" on Wall Street, they got it and now they want all of us to pay for it! Way to go... maybe I could go to Las Vegas and gamble all night and you will pay for it for me shaggy? That is what is going on here. But I know this is all over your head... it's got like numbers and stuff...
You Republicans had your chance, get out f the way, so we can pick up your mess again!!!
September 22, 2008
12:24 PM
Qbserver writes:
Famous Cartoon Stoner -
How can you possibly be against congress wanting some basic accountability on this one? Can you not agree that the deregulation bandwagon went so far that they got us into this mess in the first place? WTF would executives be entitled to bonuses when the taxpayers are having to foot the bill for this. Bonuses for mismanagement should never happen.
September 22, 2008
12:27 PM
Sock Ray Blue writes:
I never could figure out how a CEO gets compensation when the company he's running falls off a cliff.
The little "extras" that the Dems want to add are simply something that will look like they've been paying attention. The truth is that McCain wanted to add some oversight to the soon-to-falter corporations and the Democratic controlled Congress would have none of that.
Hindsight is 20/20 and expecting government to have some foresight is a bit beyond ones imagination.
We can always try Corporate America's answer to this problem and close Washington D.C. at the end of the year and lay off all government employees and reopen government in Des Moines, Iowa on April 1st with all new employees at all levels of government. It just might work!
September 22, 2008
12:30 PM
Another fine example from our GOP friends writes:
http://www.cbs46.com/news/17526456/detail.html
September 22, 2008
12:36 PM
Shaggy writes:
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Pelosi are the main ones responsible for letting this happen and now they think they are the ones who need to fix it...No thanks.
Ever since these idiots gained control of Congress they have done nothing but screw everything they get their greedy little Liberal hands on.
Best thing for all of us is to boot these do nothing incompetent idiots out.
I never thought the Democratic controlled Congress's approval ratings of just 9% could get any lower but I may be wrong.....for once.
September 22, 2008
12:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
"The truth is that McCain wanted to add some oversight to the soon-to-falter corporations and the Democratic controlled Congress would have none of that." - Sock
Sock, that is total BS!!! Total!!! Back that up! Your talking out your a$$! Musta heard that on the same AM stations shaggy gets his nonsense... McCain has been calling himself a "deregulator" for years now... so stop lying.
Is this just typical NeoCon playbook? - Don't take responsiblity, blame someone else and then lie, lie, lie about your record and hope no one calls you out!
September 22, 2008
12:47 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Obama bin Biden, just another corrupt Chicago machine pol writes:
This was a Democrat pyramid scheme. The Dems forced the lending community to make loans to the poor who could not qualify under normal (read sane) lending practices. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these bad loans and in the process lined the pockets of Clinton's cronies like Jamie Gorelick who walked away with $26 million.
Now the Democrats have the gaul to claim that they need more control over the industry they ruined. The greed of some Republicans is so overshadowed by the criminal behavior of the Democrats that it shocks the senses.
This is a foretaste of the Obamanation that will certainly follow the election of Obama bin Biden. Fortunately McCain is inPalin Obama bin Biden.
September 22, 2008
12:48 PM
Sock Ray Blue writes:
Anonymous
Try the Bloomberg News. Certainly you don't think I rely on the Rocky or Fox News for information? I've moved back to Colorado from Nebraska and can actually hear FM stations now.
Regarding my talking out of my a$$.....occasionally I hear a high pitched shrill noise coming from behind me. I usually attribute it to Liberal angst during an election year.
September 22, 2008
12:48 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
SO WHERE ARE THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, ARE THE DEMS BLOCKING THEM TOO?
AND HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT FRANKLIN RAINES?
Franklin Delano Raines--former CEO of Fannie Mae--(gotta love his New Deal name) was found by Deloite Touche (as hired by Paulson's Treasury) to have cooked the books and commited financial fraud in order to generate huge bonuses for himself and his cronies. And now this crook (where are the congressional investigations?) recently joins the Obama campaign as a FINANCIAL ADVISER? FINANCIAL ADVISER?
And guess who was #1 and #2 on Fannie's political gift list--who got the money? Chris Dodd (D-Con) was on top, closley followed by Obama. Where are the investigations?
The Dems have been using Fannie as an ATM for 70 years, since 1938. And now we taxpayers finally got the bill.
September 22, 2008
12:49 PM
JMH writes:
You are such a blind fool shaggy... Looks like Mr. McBush's tentacles are all over this mess. Read it and weep. By teh way, no one is buying your week attenpts to blame this on the Dems...
Hell... McSame's CAMPAIN MANAGER was protecting Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Damn those facts, huh scooby?
"Officials: Campaign manager hired to help Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
updated 12:56 a.m. MT, Mon., Sept. 22, 2008
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26831560/
Your taking a beating today Scooby, ya might want to try again tomorrow!
September 22, 2008
12:54 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
BLOOMBERG...BLAME THE DEMS FOR THIS FINANCIAL MELTDOWN!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
September 22, 2008
12:58 PM
Ouch writes:
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations!
September 22, 2008
1:05 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
BLOOMBERG:...."It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
THAT'S NOT AN OUCH---ITS A TRAIN WRECK FOR THE DEMS! LET'S HOPE THAT THIS TRAIN WRECK IS JAMMED INTO OBAMA'S EMPTY-SUIT!
September 22, 2008
1:07 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
BLOOMBERG:...."It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
THAT'S NOT AN OUCH---ITS A TRAIN WRECK FOR THE DEMS! LET'S HOPE THAT THIS TRAIN WRECK IS JAMMED INTO OBAMA'S EMPTY-SUIT!
WHERE ARE THE INVESTIGATIONS?
September 22, 2008
1:15 PM
am 760 writes:
sas, take your meds and go back to sleep you freaking idiot. HOw you or anyone on the right can try to blame this on dems is pathetic. Take some accountability for those you elected dumb ass. Oh I forgot your side never takes accountability for any of its failures.
We let your side try to run the country and now after 8 years we have almost had our economy collaspe. Where was the country after 8 years of clinton and his policies...
September 22, 2008
1:16 PM
JMH writes:
"Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie since 2005. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is past president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group whose members included Freddie and Fannie. In that role, he defended the companies against increased regulation."
By the way, it looks like these two companies were trying to buy influence from both sides of the aisle, but it looks like most of the money Obama collected was from employees... the Lion's share from the PAC's (Political Action Committee's) went to Republicans!!! Nice try though NeoCon's...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
More lies and spin from the NeoCon's exposed!
September 22, 2008
1:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
Thanks dems for once again cleaning up the mess the repubs have created. Do you think repubs even know what accountability or oversight means. Of course now, after this miserable failure, all you hear are repubs talking about regulation and oversight. What a bunch of hypocrites.
September 22, 2008
1:28 PM
JMH writes:
Bigfoot, I would LOVE an investigation, since the vast majority of Political contributions (PAC's) has gone to Republicans... Bring it on!!!
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
The majority of these companies political donations went to Republicans, the majority of contributions the Dems received were from private employees... Oh yes... Please investigate!
By the way Big-stinky-foot, that piece you cherry-picked is an opinion, not a fact. Nice try though...
And I would love to hear you guys try to justify why McBush's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations!
Priceless... You guys still wanna head down this road? I'll give you guys some time to check back in with Rush Limp-bone for more "talking points" since this one just got shot out of the water... haha
September 22, 2008
1:28 PM
Janis M Hoiuston writes:
Well, I say let's not bail out anybody, and then we can just see how many Dems and Reps go under.
As a taxpayer I know the government wouldn't bail me out of credit card debt or foreclosure, why should I help the fat cats????????
...and as for the consequences let the free market reign. Isn't that what the Republicans always say...then the depression can trickle down to me.....
No matter how many billions we hurl at this black economic hole, it ain't gonna fix it. Market corrections, including lowering of property values, needs to happen before we hit bottom.
September 22, 2008
1:36 PM
Janis M Hoiuston writes:
Sasquatch:
Much as you would like to blame the Dems for this, even McCain admitted on TV last night not wanting to regulate Wall Street...
I say NO BAIL OUT...let the market corrections begin and depression can trickle down to me. The government wouldn't bail out taxpayers who have credit card debt or foreclosures, why should it nationalize the banking and insurance industries?
What's next??? Will we nationalize the auto and energy industry so we ALL can get a free socialized ride????
No matter how many millions are thrown into this black hole, until we see market corrections and devaluation of property the end is not in sight.
September 22, 2008
1:45 PM
obama is a jerk writes:
this is the democrats fault for persuading these mortgage companies to hand out loans to unqualified borrowers such as minorities, low income families, hispanics, blacks and orientals.
it was started during the clinton era and now we are seeing the back lash of it.
what is sad is that obama is praising this crisis to blame bush when it is a total lie. obama would rather put himself ahead of what is good for the country.
September 22, 2008
2:00 PM
am 760 writes:
JMH, i guess rush limpdick can't even come up w/ talking points for his sheep today on this topic. Pretty quite from the guillable old party boys today.
JMH, you said you were from New York, is that right. If so I just wondered what you thought about yankee stadium going down and it you ever say a game there.
September 22, 2008
2:01 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Freddie and Fannie are another FDR cancer writes:
JMH,
I say take your list, give it to a hit man, and turn him loose in Congress and tell him to start at the top and continue until there are no more living members of Congress on the list. That would certainly cause a mess resignation and we could start with a clean slate. Although you find Ron Paul's name on the list, he took nothing from PACs, just individuals.
September 22, 2008
2:06 PM
Anonymous writes:
1:45, im still laughing. Good one. I bet all you righties wish you could have had your social security privatized and put in the stock market. Boy there's another great idea from the GOP.
September 22, 2008
2:08 PM
jay writes:
"Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Pelosi are the main ones responsible for letting this happen"
"This was a Democrat pyramid scheme"
"this is the democrats fault"
"Ever since these idiots gained control of Congress they have done nothing but screw everything they get their greedy little Liberal hands on"
lol...you loyal right wing footsoldiers get more irrelevant with each apologistic tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
at least have the intellectual honesty...scratch that...just plain honesty to admit that while both parties are at fault...the vast majority of blame lies squarely on the shoulders of conservatives.
you might actually be able to salvage a little bit of credibility.
except for you shaggy....you're actually running a credibility deficit right now.
September 22, 2008
2:27 PM
history buff writes:
Let's take another look at those GOP economic policies in action.
PICTURE THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=related
September 22, 2008
2:35 PM
obama is a socialist writes:
this is the work of the feel good democrats wanting to help out the less fortunate at the expense of the more fortunate.
next they will want to rob from the rich and give it to the poor which obama has already stated he would do if elected.
September 22, 2008
2:53 PM
jay writes:
sorry, socialist...those boogeyman stories aren't flying anymore.
nice try.
when you can justify taking from the middle class to prop up the upper come back and see us....until then...that kind of crap doesn't play outside of the rush limbaugh fantasy hour.
September 22, 2008
3:20 PM
DenverGuy writes:
I think we should wait more than three days to come up with a plan that costs $700 billion. There are a lot of ramifications to buying all these bad debts. For one thing, no bank in the world will negotiate with a borrower now because they can just sell the debt to the government. These guys need to feel some pain or they won't learn the lesson.
This reminds me of the Patriot Act after 9/11. No deliberation whatsoever. We need to take short terms steps to stabilize things, but then we should really spend some time thinking about the long term solution. We might want to wait until the next President is chosen because he is the one that will have to make the plan work.
September 22, 2008
3:27 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Clinton's croneys created the mortgage crisis writes:
DenverGuy,
You do know the Democrats starting with Bill Clinton are the ones who pressured the mortgage companies to make these suicidal loans. All we have to do is remove politics from business practices.
September 22, 2008
3:28 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Who backed expansion of Fannie and Freddie's mandate to cover Alt-A and sub-prime loans?
Who lauded the "Maestro" Alan Greenspan (and his successor Bernanke, although less so) for his deft manipulation of the economy even as he pumped vast amounts of dollars into the money supply throughout his last years in office, basically diluting the valuation of risk on debt?
Who backed the mark-to-market reforms that forced banks and investment banks to revalue hundreds of billions in illiquid secondary paper to around 20 cents on the dollar even though default rates probably place the value of the underlying assets in the 70-85 cents on the dollar range?
What about the market distortions caused by The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that might have caused banks to offer more subprime loans than they should have even as the market began to turn?
Did anybody in either party take notice when the SEC allowed investment banks, like Lehman and Bear, to lever their investment portfolios up to 30 or 40 to 1? Did anybody in Washington care when Citi began racking up off-balance sheet SIVs? Nobody cared until it was too late...
The "point here isn't to absolve Wall Street or pretend there weren't private excesses. But the investment mistakes would surely have been less extreme, and ultimately their damage more containable, if not for the enormous political support and subsidy for mortgage credit."
-The Wall Street Journal
This is most certainly not a blame-game that either political party can win. Both were complicit in expanding Fannie and Freddie's mandates, backing the SRA and encouraging expanded home ownership in the form of Alt-A and subprime loans. Both parties failed to call the SEC or the Fed to task for their failed bank oversight and easy money policies. And then there's the obviously broken and famously derided mark-to-market rule that sunk Lehman, Bear and Merrill. Heck, Merrill sold its entire bad debt portfolio for 22 cents on the dollar and still had to get help from BAC... but would they have had to sell at such ridiculously low prices if mark-to-market hadn't forced such low valuations onto their sheets?
I have a feeling either some old savvy Wall Streeter like Kirk Kirkorian or a young gun at a hedge fund will re-sell Merrill's portfolio [and others] in five or ten years for 57 cents on the dollar and reap billions from the liquidity arbitrage... or simply hold it to maturity and realize the actual default risk of around 70-85 cents on the dollar and make even more money!!!
September 22, 2008
3:47 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Clinton's croneys created the mortgage crisis writes:
FTC,
The more important question is, "are we going to reduce the political pressure that Congress can bring to bear upon an industry that if left alone self regulates far better than any politician ever can.
September 22, 2008
3:50 PM
vegas writes:
Saskwatch~
That Bloomburg hit piece is a bit of opinion written by:
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett
**********************************************
you'll pardon me, and the rest of us if we take this OPINION' with a grain of salt.
September 22, 2008
3:50 PM
jay writes:
phil gramm
phil gramm
phil gramm
not to mention, Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
you guys can continue to try to shift the blame for the Track Record of the last 8 years towards the dems...but it's not going to work any better than your attempts to defend deregulation or trickle down economics.
September 22, 2008
3:50 PM
Tbone writes:
Funny. I don't recall Bill Clinton holding a gun to a bank employee's head telling them to give out a loan.
No one was forced to loan a single red cent to anyone, Hogar.
The republicant's sound even stupider than usual today trying to blame everything on clinton.
September 22, 2008
3:51 PM
vegas writes:
Saskwatch~
That Bloomburg hit piece is a bit of opinion written by:
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett
**********************************************
you'll pardon me, and the rest of us if we take this OPINION' with a grain of salt.
September 22, 2008
4:01 PM
Pay Attention writes:
The idea behind allowing personal investment in the "stock market" wasn't to just let people put it any old place; it was to have very carefully selected money market funds that were researched and graded, and done in such a way that at worst a person would always come out ahead in the long run.
Of course, we can all laud the current system that is going bankrupt as we speak, can't we? I mean, it is obvious to all that that fund will be there for us no matter what, isn't it? The government said it would, so it must be as good as gold.
You know, most people don't even realize that social security was never meant as a retirement fund; it was a supplemental fund to help pensioners afford the built-in tax the government has placed on all of us called inflation.
There's only one reason that the Congress isn't all "glory hallelujah" about self-directed plans for Social Security, and that's because they lose control of your money. Over the last forty years, mutual funds have been a safe, money-earning deal for investors, and SS can't say the same .. period.
So, draw non-sequitor comparisons if you like, but this whole debacle has been building for years and years, under control of both major parties, and none of them did a damned thing about it until it was too late. Somewhere between fingers pointing here, and fingers pointing there, is the simple fact that it's all out of control and there isn't one good thing that can be done about it. Nothing.
September 22, 2008
4:05 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Clinton's croneys created the mortgage crisis writes:
Tbone,
Social engineering does not work. Just ask Joe Stalin.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
September 22, 2008
4:11 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
FOLLOW THE MONEY...CAN YOU CONNECT THE D0TS?
RAINES..$..OBAMA..$..RAINES..$..OBAMA..$..RAINES..$..OBAMA..$..RAINES..$..OBAMA!
ITS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 1938--70 YEARS...CAN YOU CONNECT THE DOTS?
FANNIE HAS BEEN A DEM ATM FOR 70 YEARS!
THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION??? HOUSE CLEANING? WHOOOPS!
September 22, 2008
4:12 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Hogar,
Yeah, I'm with you.
The knee-jerk reaction will be to over-regulate ala Sarbannes-Oxley.
It's interesting to note that the least regulated firms on Wall Street, hedge funds and private equity firms, seem to have weathered the storm the best!
So far...
I've read there's an awful lot of bad paper hidden on the books of a lot of European banks... as much as half the oustanding value of the bad stuff might be lodged in European financial institutions. After that shoe drops, then we'll KNOW.
Until then...
September 22, 2008
4:15 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
FOLLOW THE MONEY...CAN YOU CONNECT THE D0TS?
RAINES..$..OBAMA..$..RAINES..$..OBAMA..$..RAINES..$..OBAMA..$..RAINES..$..OBAMA!
ITS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 1938--70 YEARS...CAN YOU CONNECT THE DOTS?
FANNIE HAS BEEN A DEM ATM FOR 70 YEARS!
THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION??? HOUSE CLEANING? WHOOOPS!
September 22, 2008
4:15 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Clinton's croneys created the mortgage crisis writes:
Pay Attention,
Though I would agree that the Republicans did not do enough, the Democrats (they should change their name to the Non Sequitur Party) are the ones who engineered and defended the whole sub prime mess. In 2003 Bush tried to regulate Freddie and Fannie, but the Democrats said they were both fine.
Read this New York Times article.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2085194/posts
September 22, 2008
4:19 PM
Big_D writes:
Simplified version of this bill:
“I really screwed up and lost your money. Please send me a blank check so I can do it again.
Sincerely,
George”
If I started talking about Phil Gramm and John McCain charging forward and destroying the Glass-Stengel Act I think your eyes would glaze over. Yes you can thank John and Phil directly for this one.
September 22, 2008
4:24 PM
Big_D writes:
This is a better source with more in depth reasons why:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/22/sen_bernie_sanders_robert_scheer_and
September 22, 2008
4:27 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
ALAN GREENSPAN: "BLAME THE DEMS FOR THE MELTDOWN"
"In 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios and exploit excessive leverage, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a very substantial risk.''
ALAN GREENSPAN BLAMES THE DEMS...so what does Senior VEGAS know that the world's #1 centeral bamker doesn't know?
BBWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
September 22, 2008
4:29 PM
Big_D writes:
Hogar De Misinformation,
An article from the GOP's own mouthpiece is not what I would call an unbiased answer.
September 22, 2008
4:32 PM
Big_D writes:
SASQUATCH,
In 2005 congress was still in GOP control. Do you guys ever stop lying?
September 22, 2008
4:35 PM
jay writes:
you really have to wonder how you can't agree with 2 out of 3 americans who believe that the republicans are at fault for our current economic woes.
September 22, 2008
4:38 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
FANNIE...$...RAINES...$$...OBAMA...FANNIE...$$$...RAINES...$$$$...OBAMA...$$$$$...RAINES...$$$$$$...OBAMA...$$$$$$$...FANNIE...$$$$$$$$...OBAMA...$$$$$$$$$...RAINES...$$$$$$$$$$$...FANNIE...$$$$$$$$$$$$...OBAMA...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...RAINES...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...OBAMA...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...FANNIE...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...OBAMA.
OR HOW TO FILL AN EMPTY-SUIT!
September 22, 2008
4:44 PM
Big_D writes:
I think knee-jerk would be giving the GOP a 700 billion dollar blank check with no oversight and no conditions to fix a problem they created. They should at least have as much regulation as the rest of the welfare recipients have to endure. GOP can’t give us healthcare but they sure as heck can give welfare to billionaires. Maybe they should be fining all these bank executives and taking back their 28 to 50+ million dollar bonuses they have been taking the last few years.
September 22, 2008
4:47 PM
Big_D writes:
I think knee-jerk would be giving the GOP a 700 billion dollar blank check with no oversight and no conditions to fix a problem they created. They should at least have as much regulation as the rest of the welfare recipients have to endure. GOP can’t give us healthcare but they sure as heck can give welfare to billionaires. Maybe they should be fining all these bank executives and taking back their 28 to 50+ million dollar bonuses they have been taking the last few years.
September 22, 2008
4:49 PM
Big_D writes:
crisis,
2003 the GOP was in control too. DO YOU GUYS EVER STOP LYING?
September 22, 2008
5:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
THE OBAMA-FRANKLIN RAINES CONNECTION!
WASH POST: " Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud."
Raines made millions....Obama got financial gifts. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill. Barack Obama. Bad advice. Bad instincts. Bad judgement. Crook. Not ready to lead. Empty-suit"
ITS LOOKS LIKE JESSE JAMES REALLY DID ROB THE BANK! At least WAPO thinks so!
September 22, 2008
5:02 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
THE OBAMA-FRANKLIN RAINES CONNECTION!
WASH POST: " Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud."
Raines made millions....Obama got financial gifts. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill. Barack Obama. Bad advice. Bad instincts. Bad judgement. Crook. Not ready to lead. Empty-suit"
ITS LOOKS LIKE JESSE JAMES REALLY DID ROB THE BANK! At least WAPO thinks so!
September 22, 2008
5:22 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION:
There is gold in that EMPTY-SUIT...your gold!
Like I said 6-months ago, the more that this onion gets peeled, the more America will hate this corrupt empty-suit.
Who is this cock-eyed street-bum anyway? Stay tuned! The next peel will reveal even more!
"I'M NO CROOK...I'M THE MESSIAH, THE ONE....CHANGE WE NEED!"
September 22, 2008
5:47 PM
Pay Attention writes:
Okay you guys; you're not getting it. So let me use a metaphor.
You are walking along in the Australian outback enjoying a beautiful sunny day (all is good, income is great, driving nice car, eating great food), and you look over and see a very, very beautiful, albeit unusual tree (the promise of even more of everything you're already overly blessed with). So you begin to walk in that direction, and all of a sudden, little people, about a foot high, start shooting little arrows at you (surging oil prices, higher food costs, increasing inflation rates) and some of them stick and actually draw blood (MONEY!!). You begin to get scared and even a bit panicked (do I draw my money out of the stock market, sell my toys, cash in my savings bonds, etc) and you start to run. Suddenly you take a step and the ground feels loose and it takes about two seconds before you realize you're up to your knees in quicksand (worsening situation). Those little bastards are continuing to shoot you with arrows, and some other tribe (onslaught on our system by illegal aliens, and attack on our manufacturing establishment by asian producers) start throwing spears and rocks, and they're really taking their toll on you now. You're actually frightened that they may hit you with so much that you'll lose consciousness, and worse, you're into the quicksand to your chest. The attacks start to take aim for your eyes and ears (ability to read and react), but you have nothing around you that you can use for a weapon to defend yourself (the government who has seemed unwilling and/or unable to fend for their people for years). You reel under the realization of what's happening and wonder at how it could be, as your dream of having and doing more begins to fade into a haze, and the thought of drifting into death almost seems pleasant now, as the quicksand reaches your mouth, and will very soon muffle your cries of anguish and your pleas for help that aren't being answered.
People, the quicksand is up to our necks, our congress and president are impotent to help in any real and meaningful way. Any movement at this point, saddled with more than 39 trillion dollars in federal debt (that's taxpayer debt in case you are wondering) simply cannot be repaid. Ever. Any movement on their part is a token gesture, and don't be misled into thinking that things have been corrected by anything they do. If you never believe one other thing you hear this month, you'd better believe this; know where a safe haven is for you to live; know where your next meals and clean water are coming from; know where true stores of value reside (precious metals, old US coins); be ready for anything; be able to protect yourself and your loved ones, and be ready to provide under poor circumstances. Whether it's a month, a year, or three to five years, it's a matter of time, and you'd better be ready, and all the finger-pointing, blame-game playing, and studious posturing won't make one bit of difference, just as now.
September 22, 2008
5:52 PM
jay writes:
bigfoot, the myths aren't flying either my little footsoldier.
why don't you tell us (using policy stances) why you believe you're going to vote for whomever.
September 22, 2008
6:23 PM
history buff writes:
I embrace the GOP death spiral. It will be like being on the Titanic as it sinks into the brink. Behold, the last coming of Christ may be tens of thousands of years away, but this will be a greater calamity that will shake the pillars of civilization and topple heads of state from Tashkent to Tegucigalpa. We may not live to tell our grandchildren about the collapse of the free market, but they will read about it in the ruins of the toxic waste dump.
As the world fragments into warring states, and money is replaced by barter, courts and law enforcement replaced by gangs, knowledge replaced by superstition, human rights replaced by tyranny, the Rocky replaced by our leader's commandment, time will unwind into the winds of disintegration as more cities are swallowed by hurricanes and global warming toasts the free world into a crispy critter.
So, I proclaim my support to William Henry Harrison and the Marie Antoinette in waiting. Let the adrenaline shock of worldwide panic commence.
Hallelujah!
September 22, 2008
6:30 PM
Pay Attention writes:
My last post unless there are questions. Two sites that contain literally everything a person will need to know (no, I have no affiliation with them):
http://www.greatdreams.com/survival.htm
http://www.survivalring.org/index.php
And if you don't know anything about firearms, learn now. Why? Imagine 2,000,000 hungry people who are not prepared for food or water shortages; will they simply lose their desire to eat and drink and live in a prepared, warm shelter? No. They will be trying to take things from those who have prepared, even if they have to kill to do it.
September 22, 2008
6:31 PM
Rightside writes:
One question.
Where were all you bloggers blaming the mortgage crisis on Bush when it was Clinton who pushed the original legislation to loosen loan requirements to let minorities buy homes?
(cricket, cricket)
Just what I thought.
September 22, 2008
7:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
jeebus rightside ..... don't you see man? ... they're all involved, way before bush, way before clinton, way before reagan .... every time congress allowed spending that devalued the dollar, drove inflation, and screwed the public .... get over blaming it on one person or defending one person ..... and history buff, that's the spirit dude
September 22, 2008
8:09 PM
Rightside writes:
That was not an answer to my question. Dem partisans try to blame the current admin for everything that is currently wrong with no nod to recent history and a backtrack to the actions that brought us here.
I ask again, where were all of you armchair quarterbacks when the whole mess was launched?
September 22, 2008
8:12 PM
Big_D writes:
Well if Bush wouldn’t have reverted to “trickle down” economics this wouldn’t have been an issue. Middle and lower class folks spend money and that builds the economy. Rich folks tend to save money and this stymies our economy. It is based on an economic principle called marginal utility. Bush making the rich richer at the expense of the middle class caused the collapse. See money can build the economy when it is spent but when rich people accumulate it this causes the economy to shrink. This simple economic fact is precisely why the GOP should not be in control. It’s the economy stupid.
September 22, 2008
8:34 PM
Sandy B. writes:
Some hard facts Big Dookie:
The current financial crisis, at least on the real estate and mortgage side started with people like you and me biting off more than they could chew. It's economics stupid. The rich are rich because they don't do stupid things like that.
Middle and lower class folks spend most of their disposable income on housing, food, and education. The rich do the same thing only in greater quantity. They also happen to be the engine that supports major capital investment that makes jobs like yours at Burger King possible.
You demonstrate the narrow minded position that the rich did not work to achieve their success and they all have trust funds. That class warfare/jealousy is the hallmark of liberal ideology.
Please continue in school. You need it.
September 22, 2008
8:45 PM
Anonymous writes:
Let me guess BigD - you adopted that name because it is what you always saw on your report cards, right?
September 22, 2008
9:40 PM
Tbone writes:
rightside-
What legislation was it that clinton passed, specifically?
September 22, 2008
10:09 PM
Jethro writes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/lt_brazil_mccain_s_romance;_ylt=AgDwwgM7yhdplIlsdtZ7h7ph24cA
Wow look at McCains old flame
Man what a looker.
September 22, 2008
10:17 PM
Buy Pesos writes:
"People, the quicksand is up to our necks, our congress and president are impotent to help in any real and meaningful way. Any movement at this point, saddled with more than 39 trillion dollars in federal debt (that's taxpayer debt in case you are wondering) simply cannot be repaid"
Oh thats easy. All the country has to do is declare bankrupcy.
September 23, 2008
7:07 AM
Anonymous writes:
'declare bankrupcy' ... yep, and in the meantime it's a spending spree .....
September 23, 2008
8:26 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
This is not a $700 billion bailout.
It could be, but only if the value of all the real estate behind the bad paper fell to a value of ZERO.
In fact, depending on the prices the Federal Govermment pays, it may make a profit! We'll see though. Hopefully they don't overpay for these assets. 50-60 cents on the dollar punishes the bad actors sufficiently without stripping them completely. Anything over 60 and the Feds are probably taking on more liquidity and default risk than they should accept from these yahoos.
However, if done right, this is a win-win... if they act fast. Is Congress capable of acting fast???
September 23, 2008
11:09 AM
Anonymous writes:
you mean it's not necessarily a $700 billion bailout.... it's actually estimated to likely be in the $200 to $350 billion range from what I've read so far ... and as you point out, it could actually make money for the feds ... what a concept
September 23, 2008
11:25 AM
jay writes:
it's a "win-win" to have to bail out our financial system because of failed conservative policies?
wow.
i didn't know there was enough lipstick on the planet to make this pig attractive.
apparently rush has been working overtime.
September 23, 2008
12:34 PM
history buff writes:
I heard the White House asked Congress to send the $700 Billion to the Secretary of Treasury in unmarked, non-sequential bills.
September 23, 2008
1:20 PM
steveingolden writes:
The Golden Parachute..... McCain said yesterday that he thought limiting the parachutes to the maximum amount that a government worker can make was a reasonable approach. NPR said that (as a sideline note, that's about $400k). That's about the value of my house (at least when I bought it). So therefore, any bank executive who loses his/her job during the bailout should be entitled to a free house according to McCain.
Has anybody noticed similarities between this one and the last? Hints: Savings and Loan, Resolution Trust, Keating 5, Phil Graham, Neil Bush....
It's my understanding that Graham led the de-regulation project last time, McCain was the stong-arm of the Senate that quelled dissent over the S/L deregulation and Neil Bush, welll.... some of us in Colorado remember him.
The last I checked, Neil was selling special software to prepare kids to do better in testing, part of the No Bush (sorry, No Kid) left behind program.
I hope the Democrats take to time to think and not react to quickly, or not in the manner that has been proposed. There's a spin somewhere under the hood....
September 23, 2008
2:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
According to the population census in july 2007 we have 301,139,947 people so if the people fund this 700 billion bail out, that will be $2,324.50 for every man women and child in the United States.
September 23, 2008
2:25 PM
abbey writes:
Hmmm - no punitive measures for the CEOs who dove into this mess headfirst and Paulson wants no oversight and he's a Bush appointee. Why would we trust them with 700 billion to 1 trillion dollars? With Paulson's ties to Goldman Sachs, who will really be benefitting from the bailout?
And further, why all of the urgency now? This little gem regarding the White House press conference today: Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
Again - why the sudden urgency?
September 23, 2008
2:26 PM
Shaggy writes:
jay,
Did you know that McCain knew three years ago that fanny and freddy were cooking the books and tried to get regulations in place but the Democrats blocked them?
Did you know Obama has been the biggest donor recipient out of all the recipients in the last ten years yet he has only been in the senate for three?
Why is it that they don't want an investigation into this?
Could it be they, both sides, don't want everyone to find out how they ALL knew this was going to happen yet refused to do anything about it including warning us?
Don't you think Chris Dodd, Obama, McCain, Barney Franks should all be questioned by a grand jury under oath?
Did you know the top two criminals in these failed mortgage companies are now working as financial advisers to Obama?
Yet I don't hear about any of these truths in the main stream media, I only hear how it is the GOP that caused this mess and anyone with a brain knows that is a lie.
September 23, 2008
2:29 PM
abbey writes:
Hmmm - no punitive measures for the CEOs who dove into this mess headfirst and Paulson wants no oversight and he's a Bush appointee. Why would we trust them with 700 billion to 1 trillion dollars? With Paulson's ties to Goldman Sachs, who will really be benefitting from the bailout?
And further, why all of the urgency now? This little gem regarding the White House press conference today: Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
Again - why the sudden urgency?
September 23, 2008
2:41 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Anonymous:
Bad math. We are already in a deficit, so we'll be borrowing money at [roughly] 3% and investing it in these securities and debt obligations. That's why the governmment/people need to get the price right. If they break even on the transaction, then the cost to the taxpayers is 3% of $700 billion, or $21 billion. If the government drives a hard enough line on these reverse auctions and can extract a discount of 3-10% on the hold-to-maturity value for these obligations, then they have a chance to make money... costing nothing. And if the hold-to-maturity value increases, the chance to make even more money exists. Of course we could have massive government malfeasance, the government could overpay for the debt and leave the taxpayer on the hook... but the true 'cost' to the taxpayer is still just the increased interest burden... not the figure you mentioned.
September 23, 2008
3:05 PM
history buff writes:
It looks like the Republicans are going to vote against the bailout. No doubt they will then campaign against the bailout as some sort of liberal, socialistic, earmark. This may be the best thing for the country, but maybe the Democrats should vote it down so it can't be used against them.
September 23, 2008
3:15 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Apparrantly many here didn't bother to watch the hearings...
Bernanke and Paulson drew a very distinct line regarding institutions in danger of going under, and the government's plan to make a market for illiquid debt obligations. They both were vehement that institutions like AIG and Bear that have had to be bailed out by the government have been punished by taking their stock prices down to near zero and that they had no problem with Congress' desire to punish the executives of these companies.
However they drew a stark line when it came to buying the debt obligations and [rightly] pointed out that by forcing companies to relinquish equity or to punish executives who wished to come to the reverse-auction would only serve to undermine the government's ability to shore up our financial institutions' balance sheets so they could begin to lend again. Senator Reid was disgustingly obtuse on this subject and was obviously just angling for spoundbites on the evening news.
The better and more appropriate questions regarded how to price the debt obligations... because that's how you punish these institutions. You can't buy them too low, or there is no benefit to the financial system... but you can't price them too high or the governmnet is stuck with all the risk and the institutions get a free lunch.
Other great questions regarded how the oversight might be organized... but the Senators (both R and D) were all angling to widen the scope of this bill... and that misses the point. These guys want to create a market for illiquid debt obligations so the nation's financial system doesn't completely break down. That's all... AND that's a lot. Adding motre extraneous regulations, executive pay limitations and homeowner provisions to THIS bill is what amounts to political pandering. Paulson, Cox and Bernanke repeatedly asked the Senators to focus on the need to stabilize the Financial System FIRST. Then they could focus on regulation and homeowner protections and other much needed oversight improvements.
Markets sold off hard in the wake of our Senators' thick-headedness.
The sad thing is that whenever I watch Bernanke or Cox or Paulson testify in front of these committees, I'm alarmed by the number of financially-challenged Congressmen and Senators get on these things. Can't we require some continuing education for these people instead of repeatedly allowing themselves to make fools of themselves in front of some of the most savvy financial thinkers in the country? (and please hold partisan shots here- the same sad impression held true when Greenspan and Rubin would testify in the 90s)
September 23, 2008
3:15 PM
steveingolden writes:
Jay -
cite your sources for the top two criminals....Have they been convicted? Of what? What are the ties? Advisors of what?
I don't think that it's a secret that Phil Graham is one of McCain's "staff" of advisors, and his record (as was McCain's) has consistently been to deregulate everything and let the market go. He is known for his "Reverse Robin Hood and Little John" philosophy of Aristocracy and Kingship over the rest of us.
Even if it's true that Obama has advisors with thumbprints on this debacle, I'd still focus on the one who opened the door of the safe and invited everyone in... and not the first time (Enron, for example). He's what we would get for a financial advisor if McCain wins????
Why shouldn't the public need to know this?
September 23, 2008
3:23 PM
steveingolden writes:
I agree with History Buff (my previous comment about a spin under the hood). It's a trap to recognize, to walk around, and to find another way.
September 23, 2008
3:51 PM
Shaggy writes:
I'm finding out that Obama actually fought against the bill to regulate fanny and freddy because he was taking a lot of money from them.
McCain was trying to push the regulation bill.
This is all going to come tumbling down on Obama when this gets out...
September 23, 2008
4:11 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Five lies about the Paulson Plan that were repeated by Congress all day (according to Jim Cramer):
1. It doesn't address the real problem of people getting kicked out of their homes.
2. The plan costs too much.
3. The executives satnd to make too much money.
4. The bailout will force banks to mark down their assets and put the system in trouble.
5. There's no rush to get this done.
The plan is big, awful and nasty... and yet it's a necessary big, awful nasty plan.
Get the oversight straighened out and PASS THE PLAN QUICKLY!!!
September 23, 2008
4:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
shag, get in touch w/ some reality. Where are you finding out your information, faux, rush, oreilly,hannity, the true pillars of GOP propaganda. God you are on pathetic human being. Did you even graduate from high school.
September 23, 2008
4:23 PM
Shaggy writes:
McCain has even called for Chris Cox's firing.
Chris Cox is an appointee by Bush and just goes to show how he is willing to call a spade a spade regardless of party affiliation.
The Dems blocked the effort to regulate fanny and freddy and Obama was one of them leading the charge.
McCain recognized the situation three years ago and was trying to put tougher regulations on them.
We need a swift and immediate investigation.
Lets throw the clowns in front of a GJ.
Chris Dood and Barnet Franks needs to be made to resign in disgrace.
September 23, 2008
4:26 PM
jay writes:
the problem, ftc, is that the paulson plan had no oversight reform in it.
September 23, 2008
4:39 PM
MissingThe Point writes:
Um hey guys instead of pointing fingers at the Dems or the republicans, we should be talking about the fact that this is happening at all. I could care less who did it or what kind of concessions are being made by either side. It seems that no one is actually against the whole thing regardless of who is "at fault".
Everyone that took a loan they knew they couldn't pay back is at fault. Both political parties are at fault. But this is a free market economy not a socialist country.
Bailout is not the answer and I don't think we should do it at all.
If you're a business owner and your business fails should the government bail you out? No, and just because these businesses are bigger than your business does that somehow give them priority? The people that are going to lose their house are already losing their house now. They say it's bailout or recession but we're already in a recession. We're at 6.2% unemployment, people are losing their jobs now, just as before. How can we justify privatization of profit and socializing the losses? Free markets correct themselves and that's what this one is doing.
Did you actually believe that we could go on like this? This frenzy of consumerism, this extending of credit, this absolutely ridiculous economy? Of course this was going to happen. We need only look to history to see what has happened and what will happen again.
The dollar is weak, we have a stagnate economy, insane inflation, stagflation anyone? What did we do in the 70's? Well we raised interest rates to 20+%. It was painful but it was required within the framework of the FED. Do you think that won't happen again? Do you think this bailout is going to end our economic problems? It won't and in the end we'll be $700 Billion dollars poorer and have the exact same problem.
Did anyone pay attention to the fact that they are just propping up the system with this bail out? They want to purchase these homes at full value. Not the value of the homes as they are now. That's a pipe dream. We're never going to get that money back, nor will it be payed back to us. The government doesn't pay back the countries we borrow money from, do you think there is any intention to pay you and I back?
We should revolt against using our money to bail out poor decisions and bad law. I don't know about you but I already don't have enough money. I certainly haven't seen a government program to bail me out.
And oh yeah, where are we going to get this money? China, Japan, Saudi Arabia. Sweet, we're going to borrow money from the very people that attacked us on 9/11. (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi's) That's probably not a big surprise since we've been doing it all along. I don't think I have to say much about communist China and Japan has already suffered this very type of economic breakdown and they're all still here.
Will it be painless? No. But there is no situation in which it will not be painless. It just depends on if you want to drag this out for years like the Great Depression or if you want to deal with the pain band-aid style. It's going to hurt regardless but at least it won't go on forever.
September 23, 2008
4:43 PM
MissingThe Point writes:
Um hey guys instead of pointing fingers at the Dems or the republicans, we should be talking about the fact that this is happening at all. I could care less who did it or what kind of concessions are being made by either side. It seems that no one is actually against the whole thing regardless of who is "at fault".
Everyone that took a loan they knew they couldn't pay back is at fault. Both political parties are at fault. But this is a free market economy not a socialist country.
Bailout is not the answer and I don't think we should do it at all.
If you're a business owner and your business fails should the government bail you out? No, and just because these businesses are bigger than your business does that somehow give them priority? The people that are going to lose their house are already losing their house now. They say it's bailout or recession but we're already in a recession. We're at 6.2% unemployment, people are losing their jobs now, just as before. How can we justify privatization of profit and socializing the losses? Free markets correct themselves and that's what this one is doing.
Did you actually believe that we could go on like this? This frenzy of consumerism, this extending of credit, this absolutely ridiculous economy? Of course this was going to happen. We need only look to history to see what has happened and what will happen again.
The dollar is weak, we have a stagnate economy, insane inflation, stagflation anyone? What did we do in the 70's? Well we raised interest rates to 20+%. It was painful but it was required within the framework of the FED. Do you think that won't happen again? Do you think this bailout is going to end our economic problems? It won't and in the end we'll be $700 Billion dollars poorer and have the exact same problem.
Did anyone pay attention to the fact that they are just propping up the system with this bail out? They want to purchase these homes at full value. Not the value of the homes as they are now. That's a pipe dream. We're never going to get that money back, nor will it be payed back to us. The government doesn't pay back the countries we borrow money from, do you think there is any intention to pay you and I back?
We should revolt against using our money to bail out poor decisions and bad law. I don't know about you but I already don't have enough money. I certainly haven't seen a government program to bail me out.
And oh yeah, where are we going to get this money? China, Japan, Saudi Arabia. Sweet, we're going to borrow money from the very people that attacked us on 9/11. (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi's) That's probably not a big surprise since we've been doing it all along. I don't think I have to say much about communist China and Japan has already suffered this very type of economic breakdown and they're all still here.
Will it be painless? No. But there is no situation in which it will not be painless. It just depends on if you want to drag this out for years like the Great Depression or if you want to deal with the pain band-aid style. It's going to hurt regardless but at least it won't go on forever.
September 23, 2008
4:46 PM
MissingThe Point writes:
Um hey guys instead of pointing fingers at the Dems or the republicans, we should be talking about the fact that this is happening at all. I could care less who did it or what kind of concessions are being made by either side. It seems that no one is actually against the whole thing regardless of who is "at fault".
Everyone that took a loan they knew they couldn't pay back is at fault. Both political parties are at fault. But this is a free market economy not a socialist country.
Bailout is not the answer and I don't think we should do it at all.
If you're a business owner and your business fails should the government bail you out? No, and just because these businesses are bigger than your business does that somehow give them priority? The people that are going to lose their house are already losing their house now. They say it's bailout or recession but we're already in a recession. We're at 6.2% unemployment, people are losing their jobs now, just as before. How can we justify privatization of profit and socializing the losses? Free markets correct themselves and that's what this one is doing.
Did you actually believe that we could go on like this? This frenzy of consumerism, this extending of credit, this absolutely ridiculous economy? Of course this was going to happen. We need only look to history to see what has happened and what will happen again.
The dollar is weak, we have a stagnate economy, insane inflation, stagflation anyone? What did we do in the 70's? Well we raised interest rates to 20+%. It was painful but it was required within the framework of the FED. Do you think that won't happen again? Do you think this bailout is going to end our economic problems? It won't and in the end we'll be $700 Billion dollars poorer and have the exact same problem.
Did anyone pay attention to the fact that they are just propping up the system with this bail out? They want to purchase these homes at full value. Not the value of the homes as they are now. That's a pipe dream. We're never going to get that money back, nor will it be payed back to us. The government doesn't pay back the countries we borrow money from, do you think there is any intention to pay you and I back?
We should revolt against using our money to bail out poor decisions and bad law. I don't know about you but I already don't have enough money. I certainly haven't seen a government program to bail me out.
And oh yeah, where are we going to get this money? China, Japan, Saudi Arabia. Sweet, we're going to borrow money from the very people that attacked us on 9/11. (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi's) That's probably not a big surprise since we've been doing it all along. I don't think I have to say much about communist China and Japan has already suffered this very type of economic breakdown and they're all still here.
Will it be painless? No. But there is no situation in which it will not be painless. It just depends on if you want to drag this out for years like the Great Depression or if you want to deal with the pain band-aid style. It's going to hurt regardless but at least it won't go on forever.
September 23, 2008
4:49 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Jay,
Paulson addressed that in his opening statement.
The plan was a PROPOSAL and an OUTLINE and apparrantly they were talking about oversight ALL WEEKEND behind closed doors, but these yahoos had to get on TV and look tough by taking Paulson and Bernanke and Cox to task for it... nice. Way to work on a solution! Both Bernanke and Paulson stressed that they welcomed transparancy and oversight, that it was a necessary and integral part of the plan's success and that they thought it had to be worked out with Congress so including it in the plan would have been extraneous. Their job was to present a solution to the financial crisis. It's up to Congress to decide how to oversee it. But those yahoos were more concerned about working the problem... instead of working the solution.
And they threw in a whole bunch of extraneous and financially ignorant topics just to get some soundbites.
If they want to work out the oversight issue, they could certainly figure out a mechanism by Friday. If they want to debate executive compensation AND hash out how all the specific securities and debt obligations will be priced AND debate the need for swapping equity for access to the reverse-auction window AND load homeowner provisions into the bill AND include SEC reforms in the bill AND load it up with new Fed regulations regarding bank regulations AND try to add provisions to prevent institutions from profiting from the reverse-auction...
then we might as well stop the hearings now, because by then it won't make a difference.
September 23, 2008
5:18 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Missing The Point:
You are aptly named!
This is a plan to create a market for illiquid debt obligations so they can be priced to their hold-to-maturity value instead of at an illiquid market rate.
Your analysis fails to address this.
This plan attempts to value debt obligations at the underlying asset value and will help the people trying to stay in their homes by allowing the financial system to PROPERLY value these assets.
Otherwise let's all grab a paddle, because we will all be up the brown creek together!
September 23, 2008
5:36 PM
Shaggy writes:
anon @ 4:18,
Instead of trying to belittle me why don't you try and discuss the facts?
September 23, 2008
5:38 PM
Shaggy writes:
anon @ 4:18,
Go look up Senate bill 190, who introduced it and who blocked it then come back and tell me what you found.
September 23, 2008
6:30 PM
history buff writes:
The bailout proposal seems elegant in terms of theory, but it is hard to grasp for someone like me who is dealing with the immediate problems faced by distressed homeowners.
By buying properties at hold-until-maturity values, the government is attempting to stabilize home prices. That looks fine for the banks that have to consider the value of the collateral pledged for their loans, but it also removes the risk from the banks. If the government's actions don't stop home prices from falling, or if the properties bought by the government are indeed toxic, resulting in an inordinate amount of defaults on loans purchased by the government, it seems that the tax payers not only assume the bank's risk but absorb its losses as well.
Bernanke said that the tax payers are on the hook either way and that the bailout presents the best option to minimize losses. That would have to be explained to me. Because, it seems to me, if the government can buy loans at market value, which is lower than hold-until-maturity value, at least home mortgages could be renegotiated at the real market price. And wouldn't that be a way of establishing a realistic value for those assets?
I'm trying to understand, but the bailout looks like a price support for loans and re-fi's that were made during a period when home prices exceeded today's real market price. Because loans made before that period of appreciation would maintain the equity at the time of purchase. The only loss to those previous loans would only be attributable to a change in the market price of the collateral. There would be a loss of capital gain, but the loans themselves would still be secure.
EGAD! Who do you believe?
September 23, 2008
6:59 PM
jay writes:
ftc, you still haven't addressed the fact that paulson/bernanke's plan had no oversight plans in it.
until it contains provisions to deal with the underlying problems that put us in this situation in the first place, only 25% of the country will continue to support it and will continue to blame this mess on the republicans by a 2 to 1 margin.
there is simply no need to rush into yet another bad initiative....ie, the patriot act.
September 23, 2008
7:39 PM
Shaggy writes:
I have never seen the intelligent left so scared.
September 23, 2008
8:58 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Jay: Way to keep working the problem and not the solution. You should run for Congress. They're good at that.
There were many suggestions today regarding oversight of the $700 billion.
Both Paulson and Bernanke were eager to discuss oversight of the proposed plan. But both warned that the financial markets needed to be fixed FIRST. The autopsy to determine the cause of death of our old financial system will have to wait. We have to save our current financial system now.
Discussing "provisions to deal with the underlying problems that put us in this situation in the first place" would take months and could slip into next year... and by then it would be too late.
They need money to make a market for illiquid debt securities and to liquidate assets of failing or failed institutions. THAT has nothing to do with modifications to SEC or Fed regulations, the securitized debt markets, default swaps, mark-to-market rules, easy money policies, executive compensation, etc.
That all needs to be dealt with... but not in this bill... not now. Will some sneak in? You can count on it, but if the basics of this plan isn't put into place by the end of the week and these guys go on break to hit the stump, it will be costly. As financially moronic as these guys were today, they likely understand that (at least). There will be something in place in a week. I just hope they spend a lot of time working out the oversight of the plan rather than fighting the last financial Waterloo all over again... committee meeting after committee meeting after committee meeting.
September 23, 2008
9:08 PM
charleydan writes:
Rock bottom. We are in deflation already(house prices dropping) and recession is most likely already here, but no one wants to use the term for what they are trying to avoid.
Panic.
If anyone has looked at their banks standing, most have already gone to Tier 1. Next watch list of the Federal Reserve. Just looking at there stocks falling tells what is going on.
If they bail the industry out, trillions most likely. They have rewarded the banks and not only left the taxpayer with the bill...
Worst, hyper-inflation. The government has never saved a dime so the money comes out of the Federal Reserve thin air. Remember in a fiat monetary system the last one to get the dollars, gets them after inflation, ussually the poor. The first receivers(rich/banks) have dollars of value. So the banks get a bonus to boot. And the dollar is worth less.
This is rewarding the rich and the poor get dumped on double fold.
Anyone who believes in free enterprise would say. Let the banks pay the consequences. And the citizentry will live thru their non-sense.
After all, Germany has already taken an 59 billion dollar hit on this. And says they will lend no more. They believe our government is not being fair with its citizentry by bailing the banks. Let the banks go back and sell stocks to rebuild their capital resources or fold.
Recession, if not here is coming soon to your neighborhood. Do not let them tell you otherwise.
I vote with Germany.
September 23, 2008
9:31 PM
me2 writes:
The regulated banks under the FDIC are losing funds as people quickly take money from these safe investments into what they think the government will shore up. The bank managers are getting ready to complain en mass about this.
read the story on Wall St. Journal site, and NYT.
September 23, 2008
11:15 PM
awakenedcitizen writes:
Lots of good observations here today. I just got an outline of principles Obama has laid out:
• No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.
• Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.
• Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.
September 24, 2008
7:36 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
FBI TARGETS DEM'S ATM--FANNIE MAE!
The FBI has four major US financial institutions in its crosshairs for triggering the potential collapse of Wall Street and the need for a $700 billion federal bailout plan, law-enforcement officials said yesterday.
Citing potential fraud charges, the feds are probing mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and insurer American International Group Inc., which last night signed papers making its $85 billion federal loan official.
Follow the Fannie Mae money trail, engineered by former CEO Franklin Raines who Deloite Touche found to be cooking the books, right to D-Senator Chris Dodd and affirmative action empty-suit Barack Obama who were #1 and #2 on Fannie's political gift list, respectively.
P.S. Raines also joined the Obama campaign as FINANCIAL ADVISER on housing matters. Can you connect the dots? Stay tuned for more on the biggest heist in the history of the planet!
September 24, 2008
7:58 AM
Bill writes:
I do not understand.
They found a sasquatch and it turned out to be an empty gorilla suit. Totally fake and totally plastic.
And here it is posting lies on RMN
24/7
how can something dead and fake
type a keyboard?
I do not unnerstand
September 24, 2008
8:03 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
WSJ: MORE BAILOUTS PLANNED:
1. Barney "Big Un" Baumgartner of Windblown, Wyo., invited the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department to take over his business, The Big Un 24 Hour Tow Service and Trophy Taxidermy. He'd be willing to let the government have 80% of his business for a quick cash infusion. He thought something in the neighborhood of $1.8 million should do the trick. That would be enough to gas up his two tow trucks, get some new taxidermy stuffing and clean up that overdue account at the Number 10 Saloon and Casino over in Deadwood, S.D.
2. A pawn shop in Reno, Nev., has an excess supply of eight-track cassette players, flower print shirts, broad white belts and Wayne Newton tapes, having gambled that the '70s would come roaring back. The owner pleaded for a Treasury take-over, arguing, "How can the government stand by and let such a rich part of our American culture simply fade away?"
3.The owner of an NFL poster shop in Green Bay, Wis., reports that he has given up on divine intervention and is now asking for Treasury to take over his business in a last-ditch effort to preserve the notion that whatever our differences, we're all Americans.
4. Darlene Dalrymple owner of the Shear Joy Hairstyling and Tattoo Salon in Rockhard, Vt., wrote Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, inviting him and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to her shop for a free trim and tat if they'd also help with her balance sheet. Ms. Dalrymple said she's very busy, but her expenses somehow always exceed her income. She suspects her boyfriend, who likes to use a lot of Wall Street lingo he picks up watching business channels on TV, is shorting her cash register.
P.S.: SASQUATCH LOST A FEW BUCKS IN THE MARKET LATELY...SO WHO MAKES ME WHOLE? WHO BAILS MY HAIRY BUTT?
September 24, 2008
8:09 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
WSJ: MORE BAILOUTS PLANNED:
1. Barney "Big Un" Baumgartner of Windblown, Wyo., invited the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department to take over his business, The Big Un 24 Hour Tow Service and Trophy Taxidermy. He'd be willing to let the government have 80% of his business for a quick cash infusion. He thought something in the neighborhood of $1.8 million should do the trick. That would be enough to gas up his two tow trucks, get some new taxidermy stuffing and clean up that overdue account at the Number 10 Saloon and Casino over in Deadwood, S.D.
2. A pawn shop in Reno, Nev., has an excess supply of eight-track cassette players, flower print shirts, broad white belts and Wayne Newton tapes, having gambled that the '70s would come roaring back. The owner pleaded for a Treasury take-over, arguing, "How can the government stand by and let such a rich part of our American culture simply fade away?"
3.The owner of an NFL poster shop in Green Bay, Wis., reports that he has given up on divine intervention and is now asking for Treasury to take over his business in a last-ditch effort to preserve the notion that whatever our differences, we're all Americans.
4. Darlene Dalrymple owner of the Shear Joy Hairstyling and Tattoo Salon in Rockhard, Vt., wrote Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, inviting him and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to her shop for a free trim and tat if they'd also help with her balance sheet. Ms. Dalrymple said she's very busy, but her expenses somehow always exceed her income. She suspects her boyfriend, who likes to use a lot of Wall Street lingo he picks up watching business channels on TV, is shorting her cash register.
P.S. SASQUATCH LOST A FEW BUCKS IN THE MARKET OF LATE...SO WHO MAKES ME WHOLE? WHO BAILS MY HAIRY BUTTOX?
September 24, 2008
8:11 AM
Anonymous writes:
"P.S.: SASQUATCH LOST A FEW BUCKS IN THE MARKET LATELY...SO WHO MAKES ME WHOLE? WHO BAILS MY HAIRY BUTT?"
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/sen-larry-craig.html
This guy will
hes very interested
September 24, 2008
8:50 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
WALL STREET JOURNAL--OBAMA'S $105,849 FANNIE/FREDDIE JACKPOT:
"Sen. Obama has received $105,849 from donors tied to Fannie and Freddie since he ran for the senate four years ago, making him the third-largest recipient in Congress among the top 25 listed in a recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics, which examined contributions dating to 1989."
Former Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, now under FBI investigation and earlier fingered by Deloite Touche to have cooked Fannie's books, has joined the Obama campaign as Financial Adviser!
FOLLOW THE MONEY...CAN YOU CONNECT THE DOTS?
September 24, 2008
8:53 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
WALL STREET JOURNAL--OBAMA'S $105,849 FANNIE/FREDDIE JACKPOT:
"Sen. Obama has received $105,849 from donors tied to Fannie and Freddie since he ran for the senate four years ago, making him the third-largest recipient in Congress among the top 25 listed in a recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics, which examined contributions dating to 1989."
Former Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, now under FBI investigation and earlier fingered by Deloite Touche to have cooked Fannie's books, has joined the Obama campaign as Financial Adviser!
FOLLOW THE MONEY...CAN YOU CONNECT THE DOTS?
September 24, 2008
8:57 AM
jay writes:
"Both Paulson and Bernanke were eager to discuss oversight of the proposed plan. "
then why weren't such provisions included in their bailout plan, ftc?
i'm willing to wait a few days to do this right instead of rushing into yet another bad plan...ie...the patriot act...
September 24, 2008
9:27 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
OVERSIGHT? BY HAIRY BUTTOX, OVERSIGHT!
So we are supposed to pemit government employees "oversight" over other government employees--the very same crooks who cooked the books--at Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) like Fannie and Freddie? What's that about the fox and the hen house? Let's face it, Fannie and Freddie were government ATMs, predominately and overwhelmingly abused by Dems. Put that crooked crowd on the oversight team? Are we nuts?
People need to be convicted of felonies and go to jail. Money needs to be returned by the management who engineered the frauds, cooked the books and paid themselves big bonuses. Money also needs to be returned by all those who were on the receiving end of the fraud (to the tune of $105,849 in Obama's case). The list is huge.
Where are the investigations? Why has the FBI taken so long to finally get involved?
When can we see the first convictions a la Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Qwest, etc. What happened to SarBox that required exec signatures to validate and guarantee the financial reports submitted to the SEC?
We don't need oversight; we need to enforce existing laws. By definition, the law IS oversight!
September 24, 2008
9:32 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
OVERSIGHT? BY HAIRY BUTTOX, OVERSIGHT!
So we are supposed to pemit government employees "oversight" over other government employees--the very same crooks who cooked the books--at Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) like Fannie and Freddie? What's that about the fox and the hen house? Let's face it, Fannie and Freddie were government ATMs, predominately and overwhelmingly abused by Dems. Put that crooked crowd on the oversight team? Are we nuts?
People need to be convicted of felonies and go to jail. Money needs to be returned by the management who engineered the frauds, cooked the books and paid themselves big bonuses. Money also needs to be returned by all those who were on the receiving end of the fraud (to the tune of $105,849 in Obama's case). The list is huge.
Where are the investigations? Why has the FBI taken so long to finally get involved?
When can we see the first convictions a la Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Qwest, etc. What happened to SarBox that required exec signatures to validate and guarantee the financial reports submitted to the SEC?
September 24, 2008
9:45 AM
history buff writes:
MCCAIN CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAID AT LEAST $375,000 BY FREDDIE MAC SINCE 2006
Not merely campaign contributions, money to his organization to lobby in Congress.
Connect the dots....the dots....the dots...the dots...the dots....the dots....
If you stark drinking too early in the day, those dots are gonna create some confusing patterns.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print
September 24, 2008
10:07 AM
history buff writes:
MORE ON MCCAIN SCANDAL
"neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month" -- Newsweek
Davis is Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain.
And now Rick Davis ducks reporters.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/john_mccain_campaign_manager_r.html
Connect those dots, baby................
September 24, 2008
10:40 AM
Atom Smasher writes:
With this entire mortgage/banking/bailout debacle, I say let it fall and go boom.
I'm tired of privatizing the profit and socializing the risks and failures. No more S&L bailouts. No more insurance company bailouts. No more banking bailouts. No more mortgage company bailouts. Enough is way more than enough.
The taxpayers are not an endless revenue stream that can be tapped to correct the shortfall created by poor, greed-induced, risk-laden management. Take the salaries and bonuses and property from those who have failed the American people.
Then make congress do their jobs and live within their means.
September 24, 2008
11:02 AM
JMH writes:
"JMH, i guess rush limpdick can't even come up w/ talking points for his sheep today on this topic. Pretty quite from the guillable old party boys today."
It's pretty funny actually. It looks like the employees (ie middle class employees) can see what the GOP has done to the economy since they are contributing to Obama, but it seems the POLITICAL donations (BRIBES) are coming from the top of these companies and THEY want to see "more of the same"
"JMH, you said you were from New York, is that right. If so I just wondered what you thought about yankee stadium going down and it you ever say a game there."
Ya AM, I grew up in NYC a Mets fan and always hated the Yankees, but it is sad to see the old place go. But I just went to Yankke staduim for the 1st time a few months ago. Wanted to see it before it was gone. Place is a dump, but the new one is beautiful. The outside that I saw anyway... Too bad it's still in the South Bronx...
I'm planning a trip next spring/summer to see both the new Mets and New Yankees stadiums. The New Mets one is a mix between old Ebbets field (Brooklyn Dodgers)and Coors field. It is real nice from some of the pictures I have seen.
Hogar, I would love to get rid of all PAC's. I do wish Ron Paul was the GOP nominee, I would actually have to make a real choice in this election. The GOP going with McSame and the NeoCon Barbie made my choice easy!
September 24, 2008
11:10 AM
Matt writes:
It's time for all the liberal foot soldiers to put some responsibility on their chosen leaders.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
September 24, 2008
11:35 AM
jay writes:
matt, if you put garbage in...you get garbage out.
from your opinion piece:
"Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own"
maybe you can tell us why W vetoed the bipartisan 2005 bill to increase oversight in the fiscal markets?
September 24, 2008
11:50 AM
Shaggy writes:
Matt,
Pay no attention to jay.
jay is not a real person but rather a high tech computer virus that somehow avoids the anti virus scanner of RTL and just keeps on spamming the same lies over and over and.........
Little do the Libtards know but this whole mortgage crisis is caused by the feel good Democrtas wanting to hand out loans to unqualified borrowers and while they were at it they were lining their own pockets.
September 24, 2008
11:59 AM
JW writes:
"Little do the Libtards know but this whole mortgage crisis is caused by the feel good Democrtas wanting to hand out loans to unqualified borrowers and while they were at it they were lining their own pockets."
How many loans resulted from Clinton's policies Shaggy?
You dont know.
What percentage of those loans have gone into foreclosure?
You dont know.
What percentage of foreclosures were the loans?
You dont know.
So why are you saying its the Democrats fault?
Because youre an idiot.
September 24, 2008
12:00 PM
jay writes:
more conspiracy theories, shaggy?
maybe you can tell us why W vetoed the bill that could have fixed the mess we're in.
September 24, 2008
12:02 PM
jay writes:
more conspiracy theories, shaggy?
maybe you can tell us why W vetoed the bill that could have fixed the mess we're in.
September 24, 2008
12:16 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
HALL OF SHAME...CULTURE OF CORRUPTION:
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008, with the new guy on the block, who wasn't there for most of 1989-2008 no other than Barack Obama!
Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499
7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000
8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991
9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S R-MO $55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300
12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000
13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750
14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750
15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389
16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750
18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249
19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750
21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700
24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500
25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750
September 24, 2008
12:16 PM
Matt writes:
Thats exactly it Shag. I would engage but it would be like debating with a rock.
September 24, 2008
12:17 PM
Shaggy writes:
Did you guys know that McCain introduced senate bill #190 in 2005 that would impose tougher regulations on franny and freddy but the Democrats openly said they would block it including O' whats hi name?
Of course you didn't because you are blind partisian idiots.
jayspambot, I am not defending Bush, I do not like this bail out one bit. I want the CEO's to forfeit their bonuses and be thrown in jail but it looks as though Obama has them working for him now, giving him financial advice.
September 24, 2008
12:20 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
HALL OF SHAME...CULTURE OF CORRUPTION:
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008, with the new guy on the block, who wasn't there for most of 1989-2008 no other than Barack Obama!
Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499
7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000
8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991
9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S R-MO $55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300
12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000
13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750
14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750
15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389
16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750
18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249
19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750
21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700
24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500
25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750
September 24, 2008
1:44 PM
history buff writes:
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, received more money from Freddie Mac through his lobbying firm from 1989-2008 than everyone combined on the top 25 list.
Of course, it is easy for the WACKOS to start trying to put blame on people than to understand the problem. It's not like the housing industry has driven our economy since WWII. And it's not like there aren't a hundred million people trying to cash in on that market. And it's not as though many of the loans purchased in the secondary market contained false information about borrower earnings, or the value of the security.
As I understand it, he FMs are to facilitate the market by turning illiquid assets into liquid assets. One of the ways to do that is to create mortgage backed securities. But, the mortgage backed securities that Paulson and Bernanke call illiquid were created by Wall Street wizards. The use of derivatives to pool risk among various levels of risk in one instrument are so complex that there is no market mechanism to value them, because no one understands them. At least that is what it sounded like at the hearing yesterday. So, part of the bailout is intended to create a market where there is no market for very complicated securities that have no approximate value. But the presentation was great. Paulson is a smooth, silver-tongued salesman, and he made it sound like such a good deal for the taxpayers, even though he is rolling out a public offering of junk securities.
At any rate, the attack piece by McCain's financial adviser hardly addresses the reality of the bailout. I think this article is much better.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-09-23-toxic-paper-bailout_N.htm
September 24, 2008
2:37 PM
Brunowolfe writes:
Unbelivable.....what job can you walk into your bosses office, tell him that the whole company is going to fail if he doesn't immediately give you a blank check for a huge sum of money to buy things that are "illiquid", without any oversight of the money, for something that you were supposed to be in charge of but let get to the point of dissaster,,,,without getting thrown out on your azz....no management job I've ever had...
And then have your boss barely look at it and say "ok, lets push forward on it by going for funding approval", without your boss being fired?!?!?!
Bush has done the same kind of stuff before (invade Iraq, telephone listening, etc.,). If this crisis is really so bad that we can't take a
week to review it and put some thought into it, Paulson and Bernanke should be fired immediately for dereliction of duty.
Bush's legacy will be one of a surplus turned to massive debt, deciet and misguided action (Iraq), the introduction of torture and disregard for human rights for capturees (Guantanamo), crisis' expanding while appointed over their head cronys flounder (huricane Katrina, current banking fiasco, etc.). At least Hoover cared about people...
September 24, 2008
2:38 PM
Brunowolfe writes:
Unbelivable.....what job can you walk into your bosses office, tell him that the whole company is going to fail if he doesn't immediately give you a blank check for a huge sum of money to buy things that are "illiquid", without any oversight of the money, for something that you were supposed to be in charge of but let get to the point of dissaster,,,,without getting thrown out on your azz....no management job I've ever had...
And then have your boss barely look at it and say "ok, lets push forward on it by going for funding approval", without your boss being fired?!?!?!
Bush has done the same kind of stuff before (invade Iraq, telephone listening, etc.,). If this crisis is really so bad that we can't take a
week to review it and put some thought into it, Paulson and Bernanke should be fired immediately for dereliction of duty.
Bush's legacy will be one of a surplus turned to massive debt, deciet and misguided action (Iraq), the introduction of torture and disregard for human rights for capturees (Guantanamo), crisis' expanding while appointed over their head cronys flounder (huricane Katrina, current banking fiasco, etc.). At least Hoover cared about people...
September 24, 2008
2:39 PM
Brunowolfe writes:
Unbelivable.....what job can you walk into your bosses office, tell him that the whole company is going to fail if he doesn't immediately give you a blank check for a huge sum of money to buy things that are "illiquid", without any oversight of the money, for something that you were supposed to be in charge of but let get to the point of dissaster,,,,without getting thrown out on your azz....no management job I've ever had...
And then have your boss barely look at it and say "ok, lets push forward on it by going for funding approval", without your boss being fired?!?!?!
Bush has done the same kind of stuff before (invade Iraq, telephone listening, etc.,). If this crisis is really so bad that we can't take a
week to review it and put some thought into it, Paulson and Bernanke should be fired immediately for dereliction of duty.
Bush's legacy will be one of a surplus turned to massive debt, deciet and misguided action (Iraq), the introduction of torture and disregard for human rights for capturees (Guantanamo), crisis' expanding while appointed over their head cronys flounder (huricane Katrina, current banking fiasco, etc.). At least Hoover cared about people...
September 24, 2008
3:46 PM
Economics with Reality writes:
You lefties can't appreciate that the "surplus" was just a reflection of accounting maneuvers to put the best light on the state of the government deficit (which by the way has never gone away) for political purposes.
It definitely gets your panties up in a twist.
LOL
September 24, 2008
7:39 PM
Brunowolfe writes:
Economics with Reality writes:
You lefties can't appreciate that the "surplus" was just a reflection of accounting maneuvers
yea....and you "righties" will try any way possible to excavate your side from either the point or your culpability....LOL
September 24, 2008
9:12 PM
Magic Surplus writes:
So Bruno- where was this mountain of money you are referring to? Did you envision the end of a rainbow or some fiscal leprechaun guarding a pot of gold?
How stupid could you possibly be?
Really now...
September 25, 2008
8:10 AM
JW writes:
"So Bruno- where was this mountain of money you are referring to? Did you envision the end of a rainbow or some fiscal leprechaun guarding a pot of gold?
How stupid could you possibly be?
Really now..."
Youre an idiot. We were paying down the debt. The "Surplus" meant that the tax income was larger than our spending.
Dont think so? Well, its not because you have FACTS to the contrary. Its because youre a partisan stooge.
Read Greenspan's book. He talks about supporting the tax cut plans of both Gore and Bush in the 2k elections because at the rate we were going, we would have paid off the debt in 6 years. He didnt want that to happen, because then the feds would have no choice but to start buying private businesses. Funny, 8 years of Bush deficit spending has ended up with us probably doing EXACTLY that.
September 25, 2008
6:21 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) The public school system can cause irreversible brain damage writes:
Big D,
I realize that you are probably a product of the public school system, but the article was a NEW YORK TIMES article. The fact that I linked it off the Free Repbublic does not change the fact that the original article was from the NYT.