Shock Capitalism Abetting Fascism

[boutons_]

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY
TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS


Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer. :lol Holy fucking shit!! These assholes have great sense of humor

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

===============

So Paulson can do what the fuck he wants, untouchable by Congress or Judicial branches, both of who are rendered totally powerless, just a dickhead, Black Addington the neo-cunts, conservatives have wanted forever.

Bascially $1T wealth from taxpayers into the hands of capitalists, to buy debt toilet paper which isn't worthy to wipe your ass with.

The capitalists are going to come out on top. One has to wonder if this hasn't been the plan of the "elites" all along. Fuck the hated govt into debt hole that it will never escape from, then slash & burn Medicare, Medicaid, discretionary spending, while pushing the defense budget towards $1T to fight imaginary threats.

[The Reckoning]

uhhh...the surpreme court needs to wake the hell up and stop "working from home"

[SnakeBoy]

Yeah, I'm torn over the whole thing. Not at all happy with giving the government this kind of power (unconstitutional btw) yet I don't want to see mainstreet killed by wallstreet.

I've turned to the candidates for guidance.

McCain doesn't like the plan and is calling for a "Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust" which would focus more on strengthening the US dollar instead of just bail outs. Not sure what to make of that yet.

Obama says he supports something "bold". Which I assume means he hasn't been told what to think yet but will let us know as soon as it shows up on the teleprompter.

http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=107910

[ElNono]

Well, this operation has a lot of ingredients of what this administration has been doing:
1) Spend a shitload of money we don't have and that our kids and grandkids are going to have to repay. (Iraq war)
2) Give a single dude extraordinary powers. (Bush after 9/11)
3) Ensure there will be no oversight or accountability (personal email accounts to conduct official business)
4) Keep on shitting on the laws and the Constitution where there can be no oversight from any other governent branch. (NSA wiretaps, Gitmo)
5) Democrats go along this whole fucking charade

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

No oversight or accountability? Fuck no :td

[The Reckoning]

we need to put ron paul in the supreme court

[boutons_]

"Spend a shitload of money"

More specifically, transfer of $1T of PUBLIC treasure into capitalists' PRIVATE accounts, in return for garbage debt paper, letting the super-wealthy capitalists OFF THEIR SELF-CREATED HOOK, as a reward for those capitalists FUCKING UP at a historic, legendary level.

Watch very closely, if Paulson doesn't hide it, how much on the $1 valuation he pays for this pile of shit. 60 cents on the bubbled $? 30 cents on the bubbled $? 60 cents paid for shit is a great deal to the shit makers and sellers, because they can't off-load it for 0 cents now. US taxpayers as shit-eater of last resort.

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/choke/choke_88x31.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=68b6bd78/17495372&camp=foxsearch2008_emailtools_810907e_nyt5&ad=choke88x31&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/choke/)

September 21, 2008

The Wall Street Bailout Plan, Explained
By DAVID STOUT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/david_stout/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON — News reports about the upheaval in the world of finance have been full of esoteric terms like “mortgage-backed securities” and “credit-default swaps (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_default_swaps/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier),” but the crisis has resonated for people who know little about Wall Street and who did not think they would ever have to know. Here are several questions and answers of concern to Main Street Americans:

Q. The bailout program being negotiated by the Bush administration and Congressional leaders calls for the government to spend up to $700 billion to buy distressed mortgages. How did the politicians come up with that number, and could it go higher?

A. The recovery package cannot go higher than $700 billion without additional legislation. As for that figure, it lies between the optimistic estimate of $500 billion and the pessimistic guess of $1 trillion about the cost of fixing the financial mess. But the $700 billion is in addition to an $85 billion agreement on a bailout of the insurance giant American International Group (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/american_international_group/index.html?inline=nyt-org), plus $29 billion in support that the government pledged in the marriage of Bear Stearns (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bear_stearns_companies/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and JPMorgan Chase (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/morgan_j_p_chase_and_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org). On top of all that, the Congressional Budget Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) says the federal bailout of the mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/fannie_mae/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Freddie Mac (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/freddie_mac/index.html?inline=nyt-org) could cost $25 billion.

Q. Who, really, is going to come up with the $700 billion?

A. American taxpayers will come up with the money, although if you are bullish on America in the long run, there is reason to hope that the tab will be less than $700 billion. After the Treasury buys up those troubled mortgages, it will try to resell them to investors. The Treasury’s involvement in the crisis and the speed with which Congress is responding could generate long-range optimism and raise the value of those mortgages, although it is impossible to say by how much.

So it would not be correct to think of the federal government as simply writing a check for $700 billion. It is just committing itself to spend that much, if necessary. But the bottom line is, yes, this bailout could cost American taxpayers a lot of money.

Q. So is it fair to say that Americans who are neither rich nor reckless are being asked to rescue people who are? What is in this package for responsible homeowners of modest means who might be forced out of their homes, perhaps for reasons beyond their control?

A. Yes, you could argue that people who cannot tell soybean futures from puts, calls and options are being asked to clean up the costly mess left by Wall Street. To make the bailout palatable to the public, it is being described as far better than inaction, which administration officials and members of Congress say could imperil the retirement savings and other investments of Americans who are anything but rich.

But it is a good bet that the negotiations between the administration and Capitol Hill will include ideas about ways to help middle-class homeowners avoid foreclosure and perhaps some limits on pay for executives. And it should be noted that neither party is solely responsible for whatever neglect led the country to the brink of disaster.

Q. How is it that the administration and Congress, which have not tried to find huge amounts of money to, say, improve the nation’s health insurance system or repair bridges and tunnels, can now be ready to come up with $700 billion to rescue the financial system? And is it realistic to think that the parties can reach agreement and get legislation passed in a hurry?

A. The first question will surely come up again, involving as it does not just issues of spending policy but also more profound questions about national aspirations. As for rescuing the financial system, elected officials in both parties became convinced that, while a couple of venerable investment banks could fade into oblivion or be absorbed by mergers, the entire financial system could not be allowed to collapse.

And, yes, the parties are likely to reach an accord. Many members of Congress are eager to leave Washington to go home and campaign for the November elections, and no one wants to face the voters without having done something to protect modest savings portfolios as well as giant investors.

Stephen Labaton and David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/2008/biggie_88x31_8k.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=57d7e4e3/9e4bf08&camp=foxsearch2008_emailtools_810907e_nyt5&ad=biggie_88x31_8k.gif&goto=http://my.foxsearchlight.com/profile/WayneBarrow)

September 21, 2008

Fair Game

Your Money at Work, Fixing Others’ Mistakes

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/gretchen_morgenson/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

IT looks as if we may get through this weekend without another scramble to save a troubled financial firm with a trillion-dollar balance sheet.

But that doesn’t mean taxpayers are out of danger. No, sir. No, ma’am. Because lawmakers are at work on a bailout fund that would buy the kind of distressed assets (defaulted mortgages, for example) that have ignited this firestorm.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/henry_m_jr_paulson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has called the fund the “troubled asset relief program.” I’ll just call it TARP for short (you know, the kind of thing they spread over muddy fields so you don’t soil your Guccis).

And depending on how TARP is operated, and how the assets are valued before taxpayers are forced to buy them, it could bloat our final bill for this mess while benefiting the very institutions that got us into it.

Yes, we need a smart plan and a concerted effort to get the frozen credit markets up and running. But we also have to be certain that the types of conflicts of interest that riddle Wall Street aren’t visited upon TARP.

Consider: A bank wants to sell the TARPistas (also known as TAXPAYERS) a pile of stinky mortgage securities that it currently values at 60 cents on the dollar. Let’s assume that the most recent actual trade between market participants for similar assets was struck at 30 cents on the dollar.

So what’s a fair price that we TARPistas should pay for the assets?

If we bought at 60 cents, a price that the bank would argue is appropriate, we would most likely face a loss. The bank, however, would be much better off than if it had to dump at 30 cents.
Conversely, if the assets were sold at 30 cents, taxpayers could wind up making a profit on the purchase if the assets performed better than expected over time. But the bank would have to write down the value of the assets as a result of the sale, possibly threatening its financial standing yet again.

Do you think, perchance, that financial services lobbyists might be working their Hill contacts right this very minute to ensure that the TARP valuations are rigged in their favor?

You know the answer to that.

And you also know that we should steel ourselves for heavy losses as the TARP gets pulled over our eyes. Never mind that it was the banks, with their reckless lending and monumental leverage, that drove us into this ditch.

Such is our lot today: They break it. We own it.

Taxpayers deserve better than this, of course. But we have no lobbyists, so we get skinned.

IF federal regulators and political leaders want to earn back some trust, they could do two things. First, they could provide us with some transparency about whom precisely we are backing in the recent bailouts.

Take, for example, the rescue on Tuesday of the American International Group (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/american_international_group/index.html?inline=nyt-org), once the world’s largest insurance company. It was pretty breathtaking. Since when do insurance companies, whose business models seem to consist of taking in premiums and stonewalling claims, deserve rescues from beleaguered taxpayers?
Answer: Ever since the world became so intertwined that the failure of one company can topple a host of others. And ever since credit default swaps (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_default_swaps/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), those unregulated derivative contracts that allow investors to bet on a debt issuer’s financial prospects, loomed so big on balance sheets that they now drive every bailout decision.
The deal to save A.I.G. involves a two-year, $85 billion loan from taxpayers. In exchange, the new owners — us — get 80 percent of the company. If enough of A.I.G.’s assets are sold for good prices, we may get our money back.

Credit default swaps, which operate like insurance policies against the possibility that an issuer of debt will not pay on its obligations, were the single biggest motivator behind the A.I.G. deal.

A.I.G. had written $441 billion in credit insurance on mortgage-related securities whose values have declined; if A.I.G. were to fail, all the institutions that bought the insurance would have been subject to enormous losses. The ripple effect could have turned into a tsunami.

So, the $85 billion loan to A.I.G. was really a bailout of the company’s counterparties or trading partners.

Now, inquiring minds want to know, whom did we rescue? Which large, wealthy financial institutions — counterparties to A.I.G.’s derivatives contracts — benefited from the taxpayers’ $85 billion loan? Were their representatives involved in the talks that resulted in the last-minute loan?

And did Lehman Brothers not get bailed out because those favored institutions were not on the hook if it failed?

We’ll probably never know the answers to these troubling questions. But by keeping taxpayers in the dark, regulators continue to earn our mistrust. As long as we are not told whom we have bailed out, we will be justified in suspecting that a favored few are making gains on our dimes.

A.I.G.’s financial statements provided a clue to the identities of some of its credit default swap counterparties. The company said that almost three-quarters of the $441 billion it had written on soured mortgage securities was bought by European banks. The banks bought the insurance to reduce the amounts of capital they were required by regulators to set aside to cover future losses.

Enjoy the absurdity: Billions in unregulated derivatives that were about to take down the insurance company that sold them were bought by banks to get around their regulatory capital requirements intended to rein in risk.

Got that?

Which brings us to Item 2 for policy makers. Stop pretending that the $62 trillion market for credit default swaps does not need regulatory oversight. Warren E. Buffett (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/warren_e_buffett/index.html?inline=nyt-per) was not engaging in hyperbole when he called these things financial weapons of mass destruction.

“The last eight years have been about permitting derivatives to explode, knowing they were unregulated,” said Eric R. Dinallo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/eric_r_dinallo/index.html?inline=nyt-per), New York’s superintendent of insurance. “It’s about what the government chose not to regulate, measured in dollars. And that is what shook the world.”

And it will continue.

===========

Let's see, who secretly inserted the unregulation of swaps and derivatives into a huge bill? TX REPUG Fail "you're all a bunch of whiners" Gramm, dear, long-time friend and chief financial advisor to McWorse. McWorse's other chief financial advisor is Carly Fiorina, who ran HP into the ground and got booted out with a $44M parachute.

And during these past 7 years, what has dubya, responsible for Treasury, been doing to avert or at least miminize this crisis? Absolutely fucking nothing, which is exactly what dubya did about al Quaida, terror, and "planes into buildings" warnings in the 7 months leading up to 9/11.

[boutons_]

Treasury Bailout Proposal: ZERO Pain for the Perpetrators, Toxic to Taxpayers

Paul Abrams (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams) Posted September 21, 200

True to its pedigree, the Bush Administration's proposal to bailout the financial system contains not a single element of shared pain by Wall Street. According to the text I have read, the bozos who bought the mortgage-related assets (MRAs) that contained toxic loans, or that floated the toxic loans in the first place, get those loans purchased by the US government.

That's it. No pain for Bush-McCain-Paulson pals on Wall Street.

The only "considerations" for the Treasury Secretary, who is to do the purchasing, is to foster financial stability of the banking system and to "protect" the taxpayer.

I propose several additional "considerations"

1) Change the word "considerations" to "requirements".

2) No employee or consultant of any organization that sells an MRA under this law may earn total compensation of more than $150,000 plus no more than 25% in benefits.

3) No employee or consultant of any organization that sells an MRA under this law may receive a severance package of more than 2 months' base salary; if an organization already has contractual obligations for larger severance than permitted under this law, it must first change all those contractual obligations prior to selling an MRA under this law.

Why should organizations that the government bails out be allowed to pay their executives huge compensation? They absolutely should not. And, note the government is not dictating the compensation package--all it is saying is that, if an institutions wants to take advantage of the government bailout, then it must abide by certain rules.

No organization is compelled to avail itself of the bailout option. The availability of the bailout does, however, erect a force-field around the executives: if the company fails because the executives do not want to abide by the requirements above, then shareholders will hold them responsible. If an executive leaves prior to renegotiating a severance contract to comply with the requirements, he resigns--and severance usually can only be triggered by a termination without cause, not a resignation.

Toxic to taxpayers.

Under the proposed bill, the Treasury Secretary has the power to: "designate financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them".

So, get this, the Secretary is going to designate financial institutions to earn money from the government to determine, for example, the value of the assets of other financial institutions that the government will then purchase.

This provision is highly toxic to the taxpayer. To value the assets--that today, by hypothesis, have little to no value because the holders cannot sell them--a financial institution will have an incentive to assign them a relatively high value because that will establish comparative value for its own similar assets.

I propose, therefore, the following additional requirements:

4) The Secretary should be prohibited from hiring any financial institution to value these MRAs. Nor should he be able to hire any of the major accounting or other firms that do business with banks.

5) The Secretary should be required to get an independent valuation of the MRAs the government buys before the purchase is made. Such independent valuations should be performed by organizations that meet the limitations of #4 above, and have no relationships with organizations in the field.

6) In the Secretary's quarterly reports to Congress, a written basis for the valuation of the MRAs must be included. The Congress reserves the right to forbid certain firms from being engaged by the Secretary at any time.

If this bailout is to be successful, and there are many other reasons to think it may not, it must ast least have the sustained support of the American people who, after all, are paying for it not only in cash, but in lost opportunities.

Old-boy networking among financial institutions, and high compensation for the perpetrators of this fiasco, will kill it before it gets off the ground.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/treasury-bailout-proposal_b_128018.html?view=print

============

Bend over. everybody. The Elite Masters-of-the-Universe are going to bugger us, and pay themselves $Ms, with our tax dollars, for doing it.

[TheProfessor]

Let's see, who secretly inserted the unregulation of swaps and derivatives into a huge bill? TX REPUG Fail "you're all a bunch of whiners" Gramm, dear, long-time friend and chief financial advisor to McWorse. McWorse's other chief financial advisor is Carly Fiorina, who ran HP into the ground and got booted out with a $44M parachute.

And during these past 7 years, what has dubya, responsible for Treasury, been doing to avert or at least miminize this crisis? Absolutely fucking nothing, which is exactly what dubya did about al Quaida, terror, and "planes into buildings" warnings in the 7 months leading up to 9/11.
Do we have to go to the 9/11 comparisons? W's not exactly an economist by trade, and I didn't see anyone else coming up with solutions when the writing was on the wall. Paulson and Bernanke should have been on this sooner if this is what it took, but I guess they were hoping that bailing out piecemeal could push off the inevitable until the next administration. I hope this will lead to more substantial dialogue in the presidential election at least.

[boutons_]

"Do we have to go to the 9/11 comparisons"

Yes, willful inaction by dubya/dickhead Administration directly lead to two national crises of historic proportions.

"W's not exactly an economist by trade"

W's not a military man by trade, either, nor security expert. He and dickhead are war evaders. But The Decider, and his Repug puppet-meisters, sell him as a wonderful, competent Commander-in-Chief and as the best on national security and defense.

btw, what exactly is dubya's "trade"?

[Hook Dem]

"btw, what exactly is dubya's "trade"?" Much like yours Croutons...ASSHOLE!

[MannyIsGod]

The leaked act is unconstitutional. You can't pass a law making Treasury actions non reviewable by courts. That's pretty LOL.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Let's see, who secretly inserted the unregulation of swaps and derivatives into a huge bill? TX REPUG Fail "you're all a bunch of whiners" Gramm, dear, long-time friend and chief financial advisor to McWorse. McWorse's other chief financial advisor is Carly Fiorina, who ran HP into the ground and got booted out with a $44M parachute.

And during these past 7 years, what has dubya, responsible for Treasury, been doing to avert or at least miminize this crisis? Absolutely fucking nothing, which is exactly what dubya did about al Quaida, terror, and "planes into buildings" warnings in the 7 months leading up to 9/11.

You're such a partisan bitch. Everyone in D.C., From W. to Congress, is responsible for this mess. But they've all been getting paid to look the other way by lobbyists (yes even your precious little Obama).

If you won't acknowledge that, you're nothing more than a partisan little bitch (and a dumb one at that).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The leaked act is unconstitutional. You can't pass a law making Treasury actions non reviewable by courts. That's pretty LOL.

I think you're right, but no one appears to be calling them on that at the moment, which is damn scary.

[TheProfessor]

You're such a partisan bitch. Everyone in D.C., From W. to Congress, is responsible for this mess. But they've all been getting paid to look the other way by lobbyists (yes even your precious little Obama).

If you won't acknowledge that, you're nothing more than a partisan little bitch (and a dumb one at that).
Everyone's gotten fat off the status quo. But, this administration still has to own what we're going through, because they failed to act quickly enough. If this was necessary from the outset, it should have been done, damn the political consequences. And I wonder if Bernanke and Paulson knew that but were stymied. I don't claim any great economic knowledge, but they apparently both take lessons from the Depression and Japan's '90's stagnation, dictating that swift government intervention was needed, regardless of their fiscally conservative principles.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Everyone's gotten fat off the status quo. But, this administration still has to own what we're going through, because they failed to act quickly enough. If this was necessary from the outset, it should have been done, damn the political consequences. And I wonder if Bernanke and Paulson knew that but were stymied. I don't claim any great economic knowledge, but they apparently both take lessons from the Depression and Japan's '90's stagnation, dictating that swift government intervention was needed, regardless of their fiscally conservative principles.

I don't fault them for the fix, from looking at what happened in Japan I think they are making the right move.

I DO have a problem with the details of it, namely no oversight of the Treasury actions, nothing specified as to what the government gets in return (i.e., no risk to the banks or accountability in the way of forfeiting profitable assets to the government).

I'm pissed at everyone in D.C. for letting this happen, but our political system is one where the only thing that matters in D.C. is taking care of lobbyists (who are working for big business) and not pissing off constituent bases and jeopardizing re-elections.

[boutons_]

dickless twerp Aggie trying to spread the blame to Clinton and Dems, when it's the Repugs who have been in power for 7 years.

The question is very simple:

WTF did the Repugs-in-power do to

1) prevent 9/11

and

2) prevent this financial crisis?

If NO FUCKING THING, then what was stopping them from exercising their NatSec and Treasury responsibilites?

Be specific, exactly what stopped the Repugs-IN-POWER, in Exec/Legis/Judicial branches, from doing their jobs?

I'm not saying the Dems are innocent (typical right-wing straw man) (my repeated opinion is that ALL of DC is dysfunctional and corrupt, the democratic system has been compromised and stolen by super-wealthy elite and capitalists), but it was not the responsibility of OUT-OF-POWER and Congressional-MINORITY Dems to these past 7 years.

Come on, right-wingers and Repugs and neo-c*nts, what EXACTLY stopped the Repugs from doing their NatSec and fiduciary jobs?

I'll accept hard evidence that they JUST IDDY BIDDY ATTEMPTED to do their jobs.

Repug/conservative ideology:

All govt is bad, all taxes are bad, all regulation is bad, "govt is the problem, not the solution" dictates exactly what we've seen: Repugs willfully ignoring their responsibilities to run the fed govt with competence and good faith.

Repugs are now RAPING the taxpayers for $1T to finance their Repug buddies who created and already profited hugely from this financial mess.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

dickless twerp Aggie trying to spread the blame to Clinton and Dems, when it's the Repugs who have been in power for 7 years.

The question is very simple:

WTF did the Repugs-in-power do to

1) prevent 9/11

and

2) prevent this financial crisis?

If NO FUCKING THING, then what was stopping them from exercising their NatSec and Treasury responsibilites?

Be specific, exactly what stopped the Repugs-IN-POWER, in Exec/Legis/Judicial branches, from doing their jobs?

I'm not saying the Dems are innocent (typical right-wing straw man) (my repeated opinion is that ALL of DC is dysfunctional and corrupt, the democratic system has been compromised and stolen by super-wealthy elite and capitalists), but it was not the responsibility of OUT-OF-POWER and Congressional-MINORITY Dems to these past 7 years.

Come on, right-wingers and Repugs and neo-c*nts, what EXACTLY stopped the Repugs from doing their NatSec and fiduciary jobs?

I'll accept hard evidence that they JUST IDDY BIDDY ATTEMPTED to do their jobs.

Repug/conservative ideology:

All govt is bad, all taxes are bad, all regulation is bad, "govt is the problem, not the solution" dictates exactly what we've seen: Repugs willfully ignoring their responsibilities to run the fed govt with competence and good faith.

Repugs are now RAPING the taxpayers for $1T to finance their Repug buddies who created and already profited hugely from this financial mess.




1) 9/11 has nothing to do with this. That you even bring that into the discussion shows how badly you're beaten on this topic.

2) BOTH sides are to blame. That you even try and pin this all on the Republicans shows what a dickless twerp you are. Everyone in D.C. got fat off this. Obama got more from Fannie and Freddie than any Repub. So quit acting like his shit don't stink.

BOTH SIDES FUCKED UP. BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE RESPONSIBLE. BOTH SIDES HAVE HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF THE LAST 10 YEARS.

Neither did shit to deal with it. Who cares if the Republicans were in power for 7 years. The Demos were in power for two in Congress. It takes five minutes to introduce a bill, neither did.

Both are responsible. Quit being such a liberal cunt.

[TheProfessor]

1) 9/11 has nothing to do with this. That you even bring that into the discussion shows how badly you're beaten on this topic.

2) BOTH sides are to blame. That you even try and pin this all on the Republicans shows what a dickless twerp you are. Everyone in D.C. got fat off this. Obama got more from Fannie and Freddie than any Repub. So quit acting like his shit don't stink.

BOTH SIDES FUCKED UP. BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE RESPONSIBLE. BOTH SIDES HAVE HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF THE LAST 10 YEARS.

Neither did shit to deal with it. Who cares if the Republicans were in power for 7 years. The Demos were in power for two in Congress. It takes five minutes to introduce a bill, neither did.

Both are responsible. Quit being such a liberal cunt.
While bringing up 9/11 is tactless, there is a slight link - cronyism. Really, you could take all the Bush admin's major sins and put them in that category. And while other admin's have perpetuated this system, there's been marked incompetence in the people put in charge of agencies and offices, almost an absolute abdication of their responsibilities - FEMA, the Justice department, Treasury, etc. It's just a massive failing from the top on down. To be fair, they've certainly had to deal with far worse problems than say the Clinton administration, but they've fallen flat on their faces over and over. Regardless of the presidential race (where both candidates are running as fast as they can in the opposite direction), you'll be seeing the impact down the ticket in Senate and House races, especially if we haven't bottomed out economically.

[boutons_]

"9/11 has nothing to do with this"

Sure it does. 9/11 is EXACTLY the same type of REPUG failure as the financial crisis. Both happened on their watch. Shows you don't want the Repugs to accept ANY responsibility between 20/1 and 9/11. The Dems were and we all are still TOTALLY shut out by the Repugs in that pre-9/11 period. The Repugs have plenty to hide and they've hidden it hermetically, even destroyed evidence.

I repeat, I didn't say the Dems were innocent, did I? straw man.

You still haven't answered my questions, because you don't have the answers, or you don't know the answers.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you're right, but no one appears to be calling them on that at the moment, which is damn scary.

It would be in the courts so fast its not even funny. There are lots of people against this shit.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"9/11 has nothing to do with this"

Sure it does. 9/11 is EXACTLY the same type of REPUG failure as the financial crisis. Both happened on their watch. Shows you don't want the Repugs to accept ANY responsibility between 20/1 and 9/11. The Dems were and we all are still TOTALLY shut out by the Repugs in that pre-9/11 period. The Repugs have plenty to hide and they've hidden it hermetically, even destroyed evidence.

I repeat, I didn't say the Dems were innocent, did I? straw man.

You still haven't answered my questions, because you don't have the answers, or you don't know the answers.

Bush had barely been in power when 9/11 happened. Clinton had eight years before that to do something about bin Laden. What was his excuse?

If you want to play this stupid ass blame game, fine, Clinton was an abject failure and should be impeached.

I gave you the answer. Both parties in D.C. are responsible. Quit being such a bitch. It's not a straw man, you're trying to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything.

Until I see you say the Democrats are just as responsible, which they are (they have been in power for the last 2 years ya know...), you're the straw man bitch with your "it's Bush's fault" shit.

[TheProfessor]

It would be in the courts so fast its not even funny. There are lots of people against this shit.
But what happens at the inevitable Supreme Court case? It would surprise me if they didn't fall in line with the Bush administration's line.

[MannyIsGod]

But what happens at the inevitable Supreme Court case? It would surprise me if they didn't fall in line with the Bush administration's line.


:lmao

Yeah right. The conservative judges on that court would be ruling so fast against this.

[boutons_]

"Bush had barely been in power when 9/11 happened."

You're a fucking joke, defending the Repugs. 8 months is NOT "barely". IIRC, the Repugs called exactly 1 NatSec meeting in that period, or it was scheduled to be called. The only major accomplishment the Repugs had in that period was railroading through tax cuts. No trace of Repug actions, stances on terror.

When Clinton shot cruises at OBL, the only gratitude he got from the Repugs was that he was trying to distract from the witch-hunt. They ridiculed him, and refused to take the terror threat seriously, while in the same period PNAC/neo-c*nts were agitating for invading Iraq for oil, including McMakesUpShit.

[cool hand]

the United Socialists States of America.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"Bush had barely been in power when 9/11 happened."

You're a fucking joke, defending the Repugs. 8 months is NOT "barely". IIRC, the Repugs called exactly 1 NatSec meeting in that period, or it was scheduled to be called. The only major accomplishment the Repugs had in that period was railroading through tax cuts. No trace of Repug actions, stances on terror.

When Clinton shot cruises at OBL, the only gratitude he got from the Repugs was that he was trying to distract from the witch-hunt. They ridiculed him, and refused to take the terror threat seriously, while in the same period PNAC/neo-c*nts were agitating for invading Iraq for oil, including McMakesUpShit.

:lmao

Just once, once, I would like to see you admit that Democrats fucked up on something.

Have the Democrats not had control of Congress the last two years? They had plenty of time to introduce legislation to deal with what's going on in the financial sector right now, but they were too busy giving themselves pay raises and trying to find the skeletons in the closet of the Bush Administration.

You're such a liberal little bitch. Funniest shit on the board.

[boutons_]

"I would like to see you admit that Democrats fucked up on something."

Not my job, is it? Repugs have been in power for 7+ years. This seems to escape you but

dubya didn't make one veto until the Dems got small numerical advantage in the Congress, not enough to overcome Repugs.

dubya has produced more signing statements, even against bills he signed and that were passed by a Repug dominated Congress, the several preceding Presidents combined.

I repeat, 9/11 and financial crises happened on Repug watch, and Repugs are by far and away PRIMARILY responsible.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"I would like to see you admit that Democrats fucked up on something."

Not my job, is it? Repugs have been in power for 7+ years. This seems to escape you but

dubya didn't make one veto until the Dems got small numerical advantage in the Congress, not enough to overcome Repugs.

dubya has produced more signing statements, even against bills he signed and that were passed by a Repug dominated Congress, the several preceding Presidents combined.

I repeat, 9/11 and financial crises happened on Repug watch, and Repugs are by far and away PRIMARILY responsible.

Both sides are responsible. I'm sorry you're such a bitch you can't comprehend this. It doesn't matter who's in power in D.C. The only difference is whose pockets the lobbyists are lining.

Maybe one day you'll grow up, quit reading DailyKOS, and get a fucking clue.

[boutons_]

Money asked by Lehman administrator for UK, but it's only $8B, yawn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7627956.stm

[Wild Cobra]

the United Socialists States of America.
If the libtards had there way, we would be the USSR...

United Socialist States of Retards!

[temujin]

There should be another trillion coming up for the US Federal goverment to pay for, over the next year, maximum.

Make no mistake.
This is not about USSR.
It's about 1929.

So, at the end of the day,
it's either cut the military, and wars (Obama),
or Medicare-Medicaid (McCain).

Enjoy.

[clambake]

United Socialist States of Retards!

why do you hate palin's baby? :depressed

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't know about the USSR, but we're starting to look an awful lot like France. Which is just as sickening.

[boutons_]

Talking about France, a joke-y article:

How We Became the United States of France


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html?iid=digg_share

[temujin]

I don't know about the USSR, but we're starting to look an awful lot like France. Which is just as sickening.

Wishful thinking.

There is no need of a credit card when entering an ER.

[Wild Cobra]

why do you hate palin's baby? :depressed
Good little libtard... Jump to conclusions.

No, I think her baby will have more intelligence than you do!