Protest

[kris]

I've heard enough about this bill to know that I hate it. 190 top economists in the country have denounced this bailout on grounds of fairness, ambiguity, and long term effects. I've talked to other educated persons who agree. This directly effects us - whether you are involved in politics or not. This isn't something that will just go away. No matter what affiliation you have, I think we can all agree that this isn't for us.

The people that so desperately wanted to rush this bill through were also the ones that have played a large role in contributing to this problem - whether passively, actively, or both. Why trust them now, especially when they want this deal of seismic proportions passed in a matter of day(s)? To put this in perspective, this is absolutely of historic measures.

Did you know that the initial proposed bill gave Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unlimited discretion with no accountability to anyone and no review of his actions by either courts or administrative agencies? That is very scary, but what is more alarming is that the executive staff tried to slip that in and have it passed so quickly.

Is that really democracy? Is that truly representative of what we as a nation want?

I don't think it is. I think those that are for this bill may be understandably fearful of what tomorrow brings or unsure of what other options there are. The obvious answer is to turn to your elected leaders, but what do you do when your elected leaders have failed?

I didn't appreciate President Bush's pass this bill or face crisis speech. If nothing else, it failed to consider the possibility that the bailout didn't succeed and millions of Americans would panic because of his words which would exacerbate economic damage already created.

If anything we should panic because our leaders want to bailout financial institutions and no longer have the people's best interests at heart.

For those that ask for my alternative plan, it is simply that our money is to be reserved for us and not private institutions. Surely the money will be more efficiently used when passed directly to the catalysts of the economy rather than indirectly through supposed facilitators. If there is indeed an economic struggle in the days and months to follow, then the disbursement of money should be made to its rightful owners.

If a bill isn't created by early tomorrow evening, I'm calling for a San Antonio protest at 6:00pm. I will update you on the location.

Join me.

[tp2021]

Troll Forum.


I mean Political Forum.

[TDMVPDPOY]

mayeb just maybe the feds should bail out the NYK payroll hahahaha

[Kori Ellis]

Troll Forum.


I mean Political Forum.

I told him that he could post it here. Many people are concerned.

[baseline bum]

Gotta love the idea of corporate welfare in an alleged free market.

[DPG21920]

I study economics extensively and unless the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they should interfere, they should stay out.

[WildcardManu]

The people that so desperately wanted to rush this bill through were also the ones that have played a large role in contributing to this problem - whether passively, actively, or both. Why trust them now, especially when they want this deal of seismic proportions passed in a matter of day(s)? To put this in perspective, this is absolutely of historic measures.

Reminded me of this article I read on cnn.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/09/25/money.pushers/index.html?iref=24hours

[Kamnik]

I watched the Daily show with Bill Clinton and some of the videos shocked me. (actual videos of experts talking, Bush talking etc. )

This administration could not fail any more. Led by a guy who probably does not understand one half of the sitauation.

My sympathies to you guys... Your inflation could skyrocket. (and that also means a bad thing for all of us in the old continent :/ )

[DannyT]

so on the panic scale where do you rate this....how safe is the money in the bank...yes I know the FDIC guards at something like 100 Grand....but is it really stupid to pull out your money for what its worth if some shit happens....or are your cats just leaving your shit in there...I am seriously thinking about taking a portion out cause I dont like whats happening...and I dont know if the dollar is going to be worth shit when this hits the fan but I'm lost right now plain and simple

[Kamnik]

I think dollar will loose a lot ov value.

[TDMVPDPOY]

so on the panic scale where do you rate this....how safe is the money in the bank...yes I know the FDIC guards at something like 100 Grand....but is it really stupid to pull out your money for what its worth if some shit happens....or are your cats just leaving your shit in there...I am seriously thinking about taking a portion out cause I dont like whats happening...and I dont know if the dollar is going to be worth shit when this hits the fan but I'm lost right now plain and simple

Didnt a few months ago a small bank went bankrupt and all those fellas who had deposits in them ended up losing it all, the govt did end up givin compensation but it was capped or someshit. Some old fella loss about 1m from his retirement savings which was spread over 3 accounts in the same bank, got back only 120-150k or someshit from the govt.

[DannyT]

yeah I believe the FIC caps it off at 100,000 dollars...I am far from that amount of money at this point but I still dont feel secure enough to think if its as ugly as people say it is and could be that I would even get my money I have in their now
but again I stress even if I do pull it out and shit goes ape shit what goes it really mean at that point when its worth shit.....its gonna be like the iraqi dinar....

[temujin]

I study economics extensively and unless the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they should interfere, they should stay out.

Originally written in 1929.
Post released now.

[DannyT]

Dan was a single guy living at home with his father and working in the
family business. When he found out he was going to inherit a fortune when
his sickly father died, he decided he needed a wife with which to share
his fortune.

One evening at an investment club meeting he spotted the most beautiful
woman he had ever seen. Her natural beauty took his breath away. "I may
look like just an ordinary man," he said to her, "but in just a few years,
my father will die, and I'll inherit 20 million dollars."

Impressed, the woman obtained his business card and three days later, she
became his stepmother.

Women are so much better at estate planning than men.

[temujin]

I told him that he could post it here. Many people are concerned.


Rightly so.

[sanman53]

FDIC can take up to 99 years to pay back your $100,000.

[urunobili]

we want to US to come back stronger than EVER and that the US dollar becomes yet again an unstoppable force! Many countries depend on our success to survive!

[CubanMustGo]

The original bill was BS and I'm glad that our congresscritters are actually trying to do something about it. Whether the end result will be any better or not is anyone's guess. I do agree that simply throwing money at the institutions that caused the crisis in the first place isn't in and of itself the way to fix the problem.

That said, trying to help the "people" directly ... $700 billion spread among 200 million or so taxpayers would only come out to $3500 per person, hardly enough to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

[SAGambler]

so on the panic scale where do you rate this....how safe is the money in the bank...yes I know the FDIC guards at something like 100 Grand....but is it really stupid to pull out your money for what its worth if some shit happens....or are your cats just leaving your shit in there...I am seriously thinking about taking a portion out cause I dont like whats happening...and I dont know if the dollar is going to be worth shit when this hits the fan but I'm lost right now plain and simple

BUT..and this is a big BUT...The FDIC only has around 45 billion in reserves to use to cover any shortages in banks. After that, we the taxpayers will be asked to pony up more.

Now here is what I don't like. Government gives these guys their 700 billion or whatever they say they need. In six months they will be back to their same old shenanigans. The entire system is now set up to cover the big boys asses and to hell with the people that actually pay the bills of this country.

A lot of you will blame the Republicans..But keep in mind...The politicians don't run this country any longer. The guys that buy them do. It's time for a new day. Kick them all out and start over again. Otherwise we are screwed and they won't even supply a small amount of vasoline.

[Anti.Hero]

This is mobster tactics. Fuck them up beyond belief, then come back and demand payment before you get fucked even harder. You only have 3 days to agree before the end of the world!

WTF haha

[MarCowMar]

For those who oppose the bailout, a petition and plan are here:

http://financialpetition.org/petition-nobail.shtml

This petition proposes addressing the issue by forcing financial companies to mark their assets to market value (as opposed to mark-to-myth), create a clearing exchange that allows the government to monitor derivatives, and preventing Ben Bernanke from providing under-the-table funds to banks.

Doing so will force banks to honestly address their accounts, and we can move forward as a nation from there knowing that the remaining banks have their books in order. It may not be pretty, but it is an honest solution that will not steal taxpayer money.

Signing this will send faxes to all of your representatives. Now is the time to speak out. The folks promoting this bailout will be pushing to get it done this weekend, piggybacking on concerns of the WaMu bankruptcy.

[kris]

The original bill was BS and I'm glad that our congresscritters are actually trying to do something about it. Whether the end result will be any better or not is anyone's guess. I do agree that simply throwing money at the institutions that caused the crisis in the first place isn't in and of itself the way to fix the problem.

That said, trying to help the "people" directly ... $700 billion spread among 200 million or so taxpayers would only come out to $3500 per person, hardly enough to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

I should have been more specific by what I meant by directly. I'm not proposing the government divide the money equally among every citizen over 18. My idea is that as needs arise in debt and bankruptcy amongst the people/small businesses, the government pay and/or those people or entities directly. Possibly give them a federal loan at a very low interest rate so that they can borrow and not create even more debt.

[kris]

so on the panic scale where do you rate this....how safe is the money in the bank...yes I know the FDIC guards at something like 100 Grand....but is it really stupid to pull out your money for what its worth if some shit happens....or are your cats just leaving your shit in there...I am seriously thinking about taking a portion out cause I dont like whats happening...and I dont know if the dollar is going to be worth shit when this hits the fan but I'm lost right now plain and simple

Right now the panic scale should be against this bill and not focused on withdrawing your money. The situation is actually a little perverse in that we are being told we need the bill so as not to create panic and crisis when actually we need to panic that the bill is not passed.

Either way, the economy will suffer. However, the bill is worse in that it will create a sense of calm and tell America that restoration is underway. The truth is this plan is only a temporary band-aid. The US has to change its economic structure and getting things started with having horrible financial risk and behavior fail is exactly what we need to curb our economic ways.

Americans need less credit overall. We have $850 billion in cc debt. So yes the system does need to reform and that starts with people that are bad risks credit not getting it or getting less of it.

This is of course, speaking in general terms, but my point is this bill spends precious money to delay a problem that will mature at some point or another. Whether it's tomorrow or a few years from now, this "solution" is not the answer.

Reform in the economic system is needed. As troubled as our economic system is a massive change in the other direction is needed. Letting these failures occur is that change.

It will be painful - there is no doubt about that. However, this has been a long day coming and we must face the music.

Back to your specific question, I would leave your money at this point. You're right to be concerned and your reaction is good instinct but a mad rush to get your money isn't the answer. Shortage of money isn't the problem right now.

[angel_luv]

I am interested in the details of your protest plans.

I have church tomorrow at 6 so won't be attending your protest.
Still I am very interested in updates and of course, wish you well.

[kris]

Oh and look out for amendments to the proposal that lower the amount of upfront money in attempt to appease the public. It should be noted this $700b was only an amount specified for first withdraw. Once this line of credit was depleted, Paulson could simply open up another one so to speak. Realistically the initial proposal was staring down over a trillion dollars of spending.

It looks like a compromise might simply stagger payments in lower amounts. Such a deal would likely be of little consequence other than the fact that more people would approve. What I suspect would happen is only $200b would be approved at first and then once the spotlight and public glare is off, more payments would be siphoned off without the general public being cognizant. In the end the total would be about the same making the amount structure only a cosmetic change.

Also, if you're looking for someone to blame you can point the finger at a lot of people but don't forget our great economic President Bill Clinton. He passed legislation that put banks at a severe disadvantage for not lending to lower income households with the Community Redevelopment Act. While certainly a good cause, it obviously had a horrible impact on the financial market.

[kris]

I am interested in the details of your protest plans.

I have church tomorrow at 6 so won't be attending your protest.
Still I am very interested in updates and of course, wish you well.

Thanks Veronica. Even posting words of support helps. This thread already has 377 views which definitely helps spread the message. Thanks to Kori for allowing me to post this.

This is a very serious issue that will affect everyone whether there is a bill or not.

[spurster]

Look to the Political Forum for extensive fingerpointing and multiple threads on this topic. Everybody hates the bailout, but who is smart enough to say what we do or don't need to do?

[DPG21920]

Look to the Political Forum for extensive fingerpointing and multiple threads on this topic. Everybody hates the bailout, but who is smart enough to say what we do or don't need to do?

That is not the point. The point is unless they can show that this will help (that the benefits will outweigh the tremendous costs) they should do nothing. There will be many imposed and unforeseen costs that could very easily end up making things worse off than if they just left the market to itself.

[wut]

190 top economists that have something to gain/lose?

What else would someone propose? I mean I get it, people like to complain....but if they're not going to come up with a worthwhile idea and go on the record with it, their view is just as good as mine.

It would be worse to NOT bailout these large corporations. What's done is done....all we can do is pay the money and put party politics aside enough to make sure it never happens again!

There really is not enough appropriate fear from the general public who think they shouldn't have to pay for "x" getting them into this mess.

And one more thing: People need to stop acting like this is $700 Billion lost....it's a sunk cost that will pay for itself over time. Estimated military spending for 2008 is $717 Billion just fyi. (also interesting to note military spending in 2004 was $399 Billion)

That's right...we could nearly pay for this alone in 2 years by cutting military spending and get out of Iraq....but guess what? Obama wants to do that, but that's how they want to pay for other things like Nationalized health care. goodie.

[hater]

I think it's pretty clear that if they don't do the bailout, tons of banks will collapse and the entire economy as well. This means that millions of ppl will lose their jobs.

Nobody really knows what will happen if bail out happens but at least the above will not happen immediately.

I don't really understand why ppl are protesting. There needs to be a bailout, but it needs to be a good plan, not the shit that was first proposed.

[romain.star]

BBC.co.uk front page says the bail-out will be passed despite disagreements...

[nkdlunch]

BBC.co.uk front page says the bail-out will be passed despite disagreements...

what the hell does that mean?

if congress majority does not agree on something there is no bailout. Don't need BBC to know that.

[kris]

190 top economists that have something to gain/lose?

What else would someone propose? 1. I mean I get it, people like to complain....but if 2. they're not going to come up with a worthwhile idea and go on the record with it, their view is just as good as mine.

It would be worse to NOT bailout these large corporations. What's done is done....3. all we can do is pay the money and put party politics aside enough to make sure it never happens again!

There really is not enough appropriate fear from the general public who think they shouldn't have to pay for "x" getting them into this mess.

And one more thing:4. People need to stop acting like this is $700 Billion lost....it's a sunk cost that will pay for itself over time. Estimated military spending for 2008 is $717 Billion just fyi. (also interesting to note military spending in 2004 was $399 Billion)

That's right...5. we could nearly pay for this alone in 2 years by cutting military spending and get out of Iraq....but guess what? Obama wants to do that, but that's how they want to pay for other things like Nationalized health care. goodie.

1. I didn't create this because I like to complain. Serious constitutional and economic ramifications here.

2. I proposed a general idea. It is not a solution, but there really is no solution. You don't just absolve yourself of years of cascading horrible decisions with one idea. I understand why proponents of the bailout incorporate this tactic of asking for another plan - we don't necessarily need one. Why can't we just not spend a trillion dollars on financial institutions instead of finding different way to spend money?

3. This is what proponents certainly hope the general public thinks. Let's just put blind faith in people that contributed to/caused this problem and try again. What will happen when this money is exhausted and we face the same problems? Simply upping regulation and oversight means if that regulation indeed worked, we just lost 1 trillion to patch a mistake which rewarded the bad behavior.

Also, think of the problems with government telling companies what they can and can't pay executives. You've heard of big government, think huge now.

4. These are toxic assets. They will never reach the value they were used as collateral for. Its true the US will be able to recoup some money in the future, but it won't even be close to what they buy for (unless the plan changes and they buy for much less which for every dollar less they spend limits the effectiveness of the point of the proposal anyway). And the $700b is just a starting figure. I explain why in previous posts. Of course, this is subject to change as they revise the plan, but I don't see the premise changing.

5. You can't undermine the irresponsibility of a plan by simply pointing out an area where there was another mistake.

[romain.star]

what the hell does that mean?

if congress majority does not agree on something there is no bailout. Don't need BBC to know that.

i meant that finally, a congress majority might agree on the bail-out...

[nkdlunch]

i meant that finally, a congress majority might agree on the bail-out...

sure. I think there will be a deal today. But I would not put money on it. :smokin

[romain.star]

sure. I think there will be a deal today. But I would not put money on it. :smokin

well... actually you might be forced to put money on it !!

[dbestpro]

I understand the desire to protest, but I do not understand the need for knee jerk reactions (KJR).

The fed asked for too much control. (KJR)
The fed asked for too much money up front. (KJR)
This thread protesting actions of the above two points which Congress already shot down. (KJR)
The desire to make this about politics instead of common sense. (KJR)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Republican president and a democratic congress have both been caught looking the other way while this happened and that includes Obama and McCain. Now that everyone is at fault including you and me for not getting up off the couch sooner it is time to start being more productive. The Savings and Loan crisis cost 125 billion and within a few years was paid off. This money is a loan and not a payoff. The key will be lower taxes and incentives to make the dollar spin in the years ahead. The faster the dollar spins the more income you, I and the government makes. The slower it spins the less we all make.

The issue is bigger than just the bailout. I look for the next 4 years to look very much like the Jimmy Carter years as government slows the spinning dollar. Then when enough people have had enough of ideology they will turn to someone who understands that growth must occur for the poor, middle class and rich alike. To take from one class and give to another will guarantee a stagnant dollar.

[diego]

i dont live in the US anymore, and i havent been paying as much attention as i would have liked due to personal problems. Politically i consider myself center-left, and my dad is right-wing. More to the point, my dad is a retired economist, (ex-World Bank), and we were discussing the situation this morning. He doesnt like the idea of bailouts at all, but he says that now they are necessary to maintain order and that not doing the bailouts would effectively be disastrous. I'm not sure to what degree he was defending the republicans, but he was pretty serious, and he is generally the type to scoff at the doom and gloom types.

Me, I think like someone else mentioned here, that the US has way too much credit, making it easier for these kind of situations to arise. Here in Chile we are beginning to fall into the same trap of easy credit and in the end it just bites people in the ass. the banks never lose, when they should lose now and again because its a part of the risk, part of business. They all want to play the market and win, but no one accepts a loss. If a bank lends money to a high risk client (public or private), they have to eat the loss, plain and simple. Every business has to deal with lost product, be it retail, services, production, you name it. Banks that give bad loans are the ones at fault, not the people applying for the loan.

Anyway as others have stated how this turns out will have a big effect on the world economy, so good luck. we need it!

[Brutalis]

I somewhat agree but protesting isn't doing anything other than making yourself feel better. We're screwed either way.

[urunobili]

Mc Cain is kicking Obama's ass badly on the debate... BIG TIME

[gospursgojas]

Mc Cain is kicking Obama's ass badly on the debate... BIG TIME

Whice debate were you watching. The only issues McCain proved better to handle tonight were issues dealing with the war in iraq. But that was expected. Not only expected but he was supposedly head and shoulders above Obama when it came to those issues. But Obama did not seem as far behind as everyone believed before the debate

[BuzzerBeater]

China's banks have received an order from their government: no more lending to American Banks.
There have been runs on banks all week long by a variety of depositers, in numbers that have been kept secret.
The government no longer has the value of the dollar at the top of their list.
That's because of a discovery worrying investors; there was an item in the small print of Hank Paulson’s rescue plan. It said that, separate to the $700bn markets rescue package, the US Treasury would plunder the Exchange Stabilization Fund – the US currency reserves, established in the 1930s – in order to pay for an insurance scheme for the money markets.
The fund’s cash is being funneled into a new scheme designed to protect money market mutual funds.
Thus, the dollar stands alone, no calvary in sight for it's plunge in value which scares off investors.
Oh, not to forget, the ripple effects on China's economy which will follow suit in about 7 to 10 months because of the same things happening in their economy that's led to our economic collapse.

[SequSpur]

give me a break... first off.. this is the spurs forum...

secondly, it's called NOISE.

Young America can't handle NOISE. Look, the govt is spending shit everyday. stuff you have no idea about... this is peanuts.

What does this money due to HEB, Valero, Culebra Meat Market, etc.? Exactly.. fuckin nothing. And you know, this is the shit that you need that's killing you and your job.

If you invest money into the 401K, then that's your biz.. it's no different than flying to vegas and putting coins into a slot machine.

Again, NOISE... Same shit different day...damn, you ought to be thankful the Prez told you what a billion or trillion is going to spent on.. cuz blank checks are written everyday.

Go Spurs.

[ChumpDumper]

give me a break... first off.. this is the spurs forum...:lmao

[anakha]

give me a break... first off.. this is the spurs forum...


http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/3/9/27/f_potkettleblm_a8d0595.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/3/9/27/f_potkettleblm_a8d0595.jpg&srv=img01)

[T Park]

Also, if you're looking for someone to blame you can point the finger at a lot of people but don't forget our great economic President Bill Clinton. He passed legislation that put banks at a severe disadvantage for not lending to lower income households with the Community Redevelopment Act. While certainly a good cause, it obviously had a horrible impact on the financial market.


While I think Bush has fucked up over 8 years, this is absolutely true.

[Anti.Hero]

If you invest money into the 401K, then that's your biz.. it's no different than flying to vegas and putting coins into a slot machine.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

The only idiots who believe this are the ones who have jack shit to show for after 60 years because they didn't have the discipline to save for retirement.

[T Park]

I don't support the bailout because I don't think the government should be in the business of bailing out failed businesses and people that cannot stay within their means spending and credit wise.

Kris is 1000% right. We were going to have to pay the piper for the longest time and now is the time.

All the time I hear about the slowing economy I think of the invisible hand. The economy had to slow, come back, and retract at some point. Its cyclical. It had to happen. It just might happen harder than it did in the early 90s late 80s.

[SequSpur]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

The only idiots who believe this are the ones who have jack shit to show for after 60 years because they didn't have the discipline to save for retirement.

It's a fact. You have a 401K.... It's a gamble.. Wake the fuck up.

[SequSpur]

I don't support the bailout because I don't think the government should be in the business of bailing out failed businesses and people that cannot stay within their means spending and credit wise.

Kris is 1000% right. We were going to have to pay the piper for the longest time and now is the time.

All the time I hear about the slowing economy I think of the invisible hand. The economy had to slow, come back, and retract at some point. Its cyclical. It had to happen. It just might happen harder than it did in the early 90s late 80s.

Obama has a plan.

[T Park]

Obama has a plan.

Yeah tax the shit out of everyone and then......

[Anti.Hero]

It's a fact. You have a 401K.... It's a gamble.. Wake the fuck up.

I've got an SEP and rothIRA but neither are a huge gamble. Contributions are capped and the last 75 years tells me it's nothing like vegas.


40 years of compound interest that the government can't tax at the end IS SUCH A HUGE GAMBLE :lmao:lmao



You won't retire on Earned Income...wake the fuck up.

[wijayas]

For those who oppose the bailout, a petition and plan are here:
http://financialpetition.org/petition-nobail.shtml

If you need one more reason to oppose the bail out, please read the WSJ article on Sep 27 below:

Re-Seeding the Housing Mess - WSJ SEPTEMBER 27, 2008

http://wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html

Taxpayers are naturally suspicious that political insiders and contributors on Wall Street are going to make out like bandits once Washington starts spending the $700 billion in the financial market rescue. But Democrats have already decided to spin off potentially billions of taxpayer dollars from the bailout fund to their own political buddies -- not on Wall Street but on nearby K Street. :bang :bang

The House and Senate Democratic drafts contain an indefensible and well-hidden provision. It would mandate that at least 20% of any profit realized from the sale of each troubled asset purchased under the Paulson plan be deposited in either the Housing Trust Fund or the Capital Magnet Fund. Only after these funds get their cut of the profits are "all amounts remaining . . . paid into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

Here's the exact, amazing language from the Democratic proposal, breaking out how the money would be divided and dispensed:
"Deposits. Not less than 20% of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

"Use of Deposits. 65% shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act . . . ; and 35% shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund . . .

"Remainder Deposited in the Treasury. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

What we have here essentially are a pair of government slush funds :ihit :ihit :ihitcreated in July as part of the Economic Recovery Act that pump tax dollars into the coffers of low-income housing advocacy groups, such as Acorn.

Acorn, one of America's most militant left-wing "community activist groups," is spending $16 million this year to register Democrats to vote in November. :ihit :ihit :ihitIn the past several years, Acorn's voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, while several of their employees have been convicted of voter fraud.

Along with other potential recipients of these funds, including the National Council of La Raza and the Urban League, Acorn has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans. Thus, we'd be funneling more cash to the groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.

This isn't the first time this year that Democrats have tried to route money for fixing the housing crisis into the bank accounts of these community activist groups. :bang :bang The housing bill passed by Congress in July also included a tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise an estimated $600 million annually in grants for these lobbying groups. When Fannie and Freddie went under, the Democrats had to find a new way to fill the pipeline flowing tax dollars into the groups' coffers.

This is a crude power grab in a time of economic crisis. Congress should insist that every penny recaptured from the sale of distressed assets be dedicated to retiring the hundreds of billions of dollars in public debt that will be incurred, or passed back to taxpayers who will ultimately underwrite the cost of the bailout.

The idea that special-interest groups on the left or right should get a royalty payment for monies that are repaid to the Treasury is a violation of the public trust. :ihit :ihit :ihit We're told the White House and House Republicans are insisting that the Acorn fund be purged from the bailout bill. The Paulson plan is supposed to get us out of this problem, not start it over again.

[T Park]

Acorn, one of America's most militant left-wing "community activist groups," is spending $16 million this year to register Democrats to vote in November.

Sounds like in 2000 when they were driving felons to polling places to vote.

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

Sounds like in 2000 when they were driving felons to polling places to vote.

yes since your vote is the only one that should count right tpark

[DPG21920]

Bailout rejected by the house:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.
ADVERTISEMENT

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

When the critical vote was tallied, too few members of the House were willing to support the unpopular measure with elections just five weeks away. Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home.

The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign. And with only five weeks left until Election Day, there was no clear indication of whether the leadership would keep them in Washington. Leaders were huddling after the vote to figure out their next steps.

A White House spokesman said that President Bush was "very disappointed."

"There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed," Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day "to determine next steps."

Monday's mind-numbing vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said that Bush had used a "call list" of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.

Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.

They found only two.

Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.' "

With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.

"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.

The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan worked, the thinking went, it would help lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering.

The fear in the financial markets send the Dow Jones industrials cascading down by as over 700 points at one juncture. As the vote was shown on TV, stocks plunged and investors fled to the safety of the credit markets, worrying that the financial system would keep sinking under the weight of failed mortgage debt.

A White House spokesman said that President Bush was "very disappointed."

"There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed," Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day "to determine next steps."

[temujin]

Exit Mr. Bush, George W.

What else can one say about the worst presidency of US history and a legitimate contender for the worst any country has ever had?

[Anti.Hero]

Exit Mr. Bush, George W.

What else can one say about the worst presidency of US history and a legitimate contender for the worst any country has ever had?

Brush up on world history homie.

[temujin]

Brush up on world history homie.

Anytime.

[hater]

Exit Mr. Bush, George W.

What else can one say about the worst presidency of US history and a legitimate contender for the worst any country has ever had?

Bush is the worst president of presidents ever, anywhere in the world. That includes president of anything, PTA, HOA, Fan clubs, etc, etc

[temujin]

Bush is the worst president of presidents ever, anywhere in the world. That includes president of anything, PTA, HOA, Fan clubs, etc, etc

Isn't ironic that the ONLY right thing he managed, at the very end of his presidency, has just been turned down.

Kiss of death.

[Obstructed_View]

yes since your vote is the only one that should count right tpark

So you don't have a problem with felons voting, even though it's against the law?

[jdaveah]

It is really amazing how the middle class, and most people posting in this thread, have no concept of how not providing this sort of assistance will harm them in a very direct and very real way. While I will agree that is is not the ideal thing, playing the blame game can be done later. This money is needed to keep the economy afloat. It isn't perfect capitalism, but our economic system never has been. Citizens interested in keeping America's economy as the world's leader (not to mention keeping their retirement savings) should be hoping that this bill, or some form of it, gets passed and passed soon.

[T Park]

Exit Mr. Bush, George W.

What else can one say about the worst presidency of US history and a legitimate contender for the worst any country has ever had?

Look up Carter, Jimmy first jackass.

[T Park]

So you don't have a problem with felons voting, even though it's against the law?

Felons, dead people, illegals

why the hell not :) :lol

[Obstructed_View]

It is really amazing how the middle class, and most people posting in this thread, have no concept of how not providing this sort of assistance will harm them in a very direct and very real way. While I will agree that is is not the ideal thing, playing the blame game can be done later. This money is needed to keep the economy afloat. It isn't perfect capitalism, but our economic system never has been. Citizens interested in keeping America's economy as the world's leader (not to mention keeping their retirement savings) should be hoping that this bill, or some form of it, gets passed and passed soon.

Having the people that have been talking down the economy while watching gas prices skyrocket for the last two years step in and try to fix this issue is laughable. Consumer confidence is already shot. You take the hit with the least amount of overhead, and a market adjustment is exactly that.

[T Park]

It is really amazing how the middle class, and most people posting in this thread, have no concept of how not providing this sort of assistance will harm them in a very direct and very real way. While I will agree that is is not the ideal thing, playing the blame game can be done later. This money is needed to keep the economy afloat. It isn't perfect capitalism, but our economic system never has been. Citizens interested in keeping America's economy as the world's leader (not to mention keeping their retirement savings) should be hoping that this bill, or some form of it, gets passed and passed soon.



So fuck the country up worse, to bail out some foreign banks and wall street people who failed at business?

No thanks. You fuck up the business you suffer the consequences.

Getting the government involved in the money sector is a huge mistake cause they will never leave.

[DPG21920]

Many people on here need to read Milton Friedman.

[jdaveah]

Having the people that have been talking down the economy while watching gas prices skyrocket for the last two years step in and try to fix this issue is laughable. Consumer confidence is already shot. You take the hit with the least amount of overhead, and a market adjustment is exactly that.


Lets play the blame game after we fix this, deal?

I agree that the administration has done a piss poor job for 8 years, but this isn't about Bush. The choice is have the problems of the last week be the bootom if you pass it, or have a depression-like issue when you don't. I admire the principles of what you're saying and 95% of the time I'd be on your side, but the consequences are simply too grave if no action is taken.




So fuck the country up worse, to bail out some foreign banks and wall street people who failed at business?

No thanks. You fuck up the business you suffer the consequences.

Getting the government involved in the money sector is a huge mistake cause they will never leave.


If it was just their businesses that would suffer, then you'd be right. Unfortunately this isn't some small business. This is our whole economy. If you want these people to suffer more then you will start suffering right along with them because you don't realize how dependent on these systems your everyday life is.

[T Park]

If it was just their businesses that would suffer, then you'd be right. Unfortunately this isn't some small business. This is our whole economy. If you want these people to suffer more then you will start suffering right along with them because you don't realize how dependent on these systems your everyday life is.

I understand whats going on, but letting this fly by, then have a 2 year recession followed by recovery is what I'm rooting for. Leave the bailout dead please.

[Manufan909]

Fuck this bailout. Business's fuck up, they have to pay. Thank god the will of the people came threw on this. Maybe if they pass a motherfucking bill that doesn't have a shit load of crap like the treasury having no one to check on his spending(as I understand, The treasurer can sign money without anyone being able to keep an eye on him, I could have heard wrong), then I could be comfortably with this being passed. Maybe Bush should be behind something that isn't so gosh damn questionable. Is that too much to ask?

[jdaveah]

I understand whats going on, but letting this fly by, then have a 2 year recession followed by recovery is what I'm rooting for. Leave the bailout dead please.



If the result of letting this be was a simple recession then I'd be with you. The issues go deeper than that and would cause a full depression if not stopped by government intervention.

[T Park]

If the result of letting this be was a simple recession then I'd be with you. The issues go deeper than that and would cause a full depression if not stopped by government intervention.

Please.

[DPG21920]

Government intervention in price fixing and money issues is never a good thing.

[homer]

I study economics extensively and unless the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they should interfere, they should stay out.

agreed!:toast BTW, wasn't the stimulus package supposed to help our economy? How'd that work, and for how long? How much more of bushism do you really want? Bush will go down in history as the worst Pres ever. What an idiot. Let wall street bail itself out or go under like a lot of american's have had to do.:hat

[T Park]

agreed!:toast BTW, wasn't the stimulus package supposed to help our economy? How'd that work, and for how long? How much more of bushism do you really want? Bush will go down in history as the worst Pres ever. What an idiot. Let wall street bail itself out or go under like a lot of american's have had to do.:hat

Theres been alot worse.

Carter, Jimmy

again people, pick up a history book.

[Trainwreck2100]

Bush is the worst president of presidents ever, anywhere in the world. That includes president of anything, PTA, HOA, Fan clubs, etc, etc

Is that you chris rock?

[jdaveah]

Please.



Since you asked, here's why your condescension is ill informed:

If these institutions are unable to do anything with their defaulted mortgages, the following happens:

Getting credit goes from difficult to impossible. With banks being unable to lend money, nobody can buy a house or start a business. If businesses can't grow and consumers can't buy homes, the economy has no chance of growth whatsoever. Homeownership dwindles substantially, increasing the amount of bad debt and putting more Americans out of their homes.

No new credit on your Visas, Mastercards, etc. Whether most people get this or not, when you buy lunch on a credit card the bank is lending you the money for lunch. Credit limits will be drastically reduced until they find zero because the banks won't have the money to lend and what little money they did have would be unavailable to most people. While in many cases losing credit cards would be a good thing for people, it is undeniable that a very significant portion of American commerce goes through this avenue.

Third, and most important of all, the safety of your money in the bank is put into question. Before you dismiss this as an impossibility, consider this: when a bank has to pay their debts and the only funds available are those funds from customers accounts or the bankers have to give up their personal money to keep the bank afloat, what do YOU think they'd choose? Money from the accounts has to be used to satisfy the debts so that the bankers can escape, and FDIC can take up to 3 years to pay what they insure. In addition, the FDIC cash reserve doesn't have what would be necessary to refund money in that massive amount even if they wanted to.

So to review: Americans have little to no cash, no ability to get credit, and have to rely on what little cash they have saved and from their jobs in order to feed their families and pay their mortgages. What does that sound like to you?

I can list more symptoms of what would happen but hopefully this is enough. If you still aren't convinced I'd be happy to tell you more.

[jdaveah]

Government intervention in price fixing and money issues is never a good thing.

Agreed. However, what is good and what is necessary are not the same thing.

[Russ]

In a related deveopment, Herbert Hoover will be protesting the New Deal. :)

[nil.ball]

Don't understand any of this,

but but..
does this mean Andrew Bynum will not get his $20mil/year paycheck?

[wijayas]

Since you asked, here's why your condescension is ill informed:

If these institutions are unable to do anything with their defaulted mortgages, the following happens:

Getting credit goes from difficult to impossible. With banks being unable to lend money, nobody can buy a house or start a business. If businesses can't grow and consumers can't buy homes, the economy has no chance of growth whatsoever. Homeownership dwindles substantially, increasing the amount of bad debt and putting more Americans out of their homes.

No new credit on your Visas, Mastercards, etc. Whether most people get this or not, when you buy lunch on a credit card the bank is lending you the money for lunch. Credit limits will be drastically reduced until they find zero because the banks won't have the money to lend and what little money they did have would be unavailable to most people. While in many cases losing credit cards would be a good thing for people, it is undeniable that a very significant portion of American commerce goes through this avenue.

Third, and most important of all, the safety of your money in the bank is put into question. Before you dismiss this as an impossibility, consider this: when a bank has to pay their debts and the only funds available are those funds from customers accounts or the bankers have to give up their personal money to keep the bank afloat, what do YOU think they'd choose? Money from the accounts has to be used to satisfy the debts so that the bankers can escape, and FDIC can take up to 3 years to pay what they insure. In addition, the FDIC cash reserve doesn't have what would be necessary to refund money in that massive amount even if they wanted to.

So to review: Americans have little to no cash, no ability to get credit, and have to rely on what little cash they have saved and from their jobs in order to feed their families and pay their mortgages. What does that sound like to you?

I can list more symptoms of what would happen but hopefully this is enough. If you still aren't convinced I'd be happy to tell you more.


Great post! :toast :toast :toast

It is amazing how many Americans are ignorant about the enormous consequences of not passing this bail out bill.

If the Americans are already spending $2.0 trillion and counting in and for IRAQ, why would not the lawmakers spend $0.7 trillion in and for the AMERICANS? :bang

[Manufan909]

You dumb fuck, have you read all the fine print? That shit is unacceptable. I'd be fine with a revised bill passing that cleaved the fat off this excuse. And I could care less how Bush feels(directed at the media), I don't care if he's dissapointed. Americans are dissapointed with alot of this shit, if we still had 3 terms possible, they Rs wouldn't even have him as their nominee(unless you have to do that don't know for sure)

[Obstructed_View]

Lets play the blame game after we fix this, deal?
No. The Congress is responsible for most of this, not the Bush administration. They have been talking the economy into the toilet in order to get points for the election. Why would we trust someone that would do that to suddenly have everyone's best interest at heart now? Barney "Fanny Mae is fundamentally sound" Frank is the last fucking person I'd be asking to take charge of this issue, since he's the primary reason that they were giving loans to high risk borrowers for homes. I suppose we as taxpayers should go ahead and ante up for him to buy his way out of the mess he made, but I don't fucking trust him to do it competently. If they say it's going to cost .7 trillion dollars, I guarantee you it'll end up costing three times that before we're done. That money is better off in the taxpayers' hands. I fear that they've completely killed consumer confidence in anything, which is more important than anything else.


but this isn't about Bush.

You're damn fucking right it isn't, and any implication otherwise is hugely irresponsible. The only thing that has helped gas prices in the last year is Bush lifting the moratorium on drilling, which dried up the speculation and lowered the price of oil. Nice of the do-nothing congress to take credit for the drop in gas prices.


The choice is have the problems of the last week be the bootom if you pass it, or have a depression-like issue when you don't. I admire the principles of what you're saying and 95% of the time I'd be on your side, but the consequences are simply too grave if no action is taken.

This issue has arisen in part because the congress refused to just allow the market to absorb the foreclosures from the bad loans. Those of us smart enough to pay a little extra for the safety net of a hybrid ARM have to pay for those that didn't, and now we're going to have to pay more to bail out those in the government that strong-armed the financial institutions into playing social engineer in the first place. You start doing the same thing with financial institutions, and there'll be a foot race for the free money, and you'll see institutions that were teetering on the edge all collapse at once, and the ones that were anywhere near the edge will cash out and claim collapse because they don't want to be stuck holding the bag.

Again, it's probably too late, as consumer confidence has been all but killed by the rhetoric, and that will do more damage than anyone can fix because it's just too big.

[DPG21920]

Agreed. However, what is good and what is necessary are not the same thing.

That is the same propaganda that turns everyone off. Economics would tend to disagree with you.

[doldrums]

That is the same propaganda that turns everyone off. Economics would tend to disagree with you.

However, most think that SOMETHING needs to be done, so I think they would disagree with you.

[DPG21920]

Evidently not, because the bill failed. Something does need to be done. The government needs to stay out.

[polandprzem]

Who gives a blip?

[BacktoBasics]

I'm just going to point out the fact that its already difficult to get any type of lending...personal or business related. Passing this may keep the status quo but it won't make things any easier.

The criteria for securing loans isn't going to get any better with or without the bill. We are already headed down the path described above by jdaveah.

The bill is only going to stop the bleeding of the companies that need open ended lines of credit to make ends meet. Although allowing a collapse is a scary thought I don't believe it puts us in any worse of a position that we'd already be in a year or so from now.

This bill can go fuck itself. We need change not hemorrhage control.

[Obstructed_View]

I'm just going to point out the fact that its already difficult to get any type of lending...personal or business related. Passing this may keep the status quo but it won't make things any easier.

The criteria for securing loans isn't going to get any better with or without the bill. We are already headed down the path described above by jdaveah.

The bill is only going to stop the bleeding of the companies that need open ended lines of credit to make ends meet. Although allowing a collapse is a scary thought I don't believe it puts us in any worse of a position that we'd already be in a year or so from now.

This bill can go fuck itself. We need change not hemorrhage control.

Waiting to allow some of the weaker institutions to fail and then helping the ones that are stronger while the market helps to absorb the damage would be the prudent way of handling this. Again, since there was a version of the bill that rerouted money to Acorn, who bears quite a bit of responsiblility for the problems, I don't trust this congress to do what they say they are going to do, much less to do what the president that they openly despise asks for. If they could actually play it straight and put forth a plan that just holds the bad assets until the market corrects, and then sell them off and use 100 percent of the proceeds to pay the debt, I'd be all for it. We all know that they aren't capable of doing that.

[dbestpro]

The bailout is like cutting the leaves off of a weed. The solution must be one that addresses the root problem which is a combination of loans to people who could not afford them and an over priced housing market by as much as 30%.

The bailout does nothing for the root problem. The sub-prime loans where a result of regulations that required loans to low income. Noble but short sighted. The over priced value is a build up of greed and tax assessments.

So, if we don't do the bail out then credit dries up. Is that really such a bad thing? I mean we are talking about making America live within its means. Business growth will be determined on facts and not guess work. Homes will still be available because no one is tearing them down. Current home owners who want to move their properties may have to take on the bank's role in lease purchase options and the like. Will it be rough? Hell yes! Will 401K's loose money? Without a doubt. But this one chance to get America back on reality street is too good to pass up. Our children and our children's children need us to stop being so greedy and go through some rough times now so the future will be bright and sustainable based on factual accounting books and not on speculations.

[MarCowMar]

It is really amazing how the middle class, and most people posting in this thread, have no concept of how not providing this sort of assistance will harm them in a very direct and very real way. While I will agree that is is not the ideal thing, playing the blame game can be done later. This money is needed to keep the economy afloat. It isn't perfect capitalism, but our economic system never has been. Citizens interested in keeping America's economy as the world's leader (not to mention keeping their retirement savings) should be hoping that this bill, or some form of it, gets passed and passed soon.

No one's playing the blame game jdaveah. This legislation is simply the wrong action for Congress to be taking. Don't believe me? Ask 200 of our nation's top economists:

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

Sure, Paulson and Buffett support it. But were you aware that Paulson has his life savings in Goldman, and Buffet has 5 billion of his in it? Our country doesn't need Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, Indymac, or WaMu to survive in order for our economy to recover.

The money we'd be giving to these broken financial companies would be gone within a few months, leaving us with no benefit. There are better solutions being proposed but Congress is not listening to them. That's why we MUST petition and make our voice heard.

http://financialpetition.org/petition-nobail.shtml

Call your congressman or congresswoman today and FIGHT :ihit:ihit:ihit

[MarCowMar]

Since you asked, here's why your condescension is ill informed:

If these institutions are unable to do anything with their defaulted mortgages, the following happens:

Getting credit goes from difficult to impossible. With banks being unable to lend money, nobody can buy a house or start a business. If businesses can't grow and consumers can't buy homes, the economy has no chance of growth whatsoever. Homeownership dwindles substantially, increasing the amount of bad debt and putting more Americans out of their homes.

No new credit on your Visas, Mastercards, etc. Whether most people get this or not, when you buy lunch on a credit card the bank is lending you the money for lunch. Credit limits will be drastically reduced until they find zero because the banks won't have the money to lend and what little money they did have would be unavailable to most people. While in many cases losing credit cards would be a good thing for people, it is undeniable that a very significant portion of American commerce goes through this avenue.

Third, and most important of all, the safety of your money in the bank is put into question. Before you dismiss this as an impossibility, consider this: when a bank has to pay their debts and the only funds available are those funds from customers accounts or the bankers have to give up their personal money to keep the bank afloat, what do YOU think they'd choose? Money from the accounts has to be used to satisfy the debts so that the bankers can escape, and FDIC can take up to 3 years to pay what they insure. In addition, the FDIC cash reserve doesn't have what would be necessary to refund money in that massive amount even if they wanted to.

So to review: Americans have little to no cash, no ability to get credit, and have to rely on what little cash they have saved and from their jobs in order to feed their families and pay their mortgages. What does that sound like to you?

I can list more symptoms of what would happen but hopefully this is enough. If you still aren't convinced I'd be happy to tell you more.

jdaveah your intentions are in the right place. However each of the issues you bring up (obtaining credit, safety of deposits, lack of cash) would in fact have been WORSENED by the passing of the bill.

1) Obtaining credit
-- There is nothing in the bill that forces banks to provide credit. The bill would just give the banks a dumping ground for their worthless assets and HOPE that they decided to provide loans after dumping said assets. A law built on hope and handouts won't provide credit for the taxpayers.

2) Safety of deposits
-- How will deposits be more safe when instead of bolstering the FDIC, we've dumped 1 trillion dollars into Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup? How about instead of giving 1 trillion dollars to corrupt banks, we give 1 trillion to the FDIC and instruct them to start taking over said banks?

3) Lack of cash
-- After printing 1 trillion dollars (trust me, we don't have it on hand) the value of our dollar will shrink, inflation will spiral, and the price of gas prices will go up. I'll sacrifice a few hiccups in bank transactions if it means the value of my dollars hold steady.

There are no easy or good solutions to these problems. But there are better and worse solutions. The existing bailout plan is the WORST. FIGHT IT, PETITION YOUR CONGRESS:

http://financialpetition.org/petition-nobail.shtml

:ihit:ihit:ihit:ihit:ihit:ihit


And if you ever wondered why so many of your Congressmen and Congresswomen were ignoring you, consider this:

"The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations,
said House members who supported the bailout bill on average received
50 percent more in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance
and real estate sectors during their congressional careers than did
those who opposed the measure. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/30/short-of-votes-bailout-backers-gambled-on-arm-twis/?page=2

If you can do nothing else, follow the money. :bking

[Obstructed_View]

And in breaking news, the senate version is loaded with pork. Big surprise...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4870770.ece

[intlspurshk]

If your country don't pass the bill (I'm glad it just pass), your country's banking system will collapse. The costs of Social unrest would be so serious. The economy of US and the world would be pushed to the edge of global recession and many many people will lose jobs and the retirement benefit savings will be evaporated.

I certainly agree the hate on this bill. Those Wall Street bankers should deserve punishments. Hoepfully, your govenment will have enough time and guts to punish them. But your country have no choice to not going this path.

[T Park]

If your country don't pass the bill (I'm glad it just pass), your country's banking system will collapse. The costs of Social unrest would be so serious. The economy of US and the world would be pushed to the edge of global recession and many many people will lose jobs and the retirement benefit savings will be evaporated.

I certainly agree the hate on this bill. Those Wall Street bankers should deserve punishments. Hoepfully, your govenment will have enough time and guts to punish them. But your country have no choice to not going this path.


Their punishment should be getting fired, they've done nothing illegal.

All they did was grant loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them because the Government came in and said "You have to lend to these people"

No credit, nothing, just give em money.


This is the same government people want to run the health care system as well. Goody.

[MemphisSpursFan]

This has been coming for decades. I think CEO's, CFO's, and CIO's should all be brought up on charges of high treason. Outsourcing, offshoring, and H1B's (not to mention illegal aliens) all transfer wealth from America to other countries... all witht eh goal of ensuring huge bonuses for the C's. If you send money out of America, there is less money in our econcomy, which results in more of the above, whic reduces money in American economy which...

Has anyone here read "The rise and fall of the Roman Empire"? We are experiencing it.

[phyzik]

Their punishment should be getting fired, they've done nothing illegal.

All they did was grant loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them because the Government came in and said "You have to lend to these people"

No credit, nothing, just give em money.


This is the same government people want to run the health care system as well. Goody.

one of the smartest posts I've seen you put on here, honestly.

Im not going to comment too much on the bill. Its stupid the way its currently structured.... but those of you (no one in particular) that want government assisted Health Care system are dillusional. I've said it before in another post.... look up those countries that have government health care... let me know how thats turned out for them.

One instance? Canada.... Canadians come to America for health care now... I wonder why?

NO NATION has EVER fared well with goverment Health Care.... what makes ANYONE think that the current administration, or even the next, will fare any better?

sure I've heard the argument "better to have health care for everyone than alot of people with out it" but it just doesnt work that way. If we go with government controlled health care we will be screwed.

[byrontx]

Unbelievable! You don't really think they racked up $700 billion in mortgages because they were prompted by the government do you. You know better than that crap. They had access to a lot of cheap money and started pushing no-down-payment, ARM's. They were bundling the loans and flipping them as ... Never mind; you already know.

Geez, pretending the government twisted their arms to make the loans is ridiculous.

[phxspurfan]

In times like these, I like to ask myself what would Nostradamus do? Search the interweb for the answer...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Democracy is a broken system when the sheer force of money overrules good judgment...

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/30/congress-confronts-its-contradictions/

CONGRESS CONFRONTS ITS CONTRADICTIONS

They baled out of the bail-out, but the money will still have to come from us. It always has.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 30th September 2008

According to Senator Jim Bunning, the proposal to purchase $700bn of dodgy debt by the US government “is financial socialism, it is un-American”(1). The economics professor Nouriel Roubini calls George Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke “a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the United Socialist State Republic of America”(2). Bill Perkins, the venture capitalist who took out an advertisement in the New York Times attacking the deal, calls it “trickle-down communism”(3).

They are wrong. The banking subsidies Congress rejected last night are as American as apple pie and obesity. The sums demanded by Bush and Paulson might be unprecedented, but there is nothing new about the principle: corporate welfare is a consistent feature of advanced capitalism. Only one thing has changed: Congress has been forced to confront its contradictions.

One of the best studies of corporate welfare in the United States is published by my old enemies at the Cato Institute. Its report, by Stephen Slivinski, estimates that in 2006 the federal government spent $92bn subsidising business(4). Much of it went to major corporations like Boeing, IBM and General Electric.

The biggest money crop - $21bn - is harvested by Big Farmer. Slivinski shows that the richest 10% of subsidised farmers took 66% of the pay-outs. Every few years Congress or the administration promises to stop this swindle, then hands even more state money to agribusiness. The Farm Bill passed by Congress in May guarantees farmers a minimum of 90% of the income they’ve received over the past two years, which happen to be among the most profitable they’ve ever had(5). The middlemen do even better, especially the companies spreading starvation by turning maize into ethanol, which are guzzling billions of dollars’ worth of tax credits.

Slivinski shows how the federal government’s Advanced Technology Program, which was supposed to support the development of technologies that are “pre-competitive” or “high risk” has instead been captured by big businesses flogging proven products. Since 1991, companies like IBM, General Electric, Dow Chemical, Caterpillar, Ford, DuPont, General Motors, Chevron and Monsanto have extracted hundreds of millions from this programme. Big business is also underwritten by the Export-Import Bank: in 2006, for example, Boeing alone received four and half billion in loan guarantees(6).

The government runs something called the “Foreign Military Financing Program” which gives money to other countries to purchase weaponry from US corporations. It doles out grants to airports for building new runways and to fishing companies to help them wipe out endangered stocks.

But the Cato Institute’s report has exposed only part of the corporate welfare scandal. A new paper by the US Institute for Policy Studies shows that, through a series of cunning tax and accounting loopholes, the US spends $20bn a year subsidising executive pay(7). By disguising their professional fees as capital gains rather than income, for example, the managers of hedge funds and private equity companies pay lower rates of tax than the people who clean their offices. A year ago, the House of Representatives tried to close this loophole, but the bill was blocked in the Senate after a lobbying campaign by some of the richest men in America.

Another report, by a group called Good Jobs First, reveals that Wal-Mart has received at least $1bn of public money(8). Over 90% of its distribution centres and many of its retail outlets have been subsidised by county and local governments. They give the chain free land, they pay for the roads, water and sewerage required to make that land usable, and they grant it property tax breaks and subsidies (called tax increment financing) originally intended to regenerate depressed communities. Sometimes state governments give the firm straight cash as well: in Virginia, for example, Wal-Mart’s distribution centres receive handouts from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund.

Corporate welfare is arguably the core business of some government departments. Many of the Pentagon’s programmes deliver benefits only to its contractors. Ballistic missile defence, for example, which has no obvious strategic purpose and which is unlikely ever to work, has already cost the US between $120bn and $150bn. The Department of Defense wants another $62bn for the next five years(9). The US is unique among major donors in insisting that the food it offers in aid is produced on its own soil, rather than in the regions it is meant to be helping. USAID used to boast on its website that “the principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80 percent of the US Agency for International Development’s contracts and grants go directly to American firms.”(10) There is not and has never been a free market in the United States.

Why not? Because the Congressmen and women now railing against financial socialism depend for their re-election on the companies they subsidise. The legal bribes paid by these businesses deliver two short-term benefits. The first is that they prevent proper regulation, which allows them to make spectacular profits and to generate disasters of the kind that Congress is now confronting. The second is that public money which should be used to help the poorest and weakest is instead diverted into the pockets of the rich.

A report published last week by the advocacy group Common Cause shows how bankers and brokers stopped legislators from banning unsustainable lending(11). Over the past financial year, the big banks spent $49m on lobbying and $7m in direct campaign contributions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spent $180m in lobbying and campaign finance over the past eight years. Much of this money was thrown at members of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee.

Whenever congressmen tried to rein in the banks and mortgage lenders they were blocked by the banks’ money. Dick Durbin’s 2005 amendment seeking to stop predatory mortgage lending, for example, was defeated in the Senate by 58 to 40. The former representative Jim Leach proposed re-regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their lobbyists, he recalls, managed in “less than 48 hours to orchestrate both parties’ leadership” to crush his amendments(12).

The money these firms spend buys the socialisation of financial risk. The $700bn the government was looking for is just one of the public costs of its repeated failure to regulate. Even now the lobbying power of the banks is making itself felt: on Saturday the Democrats watered down their demand that the money earned by executives of the companies the government is rescuing be capped(13). Campaign finance is the best investment a corporation can make. You give a million dollars to the right man and reap a billion dollars’ worth of state protection, tax breaks and subsidies. When the same thing happens in Africa we call it corruption.

European governments are no better. The free market economics they proclaim are a con: they intervene repeatedly on behalf of the rich, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves. Just as in the United States, the bosses of farm companies, oil drillers, supermarkets and banks capture the funds extracted by government from the pockets of people much poorer than themselves. Taxpayers everywhere should be asking the same question: why the hell should we be supporting them?

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Jim Bunning, quoted by James Politi and Daniel Dombey, 24th September 2008. Republican anger at ‘financial socialism’. Financial Times.

2. Nouriel Roubini, 18th September 2008. Public losses for private gain. The Guardian.

3. Andrew Clark, 24th September 2008. US trader attacks ‘trickle-down communism’ of markets bail-out. The Guardian.

4. Stephen Slivinski, 14th May 2007. The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes US Businesses. Policy Analysis no. 592.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf

5. Subsidy Watch, June 2008. Ignoring WTO implications and a presidential veto, US Congress passes the new Farm Bill. Global Subsidies Initiative.
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/news/ignoring-wto-implications-and-a-presidential-veto-us-congress-passes-new-farm-

6. Stephen Slivinski, ibid.

7. Sarah Anderson et al, 25th August 2008. Executive Excess 2008
How Average Taxpayers Subsidize Runaway Pay. Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#623

8. Philip Mattera et al, May 2004. Shopping for Subsidies:
How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth. Good Jobs First. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

9. I explain why it won’t work and costs so much at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/19/the-magic-pudding/

10. USAID. Creating Opportunities for U.S. Small Business, viewed 5th January 2004. http://www.usaid.gov/procurement_bus_opp/osdbu/book-information.htm

11. Common Cause, 24th September 2008. Ask Yourself Why… They Didn’t See This Coming. http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4542875

12. James A. Leach, 16th July 2008. Fixing Fannie and Freddie. Institute of Politics,
John F. Kennedy School Of Government, Harvard University. http://www.iop.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/Fannie%20and%20Freddie.pdf

13. James Politi and Daniel Dombey, 28th September 2008. Long and exhausting road to compromise. Financial Times

[Obstructed_View]

Unbelievable! You don't really think they racked up $700 billion in mortgages because they were prompted by the government do you.

Unbelievable, yet true. The vast majority of the bad assets are exactly that. If you don't believe the government is involved in the banking industry, look up FHLMC and FNMA.

[BacktoBasics]

Thank god this protest worked.