financialservices.house.gov
We are all getting fucked.
Printable View
financialservices.house.gov
We are all getting fucked.
:td
The 20% siphoning of profits off to the special housing interests (ACORN, etc.) is still in the bill. Fuck this.
And to clarify the earlier discussion, this is any profit, not if profits are made over and above the 700 billion.
So say 20% of the loans bought make a profit, 20% of those profits go to the slush fund.
I hate D.C., fuck them all.
Skimming through this thing... there is so many holes in this legislation. It basically gives Paulson everything he asked for originally under the guise of Congress actually looking out for the common man.
It probably won't do any good but I urge everyone, no matter your party affiliation, to contact your Congressmen and let them know what you think.
This is a horrible deal for the American taxpayer.
"horrible deal for the American taxpayer."
yeah, since when does the capitalist/ruling elite give a fuck about the country?
you naive jerkoff suckers still believe Lincoln's "of the people, by the people, for the people"
For perspective, the Iraq-war-for-oil is at least 4x as expensive, plus the vet care/disability will go on for 40-50 years, but that's alright with right-wingers. America's got a kickass military that can't beat a bunch of ragheads.
btw, the military budget FOR ONE FUCKING YEAR, is now over $600B, and every year hereafter. But that's alright, the MIC is overrunning and overcharging.
The whole neo-c*nt point of the bailout, and the wars, is to straightjacket the next President, for years, and force cuts or abolish in Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP, etc. If you hear any neo-c*nts, Repugs sounding contrite about how they fucked up, you know they're lying.
I mean this with all due respect but you must be the dumbest mother fucker on this board.
I know you'll never admit it, but the Democrats were driving the bus on this bailout. But you're too much of a partisan bitch to admit that.Quote:
The whole neo-c*nt point of the bailout, and the wars, is to straightjacket the next President, for years, and force cuts or abolish in Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP, etc. If you hear any neo-c*nts, Repugs sounding contrite about how they fucked up, you know they're lying.
A-fucking-men.
I got there with these links
http://breakingtoday.com/18.html
http://www.breakingtoday.com/firstdraft.pdf
http://rawstory.com/images/other/rawsmaller2.gif
Kucinich says bailout doesn't have the votes
09/28/2008 @ 4:51 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
Advertisement
http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/...0A%7C160x600A/
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:..._kucinich1.jpg
As the Wall Street bailout talks continue, a critical Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is not confident that House will pass the legislation, as he told The Hill. "If the votes were there, this would be on the floor," he said. "The votes aren't there."
"Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" Kucinich asked today. "Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt-based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks?"
Kucinich attended a meeting of the "Skeptics Caucus," organized by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and consisting of House Democrats skeptical of the bailout effort. The meeting's speakers included economic professor James Galbraith of the University of Texas and former FDIC chairman William Isaac. Sherman called the legislation a Bush administration "power grab" and a handout to Wall Street. "This is greatest shift of power to the imperial presidency and the greatest shift of wealth to a still wealthy Wall Street that anyone could imagine," Sherman said.
"None of this has been subject to a critical analysis," charged Rep. Kucinich. "We haven't had access to the books to the people who are claiming they are going broke."
"They rushed this Congress into the Iraq resolution and look what happened," he added, comparing the rushed tone behind the bailout effort with the push to invade Iraq, "Catastrophe for this nation as well as for the people of Iraq."
"The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street is driven by fear, not fact," Kucinich said on the House floor Sunday.
"This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered.
Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received?
Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money?
Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street?
Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess?
Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this?
Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors?
How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?"
Video of the Congressman's speech is available to view below:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucini...otes_0928.html
Top 5 Reasons to Vote Against Paulson's $700 Billion Bailout
1. BAILOUT'S INHERENT FISCAL INSANITY COULD MAKE PROBLEM WORSE
2. EXPERTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SAY THIS BAILOUT COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE
3. THERE ARE CLEARLY BETTER AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES
4. ANY INCUMBENT VOTING FOR THIS PUTS THEMSELVES AT RISK OF BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE
5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE IS SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS - AND AMERICA KNOWS IT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...tml?view=print
Wall Street's Infinite Sleaze: Goldman and AIG
According to the New York Times, Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO, was in the room with Henry Paulson (former CEO of Goldman) when the decision to save AIG was made.
Why does this matter?
According to the New York Times, AIG owed Goldman $20 billion. If AIG had been allowed to go bankrupt, Goldman would be in line with all the other creditors, hoping for a few dimes back on each dollar of debt. Because Henry Paulson decided to rescue AIG, Goldman gets paid in full.
Did Goldman's influence with their ex-CEO make a difference in Paulson's decision? I have no idea, but this thing stinks. Can you imagine if clerical workers losing their homes got to sit around with bankruptcy judges deciding the fate of their mortgages? It doesn't work that way where the rest of us live.
It is impossible to exaggerate the corruption of this Wall Street crowd.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-b...tml?view=print
============
I remember reading at the time of the AIG rescue the question of who was owed by AIG and therefore who was as risk if Paulsen let AIG go under. Now we know at least one creditor, Paulsen's firm.
hahaaha this country is about to implode. :downspin:
its funny how they report today that william buffet is all for it, after he threw 5 bill at goldman. if the bailout doesn't go threw he is out some cash.......he has no cred.
The problem of millions of foreclosures, the root problem making the debt paper illiquid, is totally unaddressed and unsolved.
This whole tax-payer ripoff is fucking 100% transparent.
This could be the Repug's October Surprise. A Repug conspircy to have just enough Repug votes to add to the Dem votes to get it passed, then trash the Dems for passing it.
You Really Believe We're the Priority?
As the Bailout Bill nears completion, one of the principles being espoused is to protect the taxpayer. Pardon me if I express some healthy skepticism here by example.
Late last week, Washington Mutual, the nation's largest thrift institution collapsed. Wamu closed its doors one evening and woke up the next as JPMorgan Chase. The FDIC claimed victory, because no depositors lost money and, in fact, the insurance fund received money. JPMorgan managed to walk away with almost $200 billion in deposits (the cheapest form of money for a financial institution), and lots of "investments", such as mortgages. For this, JPMorgan paid the FDIC $1.9 billion. JPMorgan immediately wrote off $30 billion of the value of the assets they acquired (which tells you why Wamu was in trouble, and how much trouble some other banks may be in).
Now I may be making an assumption, but JPMorgan's belief in the value of the deal may have something to do with the Bailout legislation. Why? Because if the Legislation is enacted, JPMorgan may be able to simply sell the bad assets to the Government; and do so at a profit. Voila. JPMorgan ends up with the good part of Wamu for a song. The taxpayer ends up with "Toxic Waste." Seems to me like a great deal for the taxpayer.
If I am correct, and judging from years of experience watching our executive and legislative branches this is a reasonably likely, you have to believe this legislation will ensure the taxpayer is the last person in line.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-g...tml?view=print
==========
Naomi Klein called this "shock capitalism" and was ridiculed as paranoid, while she has been proven to be accurate and her detractors were the fools.
I already emailed my congresman and senators last week, can you give some more details about that 20% slush fund thing? I'll email htem again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
I think the ACORN crap was cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
Dammit. Now the package may pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I just saw rep Phil Gingrey saying he will not vote for this plan and that they will only be able to get around 60 house republicans to go along with this. Dems won't do it unless at least 100 repubs vote for it.
Good to know at least some house republicans have a brain. They pass this and I'll vote for Obama and straight dems on the down ticket just out of spite. Even though I can't stand the fucker.
You're wrong. Page 21 of the bill says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
DEPOSITS.—Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
This is actually worse, as it states *not less than 20%*. 20% is the floor. They could take whatever profits they want and move into that fund.Quote:
(2) USE OF DEPOSITS.—Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)—
(A) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568) and
(B) 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
The Housing Trust Fund has already seen funds disbursed from it to the benefit of ACORN and La Raza.
The Capital Magnet Fund has been recently re-energized by Dems in Congress with the housing legislation passed earlier this summer (July I think?). I haven't found any funds disbursed as part of this program yet, but it's clear it's nothing more than a slush fund for similar groups.
Good to hear (on the former). I've already sent emails to everyone I can vote for here in Texas (Senate, HOR), and told them I will vote against them every time they are up for election if they vote for this bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Kucinich is on the money on all this, there's too much bullshit and fearmongering going on.
The books of all the Wall Street firms should be open to review before a dime is paid to any one of them by the federal government.
LMAO at the Dems in Congress. They have enough votes to pass this thing by themselves, but they won't want to be responsible by themselves for fucking over our country. That is so fucking weak. They want enough Republican support so when we all get hosed by this deal, they can turn around and try and blame it on the Republicans.
Fuck every last one of them.
FWIW,
You can go here and enter your zip code and find out your rep (figuring out how to contact Kay Bailey and Cornyn is the easy part).
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
That's what we're here for. I honestly wish we could overthrow this piece of shit government that doesn't serve its peoples' needs. How can this be called a representative government when nobody wants this thing passed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
That's not true. Wall Street does.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
[/Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Obama, McCain, etc.]
The financial industry is the biggest contributor to DC, it owns the Congressional whores, and is gettng the nasty tricks turned on demand.
Citizens are totally disenfranchised and powerless.
Kucinich raises all the right questions, says there are better alternatives, as do many others.
Paulsen framed the ONLY solution/numbers/timing and Congress took the framework and faked making it their own.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ogoprinter.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/ima...thisfriday.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox...erfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/ima...nowplaying.gif
September 29, 2008
Treasury Would Emerge With Vast New Power
By FLOYD NORRIS
During its weeklong deliberations, Congress made many changes to the Bush administration’s original proposal to bail out the financial industry, but one overarching aspect of the initial plan that remains is the vast discretion it gives to the Treasury secretary.
The draft legislation, which will be put to a House vote on Monday, gives Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and his successor extraordinary power to decide how the $700 billion bailout fund is spent. For example, if he thinks it wise, he may buy not only mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but any other financial instrument.
To be sure, the Treasury secretary’s powers have been tempered since the original Bush administration proposal, which would have given Mr. Paulson nearly unfettered control over the program. There are now two separate oversight panels involved, one composed of legislators and the other including regulatory and administration officials.
Still, Mr. Paulson can choose to buy from any financial institution that does business in the United States, or from pension funds, with wide discretion over what he will buy and how much he will pay. Under most circumstances, banks owned by foreign governments are not eligible for the money, but under some conditions, the secretary can choose to bail out foreign central banks.
Under the bill, the Treasury is to buy the securities at prices he deems appropriate. Mr. Paulson may set prices through auctions but is not required to do so.
Rarely if ever has one man had such broad authority to spend government money as he sees fit, with no rules requiring him to seek out the lowest possible price for assets being purchased.
The secretary is supposed to do what he can to maximize the profit or minimize the eventual loss to the federal government as a result of its purchase of mortgages and other financial instruments. But in the case of mortgages controlled by the government, he is required to approve “reasonable requests for loss mitigation measures, including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write-downs” and other possible changes. Such requests could help homeowners at the expense of the government.
Congress forced the Bush administration to agree to a provision requiring financial institutions that sell securities to the program to give an equity or debt stake to the government. But Mr. Paulson will have wide latitude in deciding how large a stake is needed. His discretion in setting those limits could have a major impact on how many institutions choose to participate.
The limits on executive pay in the bill, also added in response to pressure from legislators, appear unlikely to be used very often. The secretary could take such steps if he bought substantial assets “from an individual financial institution where no bidding process or market prices are available.”
Presumably, if there is some kind of bidding process, those limitations, over which the secretary also has considerable discretion, will not apply. However, institutions that receive $300 million or more from the program would face limitations on executive pay.
One of the most important decisions the secretary will make is the price the government pays for securities. Here again, there is wide discretion. He is directed to “make such purchases at the lowest price” that is “consistent with the purposes of this act.”
( :lol the "purposes" being to save and enrich the sleazebags who created the crisis )
Those purposes, however, are expansive and leave him room to pay well over the lowest price available if he wishes to do so. The act is designed to “restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States” and protect homeownership, home values and economic growth. If he concludes that a higher price is needed to provide stability in the financial markets, that is evidently acceptable.
When the Bush administration submitted its original proposal, there was an uproar over the lack of oversight of the secretary’s actions.
This bill requires frequent reports to Congressional committees, including a Congressional oversight panel; audits by the comptroller general; and appointment of an inspector general for the program.
The bill also sets up an oversight board, which is directed to “ensure that the policies implemented” by Mr. Paulson are proper. Mr. Paulson is to be one of the five members of the board watching over his actions, :lol :lol joined by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Housing Secretary and the director of the Federal Home Finance Agency.
If Mr. Paulson wishes to use his authority to buy financial assets not linked to mortgages, he can do so after consulting the Fed chairman. But he does not need the approval of the Fed chairman or the oversight board.
The bill does allow legal challenges, but attempts to assure they are quickly handled and that the most important decisions can be challenged only on constitutional grounds, not on the ground that they conflict with some other law.
While the bill does not drop the accounting rule that requires banks to report on the market value of their assets — a rule that some banks believe has forced them to report excessive losses — it gives the S.E.C. permission to suspend the rule for any individual company if it thinks that is in the public’s interest. That is likely to lead to intensive lobbying of the commission.
=======
Just fucking amazing. The financial elite, aided by the political elite, waste non-elite taxpayers' $$ to enrich sleazebags.
:td More lowlights:
Section 103 includes provisions for bailing out city, state, and *union* pensions.
Section 109 includes provisions for bailing out real estate speculators (no potential for corruption here...).