Reply With Quote
Why the is Dodd getting to call shots.
What a joke. That joke is the new America.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080922/financial_meltdown.html
GoodUnder other additions the Democrats are asking to the administration package, according to a draft of the plan obtained by The Associated Press:
-- Judges could rewrite mortgages to lower bankrupt homeowners' monthly payments.
Good-- Companies that unloaded their bad assets on the government in the massive rescue would have to limit their executives' pay packages and agree to revoke any bonuses awarded based on bogus claims.
ing joke.The proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, would give the government broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset -- including credit card debt or car loans -- from any financial ins ution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets.
Worldwide? And what happens when the US goes bankrupt? It won't matter.
Car loans and credit cards? This is ing bull . Piece of Democrat.
Why the is Dodd getting to call shots.
What a joke. That joke is the new America.
You must have missed the rest of the G7 laughing at us today...
I don't understand why they would want to buy our worthless paper, WTF?Europe and Japan turned a cold shoulder on Monday toward a American request that they bail out banks in the manner now being proposed in the United States.
===
But the G-7 also indicated that countries were free to go their own way in grappling with what has become the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
“Each of us remains committed to taking further action, individually and collectively as needed, consistent with our respective domestic cir stances,” the G-7 statement said.
That appeared to paper over the obvious cracks between the United States and countries in Europe and Asia, whose economies and banking systems are generally in far better shape than the United States. The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., said Sunday that he would “aggressively” seek plans from other countries to buy up illiquid assets linked to America’s mortgage market.
German officials explicitly ruled out any German version of Washington’s plan, which is expected to cost American taxpayers about $700 billion.
British officials also made clear that they would not create a fund to buy bad assets, although Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer, did promise new rules.
===
The Japanese finance minister, Bunmei Ibuki, said after the announcement that he saw no need for Japan to set up an American-style rescue scheme to help its own banks offload bad assets, Reuters reported from Tokyo.
The German finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, said, “None of the other six G-7 members will adopt a similar program to the U.S.”
Apart from a manifest lack of sympathy for a crisis they view as created by American banks and regulators, European governments are also constrained by rules within the 27-nation European Union that limit budget deficits and public debt.
You think its DODD that wants to bail out foreign banks?
oh
And you know Obama and Pelosi had a hand in it (along with the rest of the Democraptic leadership in Congress).
Well, bad debt is bad debt. I guess it just depends on how much of the total bad debt needs to be bought up to get financial ins utions lending again.
LOL Dude, Dodd and the Democrats are the ones providing the best leadership here and its not even close. The Republicans want a blank check to do whatever the they want with no oversight and no justification.
The Dems have added some pork to the bill in the form of bailing out mainstreet, but the fact of the matter is that they're the ones implimenting the the nessecary oversight and regulations in this bill.
Why is Dodd getting to call the shots? Because the administration can't lead worth a damn.
Oh, and if you really think its the Democrats that are pushing for foreign banks included just tell me outright so I can avoid wasting my time in this thread.
I just saw your note Manny. The foreign bank bailout is clearly a Paulson/Bush move. Covering the credit card debt and car loans is a Democratic special though.
Time to go buy a Beamer, paying for it I can just charge it to the American taxpayer
McCain came out saying more oversight is needed as well. Dodd's the chair of the banking committee. Pretty ironic he's getting to call the shots as his committee has been asleep at the wheel with him in charge, err getting bribed by Fannie/Freddie.
There is more than enough blame to go around to every part involved. I'm not interested in applying it to any one particular party because the truth is they were both ing stupid and they're both in the pocket of Wall St.
But on this bailout the Democrats are so far ahead of the Republicans its not even funny. The current Republican party is just plain ty. Maybe they can regroup after the Bush administration but man they're really dissapointing right now.
"Piece of Democrat."
the Dodd item was already in Paulson's do ent, that broadend over the weekend. Dodd is not responsible for it, not did he create it.
piece of Aggie
Link?
These were all new items from the first Paulson do ent released, at least the version I saw. And it's the version you posted here on this very forum you dumbass.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105301
Show me in there where it says anything about anything other than mortgage related assets that would specify they could cover car, credit debt.
That, or STFU.
check later versions, dumbass, Paulson changed it all weekend, broadening it to buy any ing thing, any ing place.
Yeah, once he and the Dems and Republicans sat down at the table and starting talking terms. Dodd's even on the record as backing this, dumbass.
Credit cards and car loans!!! This is seriously ridiculous.
We are witnessing how empires fall.
^^ I guess thats a good way to look at it.
Currently, the Yahoo article http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080922/financial_meltdown.html reads
From the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/bu...23paulson.htmlIn one expansion of its original proposal, the administration is asking for broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset -- including credit card debt or car loans -- from any financial ins ution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, has proposed granting that request; Frank said he was working to limit the bailout to mortgage-related investments.
...
The Senate Democrats' proposals includes two bold provisions. One would grant the Treasury "contingent shares" of stock in any financial ins ution that wants to sell bad debt to the government; the other would grant bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, a step aimed at helping homeowners at risk of foreclosure.
The bankruptcy provision is staunchly opposed by the banking, lending and securities industries and by many Republicans in Congress, but Democrats insist that it is one of the few mechanisms to provide direct assistance to homeowners caught in the foreclosure crisis.
The contingent shares would give taxpayers an equity stake in companies seeking help through the rescue program, potentially allowing the government not only to recoup however much of the $700 billion it spends on bad debt, but also to profit should the financial firms prosper in years ahead. The legislation would require the value of the contingent shares to equal the value of the assets purchased by the government.
The 44-page Senate proposal, pulled together by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the chairman of the banking committee, would require the Treasury to run the rescue plan through a new "Office of Financial Stability" to be headed by an assistant treasury secretary. It would also establish an "Emergency Oversight Board" to monitor the bailout effort, made up of the Fed Chairman; the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and two non-government employees with "financial expertise" in the public and private sectors, one each appointed by the majority and minority leadership in Congress.
In addition, the Senate proposal would require monthly reports to Congress, rather than the biannual reports that would be required under the Bush administration’s proposal.
...
And student loans.
Oh, and there's this:
This isn't a one time 700 billion shot. They could buy 700 billion, write it off, then buy another 700 billion.Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases. The Secretarys authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
We (the common Americans) are ed.
I have to say, good job for this, Dems.The Senate Democrats' proposals includes two bold provisions. One would grant the Treasury "contingent shares" of stock in any financial ins ution that wants to sell bad debt to the government; the other would grant bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, a step aimed at helping homeowners at risk of foreclosure.
The bankruptcy provision is staunchly opposed by the banking, lending and securities industries and by many Republicans in Congress, but Democrats insist that it is one of the few mechanisms to provide direct assistance to homeowners caught in the foreclosure crisis.
The contingent shares would give taxpayers an equity stake in companies seeking help through the rescue program, potentially allowing the government not only to recoup however much of the $700 billion it spends on bad debt, but also to profit should the financial firms prosper in years ahead. The legislation would require the value of the contingent shares to equal the value of the assets purchased by the government.
The 44-page Senate proposal, pulled together by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the chairman of the banking committee, would require the Treasury to run the rescue plan through a new "Office of Financial Stability" to be headed by an assistant treasury secretary. It would also establish an "Emergency Oversight Board" to monitor the bailout effort, made up of the Fed Chairman; the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and two non-government employees with "financial expertise" in the public and private sectors, one each appointed by the majority and minority leadership in Congress.
In addition, the Senate proposal would require monthly reports to Congress, rather than the biannual reports that would be required under the Bush administration’s proposal.
But the amount of power being proposed to give to Paulson is criminal. Yeah, give the former head of Goldman Sachs, who helped put us in this situation, the power of God in our financial markets. no.
Translation: we're saying 700 billion, but it's going to be a load more, but we don't want to admit that now because we'll get lynched.“That doesn’t mean we’ll go all the way there, or it doesn’t mean it will stop there and we won’t ask for more,” Mr. Paulson said Sunday on the CBS program, “Face the Nation.” “What we need is something that is big enough to get the job done. We’ll ask for what we think is a right amount to give us plenty of flexibility.”
So does this mean I can stop paying my student loans and this bill will erase the debt for me?
More
Democrats appeared to agree on the broad parameters of a rescue plan. Among the key points:
-A rescue package. The Treasury could purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-backed assets from troubled firms. While the source of the funding isn't yet clear, the Treasury wants the U.S. debt limit, now about $9.7 trillion, to increase to $11.3 trillion. Any profits from later sales of troubled assets would be returned to the Treasury.
-Tougher supervision. The administration's proposal says that the Treasury secretary's decisions "may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Dodd wants the bailout operation supervised by a five-member board consisting of the Fed chairman, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman and two public members, one appointed by leaders of each major political party.
Frank said any oversight board would be independent and would have investigative power but not operational authority. He said the Bush administration had agreed in concept, but the administration was said to be balking at the board's broad authority.
-Foreclosure assistance. The federal government would gain more power to keep people in their homes; one way would be to let bankruptcy judges lower homeowners' monthly payments. "We'll now own a lot of these mortgages," Frank said.
Reid explained that wealthier homeowners often find it easy to seek mortgage assistance from bankruptcy judges, but that those who aren't wealthy cannot.
"That makes no sense, and we should change it," he said, by giving bankruptcy courts the authority to "reach mutually beneficial arrangements to allow families to keep their homes and prevent more foreclosures."
(EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM)
The administration's initial opposition on this point was said to be lessening.
-Executive compensation. Democrats want the federal government to restrict big salaries and severance packages for executives at troubled firms helped by the federal bailout. "If we have bought your assets," Frank said, "no golden parachutes while we own your paper."
While the administration has resisted this, some Republicans appeared willing to compromise. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said he thought some constraints on executive compensation were appropriate and that it would be difficult to explain opposing such limits to voters.
-Paying for the plan. "Democrats believe that in exchange for shouldering the enormous burden of the Bush plan, the taxpayers should keep any future economic rewards," Reid said. Democrats are pushing for an equity ownership stake for taxpayers in any firm that gets bailout help, so that taxpayers would share in any future firm profits.
That means, Reid added, that "this plan should not permit taxpayer money to purchase an asset at an inflated price exclusively for the benefit of private shareholders."
The Bush administration was resisting the equity-stake proposition.
Bush and his pals can kiss my ass.
I was wondering the same thing. I'll have a lot more money for hookers and blow if I don't have to pay off my truck and my student loan. Time to go start shopping for a million dollar home, think I'm covered there too
Goddamn right the taxpayer should get their fair share of profits.
Anybody opposing that can't honestly look any taxpayer with a straight face.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
