The Bailout plan: Welcome to Economic Shock & Awe

Search

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
See if this sounds familiar:

1.There is a gathering threat to the safety of the United States.
2.We must take immediate action.
3.Congress must quickly grant the President and the Secretary what they want and also give them full and unfettered authority to execute the plan.


Welcome to Economic Shock and Awe (or as some have dubbed it, according to Paul Krugman, "the Authorization for Use of Financial Force").
Even the amount of taxpayer money being bandied about -- $1 trillion -- is similar. Think you got your money's worth for the Iraq war? Congratulations! -- you're about to buy another pricey debacle.

We've seen how negligent the Bush administration is with our money -- flushing billions on wasteful, mismanaged Iraq reconstruction and Katrina recovery projects.

Now the same folks who brought us those no-bid, profit-guaranteed, crony-friendly, war-and-disaster-profiteering boondoggles want us to hand them control of a $700 billion Wall Street slush fund -- with no strings attached. How dumb -- or frightened -- do they think we are?


This is, as Matt Yglesias calls it, "a crisis point for American liberalism." The battle lines are already clear: Paulson and Bush and the Republican Party want a license to reward the worst actors in the financial industry and do nothing for American families suffering the consequences.
Remember a few years ago when lawmaker after lawmaker -- mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans -- said of Iraq, "If I'd known then what I know now, I'd have voted differently."
Well, this time at least some lawmakers -- mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans -- are not being so easily bamboozled. Congressional Democrats, led by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House, have put forth proposals doing away with the Paulson's demand for unprecedented authoritarian power and adding a requirement that the government do more to help troubled borrowers refinance their mortgages.
The Treasury appears willing to bend on those elements but sticking points remain, including efforts to limit the pay of executives and Dodd's proposal that taxpayers get a share of the profits if the bad debt being bought rises in value.
Let's hope Democratic resolve holds up against the inevitable charges by the Bush administration that demands for oversight, limits on executive compensation, profit sharing for taxpayers, and aid for struggling homeowners will lead to an economic Armageddon.
There is no question that the need to address this crisis is urgent and that the issues involved are complex. But urgency and complexity cannot be allowed to become excuses for lawmakers, the media, and the public to throw up their hands and allow themselves to be bull-rushed into disastrous public policy.

Over the past 30 years, Americans have been bombarded with sermons evangelizing for the free market religion of the Right, and the supposed correlation between unregulated markets and progress. In the process, the American people have been demoted from citizens to consumers, and sold a bill of goods (rather than a Bill of Rights) about how the almighty market was the essential foundation of democracy.
In the course of selling us on buying, the market-worshippers shredded the modern social contract, the hard-fought consensus that had emerged since the New Deal, which ordered our political priorities, and expressed both our communal concern for the most vulnerable members of society and our disapproval of huge inequalities. We were now supposed to believe that all could be left up to the soulless, self-correcting calculus of supply and demand. Government involvement was an anachronism, regulatory oversight an impediment.
The last few weeks have demolished that notion. In the battle over the proper role of government, the forces of the Right, the high priests of the church of the Free Market -- including Bush, Paulson, and the Masters of Wall Street -- have suffered a monumental defeat. So why are we allowing them to dictate the terms of their surrender?

-huffingtonpost.com
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
These tax and spend Republicans are gonna kill us.. Get ready to sign over your paycheck to Uncle Sam and the Banks...
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
Dear SweetPea,

Since you conveniently ignored the facts in the other thread, I
will also post them here.

:nohead:

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett
data



Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
You may have seen this post before:

The Bot Voice is back: BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE DONT LIKE REGULATING BANKS! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! DONT ADMIT FAULT! DONT ADMIT FAULT! BLAME DEMS! A REPUBLICAN IS NEVER WRONG! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS!
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
"John McCain can't decide whether he's Barry Goldwater or Dennis Kucinich ," Obama said, referring to the conservative icon and the liberal Rep. Kucinich. "Well, I have a message for Senator McCain: You can't just run away from your long-held views or your lifelong record."

"You can't erase 26 years of support for the very policies and people who helped bring on this disaster with one week of rants."

-Barack Obama
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
Paulson is a democrat.

:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte

try again
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
well regardless of what his actual standing is...i have heard on a few occasions he was republican never heard democrat....he's product of our one party big government system

basically it seems like he's friends with who has control of congress....as any good ex CEO of goldman sachs who's trying to save our broken system would do.....like in 2006 when the writing was on the wall he didn't campaign for the GOP.....

this isn't a left/right issue its a big government whole system full of unelected crooks issue

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1828092,00.html

Building a rapport with President Bush was Paulson's first priority upon taking office. But he also set out to build or reinforce strong ties with the Fed's Bernanke, other Cabinet members, his counterparts overseas, Wall Street CEOs and — perhaps most important — congressional Democrats. Before his appointment, Paulson had been a generous donor to Republican candidates. But he refused to campaign for Republicans in the 2006 congressional elections — a decision that endeared him to the new leadership after the Democrats swept to victory.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
You may have seen this post before:

The Bot Voice is back: BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE DONT LIKE REGULATING BANKS! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! DONT ADMIT FAULT! DONT ADMIT FAULT! BLAME DEMS! A REPUBLICAN IS NEVER WRONG! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS!

You may have seen this post before:

Ignore Facts, Ignore Facts, Ignore Facts, .... blah blah blah
ad nauseum

There is no intelligent discourse in this place
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
You may have seen this post before:

Ignore Facts, Ignore Facts, Ignore Facts, .... blah blah blah
ad nauseum

There is no intelligent discourse in this place

Who is ignoring FACTS? The Republican Party has been for Bank Deregulation for the past 30 years.. How did it lead to this? but we gotta blame the Dems...
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
You Repubs just can't admit that your bank deregulation/corporate welfare plans are your own doing. The GOP has done it for YEARS and YEARS, but now you try to spin it saying its all the Dems FAULT... LOL In your narrow minded vision of things it could have only happened because of this one vote... WTF?? How did it become that way in the first place? What lead to this?

Why cant you just be Men about it and say "Ya know what? My party Fcked this up."

So who is ignoring 30 years of PREACHING Bank Deregulation?
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
You Repubs just can't admit that your bank deregulation/corporate welfare plans are your own doing. The GOP has done it for YEARS and YEARS, but now you try to spin it saying its all the Dems FAULT... LOL In your narrow minded vision of things it could have only happened because of this one vote... WTF?? How did it become that way in the first place? What lead to this?

Why cant you just be Men about it and say "Ya know what? My party Fcked this up."

So who is ignoring 30 years of PREACHING Bank Deregulation?


I agree that in general both parties are at fault. But the Freddie/Fannie
situation could clearly have been avoided if not for the Democrats
foolishness here:

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
I agree that in general both parties are at fault. But the Freddie/Fannie
situation could clearly have been avoided if not for the Democrats
foolishness here:

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

So you are saying that If this ONE bill would have passed then everything would be JUST FINE and DANDY Right? The economy would be great, there would be no foreclosures, this wouldnt be happening??

Yeah La la land.. Free your mind brother... Come out of La la land.. Free Your Mind.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
Every corporate executive of every company that fails or gets bailed out should have their compensation on the way out be reduced to the minimum wage. You fuck the company up, you don't get paid. Period. Fuck em.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,967
Messages
13,575,642
Members
100,889
Latest member
junkerb
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com