Congress Should Reject Paulson Plan

[Orange_Juice]

The market was up the last I looked, no need to rush this thing through and give the Bush Adminisytration $700 billion to play with with no strings attached. Screw that!

 

[xsited1]

Congress should reject a lot of things, but they won't. Both parties are to blame for this mess and both parties want a bigger, more controlling government. Expect it to pass with flying colors.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Through his plan, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson aims to avert a credit freeze that would bring the financial system and the world's largest economy to a standstill. The bill would prevent courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority.

``He's asking for a huge amount of power,'' said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. ``He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy.''

As congressional aides and officials scrutinized the proposal, the Treasury late yesterday clarified the types of assets it would purchase. Paulson would have authority to buy home loans, mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage- related assets and, after consultation with the Federal Reserve chairman, ``other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,'' the Treasury said in a statement.

The Treasury would also have discretion, after discussions with the Fed, to make non-U.S. financial institutions eligible under the program.

The plan would raise the ceiling on the national debt and spend as much as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. Paulson is asking for the power to hire asset managers and award contracts to private companies. Most provisions of the proposal expire after two years from the date of enactment.

 

[Missourian]

The market was up the last I looked, no need to rush this thing through and give the Bush Adminisytration $700 billion to play with with no strings attached. Screw that!

I never imagined this could possibly happen but....but....I....aaaagggrree-with-U.

Man was that ever painful, like passing a kidney stone.

In good times and bad, the government has no place in the private market.

As individuals have to bear the consequences of their poor decisions, businesses must do likewise.

By trying to forestall the collapse, we are only going to make it that much worse when the next crisis comes.

Better to try to cushion the fall.

As I said before, I am no economist. But I know my history.

 

[Orange_Juice]

I never imagined this could possibly happen but....but....I....aaaagggrree-with-U.

Man was that ever painful, like passing a kidney stone.

In good times and bad, the government has no place in the private market.

As individuals have to bear the consequences of their poor decisions, businesses must do likewise.

By trying to forestall the collapse, we are only going to make it that much worse when the next crisis comes.

Better to try to cushion the fall.

As I said before, I am no economist. But I know my history.

I just thing the no strings attached approach and the crisis manegment approach are wrong

 

[oreo]

The market was up the last I looked, no need to rush this thing through and give the Bush Adminisytration $700 billion to play with with no strings attached. Screw that!

We're screwed if we don't do something. This mess was created by democrats, no one is going to forget that. I listened to an audio tape last week from 1995--with the then CFO of Fannie Mae talking to the black caucas in congress. It was clear even back then that there were some financial problems with Fannie & Freddie.

Over the course of the next several years, democrats were warned time & time again that these institutions were failing. They ignored the warnings because they used these agencies as their own personal piggy banks--Barack Obama being the second largest money taker from these agencies--while the democrat appointed CFO's walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly bonuses, etc. Two of these CFO's are on Obama's campaign committee.

John McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005 of another warning. It is a matter of congressional record--he was ignored by democrat Barney Frank & democrat Criss Dodd who is involved in the Country Wide failure.

So don't blame this one on President Bush--this started long ago, with democrats insisting on loaning out money--(making it easy) for minorities & lower income people to own a home. They opened the gate in the first place.

As far as the short selling--watch when it expires in two weeks. This is urgent, it cannot be ignored.

The small business's in this country & people who are responsible & pay their bills--deserve to be able to walk into a bank & get a loan. That's what this bailout is about.

None of us like it--we can only hope that once these properies gain in value we can sell them & repay the treasury.

This should be a lesson to us. Government needs to stay the hell out of the private sector.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

'Tis truly a sign of the Apocalypse when OJ agrees with the GOP conservatives:

"Our heads are spinning now with the bailout mania," Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, told reporters at a news conference Thursday.

"First we were told that Bear Stearns was too big to fail, then we were told that Freddie/Fannie were too big to fail, then we were told that AIG was too big to fail. What’s next, Starbucks too big to fail,” she pondered.

House GOP conservatives are sending letters to Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman Ben Bernanke demanding no more bailouts for failing businesses and financial institutions.

"The bailout we are interested in is bailing out the American taxpayer,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., chairman of the conservative Republican Study Group.

Political Radar: 'What's Next, Starbucks?' GOP Lawmakers Angry with Bailouts

 

[oreo]

I just thing the no strings attached approach and the crisis manegment approach are wrong

What do you mean no "strings" attached? We now own these foreclosed properties. Meaning, that when they gain in value--the government can sell them in order to repay the U.S. treasure.

Didn't you guys listen to what this bill is about?

 

[DiveCon]

'Tis truly a sign of the Apocalypse when OJ agrees with the GOP conservatives:


Political Radar: 'What's Next, Starbucks?' GOP Lawmakers Angry with Bailouts

well, OJ only opposes it because someone in the Bush administration is for it
not for the REAL reasons its bad
lol

 

[frazzledgear]

The market was up the last I looked, no need to rush this thing through and give the Bush Adminisytration $700 billion to play with with no strings attached. Screw that!

The market was only up in response to this plan -not in spite of it. Yank the plan and watch it tank again -and then watch it spread to other industries. And even though this involved buying off the questionable loans from these institutions and making them the government's -there is no guarantee this will end up being a really bad deal and could even end up turning a profit down the line. It costs $700 billion -but the government doesn't end up with zilch for it in exchange. Only time will tell how much it actually cost -but we know it won't cost any more than $700 billion and is likely to have ended up costing less -and potentially a great deal less. That outcome is by no means certain one way or the other. Even while all this was going on, our economy was in very good shape. This is only one industry out of thousands that make up our economy -it is not the entire economy. A single industry often does poorly while others are booming. But let this particular industry crash and it would, over time - spread to others because credit and investment eventually hits other industries and affects their ability to do business too.

Interesting that Obama's top two economic "advisors" -you know two of the men who walked off with tens of millions from Fannie Mae and helped drive this institution into near bankruptcy in the first place -haven't been able to give Obama a credible sounding response to all this. Best he's been able to come up with "I'm going to wait and see." In other words, just as he did when a state senator -he is merely voting "present". That isn't leadership and he can't respond because he lacks experience, knowledge and even his education gave him nothing for this one. He's said nothing because he's got nothing. His two top economic "advisors" (read people who figured out how to game the system) -are actually trying to figure out they can game the system on this one too.

 

[Chris]

McCain's Economic Adviser is ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. On Dec. 15, 2000, hours before Congress was to leave for Christmas recess, Gramm had a 262-page amendment slipped into the appropriations bill. It forbade federal agencies to regulate the financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors. And that, my friends, is why everything's falling apart. That is why the taxpayers are now on the hook for the follies of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns and now the insurance giant AIG to the tune of $700 billion.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

McCain's Economic Adviser is ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. On Dec. 15, 2000, hours before Congress was to leave for Christmas recess, Gramm had a 262-page amendment slipped into the appropriations bill. It forbade federal agencies to regulate the financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors. And that, my friends, is why everything's falling apart. That is why the taxpayers are now on the hook for the follies of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns and now the insurance giant AIG to the tune of $700 billion.

Not that Jim Johnson, Austan Goolsbee, Franklin Raines.

Any of these ring a bell?

How about Jaime Gorelick, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd or Rahm Emmanuel?

 

[Chris]

Not that Jim Johnson, Austan Goolsbee, Franklin Raines.

Any of these ring a bell?

How about Jaime Gorelick, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd or Rahm Emmanuel?

Sorry, the entire problem was created when Gramm took the risk out of risky lending in 2000. Believe me I know. I'm a realtor.

 

[Shadow]

Sorry, the entire problem was created when Gramm took the risk out of risky lending in 2000. Believe me I know. I'm a realtor.

wrong.. Care4all gave you that quote..so now you are running with it all over the board. At least give her credit for digging it up for you.

 

[editec]

As individuals have to bear the consequences of their poor decisions, businesses must do likewise.

How about when EVERYBODY has to bear the consequences of somebody else's poor business decisions?

How's that strike you?

Is that okay, too?

Do you really understand what happens to our and the world's economy if these huge banking institutions fail, and if credit , even for the most credit-worthy, evaporates because of that meltdown?

Do you really imagine that those who are not in debt won't suffer right along with those who are?

Tell me, how long can you keep paying your bills if you are unemployed?

Apparently you either do not understand what a depression is really like, or you actaully want to see the world's economic system slow down to a glaceral pace.

I am NOT saying that the PLAN which they are fielding is the right one, merely that doing nothing (plan B) is not a good one, either.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am also going to agree with OJ on this one.

There are to be no golden parachutes for the folks who did this. For the ones who ran fannie and freddie into the ground, long visits to the graybar motel are also indicated. If the bank folds, it folds the assests of the board of directors get folded into the estate of the failed bank. there was too much deliberate fraud going on here

If those responsible get to walk away richer from this, we will see it happen worse in the future.

 

[sealybobo]

The market was up the last I looked, no need to rush this thing through and give the Bush Adminisytration $700 billion to play with with no strings attached. Screw that!

Instead, Congress will take on just the bad loans and let the "free market" keep all the good ones.

If we took all the loans, eventually we would recoup our money. But god forbid the government get a return on investment. Instead they socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

Today Congress will discuss the million dollar golden parachutes the CEO's of companies like Lehman Brothers are giving themselves on the way out.

That is something conservatives and progressives both agree on. It's bullshit. Go get your MARVIN like the rest of us! No

 

[editec]

I am also going to agree with OJ on this one.

There are to be no golden parachutes for the folks who did this. For the ones who ran fannie and freddie into the ground, long visits to the graybar motel are also indicated. If the bank folds, it folds the assests of the board of directors get folded into the estate of the failed bank. there was too much deliberate fraud going on here

If those responsible get to walk away richer from this, we will see it happen worse in the future.

Sadly they don't appear to have broken any laws.

They merely played the game according to the deregulated business environment that (mostly) the Republicans created for them.

Agreed or no?