Jake,
Is there a saying:
Fool me once, same on YOU
Fool me twice, SAME ON ME.
ARE AMERICANS JUST A GROUP OF FOOLS TO LET THIS HAPPEN.
PAULSON IS A LIAR,
13 BILLION IN CASH SIGN OFF BY HIM THAT DISAPPEARED IN IRAQ
NOW WE SHOULD TRUST HIM, WHEN HE SAYS THE
“THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING”
LIAR, LIAR.
WE ARE STRONG AMERICANS, WITH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MARKET.. SO THE WHEELS WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE.
AND THE FAILURE OF THE ELITE, WHO JUST WANT WELFARE PACKAGE..
I SAY F.. THEM
Most alarming details of the Paulson bailout:
“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
GOP style politics in a nutshell.
Posted by: wall st | September 22, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
WHAT A FRIEND SAID:
LET THE ARABS DRINK THEIR OIL:
BECAUSE WE DON’T NEED IT.
My instinct is to let ‘em fail – it’s called capitalism. Put in some better trading rules (e.g. the uptick rule should be more than for just 799 companies).
The problem is the people who hurt the most are the secretaries who will lose their jobs rather than the fat cat executives we want to kick in the teeth. I can’t help but think that if the government spent 700 billion on healthcare, the auto/airline industries, road projects, etc that it would have a better overall impact on the economy compared to bailing out the financials.
MIguy
YOU ARE RIGHT.
THE BIG DECISION MAKERS SAY THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS IN TROUBLE AND THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.
NOW THE BANKERS ARE IN A FAIRY TALE PROBLEM..
THEY KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.
THIS IS A JOKE.
My instincts tell me to let the chips fall.
If the right is going to label any compromise as the “Bush-Pelosi” plan,
I’m going to insist that we go into
a depression and sort this out the hard way.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
Should I say, the American people are holding 4 aces.
“13 BILLION IN CASH SIGN OFF BY [Paulson]THAT DISAPPEARED IN IRAQ”
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
Belle Starr
Yep,
I don’t want to commit a sin against God or Jesus, but if you drop 13 billion in cash dollars in front of Jesus,
He would more than likely take it and give it to the mass of his people.
Not going where it was suppose to go.
“I’m going to insist that we go into
a depression and sort this out the hard way.”
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
If Paulson is worried that the fat cats will not take 700 billion unless we beg then too, then I say let them eat cake. I do not buy his baloney it is all the more reason not trust him.
Congress do your job!
hadenough
What the Hell are you talking about.
Vote McCain and see if you don’t loose your draws.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, and I am a Fool
Underdog,
You are correct, but it is a game of chicken and I will use an old reference to make my point.
G.Gordon Liddy of the Nixon days, notable tough guy would hold his hand over the flame from a lighter for an extended period.
When asked what the trick was his response was “The trick is that there is no trick”
When playing a game of chicken, the one who doesn’t care wins.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
Leonard Peltier
Ok, I will agree, but the point of suffering, is that the American People have suffered enough that ‘WE THE PEOPLE” do not CARE.
WE ARE NOT TAKING THIS BULL… ANYMORE.
Sorry, my post previous wandered a bit… I think we cant afford to allow the institutions to fail, but we had better build in a “reality check” mechanism into whatever is done.Methinks that this situation just might be the last big ripoff by this crowd, and whatever is decided had better include some hefty controls by people who really represent the middle class, since we are the ones who bear the burden most. We been mugged !
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm
Curtis,
If the Right can sell the “Bush-Pelosi” idea and win the election on the claim that the deregulating-reformer is our new Answer, then you will have lost your last shred of freedom to the ruling class anyway.
This, like the cold war, becomes a game of Mutually Assured Destruction. Unless you are willing to loose everything, you will in fact loose everything.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm
“I think we cant afford to allow the institutions to fail”
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
The ad I see on the right panel of this page says “A good credit score is 700+”.
Do you suppose THAT’s how Paulson et al. settled on asking for $700 BILLION at a time??
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Just how many programs does this take off the table. from energy research, Iraq, Afganistan, War on drugs, foriegn aid, medicare, etc. The republicans have been trying to down size the government, little did I believe that they would bankrupt the entire system to achieve their goals.
I am not sure we can afford this.
SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOR THE BOTTTOM UP:
Correct me if I am wrong,
But would it not solve the problem if the Feds would absorb the working class debt, and pay off the bad loans to the banks,, which in turn will solve this mystery ROCKET SCIENCE PROBLEM.
JUST MY THOUGHTS.
If only the dems had a leader. Somebody who could layout what happned and how to fix it. No mucking around just layout what happened and what to do now. If only the dems had a leader that could do that.
Here is Hillary laying out. No mucking around in terms everybody can understand:
Clinton Calls for Immediate Action to Halt Market Crisis
Of course Hillary isn’t the leader of the dem party now is she. If only the dems had somebody who wasn’t busy hosting $28,000 a head fundraisers while wall street burns.
In the first place we are being deliberately impoverished as a policy. We are hypnotized by cheap products that we are trained by the media to value. Chinese state capitalism can produce things for virtually nothing, and they are imported and marked up and we can buy that “toaster” or whatever without saving up for it… So we see ourselves as prosperous and doing great… But our purchasing power is shrunken to an alarming degree. Readers digest stated that our dollar was worth less than a nickle in 1970 values. (22.3 or 4 times less according to RD)So, lets be clear on this, no politian will tell you or I why the cost of real estate has diverged so much from wages. It is because the dollars value has plunged, yet wages are paid as if the employer is paying you actual parity with the cost of living. Real estate prices are set according to the value of a dollar- the real value. Check this out do the math, Divide the cost of a house by 22.3 and you will see the 1970 value of the home materialize. Do this with wages and see how we have been gradually impoverished. What the middle class has to do is insist on true parity pay. Problem is, now we have to pay out these bailouts. So lets see, we print more money… there can be only so many dollars at a certain value… print more and you have to factor in the increased number of dollars with the existing number, and guess what? you devalued your money AGAIN ! Seems like we lose no matter what.And the only way to fix it is to DE-flate the dollar, and they do that with a DE-pression. At any rate thats why we cannot live as we used to on our wages… how else can America compete in a global market if our workers make so much money? The shareholders will not stand for such a loss of profit. What is profit? That portion of generated money we make that the employers keep for themselves. So, what fundamentals are sound? the hyper exploitation of the working/middle class ? Yep its getting even better, infact, soon we will compete on an equal wage basis with workers in Bangladesh !
the old Republican/Conservative mantra of ‘trusting business’, de-regulation and large tax breaks for business has finally died a miserable death…. ‘trickle down’ economics .. morte!
now, almost a TRILLION dollar bailout with no controls or accountability?… given to the folks who are directly responsible…and when the government looks to sell the assets, they will go back to the same people who are directly responsible….
and all this bailout money is coming from where?
where’s Alice when she’s needed?
Mission Accomplished!
Posted by: Rex | September 22, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Belle Starr
WHAT IS YOUR POSITION..
ONE TIME YOU THINK THAT OBAMA IS BAD.
BUT THE LAST 14 YEARS HAVE BEEN RULED BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS..
TELL ME YOU DON’T NEED A CHANGE,.
OR ARE YOU WILLING TO STAY THE COURSE.
saw this and it sounds about right-
The Republican/McCain plan is to get the Democrats to bail out the GOP’s Wall Street friends and then run against them for doing it.
Posted by: Rex | September 22, 2008, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm
I SAY NO TO BAILOUT…….
LET THE WALL STREET TO COLLAPSE….
WALL STREET CREATED THE PROBLEM…
WHY THE WORKING CLASS HAS TO PAY THE
PRICE??????? NOT FAIR…..
WELFARE FOR THE FILTHY RICH??????
Posted by: ROBERT | September 22, 2008, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
PBS ON LAST WEEK
IT WAS SAID THAT AIG HAD 12 BUYERS OF IT’S STOCK, AIG TURNED THEM DOWN.
DO ANYONE HAVE A LINK TO THAT POSITION.
PLEASE POST IF THIS IS SO..
A PROFESSOR REPORTED THIS.
WHERE AIG STATED THEY WOULD GET MORE RETURN IF THE FEDS. BAILED THEM OUT.
Here is their plan.
Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.
God Himself couldn’t have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That’s why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say “No” and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress….
In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 12:05 am 12:05 am
I say,
Let the entire house of cards fall, the whole damn global economy if it comes to it, I don’t give a cr*p anymore. I am no longer willing to play the pawn.
If we are all pulling oxcarts I no longer care.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 12:08 am 12:08 am
Underdog,
This is a game the Republicans are considering. They can distance themselves from THEIR White House and the Democratically controlled congress by opposing the bailout and assuming that the Democrats will do the responsible thing, then take the fall for giving away a trillion dollars of tax money.
I say call their bluff and let the economy fail rather than another 4 years of liars and incompetents.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 12:15 am 12:15 am
We, the American people were stupid enough to put George Bush in the White House, twice. What makes you think we are any smarter now? Just look who we Democrats offered up as an alternative to the Republican candidate. For those that are reality-based Obama is really no suitable alternative. I shrug my shoulders several times a day these days.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | September 23, 2008, 12:38 am 12:38 am
I’m sure Sarah and Todd Palin has the answers to all our problems. Psych.
Posted by: doug | September 23, 2008, 12:57 am 12:57 am
I don’t like the politics of underhanded tactics. That’s why I hope Palin is able to put Obama in his place.
Posted by: young_voter | September 23, 2008, 1:17 am 1:17 am
McCains Oil Tycoon Advisors, are playing scare tactics with oil prices, and the Americans dollars. Vote Independant
Posted by: historyforgotten | September 23, 2008, 2:49 am 2:49 am
700-billion dollars of Tax Money..can be considered a bail-out or just another piece of higher costs for living..its definitly part of a G. W. Bush push for a Global Community to look at America and find its purpose/the Globe of an earth is looking rather large if you consider the PLAYERS–as a ratio of maybe 7:100+/but will numbers be an answer–??..or are the stories a ambient resonance that all is a loss.
Posted by: Mark S. M. | September 23, 2008, 2:52 am 2:52 am
Leonard Peltier problem is that if they let the house fall as you suggest-as usual it would be the little people, the elderly, the poor who will suffer the most. you can bet that social program cuts are coming and none of obamas promised change will come to fruition either, sorry folks the house is broke they will tell us.
like you my first inclination was ‘let it crash’ but the effects globally especially on the poor will be horrific if we do not feed the beast. at least for now leonard appease the beast we must while we gather strength and stop fighting each other. we can never defeat the beast as long as we are divided.
undecided purple person
Posted by: colorado | September 23, 2008, 2:52 am 2:52 am
I actually believe this is a very interesting proposal. The federal government will buy ALL of the risky mortgages from every bank and investment company in the US. This will immediately free up the banks to actually begin giving out loans again (and, hopefully, returning to the more sensible practice of only giving mortgages to individuals who are able to prove that they can repay the mortgages). And then as the housing slump rebounds, there will be hundreds of thousands of these mortgages that can be resold for a fair profit. It’s actually possible that the initial estimated cost of $700 billion could turn into a net profit of a few hundred billion dollars.
Having said that, it is also possible that, like so many other federal government programs, the bureaucrats might be pressured into rushing to get these mortgages off the books and will have to sell them for a fraction of their cost, resulting in a huge loss. But of course that will also mean fantastic deals for home buyers.
One thing, the federal government should not sell these mortgages to speculators. They should make sure that the buyers occupy the homes for at least 5 years.
Posted by: James Danley | September 23, 2008, 3:29 am 3:29 am
Let McCains Advisors, buy your lives at a cheap price, if you want. But I say no to Corporate-Country Take-Overs. Their Oil Prices are dependant upon, all out of touch businesses. Those people at McCains side, is controling the ‘VALUE’ of the dollar. So ‘NO’, to McCains advisors.
ASK THEM TO GIVE OUR LIVES BACK!!!
Vote ‘NO’, to McCain.
Posted by: historyforgotten | September 23, 2008, 3:50 am 3:50 am
According to what I have heard from some, the S&L bailout in the 80′s actually made some money but something seems “fishy” with the fast speed of their efforts this time. Could it be they are all helping to cover each others blatant dereliction of their responsibilities in allowing this to happen – it seems everyone had their fingers in a big juicy money pie?
Posted by: david | September 23, 2008, 6:17 am 6:17 am
colorado,
You are a thoughtful person and I know that we are basically on opposite sides of the ideological fence.
What has me going is the idea that this will be turned into a political football and used as a campaign item. The scenario for this has already been set by some on the right.
I agree with you completely about the need for cooler heads to prevail and I can only hope that a non-partisan approach to this can yield positive results for all Americans. At the same time I think the possibility of political leverage here has to be considered by my less-than-brilliant party leaders in both houses.
If in fact, it ends up being allowed to determine the election I will regret that that the entire economic system wasn’t put in jeopardy to prevent it.
But that’s just me.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 7:32 am 7:32 am
four years ago i saw this coming—–people were buying homes they could not afford—by use of baloon loans—payments were lower than the interest—now we are to bail out the goons giving the loans–and pay for homes people could not afford—-i lay this right on the repub administration—–and deregulation is and was a part of mccains thinking.
Posted by: rodney | September 23, 2008, 7:33 am 7:33 am
if you make 30 thousand a year,you cannot afford a 300 thousand dollar home.
let the market settle its own problems–and get back to realistic lending—might be a good lesson for all
Posted by: rodney | September 23, 2008, 7:54 am 7:54 am
Better for Wall Street to crash, if that was to happen,which I doubt.Then for the the dollar to be worthless and have the price of gas and food go through the roof. Don’t forget these are the same people that brought you the Iraq war, how’d that go for you. 700 billion with no ties, and Lil Bush getting ready to step out the door ? come on. Don’t be a sucker, wise up. Put pressure on Congress to stop this deal. I can smell this rip off all the way down here in Florida.
Posted by: RGeier | September 23, 2008, 8:07 am 8:07 am
What I’d like to know is how much of this “toxic” bad debt is mortgages used by greedy speculators to buy 2nd homes, investment properties to “flip”, or risky term 80/20 interest only refi’s of a primary residence where they pulled out ALL their overinflated “equity” to remodel kitchens with new stainless appliances and granite counters, put a pool in the yard, and a Hummer in the driveway! The people who made these decisions and the lender’s and secondary market players that were willing to make the loans to these irresponsible people and purchase these loans should be stuck with them. This bailout is going to REWARD the greedy and penalize the thrifty, financially responsible folks who have not leveraged their homes to the hilt, or who held off and rented while they were saving for a home to buy under traditional, conventional guidelines. This is like having the neighbor who stayed home and took care of the family X’s dog, being asked to hand over their hard earned dollars to family X when they got home from a bad trip to Vegas!
Posted by: Amy T | September 23, 2008, 8:20 am 8:20 am
As I understand it, the plan would essentially allow the banks to set the lowest price on the worst assets. So, they would be dumping the assets with the lowest value ( a lot of them would be $0 ), at an inflated price. I don’t think these “assets” are assets like in the S&L crises – land, houses, boats, expensive paintings etc. These “assets” are mortgages that people have stopped paying on – so we are basically expected to buy a bunch of broken promises, yes?
It also seems to me that the Bush administration featuring Henry Paulson (who used to be the head of Goldman Sachs, and as such was a HUGE part of the problem) is once again trying to railroad through an ill-conceived and hastily drawn fix, on which it insists there be no oversight nor protection for us, the taxpayers. This, my friends, is “I’d hate for the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud” all over again.
The “plan” that Paulson expects us to back is on 3 pages. Unless those pages are really big, or the fonts are really small and there are no salutations or signatures, that doesn’t seem like a whole lot of planning. Instead, it seems like the 22 page plan that the administration had for the post-combat phase in Iraq. How’d that one work out?
Are we going to fall for this yet again?
Posted by: Steve from NH | September 23, 2008, 8:35 am 8:35 am
Deregulation was not the problem. The main problem was too much government interference and greed.
There is an interesting article from Investor’s Business Daily, posted Sept 15, 2008 (“The Real Culprits In This Meltdown”) that lays much of the blame on the Clinton Administration. Another interesting article is by Kevin Hassett of Bloomgerg.com posted yesterday, Sept 22, 2008 (“How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett”). Google these and read for yourself.
Capitalism and the free market work best when government interference is held to a minimum (i.e. enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws and safety regulations). The IBD article states: “Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.”
The lowering of the lending standards, and the pushing of the flexible interest rates onto the consumers are what made a cyclical inconvenience (the housing market downturn) into a crisis. Once prices of homes got too high, people stopped buying. It’s simple Economics 101 folks. Under normal circumstances eventually the prices reach a point where buyers would jump in and begin purchasing again.
But this was not a normal circumstance. That’s because so many mortgages had flexible interest rates. As the value of the property dropped below the amount of the mortgage the banks raised the interest rates on the mortgages. Eventually the property values became half and in some cases one third the value of the balance on the mortgage. The original collateral no longer covered the mortgage. So as the interest rates increased, the mortgage payments increased greatly. In some cases doubling and even tripling. The speculators who borrowed to purchase multiple homes stopped making their payments and just walked away. Those living in their homes could no longer make their payments and were forced to default on the loans.
Now these banks and the investment firms (who purchased many of these mortgages) are stuck with the defaulted mortgages with no buyers.
As a conservative, I really hate it when government bails out, or worse yet takes over, private companies. Under normal circumstances I prefer that the free market is left alone and allowed to correct itself . But as I said before, this is not a normal circumstance. One of the main obligations of the federal government is to “provide the general welfare.” If the federal government just sat back in this situation and allowed the free market to correct itself, it wouldn’t be long before millions of individuals will not be just losing their homes but also their jobs. That could mean tens of millions of children starving–and dying. We just cannot allow that to happen.
Whether this proposed solution is the “correct” solution, I don’t know. But I do know that waiting too long for a “correct” solution will make the recovery even more challenging.
Posted by: James Danley | September 23, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am
“What I’d like to know is how much of this “toxic” bad debt is mortgages used by greedy speculators to buy 2nd homes, investment properties to “flip” … “
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 23, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
james danley:
re: “”provide the general welfare.” …. it wouldn’t be long before millions of individuals will not be just losing their homes but also their jobs. That could mean tens of millions of children starving–and dying. We just cannot allow that to happen. ”
—————————————————
“provide the general welfare.”
an overlooked and forgotten legacy of the ‘founding fathers’
it is indeed unfortunate that it takes a national crisis for the rest of America to begin to have concern for “millions of individuals ” who are not making big dollars a year in salary.
If the government ever took the time to really invest in America and it’s people, instead of all the fraud B.S. that goes on, America might actually be the envy of the world.
Posted by: Rex | September 23, 2008, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
“Congress looks at the Bush Administration’s proposed $700 billion Wall Street bail out. ”
It’s like letting the murderer judge himself.
Jake,
Is there a saying:
Fool me once, same on YOU
Fool me twice, SAME ON ME.
ARE AMERICANS JUST A GROUP OF FOOLS TO LET THIS HAPPEN.
PAULSON IS A LIAR,
13 BILLION IN CASH SIGN OFF BY HIM THAT DISAPPEARED IN IRAQ
NOW WE SHOULD TRUST HIM, WHEN HE SAYS THE
“THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING”
LIAR, LIAR.
WE ARE STRONG AMERICANS, WITH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MARKET.. SO THE WHEELS WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE.
AND THE FAILURE OF THE ELITE, WHO JUST WANT WELFARE PACKAGE..
I SAY F.. THEM
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
Most alarming details of the Paulson bailout:
“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
GOP style politics in a nutshell.
Posted by: wall st | September 22, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
WHAT A FRIEND SAID:
LET THE ARABS DRINK THEIR OIL:
BECAUSE WE DON’T NEED IT.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
My instinct is to let ‘em fail – it’s called capitalism. Put in some better trading rules (e.g. the uptick rule should be more than for just 799 companies).
The problem is the people who hurt the most are the secretaries who will lose their jobs rather than the fat cat executives we want to kick in the teeth. I can’t help but think that if the government spent 700 billion on healthcare, the auto/airline industries, road projects, etc that it would have a better overall impact on the economy compared to bailing out the financials.
Posted by: MIguy | September 22, 2008, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
MIguy
YOU ARE RIGHT.
THE BIG DECISION MAKERS SAY THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS IN TROUBLE AND THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.
NOW THE BANKERS ARE IN A FAIRY TALE PROBLEM..
THEY KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.
THIS IS A JOKE.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
My instincts tell me to let the chips fall.
If the right is going to label any compromise as the “Bush-Pelosi” plan,
I’m going to insist that we go into
a depression and sort this out the hard way.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
Should I say, the American people are holding 4 aces.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm
“13 BILLION IN CASH SIGN OFF BY [Paulson]THAT DISAPPEARED IN IRAQ”
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
Belle Starr
Yep,
I don’t want to commit a sin against God or Jesus, but if you drop 13 billion in cash dollars in front of Jesus,
He would more than likely take it and give it to the mass of his people.
Not going where it was suppose to go.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
“I’m going to insist that we go into
a depression and sort this out the hard way.”
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
If Paulson is worried that the fat cats will not take 700 billion unless we beg then too, then I say let them eat cake. I do not buy his baloney it is all the more reason not trust him.
Congress do your job!
Posted by: Thinking | September 22, 2008, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
hadenough
What the Hell are you talking about.
Vote McCain and see if you don’t loose your draws.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, and I am a Fool
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
Underdog,
You are correct, but it is a game of chicken and I will use an old reference to make my point.
G.Gordon Liddy of the Nixon days, notable tough guy would hold his hand over the flame from a lighter for an extended period.
When asked what the trick was his response was “The trick is that there is no trick”
When playing a game of chicken, the one who doesn’t care wins.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
Leonard Peltier
Ok, I will agree, but the point of suffering, is that the American People have suffered enough that ‘WE THE PEOPLE” do not CARE.
WE ARE NOT TAKING THIS BULL… ANYMORE.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Sorry, my post previous wandered a bit… I think we cant afford to allow the institutions to fail, but we had better build in a “reality check” mechanism into whatever is done.Methinks that this situation just might be the last big ripoff by this crowd, and whatever is decided had better include some hefty controls by people who really represent the middle class, since we are the ones who bear the burden most. We been mugged !
Posted by: Curtis | September 22, 2008, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Underdog we are in complete agreement.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm
Curtis,
If the Right can sell the “Bush-Pelosi” idea and win the election on the claim that the deregulating-reformer is our new Answer, then you will have lost your last shred of freedom to the ruling class anyway.
This, like the cold war, becomes a game of Mutually Assured Destruction. Unless you are willing to loose everything, you will in fact loose everything.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 22, 2008, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm
“I think we cant afford to allow the institutions to fail”
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
The ad I see on the right panel of this page says “A good credit score is 700+”.
Do you suppose THAT’s how Paulson et al. settled on asking for $700 BILLION at a time??
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 22, 2008, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Just how many programs does this take off the table. from energy research, Iraq, Afganistan, War on drugs, foriegn aid, medicare, etc. The republicans have been trying to down size the government, little did I believe that they would bankrupt the entire system to achieve their goals.
I am not sure we can afford this.
Posted by: Thinking | September 22, 2008, 11:26 pm 11:26 pm
SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOR THE BOTTTOM UP:
Correct me if I am wrong,
But would it not solve the problem if the Feds would absorb the working class debt, and pay off the bad loans to the banks,, which in turn will solve this mystery ROCKET SCIENCE PROBLEM.
JUST MY THOUGHTS.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 11:31 pm 11:31 pm
PAULSON, YOU WANT WHAT,,
WHY IS THAT PAULSON WANTS TO HAVE CONTROL OF 700 BILLION DOLLARS, AND THE WORKING CLASS STILL REMAIN IN DEBT.
JUST A JOKE..
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm
If only the dems had a leader. Somebody who could layout what happned and how to fix it. No mucking around just layout what happened and what to do now. If only the dems had a leader that could do that.
Here is Hillary laying out. No mucking around in terms everybody can understand:
Clinton Calls for Immediate Action to Halt Market Crisis
Of course Hillary isn’t the leader of the dem party now is she. If only the dems had somebody who wasn’t busy hosting $28,000 a head fundraisers while wall street burns.
Posted by: hadenough | September 22, 2008, 11:34 pm 11:34 pm
In the first place we are being deliberately impoverished as a policy. We are hypnotized by cheap products that we are trained by the media to value. Chinese state capitalism can produce things for virtually nothing, and they are imported and marked up and we can buy that “toaster” or whatever without saving up for it… So we see ourselves as prosperous and doing great… But our purchasing power is shrunken to an alarming degree. Readers digest stated that our dollar was worth less than a nickle in 1970 values. (22.3 or 4 times less according to RD)So, lets be clear on this, no politian will tell you or I why the cost of real estate has diverged so much from wages. It is because the dollars value has plunged, yet wages are paid as if the employer is paying you actual parity with the cost of living. Real estate prices are set according to the value of a dollar- the real value. Check this out do the math, Divide the cost of a house by 22.3 and you will see the 1970 value of the home materialize. Do this with wages and see how we have been gradually impoverished. What the middle class has to do is insist on true parity pay. Problem is, now we have to pay out these bailouts. So lets see, we print more money… there can be only so many dollars at a certain value… print more and you have to factor in the increased number of dollars with the existing number, and guess what? you devalued your money AGAIN ! Seems like we lose no matter what.And the only way to fix it is to DE-flate the dollar, and they do that with a DE-pression. At any rate thats why we cannot live as we used to on our wages… how else can America compete in a global market if our workers make so much money? The shareholders will not stand for such a loss of profit. What is profit? That portion of generated money we make that the employers keep for themselves. So, what fundamentals are sound? the hyper exploitation of the working/middle class ? Yep its getting even better, infact, soon we will compete on an equal wage basis with workers in Bangladesh !
Posted by: Curtis | September 22, 2008, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm
the old Republican/Conservative mantra of ‘trusting business’, de-regulation and large tax breaks for business has finally died a miserable death…. ‘trickle down’ economics .. morte!
now, almost a TRILLION dollar bailout with no controls or accountability?… given to the folks who are directly responsible…and when the government looks to sell the assets, they will go back to the same people who are directly responsible….
and all this bailout money is coming from where?
where’s Alice when she’s needed?
Mission Accomplished!
Posted by: Rex | September 22, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Belle Starr
WHAT IS YOUR POSITION..
ONE TIME YOU THINK THAT OBAMA IS BAD.
BUT THE LAST 14 YEARS HAVE BEEN RULED BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS..
TELL ME YOU DON’T NEED A CHANGE,.
OR ARE YOU WILLING TO STAY THE COURSE.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm
saw this and it sounds about right-
The Republican/McCain plan is to get the Democrats to bail out the GOP’s Wall Street friends and then run against them for doing it.
Posted by: Rex | September 22, 2008, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm
I SAY NO TO BAILOUT…….
LET THE WALL STREET TO COLLAPSE….
WALL STREET CREATED THE PROBLEM…
WHY THE WORKING CLASS HAS TO PAY THE
PRICE??????? NOT FAIR…..
WELFARE FOR THE FILTHY RICH??????
Posted by: ROBERT | September 22, 2008, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
Underdog,
You caps lock is on.
Posted by: hadenough | September 22, 2008, 11:56 pm 11:56 pm
PBS ON LAST WEEK
IT WAS SAID THAT AIG HAD 12 BUYERS OF IT’S STOCK, AIG TURNED THEM DOWN.
DO ANYONE HAVE A LINK TO THAT POSITION.
PLEASE POST IF THIS IS SO..
A PROFESSOR REPORTED THIS.
WHERE AIG STATED THEY WOULD GET MORE RETURN IF THE FEDS. BAILED THEM OUT.
Posted by: Underdog | September 22, 2008, 11:58 pm 11:58 pm
Here is their plan.
Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.
God Himself couldn’t have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That’s why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say “No” and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress….
In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 12:05 am 12:05 am
I say,
Let the entire house of cards fall, the whole damn global economy if it comes to it, I don’t give a cr*p anymore. I am no longer willing to play the pawn.
If we are all pulling oxcarts I no longer care.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 12:08 am 12:08 am
Underdog,
This is a game the Republicans are considering. They can distance themselves from THEIR White House and the Democratically controlled congress by opposing the bailout and assuming that the Democrats will do the responsible thing, then take the fall for giving away a trillion dollars of tax money.
I say call their bluff and let the economy fail rather than another 4 years of liars and incompetents.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 12:15 am 12:15 am
We, the American people were stupid enough to put George Bush in the White House, twice. What makes you think we are any smarter now? Just look who we Democrats offered up as an alternative to the Republican candidate. For those that are reality-based Obama is really no suitable alternative. I shrug my shoulders several times a day these days.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | September 23, 2008, 12:38 am 12:38 am
I’m sure Sarah and Todd Palin has the answers to all our problems. Psych.
Posted by: doug | September 23, 2008, 12:57 am 12:57 am
I don’t like the politics of underhanded tactics. That’s why I hope Palin is able to put Obama in his place.
Posted by: young_voter | September 23, 2008, 1:17 am 1:17 am
McCains Oil Tycoon Advisors, are playing scare tactics with oil prices, and the Americans dollars. Vote Independant
Posted by: historyforgotten | September 23, 2008, 2:49 am 2:49 am
700-billion dollars of Tax Money..can be considered a bail-out or just another piece of higher costs for living..its definitly part of a G. W. Bush push for a Global Community to look at America and find its purpose/the Globe of an earth is looking rather large if you consider the PLAYERS–as a ratio of maybe 7:100+/but will numbers be an answer–??..or are the stories a ambient resonance that all is a loss.
Posted by: Mark S. M. | September 23, 2008, 2:52 am 2:52 am
Leonard Peltier problem is that if they let the house fall as you suggest-as usual it would be the little people, the elderly, the poor who will suffer the most. you can bet that social program cuts are coming and none of obamas promised change will come to fruition either, sorry folks the house is broke they will tell us.
like you my first inclination was ‘let it crash’ but the effects globally especially on the poor will be horrific if we do not feed the beast. at least for now leonard appease the beast we must while we gather strength and stop fighting each other. we can never defeat the beast as long as we are divided.
undecided purple person
Posted by: colorado | September 23, 2008, 2:52 am 2:52 am
I actually believe this is a very interesting proposal. The federal government will buy ALL of the risky mortgages from every bank and investment company in the US. This will immediately free up the banks to actually begin giving out loans again (and, hopefully, returning to the more sensible practice of only giving mortgages to individuals who are able to prove that they can repay the mortgages). And then as the housing slump rebounds, there will be hundreds of thousands of these mortgages that can be resold for a fair profit. It’s actually possible that the initial estimated cost of $700 billion could turn into a net profit of a few hundred billion dollars.
Having said that, it is also possible that, like so many other federal government programs, the bureaucrats might be pressured into rushing to get these mortgages off the books and will have to sell them for a fraction of their cost, resulting in a huge loss. But of course that will also mean fantastic deals for home buyers.
One thing, the federal government should not sell these mortgages to speculators. They should make sure that the buyers occupy the homes for at least 5 years.
Posted by: James Danley | September 23, 2008, 3:29 am 3:29 am
Let McCains Advisors, buy your lives at a cheap price, if you want. But I say no to Corporate-Country Take-Overs. Their Oil Prices are dependant upon, all out of touch businesses. Those people at McCains side, is controling the ‘VALUE’ of the dollar. So ‘NO’, to McCains advisors.
ASK THEM TO GIVE OUR LIVES BACK!!!
Vote ‘NO’, to McCain.
Posted by: historyforgotten | September 23, 2008, 3:50 am 3:50 am
According to what I have heard from some, the S&L bailout in the 80′s actually made some money but something seems “fishy” with the fast speed of their efforts this time. Could it be they are all helping to cover each others blatant dereliction of their responsibilities in allowing this to happen – it seems everyone had their fingers in a big juicy money pie?
Posted by: david | September 23, 2008, 6:17 am 6:17 am
colorado,
You are a thoughtful person and I know that we are basically on opposite sides of the ideological fence.
What has me going is the idea that this will be turned into a political football and used as a campaign item. The scenario for this has already been set by some on the right.
I agree with you completely about the need for cooler heads to prevail and I can only hope that a non-partisan approach to this can yield positive results for all Americans. At the same time I think the possibility of political leverage here has to be considered by my less-than-brilliant party leaders in both houses.
If in fact, it ends up being allowed to determine the election I will regret that that the entire economic system wasn’t put in jeopardy to prevent it.
But that’s just me.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 23, 2008, 7:32 am 7:32 am
four years ago i saw this coming—–people were buying homes they could not afford—by use of baloon loans—payments were lower than the interest—now we are to bail out the goons giving the loans–and pay for homes people could not afford—-i lay this right on the repub administration—–and deregulation is and was a part of mccains thinking.
Posted by: rodney | September 23, 2008, 7:33 am 7:33 am
if you make 30 thousand a year,you cannot afford a 300 thousand dollar home.
let the market settle its own problems–and get back to realistic lending—might be a good lesson for all
Posted by: rodney | September 23, 2008, 7:54 am 7:54 am
Better for Wall Street to crash, if that was to happen,which I doubt.Then for the the dollar to be worthless and have the price of gas and food go through the roof. Don’t forget these are the same people that brought you the Iraq war, how’d that go for you. 700 billion with no ties, and Lil Bush getting ready to step out the door ? come on. Don’t be a sucker, wise up. Put pressure on Congress to stop this deal. I can smell this rip off all the way down here in Florida.
Posted by: RGeier | September 23, 2008, 8:07 am 8:07 am
What I’d like to know is how much of this “toxic” bad debt is mortgages used by greedy speculators to buy 2nd homes, investment properties to “flip”, or risky term 80/20 interest only refi’s of a primary residence where they pulled out ALL their overinflated “equity” to remodel kitchens with new stainless appliances and granite counters, put a pool in the yard, and a Hummer in the driveway! The people who made these decisions and the lender’s and secondary market players that were willing to make the loans to these irresponsible people and purchase these loans should be stuck with them. This bailout is going to REWARD the greedy and penalize the thrifty, financially responsible folks who have not leveraged their homes to the hilt, or who held off and rented while they were saving for a home to buy under traditional, conventional guidelines. This is like having the neighbor who stayed home and took care of the family X’s dog, being asked to hand over their hard earned dollars to family X when they got home from a bad trip to Vegas!
Posted by: Amy T | September 23, 2008, 8:20 am 8:20 am
As I understand it, the plan would essentially allow the banks to set the lowest price on the worst assets. So, they would be dumping the assets with the lowest value ( a lot of them would be $0 ), at an inflated price. I don’t think these “assets” are assets like in the S&L crises – land, houses, boats, expensive paintings etc. These “assets” are mortgages that people have stopped paying on – so we are basically expected to buy a bunch of broken promises, yes?
It also seems to me that the Bush administration featuring Henry Paulson (who used to be the head of Goldman Sachs, and as such was a HUGE part of the problem) is once again trying to railroad through an ill-conceived and hastily drawn fix, on which it insists there be no oversight nor protection for us, the taxpayers. This, my friends, is “I’d hate for the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud” all over again.
The “plan” that Paulson expects us to back is on 3 pages. Unless those pages are really big, or the fonts are really small and there are no salutations or signatures, that doesn’t seem like a whole lot of planning. Instead, it seems like the 22 page plan that the administration had for the post-combat phase in Iraq. How’d that one work out?
Are we going to fall for this yet again?
Posted by: Steve from NH | September 23, 2008, 8:35 am 8:35 am
Deregulation was not the problem. The main problem was too much government interference and greed.
There is an interesting article from Investor’s Business Daily, posted Sept 15, 2008 (“The Real Culprits In This Meltdown”) that lays much of the blame on the Clinton Administration. Another interesting article is by Kevin Hassett of Bloomgerg.com posted yesterday, Sept 22, 2008 (“How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett”). Google these and read for yourself.
Capitalism and the free market work best when government interference is held to a minimum (i.e. enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws and safety regulations). The IBD article states: “Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.”
The lowering of the lending standards, and the pushing of the flexible interest rates onto the consumers are what made a cyclical inconvenience (the housing market downturn) into a crisis. Once prices of homes got too high, people stopped buying. It’s simple Economics 101 folks. Under normal circumstances eventually the prices reach a point where buyers would jump in and begin purchasing again.
But this was not a normal circumstance. That’s because so many mortgages had flexible interest rates. As the value of the property dropped below the amount of the mortgage the banks raised the interest rates on the mortgages. Eventually the property values became half and in some cases one third the value of the balance on the mortgage. The original collateral no longer covered the mortgage. So as the interest rates increased, the mortgage payments increased greatly. In some cases doubling and even tripling. The speculators who borrowed to purchase multiple homes stopped making their payments and just walked away. Those living in their homes could no longer make their payments and were forced to default on the loans.
Now these banks and the investment firms (who purchased many of these mortgages) are stuck with the defaulted mortgages with no buyers.
As a conservative, I really hate it when government bails out, or worse yet takes over, private companies. Under normal circumstances I prefer that the free market is left alone and allowed to correct itself . But as I said before, this is not a normal circumstance. One of the main obligations of the federal government is to “provide the general welfare.” If the federal government just sat back in this situation and allowed the free market to correct itself, it wouldn’t be long before millions of individuals will not be just losing their homes but also their jobs. That could mean tens of millions of children starving–and dying. We just cannot allow that to happen.
Whether this proposed solution is the “correct” solution, I don’t know. But I do know that waiting too long for a “correct” solution will make the recovery even more challenging.
Posted by: James Danley | September 23, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am
“What I’d like to know is how much of this “toxic” bad debt is mortgages used by greedy speculators to buy 2nd homes, investment properties to “flip” … “
Posted by: Belle Starr | September 23, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
james danley:
re: “”provide the general welfare.” …. it wouldn’t be long before millions of individuals will not be just losing their homes but also their jobs. That could mean tens of millions of children starving–and dying. We just cannot allow that to happen. ”
—————————————————
“provide the general welfare.”
an overlooked and forgotten legacy of the ‘founding fathers’
it is indeed unfortunate that it takes a national crisis for the rest of America to begin to have concern for “millions of individuals ” who are not making big dollars a year in salary.
If the government ever took the time to really invest in America and it’s people, instead of all the fraud B.S. that goes on, America might actually be the envy of the world.
Posted by: Rex | September 23, 2008, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
“Congress looks at the Bush Administration’s proposed $700 billion Wall Street bail out. ”
It’s like letting the murderer judge himself.
Posted by: notafool | September 23, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm