Archive for Monday, September 29, 2008
House defeats bailout plan; Dow closes down more than 700
Dow drops largest single-day point total in history
Lawrence residents respond to today's failure of the bank bailout bill in the House.
September 29, 2008, 1:28 p.m. Updated September 29, 2008, 5:07 p.m.
Advertisement
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., left, and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., right, hold a news conference on the failed vote in the House of Representatives on the financial bailout package on Capitol Hill in Washington on Monday.
How Kansas House members voted
Stiff opposition
Reader poll
Washington — In a vote that shook the government, Wall Street and markets around the world, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, leaving both parties' lawmakers and the Bush administration scrambling to pick up the pieces. Dismayed investors sent the Dow Jones industrials plunging 777 points, the most ever for a single day.
"We need to put something back together that works," a grim-faced Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said after he and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke joined in an emergency strategy session at the White House. On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders said the House would reconvene Thursday, leaving open the possibility that it could salvage a reworked version.
Senate leaders showed no inclination to try to bring the measure to a vote before they could determine its fate in the House. President Bush, meanwhile, was scheduled to make a statement on the rescue plan this morning, the White House said.
All sides agreed the effort to bolster beleaguered financial markets, potentially the biggest government intervention since the Great Depression, could not be abandoned.
But in a remarkable display on Monday, a majority of House members slapped aside the best version their leaders and the administration had been able to come up with, bucking presidential speeches, pleading visits from Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and urgent warnings that the economy could nosedive without the legislation.
In the face of thousands of phone calls and e-mails fiercely opposing the measure, many lawmakers were not willing to take the political risk of voting for it just five weeks before the elections.
The bill went down, 228-205.
The House Web site was overwhelmed as millions of people sought information about the measure through the day.
The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other sour assets held by troubled banks and other financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and ease one of the biggest choke points in a national credit crisis. If the plan worked, the thinking went, it would help lift a major weight off the national economy, which is already sputtering.
Hoping to pick up enough GOP votes for the next try, Republicans floated several ideas. One would double the $100,000 ceiling on federal deposit insurance. Another would end rules that require companies to devalue assets on their books to reflect the price they could get in the market.
In the meantime, Paulson said he would work with other regulators "to use all the tools available to protect our financial system and our economy."
"Our tool kit is substantial but insufficient," he said, indicating the government intended to continue piecemeal fixes while pressing Congress for broader action.
Stocks started plummeting on Wall Street even before Monday's vote was over, as traders watched the rescue measure going down on television. Meanwhile, lawmakers were watching them back.
As a digital screen in the House chamber recorded a cascade of "no" votes against the bailout, Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley of New York shouted news of the falling Dow Jones industrials. "Six hundred points!" he yelled, jabbing his thumb downward.
The final stock carnage far surpassed the 684-point drop on the first trading day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
In the House, "no" votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill. Several Democrats in close election fights waited until the last moment, then went against the bill as it became clear the vast majority of Republicans were opposing it.
Thirteen of the 19 most vulnerable Republicans and Democrats in an Associated Press analysis voted against the bill despite the pleas from Bush and their party leaders to pass it.
In all, 65 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting "yes," while 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted "no."
The overriding question was what to do next.
"The legislation may have failed; the crisis is still with us," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a news conference after the defeat. "What happened today cannot stand."
Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, said he and other Republicans were pained to back the measure, but in light of the potential consequences for the economy and all Americans, "We need to renew our efforts to find a solution that Congress can support."
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said there was scant time to reopen legislation that was the product of hard-fought bipartisan negotiations.
"What happened today was not a failure of a bill, it was a failure of will," said Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman. "Our hope is that cooler heads will prevail, people will think about what they did today and recognize that this is not just scare tactics - it's reality."
A brutal round of partisan finger-pointing followed the vote.
Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate - which assailed Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets - for the defeat. It was not much different from her usual tough words against the president and his party.
"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Boehner said.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
That amounted to an appalling accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country."
More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.
Indeed, many GOP lawmakers spurned Bush's urgent calls for action. "We have a gun to our head," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., who opposed the bill. "This isn't legislation - it's extortion."
The two men campaigning to replace Bush watched the situation closely - from afar - and demanded action.
Lawmakers were under extraordinary pressure from powerful outside groups, which gave notice they considered the legislation a "key vote" - one they would consider when rating members of Congress.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said opponents of the bailout would pay for their stance.
"Make no mistake: When the aftermath of congressional inaction becomes clear, Americans will not tolerate those who stood by and let the calamity happen," said R. Bruce Josten, the Chamber's top lobbyist, in a letter to members.
The conservative Club for Growth made a similar threat to supporters of the bailout.
"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it - not me."'
"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.
If Congress doesn't come around on a bailout, more pressure would fall on the Federal Reserve.
The Fed, which has been providing billions in short-term loans to squeezed banks to help them overcome credit stresses, could keep expanding those loans to encourage lending. And, it could keep working with other central banks to inject billions into financial markets overseas.
It also has the power to expand emergency lending to other types of companies and even to individuals if they are unable to secure adequate credit.
29 September 2008
at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Unix_Admin (Anonymous) says…
I'm so glad this failed. It's about time they did something right on the hill! Let the market work itself out.
29 September 2008
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
Yes!
Finally, they stop sending my money away to save those that greedily lost their own.
29 September 2008
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fleeba (Anonymous) says…
wow.. wonder where it goes from here…
29 September 2008
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Having not yet been sold into slavery for the price of $700 billion I remain a free man. I am poorer, yes, but I am still free!
Today is a GOOD day!
29 September 2008
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
So now the congressional republicans, the congressional democrats and the Bush Administration will all come up with 3 very different competing proposals.
Looks like McCain will be off the campaign trail indefinitely.
29 September 2008
at 1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ese (Anonymous) says…
Let's not bail out Fannie or Freddie either. Take the money from Barney Frank.
29 September 2008
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: “So now the congressional republicans, the congressional democrats and the Bush Administration will all come up with 3 very different competing proposals.”
Let the debate begin as there hasn't been any debate yet! Let the bills see the light of day, don't do this over the weekend without telling the American people what is being proposed. The longer this drags out and stocks adjust their prices downward, the less there will be a need for a bailout anyway. I would rather be poorer now than obligated for decades to a bailout.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: “Looks like McCain will be off the campaign trail indefinitely.”
Actually that might be best. Most McCain supporters were going to vote against Obama and not really for McCain. Anyway this issue is FAR more important than who gets to be President for next 4 years. This issue could have enslaved generations of Americans for decades or longer. The longer this issue remains alive, the more the American people know the WHY and the WHO, the more Obama will suffer in the polls especially if he continues to support this.
29 September 2008
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Well so much for McCain's leadership on the issue. Now you have to wonder what his advisors will say since they were saying earlier that today's “successful” vote will vindicate John McCain and show him as a true leader.
This from William Kristol:
“Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.”
And if it doesn't pass? Does McCain take responsibility for that too or is it “them blasted Demonrats fault”? All that time spent on the phone and not a thing to show for it. Should we expect another suspension of his campaign? Seems like a good strategy to me, keep riding in on the white horse all the way up to Nov. 4th.
29 September 2008
at 1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
I am glad this failed also, and if brought back again to be voted upon, the Democrats will vote NO, more of them. Is it possible that our city commission can correlate their actions to a failed investment group? We have the same poor leadership in Lawrence, that is very much like the leadership of Smith, Barney and Up Yours.
And how could any sane person really believe that the Federal government would turn a profit and share it with the public. Come on get real. Are they going to take a profit of 20 million dollars and send each and everyone a check? Of course not. These “securities” would be bought by the Treasury with printed money from a printing press. Then the company in trouble gets cash, the CEOs still get paid but as “punishment' have to pay tax on their balloons and the company agrees to not take a tax write off. It is so simple to see through. The Treasury Dept buys the “securities”, then hires a Wall Street firm, newly created, to market and manage them. Proft? uh huh? Just like running the T. Throw Momma from the Train and throw the T from the budget.
Vote NO in Lawrence as well.
Depression 2010.
29 September 2008
at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rodentgirl16 (Anonymous) says…
Let it crash! Those rich ba%$#rds have a lot more to lose than us ordinary people. I'm used to being poor.
29 September 2008
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jefferson_County (Anonymous) says…
Evidently all of the previous posters are retiring on Social Security payments. Good luck with that. $700 billion - let's see, we've spent that much in Iraq, didn't hear the “free markets” express much concern about that. Years and years of Repug deregulation and help for the “fat cats” coming to a head, and ordinary peoples' retirement suffers. Typical cut off the nose to spite the face.
29 September 2008
at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
true_patriot (Anonymous) says…
Agreed. We need something smaller and more targeted than a bail out of Wall Street under threat of extortion by Bush and the power players on Wall Street.
The same players that cleaned up over the last several years since McCain's economic advisor Phil Gram wrote the Gram-Leach-Bliley act to remove oversight and deregulate the financial sector are already jockeying in position to try steal even more public taxpayer money in the government bail out of the aftermath of their deregulated Vegas-style betting frenzy.
Does this sound familiar at all? Congress needs to act immediately. There is no time for debate - we can point fingers later. Just give us the money (authorization to go to war, retroactive immunity for corporations that helped illegally spy on Americans without any warrants, etc.) and trust us. Don't worry, you can take our word on it that your towns will go broke (there are WMD in Iraq, we won't abuse the power to do domestic spying without warrants, etc.).
Word is that desperate corporations on Wall Street are contacting members of Congress and threatening to make sure the 401K and 403B retirement plans that many of their middle-class constituents have will among the first to detonate if Congress refuses to use taxpayer money to bail out the fat cats and power players that destroyed our financial sector in the quest for insane and unsupportable levels of profit.
29 September 2008
at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
fleeba (Anonymous) says:
“wow.. wonder where it goes from here:”
Possibly more bank failures. Recession. More overseas banks failing.
29 September 2008
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…
Here is a synopsis of whats in the bill:
Doling the money out:
The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury's use. Authority to use the money would expire on Dec. 31, 2009, unless Congress certifies a one-year extension
Protecting taxpayers:
The ultimate cost to the taxpayer is not expected to be near the amount the Treasury invests in the program. That's because the government would buy assets that have underlying value.
Stemming foreclosures:
The bill calls for the government, as an owner of a large number of mortgage securities, to exert influence on loan servicers to modify more troubled loans.
Limiting executive pay:
Curbs would be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to the Treasury. Among them, companies that participate will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000.
Overseeing the program:
The bill would establish two oversight boards.
29 September 2008
at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ese (Anonymous) says…
Probably soup lines and WPA building.
29 September 2008
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Here's a free tip: Invest in AR-15s and gold.
29 September 2008
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Everyone should know that the rightwing RepubLICKlans are primarily responsible for this debacle.
And like the rightwing says - “freedom isn't free.” So now we get to see what the “free market” is all about.
Enjoy the fruits of your labor!
29 September 2008
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
americandreamrealty (Anonymous) says…
If we're going to throw $700 billion in subsidies into the economy, we should put it into the real economy, rather than the secondary economy (a derivative of real production). Generate some real jobs with that money, rather than give to the financial industries to gain more usurious (sp?) profits on the exploitation of poorly capitalized individuals. Take some real steps to end the debtor economy. An economy based on debt is unsustainable.
29 September 2008
at 2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jmadison (Anonymous) says…
40 percent of Democrats voted against this bill, 33 per cent of Republicans voted for this bill.
29 September 2008
at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pinecreek (Anonymous) says…
Well while some of our vengeance seeking friends seek retribution against those that created the mess (they won't suffer, by the way) those of us with 401(k)s as a big part of our retirement foundation suffer yet another blow this year.
Thanks Nancy Boyda, real informed vote there…I'll be sending some money Jenkins' way even though I'm not in your district. Ignorant short-sighted thinking, sort of like some bankers that we've been reading about.
29 September 2008
at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
This congress is the best!! Thank you for your service to the people and keep up the good work. Sad. Democracy based on how much you hate one another……what a concept.
29 September 2008
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ese (Anonymous) says…
Liberals created this mess. If they kept their greedy little hands out of the working public business everything will work out fine. Fortunately for liberals, their government checks and food will continue.
29 September 2008
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says: “Well so much for McCain's leadership on the issue. Now you have to wonder what his advisors will say since they were saying earlier that today's “successful” vote will vindicate John McCain and show him as a true leader.”
Where was Obama's leadership? At least McCain help delay this till people get a sense of what is being proposed nothing needs to be done. Truth is only some banks are bad, the good ones are buying the bad and only those behind on their mortgages are in trouble. Let Fannie and Freddie fend for themselves. It is NOT a program that should continue.
Now would be a VERY good time to read, “Atlas Shrugged” or “Basic Economics, Third Edition” by Thomas Sowell.
Here is the “Sigmund Plan” (tm). Gather all the bad Fannie and Freddie paper, bundle together in a Real Estate Investment Trust or Exchange Traded Fund. Sell it to wealthy investors (those who have risk capital) for the current market price. The Federal Government can give added tax deductions if the investors lose money and tax advantages on income or gains if any. In essence the government should break up Fannie and Freddie (like ATT) and sell off the baby Mae's to the highest buidder.
Then start looking at Sallie Mae and the abuses there.
29 September 2008
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
The financial house of cards is falling; all the fiat paper and credits we have accumulated are now worthless. Congress could pass the bill and the market would get a short-term jolt upwards but in the long run there are fundamental problems with our entire financial system.
29 September 2008
at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
Is this our October Surprise?
Suspend the elections indefinately during our “national crisis”?
29 September 2008
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says: “Everyone should know that the rightwing RepubLICKlans are primarily responsible for this debacle.”
Doesn't pass the laugh or the smell test, still keep shouting it loudly and with venom. Somebody might just believe it.
29 September 2008
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chuckabee24 (Anonymous) says…
……….If only Chuck Norris were around, he'd fix everything.
29 September 2008
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
This is what you need to to at least–right now, my wife and I have called every credit card company and said, lower our rate or we close the account. Some obliged. We transferred one to an Edward Jones line of credit that was way less than half the rate, then anything you can x-fer, for example our son's truck loan from a higher Chase Bank interest rate to a special Edward Jones 2.99 credit card rate and so on so forth. Help yourself, cause nobody else will–that's for sure.
If your credit is around 720-750 give or take (or better) you should not have one single line of credit over 8.0%–-tops?
29 September 2008
at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
My credit is 850+, hints I carry no lines of credit.
29 September 2008
at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
Who is responsible? take a look…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8…
29 September 2008
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“U.S. Reps. Nancy Boyda, D-Topeka, Jerry Moran, R-Hays, and Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard voted against the financial markets bill.”
Nancy, I haven't been a fan but standing up to your leadership was VERY principled and gutsy. I left my number with your office earlier today. Stick to your guns and then feel free to call me for a contribution and to actively work for your campaign. This issue goes way beyond Reps v. Dems which are really meaningless terms today.
29 September 2008
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
These so called assets that the Treasury Dept would buy have underlying value? Hmm, that being the case, maybe the parkinglots in Downtown Lawrence have underlying value and could be sold at a profit far better than the income they generate. That profit could be invested in some of these “underlying' value securities and more proft is made.
Why are the Democrats so eager for this bill to pass? Why? I thought they were against the corporate moguls, the Wall Street and the rich and greedy. Now they want to bail them out? Could it be that some of Barney Frank's east coast friends are the powerful and rich?
I hope if this is voted on soon, that more Democrats will vote NO as well. This needs to be an overwhelming majority of NO votes just as the T votes in Lawrence should be NO. There are simillarities in both issues.
If this bill passes Senate and the House, I am sending my Westar , Water bills and others to one of the Kansas reps in Washington to pay and even send them on to Barney Frank as well, I will be quite Frank with mr. Frank, here are the bills, they have underlying value. They are yours. You pay me 30 cents on the dollar. My light bill is $30.00, you give me $9.00. I pay the bill and it only cost me $21.00 and Washington and Mr. Frank can sell the $9.00 dollar debt that is worth $30.00. It is a win win and I won first.
First in , first out. Last in , last out.
Welcome to Lawrence where everyone is last out.
29 September 2008
at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
acg (Anonymous) says…
Wow, I did not expect this at all. It kind of blows my mind. I've gotten so used to congress being sheep that I didn't think they'd have the cajones to stop this “bailout”. I'm happy, but kind of scared. What does this mean for our economy now?
29 September 2008
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SloMo (Anonymous) says…
God bless the USA!
29 September 2008
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Liberals created this mess.”
Ah, ese. Ignorant *and* uninformed.
Typical.
29 September 2008
at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
daverclear (Anonymous) says…
The most educated argument I've read is that this crisis stems from an attempt of the government to provide affordable housing to everybody in the late 90s and early 00s. Fanny and Freddie were buying up sub-prime mortgages by the thousands and encouraging banks to give our mortgages to people with poor credit or no credit. When advisors came to Congress and said that there needed to be regulation on Fannie and Freddie they were laughed at because at that point the two companies were making money for the government.
Housing is just like college, being a home owner is for some and it's not for others. (That's why affirmative action doesn't work in either case)
This is a classic case study we'll find in free-market economics books for years to come.
You can argue against the “free-market” all you want, but it seems like it's following the curve that it's supposed too right now…too much supply, too little demand, time to adjust.
Now we all lose.
29 September 2008
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
I thought ones credit score was based on some magic formula of how much debt you carried and how well you payed it off..LIke if you borrow more and pay everything on time, your score is better..?? So how could one have a score of 850+ and have no line of credit??
Down 700 points today..what about tomorrow? I guess the upside is my 401K is tanking, it is liable to be better when the market recovers. If it recovers. I better go plant some peach trees..so I can feed the grandchildren.
29 September 2008
at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Bravo to the Republicans and Democrats who voted to kill this monstrously unconstitutional piece of socialism.
Shame, shame on everyone who has made this a partisan issue. The deepest of shame must be heaped upon Nancy Pelosi for her willingness to risk the well being of our country in order to save her partisan neck.
This bill deserved to die. I hope it is never again brought before the House of Representatives.
Now, lets put Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Hank Paulson under investigation and get on with business.
29 September 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
true_patriot (Anonymous) says…
Have to agree with Sigmund. What saved things today from the latest attempt at predation on the American taxpayer was a combination of Republicans and Democrats working against the measure.
The only problem is that putting together something that WILL work is going to be difficult because the dissenters in both parties are in it for very different goals, at least in part. The morning I heard some of the Republican leadership calling for capital gains tax cuts for the ultra-rich i knew i'd seen everything. Not only is that kind of fundamentalist always-play-to-win-the-immediate-battle ideology what got us into this mess in the first place, financial institutions by definition don't even have capital gains to be taxed.
29 September 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
true_patriot (Anonymous) says…
Politics makes for some strange bedfellows but look for a short honeymoon if the GOP can't unfetter itself from its myopia and look at how the long-term financial survival of our nation is hanging in the balance because of their insistence on a myth-based economic frame aided by Democrats so nervous about being tagged as the party of big spending (ridiculous in the light of the GOP/Bush spending since 2001) that they'll make any sort of compromise or worry about trying to balance the budget just to try to earn brownie points for fiscal responsibility.
I have not seen anything approaching real fiscal responsibility in many years now, but after the fiasco of letting Republicans run things and set historic lows in fiscal responsibility, it's time to let Democrats have a swipe at trying to cause less damage than their predecessors, since I sincerely doubt they'll actually do anything constructive.
If you Google for it, you might be able to find a suggestion by renowned economist James Galbraith made sometime over the weekend, where he suggests a more targeted approach than the current Bush bail out plan. In short, it lets hedge funds fail completely, removes the $100K cap on FDIC insurance, puts a few hundred billion into FDIC and a little into the FBI. This is to at once make a show of putting money into FDIC to restore confidence in loan books for major banks while using most of the money to hire real analysts to get a handle of how much bad debt there actually is and where it resides so we know what we're dealing with and then if criminal wrongdoing is discovered along the way it can be investigated and prosecuted to send a signal to the world we are now serious about not letting our financial sector fail and pull down the world with it. It puts another $300 billion in reserve for a real emergency once the first part of the plan has had a chance to work. It calls for doing this targeted approach initially, then meeting again in 20 or 30 or 40 days to review and move forward.
It ultimately calls for stimulating the economy at the “main street” level by initiating energy infrastructure development and some other longer term ideas, but I really like the directness and simplicity of the short term plan compared to just letting the corporate predators raid our tax coffers yet again with no real oversight attached.
29 September 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
daveclear,
exactly right ….. the link below shows the hearing on freddie mac and fannie mae ….. and believe it or not it was Republicans who were pushing for more regulation and oversight.
McCain pushed legislation on this issue in 2006 but legislation was blocked from coming up for a vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2…
29 September 2008
at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
The market is fluctuating wildly as in closes in a few minutes. A very interesting day.
29 September 2008
at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Autie
I do not carry a balance on any lines of credit, I have a lot of credit avaible. My wife's score is even higher.
29 September 2008
at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
“..Does my memory fail me or did not a thin tall man with a beard wrapped in white from toes to top of head named Osama state he would destroy our economy within our borders? Where have our billions gone the past eight years? To fight Osama in two countries—to build facilities here at home that snoop and spy even on us?”_from an anonymous poster journalstar.com
+++
Yikes.Very familiar now that he mentions it.
29 September 2008
at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chocolateplease (Anonymous) says…
Is a total economic meltdown, perhaps world-wide, worth it? When companies start shutting their doors (not just banks), and people start getting laid off by the million, and governments can't collect taxes let alone offer much help to those in real need, will that be worth rejecting a bailout plan? Can we believe the doomsayers?
Hey, I want blood from the greedy wrong-doers too, but isn't it best to be pragmatic and do what is in our long-term best interest? The free-market system is wonderful, but it isn't perfect, and it isn't god-ordained. Maybe this is needed in these extrordinary circumstances. I frankly do not know.
But I submit to you that items such as regularion, CEO pay, punishment for CEOs, oversight, and even homeowner bailouts for the loans they can't pay are SIDE-issues at this point, and can be dealt with later if not now. The critical thing is to prevent a total economic catastrophe.
Now of course, if you don't believe the brink-of-disaster proclaimers, or if you only want blood (from the wrong-doers), and couldn't give a hoot about the rest of it, then I see your point. I just hope the suffering isn't worse by rejecting this plan than it would be by accepting it. Choose your poison carefully!
29 September 2008
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ese (Anonymous) says…
Affordable housing! HA!
Barney Frank should be strung up.
29 September 2008
at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sandrat (Anonymous) says…
Looks like I might be living on Ramen noodles again soon. Thankfully, I don't think they are made with Chinese milk. This is going to be just like college, but the tests will mean a little more, I think.
Of course, I'm already poor, and the Depression seemed like a pretty romantic time. I think I might go buy some John Steinbeck books before we start burning them warmth. It's good to be prepared in both cases.
Too be honest, I'm not terribly worried. I've been poor for years. I haven't had much confidence in the government recently, so why should I be surprised.
See you all at the soup kitchen. I'll be the one with the half-burned copy of the Grapes of Wrath.
29 September 2008
at 3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
So Osama is a hedge fund manager on wall street?
29 September 2008
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
The silver lining is oil dropped to $96/barrel! As long as this bill is opposed oil will decline. It was artificially high at $150.barrel just two months ago! no bailout, let the investors take the hit! Why should the government buy bad loans, shouldn't they buy good loans? Look for oil to be $50/barrel in a year and gas at $2.50/gallon next summer.
no bailout!!!!!!!
29 September 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“Stand by to initiate release sequencer. On my mark. Five. Four…”
“We're on an express elevator to hell; going down!!!!”
“Three.
“Two.
“One.
“Mark.”
29 September 2008
at 3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chocolateplease (Anonymous) says…
Very funny, Sandrat.
29 September 2008
at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Boehner's Republicans decided to screw the country because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings. Eric Cantor promised half of the Republican caucus would support the bill. That's going to play well in November when the Dow is down around 5K…
29 September 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Staff04 goes partisan to defend the most poisonously partisan crook in the House. Way to go.
29 September 2008
at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
BrianR said:
“Possibly more bank failures. Recession. More overseas banks failing.”
You raise an excellent point that isn't being covered much in American media. European banks are starting to face the same problems. Just recently, one British bank was nationalized, another bought out, and another European bank was effectively nationalized by a multinational bailout program.
29 September 2008
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
americandreamrealty (Anonymous) says…
from the Simpsons:
Kent Brockman(consulting an expert): “Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?”
Expert: “Yes. Yes I would, Kent.”
29 September 2008
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
“Staff04 goes partisan to defend the most poisonously partisan crook in the House. Way to go.”
Boehner said exactly that, Godot. He said that they had the votes until Nancy Pelosi spoke. Several members who didn't like the tone of her speech decided they were no longer going to support the bill.
They specifically ignored the best interest of the American people because they “didn't like the tone” of Pelosi's speech.
You want to talk partisan? THAT's partisan.
You must live a happy life in the absence of facts…
29 September 2008
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
The very important issue, and the reason this bill was rightfully canned, was the attempt by the Democrats, led by Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, plus Paulson, Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffett and powerful hedge fund managers, to take control of the US financial system by financial coup.
The poison pills in this bill were something that could not easily be undone.
Granting the Treasury the mission to be responsible for the welfare of the economy? Give me a break.
Millions of dollars, without any oversight, to a criminal left wing outfit like ACORN? Not on your life.
29 September 2008
at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Funny, I didn't realize that trying to keep people from losing their homes was criminal.
Godot, you jumped the shark with that one.
29 September 2008
at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
sanrat and Agnostick the DJI dropped 777 point (about 7%) today. Oil dropped to $96/barrel and is falling. Which will impact you more in the next year or two?
Those that can't afford the homes they are in need to get out. Those that can afford a home need to buy them for the new lower costs. It is ugly and scary and we are far better off doing this now.
An exercise for the reader: Each time the bailout plan looked like it would pass oil went up. Each time it failed oil dropped. Why? How are oil and bad Fannies related. Hint: Oil going down hurts Russia, UAE, Venezuela, etc.
Staff04, the majority did not want this bailout and Obama and Dennis will pay the price at the polls.
americandreamrealty, I think the experts also suggested a young brash American produced Chianti to go with brain goo.
29 September 2008
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
I especially like all the photos of stockbrokers crying with their heads in their hands. I hope Lower Manhattan is in flames by this evening. They will all have to get a real jobs, instead of manipulating markets for a living.
29 September 2008
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
“Staff04, the majority did not want this bailout.”
141 Democrats voted to pass this bailout package, so at best, your statement here is grossly uninformed if not patently false. I hope for the former, but frankly…
29 September 2008
at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund, I might have misread your statement. Did you mean the Majority party or the majority of Congress? I had to assume you meant the majority party, as you noted that only Dennis and Obama would be hurt by this bill failing but made no mention of the 65 Republicans that supported the bill…
29 September 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
Will see how the Republicans feel about not approving the bailout when the September unemployment numbers come out friday. I swear it it will hit 7% or even higher before the election.
29 September 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
americandreamrealty (Anonymous) says…
Lisa: “Look on the bright side, Dad. Did you know that the Chinese use the same word for 'crisis' as they do for 'opportunity?'”
Homer: “Yes. 'Crisitunity!'”
29 September 2008
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
staff04 (Anonymous) says: “Sigmund, I might have misread your statement. Did you mean the Majority party or the majority of Congress?”
The majority of Americans and the majority of both parties as it turns out.
29 September 2008
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OonlyBonly (Anonymous) says…
Ah somebody hit the nail on the head and reminded us it was Congress (Republican congresses) that pushed through all the deregulation that's brought us to this sorry state.
Thank you Jefferson_county.
29 September 2008
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Wallythewalrus (Anonymous) says…
“October surprise”, mentioned by the Geekin Topekan.
This thesis I have heard before. I think it read something like suspended elections and martial law, thus keeping Bush in power.
29 September 2008
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I think many of you opposed to a bailout are forgetting some of the ramifications. Our lifestyle has been based on borrowing from foreigners such as the Chinese. This is true both in trade deficit as well as government borrowing. IF they choose to spend their savings elsewhere, then it will hurt us. Likewise, if OPEC feels like the US dollar is unstable and switch to trading oil in another currency such as the Euro, then again, it will negatively affect our country.
Bottom line: You may not like this bill, but don't assume that defeating this bill or defeating any other bill that comes forward in the next few weeks is in your best interest. As our economy goes, so goes our well being. A financial collapse is not in anybody's best interest. Whether we blame this on 8 years of Bush or even further back with the additional years with Clinton, the end is the same. There is a mess that has to be cleaned up. Leave this mess unattended, and you will wish for the “bad” old days of Clinton and/or GW Bush.
29 September 2008
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
If this were such an emergency, such a crisis, why didn't the Speaker of the House bring the bill to the floor for a vote last week when she had the votes?
I guess she made a bad, bad strategic error when she decided it wasn't such an emergency that she couldn't wait to try to get Republicans to cover her.
Did anyone notice that, over night, the Federal Reserve pumped another $630 Billion into the banking s