world

Bush administration urges quick action on $700 billion bailout

88 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

88 Comments
Login to comment

Socialism: Corporate Welfare: Nanny Capitalism

However you slice it, American capitalism is a mirage. In the end it relies on the moral hazard of being saved - not by the wisdom of the market - but by government intervention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The qualification criteria for a bail-out has now been expanded:

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There we go, the "Lets just throw money at it!" idea. Not to mention they're still borrowing money from foreign countries. Stupid stupid proof that our government is like a bad teenager with a credit card and no budget sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where are the republicans?

We're not in a recession.

Big business don't need no regulations.

But now we're going to give a bailout to Wall Street.

The little guys are going to help out the ones who screwed us.

We'll be putting out over a $1,000,000,000,000.00 before it's done.

Didn't we just give these guys $4,000,000,000,000.00 when george bush signed that massive give back.

Screwed again by big business. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream- Hey buddy, i am Republican. Sad as the global crisis is, Bush is not to blame. We have the structure to come out of this mighty fine. McCain will sterr the ship through any crisis. Obama wouls sink the ship and all who sail in her. Bwahahaha.

adaydream- stop using negative spin against the USA, we are doing fine. I certainly don't ahve any negative impact on my life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The death of communism surprised many, I think the passing of capitalism has taken just as many by surprise:

WASHINGTON -- Uncle Sam is turning into Uncle CEO. But will the new corporate suit be a good fit?

By agreeing to bail out insurance giant American International Group Inc. and mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal government has put itself in the unprecedented position of running huge private companies. In the case of American International Group, or AIG, the government is now the majority shareholder, acquiring 80% of the company in exchange for lending it as much as $85 billion over two years to keep the business out of bankruptcy as it is dismantled....

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-newboss21-2008sep21,0,6516753.story

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The passing of capitalism? In your dreams, Betzee.....in your dreams. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Montgomery Burns still has that trillion dollar bill -we should be ok.

Never should have gone off the gold standard.

$1,000,000,000,000 Bill or just call it S+L Buyout 2

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Swiftboatvet - "McCain will sterr the ship through any crisis."

mccain will continue sinking the US economy as bush has been so successfully doing.

"stop using negative spin against the USA, we are doing fine."

LOL! Are you living in 21st century America! Do debts figures mean absolutely nothing to you??

The blindness of some Republicans is simply staggering!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3- In the last month by business has icresed by 15% higher tahn thsi time last year. The bonly negative effect on any of my staff or friend has seen some using bikes or walking to work , rather than using cars.

McCain will continue the good work, heck, i am looking at 8 more years of economic success. My profuts are over a third higher than when Bush acme into power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They shouldn´t throw good money after bad. Let the speculation bubble pop and the chips fall where they may. The investment bankers have been raking in fortunes on clever money games for several years now -- they are now learning that they can not outsmart reality. Serves them well. The last thing we normal work drudges should do is bail them out with our hard earned tax money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A bit of comic relief extracted from "Hello, Recession My Old Friend":

[T]he know-nothing, do-nothing federal government fixes everything by raiding the Treasury, which is actually empty, so the feds instead raided the treasury of China.

President Bush went on television Monday morning and told me -- for at least the third time in his tenure -- to remain calm. But I already was calm, as the natural order of my existence -- weathering recessions -- was restored. This will be No. 1 for both my kids, though, so the pressure is on to set a good example.

The blaring financial media have inculcated Americans with a fear of recessions, but as any card-carrying economist will tell you, recessions are as unavoidable as the change of seasons. Indeed, such financial cold snaps allow us to get reacquainted with our better and more industrious selves. I am at this very moment dusting off my recession skills. This afternoon, I plan to darn some socks. Later, I will be siphoning gas from other people's cars. Next week, I'll head to the golf course with a fishing net and try to recover balls from a fetid canal....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-debord21-2008sep21,0,2582488.story

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This would be the most serious financial crisis that the world has ever dealt with.

I don't think we know what this would be. The Great Depression was pretty bad, but we do not know that this would be worse. It's good spin, though, if you want to pass this legislation on through without giving it a thoughtful appraisal.

The announcement that we intended to do something seemed to be enough to placate worried markets. Whether Congress finalizes the plan tomorrow or a week from tomorrow makes very little difference as long as the it can agree in principal on a core package.

What I hear from the Republican side is concern about the markets and concern for businesses. What I hear from the Democratic side is concern about individual borrowers. Both seem to me to be missing the point.

We do not have $700B. If I were going to loan the government money via treasury bills, etc., I would certainly demand a higher interest rate this week than I would have demanded last week. So we can look forward to rising interest rates and all that entails for borrowers, both business borrowers and personal borrowers.

No matter how you look at it, indebtedness is not a good thing. And we have far, far too much of it in the US. We have created a great nation of consumers, but our future earnings are mortgaged. Today, those who hold our paper may want or feel the need to play nice. Tomorrow? Who knows.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the last month by business has icresed by 15% higher tahn thsi time last year. The bonly negative effect on any of my staff or friend has seen some using bikes or walking to work , rather than using cars.

swiftboatvet, once again we are back to your business. The country does not gauge its economic health on your business, and neither should you.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The passing of capitalism? In your dreams, Betzee.....in your dreams. ;)

At least 700 billion U.S. dollars are now officially socialist. Maybe capitalism has not passed, but it has lost an arm only to have a socialist one grafted on.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It just keeps getting worse and worse. This Bush Administration will go down in history as the worst Administration in United States history! No other Administration has ever done so bad in terms of the economy than this one.

I hope our great nation can rebound under the next Administration within the first 4 years.

Sad sad sad, and I hate to say this but I voted for Bush in 2000.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The throwing of resources at a crisis used to be the hallmark of Communist countries. How times seem to have changed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those of us who want a great and powerful nation are addicted to a drug which will ensure our destruction. If those who wish this also wished for a scenario in which they would one day be free of this drug, then the healing could begin.

The infusion of $700B into the economy does nothing to make us greater or more powerful. We can print the money and exert pure inflationary pressure or we can borrow the money and exert pure interest rate pressure. It is true that our military will be able to continue to buy and spend, but it will be doing so with dollars of decreased value and under conditions that make it more difficult for the middle class to stay afloat.

This move may be necessary, for the US and for its creditors. However, this has much more to do with an attempt to covering for a weakness than it does to creating a strength.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We know that you can't stay a superpower forever. And we also know that you can bankrupt yourself trying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We know that you can't stay a superpower forever. And we also know that you can bankrupt yourself trying.

And we can always dream, cant we comrade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The government of Sweden made a profit when they bailed out their system and so did the government of Japan, and I think the US will make a tidy profit too. However, I think it got to the desperate situation because of poor Bush policies; to start with the economic stimulus package probably did a lot more harm than good and the Bush administration did not in the least offer "traditional" conservative economic practice. People expect a democratic president like Clinton to let things get out of hand but they also expect a republican administration to correct things. The biggest mistake the current administration made was to continue the Clinton banking policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We are rich for a number of reasons, not all of them very pretty. But we have enjoyed an abundance of natural resources. Sadly, however, these can and do go away. We have already destroyed the abundance of natural timber which we once had.

Cut lots, but I'm pretty sure it's possible for the US to meet its demestic timber needs through sustainable forestry.

We have long enjoyed highly educated people, but higher education is getting more and more out of reach of many people.

The real problem is at the bottom, not at the top. A population that is educated to a unformly adequate standard is better than a population of a few highly educated presiding over ignorant hordes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's great how the media is still pushing Barack's plan for socialized medicine even as the nation comes to very costly terms with the fact that the government can't even regulate the mortgage industry. Hahahahahahha. Too funny. The repubs just can't get the message out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack got more teflon than reagan and bush combined.

NY Times in 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' ...Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed... ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alinsky4prez,

Dreaming is what people do when they ignore inconvenient truths. There is a difference between dreaming and being concerned. But I encourage you to keep spending as though there is no tomorrow.

You seem to me to suggest that people who do not hew to your line of thought--whatever that may be because you seldom say--are somehow fellow travelers bent on the destruction of American society. From my point of view, those who ignore possibilities and predictions are much more destructive to America.

What, pray tell, do you think it is that I am dreaming? Or do you deny that superpowers pass away? Or do you think the US is the exception?

Personally, I see being a superpower as being in possession of a hot potato. The goal should be to pass that off and still stay in the game.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie,

I agree that it's possible to meet domestic timber requirements through sustainable forestry if we have a will to do so. However, I don't think that was my point. The point was that the resources are severely depleted and not a source of riches.

Regarding your comment on education, I couldn't agree more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Points to consider re Washington's bailout of Wall Street:

-lacks any semblance of democracy in action. There has been no public debate and yet the means used has been entirely public funds, that would and should have been used for public good. No political party has even endeavored to debate the imposition of the plan.

-the plan does not address the underlying reasons for the financial crises, no bank is being held accountable, and yet it is the banks first and foremost who benefit from the handout of public funds.

-no relief is being offered to working class families across the US. Yet they will be the first to suffer from the massive allocation of government funds to Wall Street. As a result there will be nothing left to enable social services as few as they are now to continue. Goodbye to Medicare, Medicaid, and social services pretty much in general

It is unlikely this is going to work and over the next year recession will likely lead to depression. The numbers of the working class have massively increased as a result of the credit crises and will steadily continue to increase. They are already the majority of Americans. There is going to be massive public unrest, rioting, the lot. The military will be on the streets, the same military that were in Iraq. You have seen military trialed in this role in New Orleans after Katherine.

"The bailout plan, devised by and for the most powerful sections of the American capitalist class, exposes all of the lies and myths that have been promulgated to defend the profit system: the claim that multimillion-dollar paychecks for corporate executives, vast profits for speculators, and ever-widening social inequality are justified because the capitalists must be compensated for their “risk-taking”; the mantra that social problems cannot be solved by “throwing money” at them, and that, at any rate, there is no money for jobs, housing, health care of education; the constant invocations against “big government.”

It demonstrates the class character of the government and the policies and decisions it takes, and the existence, behind the trappings of democracy, of a plutocracy—the rule of the rich."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/econ-s22.shtml

This is not going to be America only, the process will replicate across the globe. People might do well to appreciate that fact. It isn't only about America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree that it's possible to meet domestic timber requirements through sustainable forestry if we have a will to do so. However, I don't think that was my point. The point was that the resources are severely depleted and not a source of riches.

I don't know if this is true. I think it's just cheaper to import timber, hence the trade dust-ups with Canada on wood products. From Wiki:

The area of forest certified worldwide is growing rapidly. As of December 2006, there were over 2,440,000 square kilometres of forest certified under the CSA, FSC or SFI standards, with over 1,237,000 square kilometres certified in Canada alone.[19][20]

While certification is intended as a tool to enhance forest management practices throughout the world, to date most certified forestry operations are located in Europe and North America.

You might argue that wild forest differs from planted forest, but that's another story.

In any case, the US won't be logging itself out of this financial crisis.

Moderator: Back on topic please. The forestry issue is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tanihwa,

Politics can make strange bedfellows. You might find it interesting that the concerns articulated on the world socialist web site mirror those of William Kristol, resident NYT's neocon, on the bail-out plan.

There are still a few conservatives with principles, rather than just advocating the expedient thing because it offers the best means to hold on to power. Regardless of ideological perspective, these are certainly issues that deserve a public hearing given the price tag:

[I]s the administration’s proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

And I’ve been shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts I’ve spoken with who aren’t at all confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right — or who think that the plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22kristol.html?hp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems like throwing money at an old Italian sportscar. You fix one part whilst another bit drops off and you can see it rust in real time by eye.

A partial repair job isn't going to work - this needs a full strip down and re-build.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betze

Politics can make strange bedfellows. You might find it interesting that the concerns articulated on the world socialist web site mirror those of William Kristol, resident NYT's neocon, on the bail-out plan.

Sure does.

William Kristol, he's the guy that called for "a war on terrorisn" just 9 days before the terror Sept 11 twin tower terror attacks. He's the son of Irving Kristok too, the conservative ideologue and enthusiast of Leo Strauss. Strauss was convinced the only way to contain the irredeemable wicked human nature was through a powerful nationalist state.

“Because mankind is intrinsically wicked he has to be governed: Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united—and they can only be united against other people.”

"

In a commentary on Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political, Strauss agrees with Schmitt that liberalism has turned life into entertainment, and has deprived it of its seriousness, intensity, and struggle.... Strauss shares the controversial Nazi jurist and political philosopher’s view that the fundamental distinction in politics is that of friend and foe. Schmitt admires the Nazis because they understood the importance of this distinction and they proceeded to exterminate their enemies, including internal enemies. Like Schmitt, Strauss believes that politics is first and foremost about the distinction between WE and THEY."

(P.23 from Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shaida B. Drury)

The significance of Strauss's thinking was not lost on Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle either, both were prominant advocates of the Iraq war. Remember the war in Iraq? Its almost as though its been forgotten what with all the credit crises noise at home.

But back to William Kristol, I am rather surprised to see you call him 'principled'. Perhaps I've forgotten just where you stood on things since I've been absent from JT for almost two years (I think it is). I thought you were not too happy with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. Wasn't Kristol jr one of the staunchest of war advocates?

Just from the point of view of financial cost, America's adventuring in Iraq has if anything has greatly increased the pits of debt into which it has fallen. And now Kristol wants to advocate fiscal responsibility?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A partial repair job isn't going to work - this needs a full strip down and re-build.

Yeah, yeah. You mechanics always say that... ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But back to William Kristol, I am rather surprised to see you call him 'principled'. Perhaps I've forgotten just where you stood on things since I've been absent from JT for almost two years (I think it is). I thought you were not too happy with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. Wasn't Kristol jr one of the staunchest of war advocates?

Principles are measured by whether the individual adheres to his beliefs, regardless of whether I happen to agree with them or not. Why the NYT's hired Bill Kristol is a mystery to many of its readers, including this one, particularly after he proved so disastrously wrong about the war in Iraq.

But this cannot obscure the fact that two of the core principles of conservatism are limited government and balancing the books. These have gone out the window under GWB. The former to advance the agenda of the religious right and the latter to get people to the polls. Indeed, this was the case with the biggest entitlement program in decades, GWB's prescription drug coverage plan for seniors under which Uncle Sam pays drug companies the retail price. Guess who wrote the legislation? A lobbyist for the drug industry.

But I do enjoy reading well written stuff, and Kristol's asking the right questions on this bail-out. He wants John McCain to do the principled thing. You'll have to read the column to find out what that is....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What happened was banks lent money to people and people borrowed money beyond their means to buy homes. They're starting to default on their mortgages and now the people backing them don't have the cash to cover the losses. In the end they are the ones (both of them) responsible for this mess.

This very specific scenario is being played as the end of capitalism, the sun setting on the US superpower, evidence of greed from Republicans, Democrats, President Bush, Fammie Mae and other backers, the end of all government social programs, and pretty much the end of the entire financial structure as we know it.

People, get over yourselves. Really. daydream blames everything on Republicans and guess what his position is with this mess... Sez hates US global dominance so guess what his talking point are... Sushi hates the Iraq war and once again the cost of the war is what he wants to talk about here. Betzee hates capitalism so it should be no surprise that she's calling it the end. zurc only posts information that talks about his hatred of Bush, and this topic is no different. Taniwha hates the US in general and any topic will always point to our demise which is always just around the corner.

We could be talking about the financial mess or the war in Iraq or the cost of baby food and I have a feeling the people above would somehow end up in the same place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"People, get over yourselves"

I agree.

Irresponsible lending is the culprit here and is due to un-checked gluttonous capitalism. Legislation must be passed to make banks and the people wanting the credit moe responsible.

Whilst I oft critisize the system in France, the banks here are cautious and can only lend you money on a percentage (about a third) of your monthly income for each instalment. That's pretty frustrating for us capitalists, but it does help avert massive credit crunches like the recent one in the US.

Heh, having said that, Frenach banks have felt the US crunch because they lent money to the US too...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee hates capitalism so it should be no surprise that she's calling it the end.

SuperLib,

Now how would you arrive at such a conclusion since you claimed you don't read my posts? In fact you read into them what you want and in that way you are in fact guilty of the sin you accuse others of (though I notice you shy away from taking on alinsky et al).

What form this broad, unprecedented state intervention into the market should take is an important question; if you don't have anything to contribute why bother to post? Bitterness gets boring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why the NYT's hired Bill Kristol is a mystery to many of its readers, including this one, particularly after he proved so disastrously wrong about the war in Iraq.

Their house conservative William Safire was retiring, and they wanted one who was wrong at least as often as him.

Back to business...

The SEC has suspended short sales on 799 financial stocks, so those of us who were wise enough to see this coming might end up getting burned anyway. Short sales (i.e., betting that a stock will decline) are a way for investors to point out the distortions in the market. Looks like the SEC isn't too keen on having those distortions pointed out.

I read an interesting comment that if short sales can be banned when the market falls shaply, long positions should be banned in sharply rising markets. This is another case of heads you win, tales I lose. Looks like Sailwind and I might be sharing that soup line after all. Bon apetit!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee, Superlib - you guys should just give in an go out on a date :p

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee, Superlib - you guys should just give in an go out on a date :p

Adverts,

Our friendship has just been irretrievably jeopardized!!! In fact I dated a venture capitalist, a former employer no less, from whom I gained much of the knowledge which I have no doubt dazzled many with on these threads!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, sorry Betzee I just couldn't resist narging you two and your continued tiffs here :)

I don't look at it that way. In fact I ignore most posts here, particularly those written by people who obviously have no sense of humor (and no ability to appreciate it in others).

Other than those who want to try to pin this on Obama, by claiming Fannie/Freddie was somehow responsible, irresponsible lending and borrowing by actors in the marketplace has already been ascertained as the cause of the crisis, this is not controversial. The controversy centers on the type of intervention measure we should pursue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Principles are measured by whether the individual adheres to his beliefs, regardless of whether I happen to agree with them or not. Why the NYT's hired Bill Kristol is a mystery to many of its readers, including this one, particularly after he proved so disastrously wrong about the war in Iraq.

Re 'principles', that's very true.

As far as your question re why would the New York Times hire Bill Kristol goes, one can only ask in reply why on earth wouldn't they? Particularly as he is a 'neo-conservative' as you noted, he was just what the newspaper would have been looking for at that time. His columns would certainly have to be completely in keeping with the character of the NYT.

The NYT might be a 'liberal' newspaper but it was a clarion call to war. and would feature and would likely be called to answer for its role in the murder of so many people to a war crimes tribunal one day. That is the same newspaper that employed Judith Miller. Miller established her reputation within an interlocking group of right-wing think tanks that have long promoted the US war against Iraq. All through the lead up to the invasion of Iraq by the US led coalition the NYT bayed for blood.

The newspaper's foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman so many times appeared to feel obliged to come to the aid of the Bush war cabal when ever it seemed war would not be sanctioned. Friedman's column endeavoured to provide a cover of legitimacy and even humaneness to Washington’s war drive. Back in 2003, he authored a column in which he urged his readers to “pay no attention” to the inspections taking place in Iraq.

This was an editorial policy at work throughout, and Bill Kristol and his perspective on the world fitted in very nicely.

Even while the editors of that paper postured as the 'responsible' allied to the antiwar movement they were performing precisely the opposite role. Their modus operandi throughout had been to castigate those elements who denounced the impending war as an act of imperialist aggression, while advocating a “healthy debate” about “nuanced” differences with the policy elaborated by Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib writes: "What happened was banks lent money to people and people borrowed money beyond their means to buy homes. They're starting to default on their mortgages and now the people backing them don't have the cash to cover the losses. In the end they are the ones (both of them) responsible for this mess."

Not quite. Banks lent money to people who had no business qualifying for the loans they applied for, thanks to deregulation and lack of oversight. These bad loans, thanks to deregulation and lack of oversight, were then chopped up and blended into mortgage security investments, which spread them out over the investment world like a case of typhus. Thanks to deregulation and a lack of oversight, investment ratings agencies graded these toxic investment instruments as AAA.

What is the political philosophy that has trumpeted deregulation and the defunding of oversight agencies? That's right, the Republican conservative philosophy over the past half century. People seem to forget that a segment of Republicans, Reagan for one, had set out a course to destroy the federal government by driving it into bankruptcy.

That's the way you kill Social Security folks: Burden the government with so much debt that it can no longer meet its obligations. George W. Bush and the Republicans executed that plan to perfection. (Anyone remember when the Republicans were touting a "balanced budget amendment?" Well, Bush and the Republican majority inherited budget surpluses as far as the eye could see, and promptly set out to destroy them -- which they have accomplished better than anyone would have believed back in 2000.

It doesn't matter that a handful of so-called Democrats joined the mass of Republicans in their corruption and crimes. What has occurred has been this nation's enacting the policies and philosophy of the Republicans over the past 50 years, in their attacks on the labor movement and the New Deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

I meant to address that post to you, and should add finally that the New York Times certainly does have 'liberal' pretensions. They like to be present themselves as 'politically correct' for sure. Over the years, particularly this past decade it isn't difficult to see at all the character of their editorial policy. They serve their corporate owners very well and most certainly (in the editorial room) would regard the old notion of being a part of the fourth estate as rather quaint.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

Thank you for providing the historical context for Wall Street's woes. As Tom Friedman pointed out in his column:

Of all the points raised by different analysts about the economy last week, surely the best was Representative Barney Frank’s reminder on “Charlie Rose” that Ronald Reagan’s favorite laugh line was telling audiences that: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ”

Hah, hah, hah.

Are you still laughing? If it weren’t for the government bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and A.I.G., and rescuing people from Hurricane Ike and pumping tons of liquidity into the banking system, our economy would be a shambles. How would you like to hear the line today: “I’m from the government, and I can’t do a darn thing for you.”

In this age of globalization, government matters more than ever. Smart, fiscally strong governments are the ones best able to empower their people to compete and win....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21friedman.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

"particularly those written by people who obviously have no sense of humor (and no ability to appreciate it in others). "

You mean the mod?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think there is a real flaw in the logic of blaming the lendees in all of this.

Are we to believe that thousands of average people, most of whom have no banking or financial background convinced the banking experts that they were not high-risk lenders and that the banks should give them loans?

That doesn't say much for the intelligence of those in the banking community.

Also, back in 1998, my wife and I went to a real-estate investment seminar (we had no intention of buying, we went for the free coffee maker they offered us). They through dizzying numbers at us and had both of us confused within minutes. Before I knew it, I had a contract in front of me, ready for me to sign. I was an E-5 in the Navy at the time, with no savings, who was barely able to pay the monthly bills. The fact that I sat through a really annoying seminar because I couldn't afford a coffee maker should have told someone that I was a high-risk loan candidate.

I doubt I was the only person who went through something like this and I would bet a lot of the default loans have come from people just like my wife and I, circa 1998.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

alinsky,

It's great how the media is still pushing Barack's plan for socialized medicine even as the nation comes to very costly terms with the fact that the government can't even regulate the mortgage industry. Hahahahahahha. Too funny. The repubs just can't get the message out.

What is even funnier is that in the face of massive corporate bail-outs, candidate mccain wants to privatize Veteran's care and social security.

As a Vet and someone who plans on growing old, I am not laughing.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain wants veterans to have the best possible care. He knows privately-run organizations can do a better, more cost-effective job than the government.

taka313 wants the government to take care of him to his grave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems bush called for reform of F Mae and F Mac 17 times since he stole the 2000 election.

Whatever.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

" candidate mccain wants to privatize Veteran's care and social security."

Both candidates back the plan by the Bush administration which means there will be little left over in the way of public funds for such things as social security, veterans funds, Medicare, Medicaid. Do the figures.

The figure of $700 billion remains a huge underestimation of what the rescue of Wall Street will actually cost the taxpayer. On Monday the New York Times noted the decision of the Bush administration to extend its purchase of securities to foreign based banks operating within the United States. This has been carried out under pressure from global institutions that hold massive amounts of US debt, and will substantially drive up the cost of the program.

Its biggest corporate bailout in world history, and it is larger than the annual budget for Social Security and the combined annual outlay for Medicare and Medicaid. Now how the heck can anyone think there will be money left over to fund social security?

They are blowing the entire allowed state budget for next year - $700 billion exceeds the total allotment for all discretionary spending, excluding the Pentagon, for fiscal year 2009!

And it is very likely that the very people in both political parties supporting this plan realise full well it is only prolonging the arrival of the inevitable. If that isn't a complete financial meltdown on a global scale (lets just hope not) it most certainly means a prolonged and profound recession.

Lets not delude ourselves into thinking one or other candidate can produce dollars out of his errr...hat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge,

Why is it that you feel you know what I want? You have no idea what I want and it is insulting to me that you feel compelled to post such nonsensical drivel. Hell, you don't even know your own beliefs until they are issued to you by fox news.

What I want is responsible business management. When big businesses asked for tax breaks to increase business opportunities, I feel they should do it at home instead of exporting jobs to third world countries.

I want rules in place to ensure that CEOs cannot exercise a golden parachute if they leave the company in worse shape than when they arrived.

I want a mandatory minimum wage for all jobs. I don't believe that there are jobs Americans won't do. I believe that there are jobs that Americans won't do for a dollar a day, so corporate farms and sweat shops hire 3rd world workers to do so. I want those organizations monitored and punished if they try to get away with not paying a fair wage.

I want oversight so that companies like halliburton cannot get away with overcharging for a service that they sometimes don't provide and sometimes provide at a substandard level, such as overcharging for water they were giving to the troops supporting your dear leader's mission that ended up being contaminated. And pulling a sarge, I will say, you have supported that comapany in the past, so you hate the troops. Gosh, that makes you a traitor. See how easy it is to paint a picture based on very little? That is your entire existence here at JT.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The republicans just want to put forth $700,000,000,000.00 to try to fix this bailout without helping the people who are putting forth the money. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwha, I cannot understand your antipathy, your continued resistance to Barack.

He was well taught.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee writes: Of all the points raised by different analysts about the economy last week, surely the best was Representative Barney Frank’s reminder on “Charlie Rose” that Ronald Reagan’s favorite laugh line was telling audiences that: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ”

I kept recalling the words of Grover Nordquist -- another Republican who provided the philosophical underpinnings of the so-called Reagan Revolution to destroy our government. His aim was to weaken government to the point where "it could be drowned in the bathtub."

Paul Krugman (on Bill Maher's HBO program) made the comment that, "just as there are no atheists in a foxhole, there are no libertarians in a financial meltdown."

Judgment is still pending on the outcome of the conservatives' plan to destroy the American way of life, which began in the 1940s with the undermining of the American worker's ability to organize. If we're truly going to fix this mess, we have to back to the heady days of the Great Depression and rebuild the collective-bargaining and whistle-blowing capabilities of American workers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge writes: "McCain wants veterans to have the best possible care. He knows privately-run organizations can do a better, more cost-effective job than the government."

More of the bankrupt, false Republican philosophy that has gotten our nation into the mess it is currently in. Some facts:

"Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be "significantly better."

"Here's another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care."

"Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals."

source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

So what McCain "knows" is not knowledge at all, but false ideology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want a mandatory minimum wage for all jobs.

I want that, but as part of a more comprehensive social contract.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits,

good post and solid on fact. Sarge once again is just repeating propaganda from the rightwing choir book.

Fact is the Vet Admin has deployed fully Electronic Medical Records based on software they themselves wrote, and is now open source I believe. Most major hospitals in the US are still using paper with many, many mistakes and lost information. This is yet another example where the government development leads private industry. Their are many, many reasons for this that will go over the heads of the winger crowd so I will not post them. But just like the internet itself, a government funded and developed standard, health care is being lead by the Veterans Administration efforts. Fact, not propaganda.

How anyone can post such inane things when the government is now bailing out the entire private financial industry in the US is beyond comprehension.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want that, but as part of a more comprehensive social contract.

The contract that says the Govt owes me a life instead of earning one?

Think I'll pass on that one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

thats because you dont work for Lehman Brothers or Merril Lynch or any major bank in the US right now. They all have their hands out big time with their hired flacks running the halls of Congress right now.

Its OK cause if you are American you personally will pay $2000 to bail out the leeches who created this mess. Just keep on voting republican and you can pay more later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservative opposition to this plan is mounting. This is good because they will not be so easily dismissed:

In 1989 [after the S and L's went belly up], there was no choice. The federal government insured the thrifts, so when they failed, the feds were left holding their loans; the RTC's job was simply to get rid of them. But in buying bad loans before banks fail, the Bush administration would be signing up for a financial war of choice. It would spend billions of dollars on the theory that preemption will avert the mass destruction of banks. There are cheaper ways to stabilize the system.

In the 1980s, the government did not need a strategy to decide which bad loans to take over; it dealt with anything that fell into its lap as a result of a thrift bankruptcy. But under the current proposal, the government would go out and shop for bad loans. These come in all shapes and sizes, so the government would have to judge what type of loans it wants. They are illiquid, so it's hard to know how to value them. Bad loans are weighing down the financial system precisely because private-sector experts can't determine their worth. The government would have no better handle on the problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092001059.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain wants veterans to have the best possible care. He knows privately-run organizations can do a better, more cost-effective job than the government.

If Government can't handle running a hospital in a cost effective manor, that I would say that the USA banking system is a dead man walking. How is that the Government feels that it can run Banks better then what should be the top financial minds in the world can but some how do not have the financial know how to run Vetern's Hospitals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many many of the 47,000,000 uninsured people in America are doing the jobs that pay lesser wages than the ones who have insurance. They are just trying to buy food and pay as much as they can to be a part of the American way. These people pay their taxes and want to get something for them besides watching $Billions spent on a george bush's Memorial War in Iraq.

Now they are being ask to bailout multi-millionaires with but told they can't have the basics of humanity, Health Care.

There will still be these funds managers that walk out with parachute deals that will give them more money then the most people will ever see. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind writes: "The contract that says the Govt owes me a life instead of earning one?"

It is pretty obvious that you don't comprehend the meaning of the word "contract." (Contracts always spell out the obligations on both parties.)

The problem with right-wingers is that they keep erecting straw men arguments like this which they can then quickly knock down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurconium writes: "sailwind, thats because you dont work for Lehman Brothers or Merril Lynch..."

Or AIG. Inconvenient facts like this sail right over the heads of so many on the right wing. That's why Bush and his ilk can win elections and why the country is in the deep trouble it is in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - (Contracts always spell out the obligations on both parties.)

No they don't. That's why you always have to read the fine print. That's why you have to see what was left out. That's why you have to hire the devil (an attorney) to protect your interest sometimes.

Then there are the loopholes that get built in. They will kill you. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee writes: "In 1989 [after the S and L's went belly up], there was no choice. The federal government insured the thrifts, so when they failed, the feds were left holding their loans; the RTC's job was simply to get rid of them."

Yes, and many private financial institutions picked up many of those assets for pennies on the taxpayers' dollars. Bank of America (which is actually the former BankSouth) stands to become an even greater behemoth in the years ahead, with its pickups of MBNA and Merrill-Lynch.

My point is that this plan will allow the taxpayers, once again, to subsidize the making of billions by those in the top 1%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream writes: "No they don't. That's why you always have to read the fine print. That's why you have to see what was left out."

I know you are speaking tongue-in-cheek, but take a look at all the 401k's that are now put in deep risk. They only came about after companies decided they didn't want to continue taking on an obligation to fund the retirement of the workers they employ. The magic of the stock market would take care of all that. Leave it aside that all these politicians have employer-based pension plans.

The worst-case scenario are the companies who promised their workers a pension and then reneged on that promise.

If you look at what has happened that requires these taxpayer bailouts, you'll find nothing but people failing to live up to their promises and, in some cases, their contracts. Ethical standards? On Wall Street? That's good for a laugh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka313 - It seems to me you do not understand that your Democrats are mainly responsible for the current financial crisis. Don't you know who was running Fannie May and Freddie Mac and who are now Obama financial advisors? Check it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is Bush really trying to pull with this urging for "quick action."

Paul Krugman's column on this in today's New York Times, is really worth considering. No, it's a must-read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html

An excerpt: "That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)

"But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

"I’m aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Unfortunately I'm not. We don't know what they will put into these contracts. We don't know about how we're going to be kissing the asses of these money fund managers.

I can see a package put together by the republicans that would help no body but their money buddies. But it's the public's money, not Wall Streets and we won't benefit. We'll put these deals together on the backs of poor Americans and these money managers will still walk away with parachute packages that dwarf anything they will ever make.

Remember for the people, by the people and of the people.

Not for the rich, by the people and stolen from the people. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

edit - Not: For the rich VS Not for the rich. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge writes: It seems to me you do not understand that your Democrats are mainly responsible for the current financial crisis.

It seems to me that people like sarge, who can't see that the current financial crisis involves much more than Fannie and Freddie, and is the natural outcome of decades of America's buying in to the Republican philosophy of deregulation hook, line and sinker. It is all too clear now that Republicans need Democrats around for having the most foolish among them to act as scapegoat for their own incompetence, greed and corruption.

The nice thing about forums like this one is that, in a live audience, people like sarge would be laughed at such that the shamelessness would show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream writes: "Unfortunately I'm not. We don't know what they will put into these contracts...I can see a package put together by the republicans that would help no body but their money buddies."

And that's precisely why Bush and Paulsen are pushing to have this thing enacted quickly without reading or discussing the fine print. They're tring to pull a fast one on the American people yet again.

I don't know about you, but it is not often I sign a contract without reading and understanding everything, especially the fine print. Perhaps we should change our motto to "In God we trust, but everyone else beware!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems to me that yabits doesn't understand that government is not the solution, it's the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: if you don't have anything to contribute why bother to post?

Sure, Betzee. What point would you like me to talk about? Health care benefits for Veterans? Or how about Social Security, the war in Iraq, Clinton. I could address one of the two dozen articles you've linked in. Which "end of capitalism as we know it" angle would you like me to address?

Sorry, but to me it's all about failed oversight on real estate transactions which has nothing to do with either political party, the war in Iraq, or the fading US empire. But what do I know? I only have a degree in real estate finance and experience working in real estate. I'm finding that although it helps me contribute to credit crunch conversations with others but not so much on this message board... ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib:

The real danger is when banks are holding these long-term notes (30yr loans) and the interest rates rise. =Who will want these loans at 5-6% when banks are paying that out in interest (savings accounts etc)

You really need to look ahead with the long-term loans and not just at the thousand(s) dollar initial profit.

Anyway when is the Gov sending me my check? -Oh, I thought they were bailing me out. When they spend 1T you automatically think it affects you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems to me that yabits doesn't understand that capitalism is what made the USA the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and that if Obama gets elected, capitalism will be under attack.

Either Obama or McCain will inherit a economy that is turning into a corporate welfare state. It's not very capitalistic to write a $700 billion welfare cheque. Capitalism is very much under attack, if you believe in pure Capitalism, the banks should allowed to fail, let the market adjust itself, no government intervention what so ever should have been aloud. But Bush/Republicans are intervening, are not letting the markets adjust themselves and are saving the banks from failing(all attacks on Capitalism). The fact is for the near foreseeable future the US will have a Socialist banking system and I doubt Obama could do that much more to make the US more Socialist then it already has become. Banks are where everyone keeps their capital you know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib writes: "Sorry, but to me it's all about failed oversight on real estate transactions which has nothing to do with either political party..."

If the oversight failed because people responsible were negligent, you might be right. However, when oversight is purposefully removed as a result of a political philosophy which claims that the "market knows best," your statement is completely wrong. This has everything to do with a bankrupt philosophy that has driven the Republicans along for decades.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This bailout showed great courage and a deep knowledge of financial markets by Bush.

People underestimate his intelligence, you don't become president without brains folks.

The US has the fundamental strength to survive this economic slump and to actually survive stronger, well done President Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheNewFed writes: "People underestimate his intelligence, you don't become president without brains folks."

No. A person like Bush becomes president when a great many people whose intelligence cannot be underestimated find their way in to a voting booth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting that it's not just the Democrats, but Congressional Republicans, who are getting cold feet about rubber stamping this 11th hour bail-out plan. Wonder why that is? Could it be that GWB will be enjoying a comfy retirement waxxing on about his contributions to spreading freedom while they are left to make the hard choices his deficits will necessitate. Who would trust this guy? Didn't he claim the war in Iraq would cost a mere USD 50 billion?

What the American people don't need is a massive transfer of wealth to Wall Street in what becomes, in effect, a "Leave No Banker Behind" give away of public money. The next administration will certainly have to try to orient Wall Street away from speculation, a phenomenon deregulation made a lot easier, and toward investing in productive assets. I'm sure one can make a pretty penny "selling short," but I fail to see how that helps grow our economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is worse than you all think. Follow the link below, Comrade Paulson wants unlimited authority, he does not even want his decisions reviewed by a court! Completely unconstitutional. While comrade bush merely looks on in approval. Look at Section 8, it in effect suspends the U.S. Constittution!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?ref=business

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

Would it then be fair to say that you hate people whose attitudes and beliefs are different from your own and to then invite others to consider what your talking points are?

Once again you take the liberty of characterizing me and talking about me rather than talking about the points that I have made. This is the essence of ad hominem argument no matter how politely or preciously you effect it.

Let's see, on this thread my talking points have so far been:

(1) Both Republicans and Democrats seem to me to be missing the point. The point is that we cannot go on mortgaging our future prosperity--for if we do there won't be one.

(2) It is pointless to rail about how great and powerful we are--pointless and perhaps self-destructive. We can destroy ourselves in the pursuit of an impossible mission, which is what being permanent numero uno is.

(3) Our goal as a country should be to be a strong and viable nation, not a great and powerful one.

Now, guess who avoided all of those points and chose instead to characterize me as a hater?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Furthermore, one non-rank-and-file Republican, Senator John McCain, is apparently playing spoiler. Earlier this week, while refusing to say whether he supported the Paulson plan, he claimed not to have had a chance to read it; the plan is all of three pages long. Then he inserted himself into the delicate negotiations over the Congressional plan, insisting on a White House meeting at which he reportedly said little — but during which consensus collapsed.

The bottom line, then, is that there do seem to be some adults in Congress, ready to do something to help us get through this crisis. But the adults are not yet in charge.

Krugman again right on point. The incredible failure that is the mccain campaign lumbers on from mistake to mistake. Its one thing to be a maverick, its another to be stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge says It seems to me that yabits doesn't understand that government is not the solution, it's the problem.

Tell that it Freddie Mac and Fannie May and AIG and Bear Sterns and Wamu and many more to come. In this case the government is the solution and the problem is the make-believe free market that reagan and his dopey followers believe in like children in the tooth fairy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trouble is, zurcronium, even Clinton is blaming the Democrats.

I don't understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seams to me Sarge and all his alter egos were just three weeks ago spouting how stable and strong the economy was. Now for the kick to the groin

In 1982, the same year John McCain entered the Senate, a bill was put forward that would substantially deregulate the Savings and Loan industry. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was an initiative of the Reagan administration, and was largely authored by lobbyists for the S&L industry -- including John McCain's warm-up speaker at the convention, Fred Thompson. The official description of the bill was "An act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans." Considering where things stand in 2008, that may sound dubious. It should.

Seven years later, the S&L industry was collapsing. What was the cause? Garn-St. Germain handed the S&Ls a greatly expanded range of capabilities, allowing them to go head to head with full service banks, but it didn't give them the bank's regulations. Left to operate in an anarchistic gray area, S&Ls chased profits, indulged in amazing extravagances, and cranked out enough cheap mortgages to fuel a real estate boom. They also experimented with lots of complex, creative -- and risky -- investments, even though they didn't have the economic models to really determine the worth of the things they were buying. The result was a mountain of bad debts and worthless "assets." Does any of that sound eerily (or nauseatingly) familiar?

It wasn't a foregone conclusion. In 1985, three years after the deregulation of the S&Ls, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board saw that the situation was already looking shaky, with the potential to become much worse. He instituted a rule to limit the amounts and types of investments S&Ls could carry on their books in an effort to head off disaster. However, many savings and loans -- among them Lincoln Savings & Loan Association of Irvine, CA, which was headed by a fellow named Charles Keating -- promptly ignored these rules.

Im sorry I have lost the link to the complete story but I will post is as soon as I can find it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DXXJP - "Seams to me Sarge and all his alter egos..."

My alter egos?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites