Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The $700 Billion Bailout: One More Weapon of Mass Deception

By Richard W. Behan, AlterNet. Posted September 22, 2008.


The American economy needs help, but there are other, far more equitable ways to accomplish it.
Advertisement

Not since the Bush administration's lies about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" have the American people been so despicably misled.

The Bush administration's proposal to buy, with taxpayers' money, $700 billion of toxic liabilities from the corporate financial titans of Wall Street is a fraud. It is by no means necessary, as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson claims in the agency's Fact Sheet, "to promote market stability, and help protect American families and the U.S. economy."

It is necessary only to assure the financial survival of Wall Street banks and brokerages, the administration's most loyal supporters and its greatest political contributors -- and in large measure the cause of the financial meltdown the country is facing.

These financial corporations lobbied ferociously to be free of government regulation. Had they not succeeded, they could not have done what they did next: They created and leveraged trillions of dollars of complex "derivatives" -- mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps -- all riding on an unprecedented real estate bubble stimulated by their frenzy of creative finance. When the bubble burst, as bubbles do, many of these financial titans faced bankruptcy, their obligations far exceeding their assets.

The $700 billion of taxpayers' money, in the plan suggested by Paulson, will buy enough of the toxic obligations to allow the companies to avoid bankruptcy. Not coincidentally, a major beneficiary of the scheme will be the investment bank Goldman Sachs. Paulson resigned as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become the Treasury secretary in 2006, having amassed a personal net worth of $700 million during his 32-year tenure at the bank (on average, $21.9 million per year).

We need to "remove the distressed assets from the financial system," Paulson suggests. Relieved of the burden, the great Wall Street banks can then regain, presumably, its folksy function: assuring that "money and capital flow to and from households and businesses to pay for home loans, school loans and investments that create jobs."

For the good of the American economy, Paulson is correct that credit needs to flow and the distressed assets need to be removed. He is not correct that credit needs to flow from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial houses. And the distressed assets do not have to be assumed by the taxpayers.

There are other, far more equitable and justified ways to accomplish both.

The distressed assets -- that is, the losses -- can and should be absorbed by the executives, directors and stockholders of the corporate banks and other institutions that propagated the financial firestorm. They can and should, as the dictates of the free market insist, stand accountable for their actions and accept bankruptcy. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers to shield them.

Paulson wants to rescue Wall Street so Wall Street, he assures us, can get back to lending. That is certain to save Paulson's former firm and the others, but it is by no means certain that credit will then flow to "home loans, school loans and investments that create jobs." The Wall Street firms are far more likely to revive their lucrative trade in complex and esoteric financial "products."

Seven hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. It is more than we've spent so far on the administration's fraudulent "war on terror" (See "The Mega-Lie Called the 'War on Terror': A Masterpiece of Propaganda".) Is it not better public policy to channel the money to "households and businesses" in some other, more direct, more effective and far more reliable way?

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Main Street banks and thrift institutions that played no part in the real estate securitization/derivatives game. Certainly the $700 billion could be made available to them instead, at low but positive interest. Or, special publicly held banks could be set up in statute and capitalized with the $700 billion.

The crisis is real, but there are ways to serve the nation's interests at large and even to earn a modest return on its assets. We do not need to subsidize the failure of Wall Street and hope thereafter for better days.

The welfare of the Wall Street financiers should not be the focus of public policy, and this clever attempt by the Bush administration is a perversion of decent governance. We should not be stampeded into the greatest corporate theft of public assets, arguably, in the nation's history. Instead, to paraphrase one of our presidential campaigns, we need to put our country first and stop Paulson dead in his tracks.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, economy, housing bubble, debt crisis, paulson, bailout, fannie mae, freddie mac, financial crisis, lehman, aig

Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, Wash. He has published dozens of articles exposing the criminal wars of the Bush administration; they are summarized in an electronic book, The Fraudulent War, available in PDF format at http://coldtype.net/Assets.08/pdfs/0308The%20Fraudulent%20War.pdf. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just Say NO to the Bailout ... Do It Now !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 22, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call, email, fax and /or write Washington DC ...

Find Your Senators and Representative by Zip Code

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Must Stop This Bailout ... It Is Disaster Capitalism !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 22, 2008 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, the Tax Payers are looking at 1.8Trillion dollrs in a bailout. This is NOT a Typo ...

A $1.8 Trillion Bailout: Where the Money's Going

If we are to have any kind of future we cannot afford this kind of bailout. I'm not talking about new programs, I'm talking about saving the programs our grand parents, parents and we so truly treasure like Medicare and Social Security. YES they are on the line for while the estimate is 1.8 trillion the actual damage is likely far worse.

There are other ways to take care of the crisis we are in. Right now the Congress is being railroaded into selling our future to pay for Wall Street's Sins ... Don't let this happen. Call your Congressman and Senators Now ! Tell them NO to this Bailout of Wall Street Billionaires. Tell them there are other ways to address this problem and that they are selling our future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and it's not the last of it Posted by: schnoggi
Comforting to know that my revulsion for giving away money to the rich is shared.
Posted by: aouie01 on Sep 22, 2008 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not surprising to hear about the token gestures of some democrats wanting to get some thing in the bill for the poor to be included, and sidestep the real issues. With the current routing of the money, the bulk of the "bailout" is going to benefit the rich more than the poor. That may help prolong the system of money flow that is in place now. There are probably ways to prolong the system longer while benefiting the poor more. At some point people need to figure out and implement a better system that not only addresses material comforts, but also the general well-being of individuals, societies and the alive.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The economy likes wearing glasses
Posted by: jacobus on Sep 22, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate the prining price , we need to have trips with eyeglasses and good sunlight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All MSM, PBS/NPR are part of this crime
Posted by: weathered on Sep 22, 2008 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they provide all the simple but effective distractions to keep the public defocused, confused and frustrated and they have done so w/precision.

See MSM for exactly what they are;an accomplice to the crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US presidents, bankers and weathermen, even when they get it wrong, they get to keep their jobs.
Posted by: blogoffanddie on Sep 22, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank God we still have socialism for the rich. How would they make the payments on their multi-million dollar mansions and Mercedes’ without a little helping hand from Joe Middle Class American Taxpayer. Like you, I often worry for the rich too.

The American Dream is failing because the American Dream has become the world's nightmare. Until the American people learn this truth, nothing will change in America.

After years of bombardment from the mainstream media, the American populace has been dumbed-down and programmed to ignore the substance, realities and the issues of the world around them, and focus on the peripheral, pointless and more often than not, irrelevant sideshows created by a news media, government and economic system full of hucksters, corporate bootlickers and suck-ups.

America has become a circus and a nation of voyeurs and peeping Toms. It is slowly devolving into a mindless freak show that millions of simpletons can watch every night on their TV's.

As a result, the American people are too confused, distracted or lazy to look up from their TV sets to see or do anything about the destruction that is taking place.

US presidents, bankers and weathermen, even when they get it wrong, they get to keep their jobs. At least the weatherman is amusing.

http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com

So long Dubya, we'll always have debt and Guantanamo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CASH FOR EQUITY NOT PAPER
Posted by: Peter Mackrael on Sep 22, 2008 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As proposed, this $700 billion cash infusion will reward those banks that got deepest in debt. If a company is given additional capital, the US government should receive equity in the company. Buying their worthless paper makes no sense. It will merely encourage continued derivatives trading and increase this debt. Government ownership will ensure that future profits (if any) are returned to the people and that new regulations to manage derivatives trading - assuming Congress writes them - are followed. If and when these banks become profitable and socialy responsible, they can be sold back to private investors.

Further, I do not trust Paulson and the Bush administration to administer this huge 'bail-out/buy-out'. As with the war in Iraq, I fear that most of this money will go to political allies and cronies.

A separate bi-partisan committee/agency should be created to buy these banks at current market value. All pruchases should be subject to review and approval by Congress. If any bank rejects a government buy-out, then this company is free to deal with their own debt as they wish, without any government assistance.

I believe it is highly likely that conspiracy to defraud and outright fraud has occured - and will continue to occur - with respect to this 'rescue' plan. Who will investigate fraud/conspiracy and when will these investigations begin? Will any Wall Street fraudsters go to jail?

The current approach of using "fear and patriotism" to rush a "clean" bill through Congress reminds me of the method that Bush used to pass the bill that was later used to justify the invasion of Iraq. It will give the Bush administration incredible power. There is no upper limit on expenditures, no clear method to evaluate the paper to be 'bought' and worst of all, no regulations to address the real cause or to investigate possible criminal activity.

Paulson's initial proposal looks like a huge fraud opportunity to privatize the profit while socializing the risk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some common sense on bailout plan (CALL CONGRESS!)
Posted by: editnetwork on Sep 22, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, call your Reps and Senators and tell them (a) the plan is an outrage; (b) don't be blackmailed when they slug you with the word "partisanship"; (c) don't abdicate your oversight responsibilities, as Section 8 of the proposed bill prescribes; (d) We the People refuse to be "terror"ized once again into supporting a phony fix as when we were led into Iraq.

A young friend wrote me yesterday and gave me permission to post his top-of-the-head thoughts (he's been thinking about this for some time, clearly -- double meaning intended). So herewith, unedited:
____________________________

We should craft our legislation so that the taxpayers benefit from the exchanges, that simple.

SO -

If a "distressed" bad credit mortgage is bought by the feds, the underlying property (the house) should not be wholesaled - it should be held until it can be sold for a PROFIT which profit should go to paying back the original debt on unsold properties and paying down the general fund.

For properties that can't be sold for a profit, they should be held and rented - the rent again going toward the general fund and national debt. The rents from these should come from section-8 qualified renters - e.g. the needy, the solving two simultaneous problems - Low Income Housing and National Debt....

Lastly, no property should be purchased on the secondary market for more than it could be profitably rented.

That is - say BofA has 359k in a house that could be rented for 1200. Turn that into a 30-year financing deal and it's worth 200k. The max we should allow BofA to cash-out on the deal is 200k. If they don't like it, they can keep it.

I mean - IF WE ARE GOING TO BE SOCIALISTS let's be smart ones.

(also, if we buy 700 Billion in said loans, that'd be enough in rent to cover the entire country's health care, third problemo solvado in one fell swoop - let's say we start collecting rent on 3.5 Million Homes (averaging 200k and renting for 500-1500k/month, that's a potential 3.5 Billion / Month, enough... in which case we should just keep all these houses and socialize both housing and health care BOTH GREAT IDEAS if you ask me).

Not that any one is listening to me, but that'd kill two-or-three birds with one stone.

The only people left out in the lurch here are people currently paying mortgages on houses that can never sell for as much as they're paying on them. For them there are two classes - the ultra-rich paying +4k/month on million-dollar homes and who cares about them - and the middle-class paying 1200-3000/month on "needed housing". For them, though, the benefit in decrease in taxes and improved health-care should make the deal worthwhile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please Try To Be Accurate? Posted by: Last Chance
if the future is going to run like the past
Posted by: ellie on Sep 22, 2008 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and why shouldn't it be, here's my prediction... if somehow congress grown a set of 'cahones' and manages to kill the bill as it stands right now, an open ended spending spree with no accountability, those 3 tiny pages will be reworded before the end of the week into wombat's next executive order and shoved down out throats...

this crew of liars and cheats refuse to loose on this one no matter how many calls to congress, emails sent or protests organized...

you guys do know that northcom, the army's US command is doing an 'exercise' after 10/1 that is for 'homeland' protection don't you (Army Times newspaper)??? as they say timing is everything now that posse comatitus(sp) got flushed out of the constitution and bill of rights with Katrina...

we scream NO, goes exec. order, we protest, northcom exercises in your backyard... not being an alarmist, just putting the pieces together and hope the puzzle doesn't fit right...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» one more thing... Posted by: ellie
Insomnia
Posted by: Menopausal Mick on Sep 22, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you aren’t worried and awake deep into the night from this week’s financial news, then you haven’t been paying attention.

I agree with everything the author said in this posting, BUT, I have to ask if our economy can afford to wait until a better solution is proposed. I think we were about a gnat’s arse from a crash reminiscent of the Great Depression.

Here’s a few things that didn’t make the news in other than a trivial sound-bite type of way:

1. Last week, for a reason yet to be reported, China disappeared from American financial markets. Some economic analysts were calling it “financial terrorism” as it caused a bit of a jangle on Wall Street.
2. Recently, China completed a deal for Iraq’s oilfields, which I think includes those undeveloped fields that are reported to have a larger deposit than the Saudi fields. This matters for more reasons than I have space to address.
3. Financial institutions in other parts of the world are facing similar lack of liquidity and/or ability to lend in an effort to cover similar worthless mortgage backed securities on their balance sheets.

So, as near as this lay-person can figure… our prime creditor, China, is engaged in a bit of financial warfare and our economy is so entwined with the global economy that this may have been the spark that lit off what was an inevitable meltdown of the worthless, but lucrative, derivative driven markets and institutions. A perfect storm, as it were.

In addition, the SEC abolished the Uptick Rule in 2007. This safety valve required an upward movement on stock being shorted before additional moves of this nature were made. The SEC allowed institutions to be destroyed by manipulators.

And just to make your day more pleasant… let me point out that sub-prime loans for residential real estate have impacted the market with a huge bursting of bubblenicity (I just made up that word), however, COMMERCIAL real estate has yet to be addressed and is rampant with the same bad lending processes and over-inflated real estate value as the housing market was. Commercial real estate and credit card debt are looming on the horizon as the next financial crisis.

So, what do we do about this complex financial mess? Will we have time to demand a more equitable solution than an out and out give away to Wall Street fat cats? Are soup lines the result of failing to act quickly, if not intelligently? Will a bailout solve any of the problems that CAUSED this mess? How many more bailouts will be required? Who is going to bailout the taxpayer?

I have no answers to these questions but someone smarter than me better come up with a few solutions….and quickly.

Menopausal Mick

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

support the Bush plan
Posted by: chloelin on Sep 22, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I absolutely support the Bush plan. $700 billion spent on this means $700 billion he can't spend on killing women and children in Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and wherever else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: support the Bush plan??? Posted by: Last Chance
» Think Beyond The Obvious Posted by: Last Chance
» support the Bush plan Posted by: chloelin
» "Always" is a REALLY long time. Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: support the Bush plan Posted by: praedor
» RE: support the Bush plan Posted by: sheena2u
We Are Governed By Criminals!
Posted by: Last Chance on Sep 22, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right wing Republicans and their fascist fat cats have been trying for many decades to destroy the social safety net constructed by Democrats a few of the more liberal Republicans, and now they have decided only grand theft will do it. That's what the so-called "bailout" is - grand theft and federal bankruptcy, after which there will be no money for pensions and medical services, the people cast out on the streets and roads to suffer and die like medieval beggers. THAT is what the Bush dictatorship is doing - and who and what can stop it?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» National Suicide. Posted by: Last Chance
What 700 billion could buy
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 22, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Economic growth is based on available energy surplusses. When supply is greater than demand, prices drop and more people are able to consume energy and do economic work at a cost that is low enough to turn a profit. The only way to solve the problems for wall street is to dump more energy into the economy.

If you assume there 100 million households in the US, then this 700 billion dollar bailout is the equivalent of $7000 per household. What can that kind of money buy? It is enough to buy some sort of alternative energy device for every household. Either a vertical axis windmill, a set of solar panels, or a ground source heat pump. If every household had one of these items installed, it would save $500 to $2000 a year on energy costs. Moreover, it would dramatically reduce the demand for grid power, lowering the energy costs for every single user in the country. And it would create millions of jobs. The freed up natural gas supplies could be used to implement the Pickens Plan for natural gas engines, and the excess coal power could charge millions of PHEV's for pennies. All this in turn would lower the demand for gasoline and diesel. The resulting economic boom would be worth trillions.

But no, time to wake up! We would never do something wise with government debt! Instead, that money is going to be dumped into a financial black hole. These banks are doomed because the bubble has popped. Blowing more air into a popped balloon is a complete waste of time and resources.

Energy prices are just starting to recover from the last time the Fed and the Treasury went on a currency-wrecking spending spree. If this fiscal tomfoolery causes the dollar to fall more and energy prices to skyrocket again, it could cause a million more people to be unable to afford to pay their mortgage. This would leave the banks worse off than before, and in need of a bigger bailout. This is how recessions get turned into depressions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until Main Street can be convinced to wake up, Wall $treet will continue to win.
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT on Sep 22, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing that even in times like this, there are still plenty more voters who will choose to put social hot button issues over the economy and even foreign policy. Even when some of these people do give their word on foreign policy and the economy, I'll often get pathetic and rubbish responses such as "The Republicans will help me get rich as Donald Trump" and "America is feeling the victory on the war on terrorism so it's time to bomb bomb bomb Iran, Pakistan, Spain, Russia, and blow down them commie nations !" Ask them about the gas prices and they'll keep saying "Yeah, well it's the Democrats who are not allowing the drilling of more oil. Screw those commie solar panels and wind mills. They're for weenies !" I hate to say this but until Main Street can be pulled out of their dysfunctional ways, it's a lose-lose big time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 22, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who gives a flying flip about Wall Street? I think Americans are more concerned with being able to afford to fill up the tank and the grocery cart at the grocery store than they are about a bunch of snotty nosed, over paid and undrworked Wall Street Bankers oh yeah that right I forgot. Dictator Bush and his regime are up to their eyeballs in Wall Street profits! Piss on the Sheeple, Profit and Global Domination are all that counts!

Jiff
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and the answer is
Posted by: mahembar on Sep 22, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors - A national debt of $11.5 TRILLION is beyond my comprehension. Everybody have a moratorium on debt for seven years. Nobody owes anybody anything. You have what you have at this moment. Let the governments start from the bottom and dig for seven years. The debtor is repaid

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and the answer is Posted by: Last Chance
Hurry Up! Before Someone Sees What We Are Doing
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Sep 22, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the same old Bush/Cheney, just trust us we need to hurry up and pass this or Armageddon will occur.

Why waste money on the past failures. All this money will not change the status of a bankrupt system. Let the free marketers unwind their own problems.

It's time to cut the losses and start over. The current proposals are nothing more than good money chasing after bad. If there are needs in our society that can't be met by private means, then use the $1 trillion for that. Use this money to grow the future, not to bail out the criminals of the past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's advisors part of the problem
Posted by: Romans1 on Sep 22, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They were right in the middle of all those bad loans. Now, they blame Mccain, who tried to stop the madness with legislation in 2005.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dead Rats
Posted by: Io on Sep 22, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dead cats, dead rats, did you see what they were at, alright
Dead cat in a top hat

Sucking on a young man's blood
Wishing he could come
Sucking on a soldier's brain
Wishing it would be the same

Dead cat, dead rat, did you see what they were at
Fat cat in a top hat
Thinks he's aristocrat
Thinks he can kill and slaughter
Thinks he can shoot my daugher

Dead cats, dead rats, think you're an aristocrat
Crap....ha, that's crap

- Jim Morrison, John Densmore, Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe
Posted by: solrev on Sep 22, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are being lied to, and it is just a scam to get a lot of money into the right hands before the US defaults anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinich's economic advisor on the bailout plan
Posted by: fanny666 on Sep 22, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Paulson-Bernacke Bank Bailout Plan article by Michael Hudson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Add to the banker BBQ a broker.
Posted by: thekidde on Sep 22, 2008 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Add to the pyre an oil executive
Drop from a height a babbling, fascist oligarch
Take back America, one dead barbarian at a time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Fed and the Hungry
Posted by: jimsenter on Sep 22, 2008 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Fed has been in the news a lot the last week. The Federal Reserve- the Bank for Bankers-- arranged an $85 billion buyout of the failing insurance giant AIG using taxpayer money. After the CEOs of Bear Stearns crashed that company, the Fed arranged for JP Morgan Chase to take them over, with the help of a taxpayer subsidy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEOs got their golden parachutes after nearly destroying those companies. This weekend, Bush administration officials lobbied Congress for a $700 billion bailout of the entire financial industry! The captains of finance are the Fed, being served by the Fed.


Then there are the Hungry. Last Thursday, AP reported that tent cities-- Bush league housing projects-- are sprouting up all over the country. "From Seattle to Athens, Ga., homeless advocacy groups and city agencies are reporting the most visible rise in homeless encampments in a generation," they reported.

The one thing that could directly address the foreclosure crisis--the source of economic meltdown-- is not being done. Give back to bankruptcy judges the authority that was taken away from them with the bankruptcy deform of 2005-- the authority to renegotiate mortgages. Not only would that keep people in their homes, it would put the cost where it belongs, on the banks that made the bogus loans in the first place But that isn't on the agenda in Washington.

We live in a world of the Fed and the Hungry. Which group do YOU belong to?



John Roche summed up the opportunism of the laissez-faire conservatives better than anyone some 45 years ago. Think of this year's string of bailouts in these terms.....


from John P. Roche, "Entrepreneurial Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment" Labor History, 1963 pp 3-31

"In the last quarter of the Nineteenth century and well on into the Twentieth, so the legend runs, the United States was dominated by a 'conservative,' 'individualistic,' laissez-faire elite which succeeded in rewriting the Constitution and notably the Fourteenth Amendment to impose its ideology upon the nation. This notion has a certain superficial persuasiveness, but regrettably it is hardly sustained by a close analysis of the history of the period. There was clearly an elite of businessmen, but it was neither ruggedly individualistic, in terms of classic liberal economic thought, nor 'conservative,' in any acceptable definition of that much-abused term. On the contrary, this elite lived at the public trough, was nourished by state protection, and devoted most of its time and energies to evading Adam Smith's individualistic injunction. In ideological terms, it was totally opportunistic: It demanded and applauded vigorous state action in behalf of its key values, and denounced state intervention in behalf of its enemies. The Constitution was not, in short, adapted to the needs of laissez-faire 'conservatism'__ which is a respectable, internally consistent system of political economy-- but to the exigent needs of the great private governments. The 'Robber Barons' had no ideology, they had interests. They had no theory of the state, but they knew what they wanted from it. Their key value, entrepreneurial liberty, might require a strong state one day (to combat trade unions) and a weak state the next (which would not pass wage and hour legislation), and this inconsistency troubled them not."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Correct, but naive
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Sep 22, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The existence of a Wall St. firm that will somehow, sometime, rein in its ravening greed whenever there's a profit to be turned is about as likely as stumbling upon a vegetarian tiger. Bitter as this bailout pill is, we are going to have to grit our teeth and swallow it. And nobody loathes fat-cat corporate bandits more than I do. BUT--the effects of major investment banks going collectively belly-up would be far more pernicious to the taxpaying public than allowing the government to rescue them. As simplistic as it sounds, businesses (any sort of business) must have the ability to borrow money in order to make money. If that ability is deleted from the economic equation, we would be quite likely to find ouseleves in a very real reprise of the 1930's. And I mean imminently.

It goes without saying, however, that not a single dime should be shelled out with no strings attached. Republican fundamentalist capitalism be damned; it's imperative to establish ironclad assurances to prevent unscrupulous Wall St. firms (and that is a redundancy) from regarding our largesse as an ongoing entitlement. For one example, I believe we should all inform our Congresspersons--PDQ--that we insist upon the mass firing of every board member of every company we bail out.

There is a way, though, to lessen the pain of rewarding mega-rich plutocrats for their own malfeasaances. We could simply delete at least half the $700 billion from the current, nearly trillion-dollar Defense Budget. ($965 billion, to be exact.) Not only is it a spectacularly ludicrous exercise in overkill, it's one that you and I have already been royally robbed to support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong??
Posted by: sre on Sep 22, 2008 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing's wrong. The government of the United States of America is infallible. It can do no wrong. Those who say that this government is divinely inspired and guided are correct.
As for any small troubles that come our way; just elect a Democrat next time, Obama will take care of it. He'll solve all the problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Accountability
Posted by: Jeanne on Sep 22, 2008 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." This is in the bail-out bill (see HuffingtonPost). This is the meat of the story of the bill. Taxpayers are in the process of being stuck with the biggest bill in the history of this country, and there will be no one held accountable if it turns out badly. There will be no one held accountable for the calculation, for the selection or quantity of each disbursement, for accounting for the expenditures. No one is even going to get to check the math!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lemme see now....
Posted by: larengo on Sep 22, 2008 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. here's how I understand this very high- risk -low- details- buy- out that we have to accept as it is right away or things will be even worse and we'll lose more: we take these notes that were made as high-risk-low-details loans that aspiring homeowners had to accept as they were right away or the terms would get even worse and they'd lose everything, and...knowing this...we buy them again from many of the same folks that sold the original loans under terms that people had to buy them right away as they were or they'd lose everything...and without any further guarantees, many of us even knowing deep in our hearts that we're getting savagely screwed, we buy that worthless paper back and hope for the best...remembering that we have no time and we have to do it right away or things will get even worse. have i got it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Parashoots
Posted by: larengo on Sep 22, 2008 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While being blackjacked into "restoring our financial institutions" with a trillion (at least) dollars we don't have, despite some pretty savvy economists telling us that this savings-and-loan-bailout-model may only 'work' for a matter of weeks, everyone seems to have overlooked an important historical parallel.
Once it became clear that the Second World War effort presented an unequaled opportunity for the treasonous gouging of the public pocketbook by unscrupulous purveyors of goods and services to this nation and its armed services, President Franklin Roosevelt came up with some very heavy penalties for "war profiteering". It was considered high treason and was punishable by death.
In Arthur Miller's "All My Sons", the protagonist was caught in a web of death and deceit, cutting cost corners on his factory's parachutes that ended up killing many of their unsuspecting soldier and airmen users when they didn't open.
During the present crisis, I haven't heard the term "profiteering" at all, despite the many millions and likely billions that are being distributed to the CEO's and other top management with taxpayer money during this national crisis by the unconscionable continued use of "golden parachutes".
The only difference between the treasonous acts of murder and greed that produced and sold faulty parachutes to this nation at war in the 1940s and the under-the-radar taking of billions of dollars distributed in golden parachutes in this 2008 time of record corporate theft that has already bled our people and their treasury is sixty five years.

Whatever kind of parachute, faulty or golden, that these abusers of public trust in a time of national crisis may pawn off on us, I think the penalty should be the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S OFFICIAL.............
Posted by: ALANHESTER on Sep 22, 2008 9:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US's "deregulators have proven to be more dangerous to the world than Osama Ben Laden. Maybe we should expand the prison at Guantanamo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the bailout is the only way to go
Posted by: eric25690 on Sep 23, 2008 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will be the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class (US taxpayer) to the rich in the history of the world! I suppose I should feel bad for making $43 Million in total bonuses over the last decade, with my business pretty much run like a casino. I did feel bad at first, until one of my colleagues put the matter in perspective. He explained that the middle class's main function is to keep the economy functioning. Usually, they serve this purpose by working and consuming. A byproduct of their function is that they have collectively accumulated more total money than the rich. There isn't enough money to solve this crisis by going to the rich, but there is enough money in the hands of the middle class. So, the middle class are really needed to solve this crisis, and there really is no alternative. My colleague went on the compare the middle class to ants in an ant colony. He explained that the queen of the colony doesn't feel bad for her situation relative to the worker ants, and we shouldn't feel bad either.
Eric

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABOUT THE BAILOUTS - AN ALTERNATIVE
Posted by: Liberty G on Sep 23, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note: I ran my note (below) by an economist professor friend and he said it wasn't a dumb question at all. And the following paragraph from a recent news story explains the problem:

"The sub-prime crisis is the result of good people getting bad loans. Loans that triple or quadruple in interest rates, riddled with small print, are unbearable by most homeowners. But they are particularly unsustainable for low-income families working two or three jobs to make ends meet. Still, lenders scammed hardworking families with the promise of owning homes they really couldn't afford. And then greedy Wall Street managers, looking for a new way to squeeze a buck from an already bursting-at-the-seams economy, bundled up these bad loans into worse securities, sold them off, and tried to gain a profit as our national economy lost its shirt."

MY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION:

I keep watching and hearing reports about bailing out all these financial giants, and am wondering this:

Isn't the root cause of the mortgage/financial disaster that they sold deceptive loans to people, with payments they could afford at first, but then were bumped up by large increases in interest rates? If this is true, why not somehow make the greedy lenders just reduce the interest on those mortgages to the original rates, while regulating future loan conditions?

It would seem that doing this would allow many homeowners to avoid foreclosure, the banks/lenders would be getting their money repaid, albeit with much smaller profit, and we wouldn't be putting out what at least one pundit described as an eventual trillion dollars bailing out the greedmongers who cause the crisis?

Is this a dumb question?

For confirmation of other concerns about the current bailout plan see: "Many Economists Skeptical of Bailout", news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080921/pl_politico/13689

Blessings,

Liberty G

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how this happened?
Posted by: jeff ostrom on Sep 23, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are the stories that explained exactly how this happened? Remember the term "redlining" and affordable housing, you can't loan money to people who are unable to pay. When someone gets turned down for a loan it isn't because the bank dos not want you to have the home but rather they see a possible problem getting paid back, but whats happened is people took advantage of laws set up to make sure everyone could get a home...imagine that. For mortgage brokers it was like shooting fish in a barrel. For the CEO's of fannie and freddie it was millions in bonuses based on the "growth" they presided over, who were they, who got them those jobs. Did anybody block this getting looked into earlier?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please sign petition against Paulson's bailout.
Posted by: demosthenes77 on Sep 23, 2008 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched the Senate Hearing on Banking today and was appalled that Paulson said "some people will have to lose their homes" when asked by Dodd if their was some aspect of the bailout for the american homeowner in trouble.

Many think this will not keep the companies from going under but help them profiteer even more before going out.

Bernanke is wrong for telling the american people we need to pay "hold to maturity" values for these junky loans. What does that even mean, the full amortization of these predatory loans???

I have created a petition for everyone to show their disgust and disapproval of this corporate robbery on our Treasury.

Sign petition to say "no" to paulson here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]