Say No To The Bailout

Too busy to engage the issue, but Democrats must say no to the proposed bailout as announced today. It is simply unacceptable. Krugman explains:

[H]istorically, financial system rescues have involved seizing the troubled institutions and guaranteeing their debts; only after that did the government try to repackage and sell their assets. The feds took over S&Ls first, protecting their depositors, then transferred their bad assets to the RTC. . . . The Treasury plan, by contrast, looks like an attempt to restore confidence in the financial system — that is, convince creditors of troubled institutions that everything’s OK — simply by buying assets off these institutions.


This will only work if the prices Treasury pays are much higher than current market prices; that, in turn, can only be true either if this is mainly a liquidity problem — which seems doubtful — or if Treasury is going to be paying a huge premium, in effect throwing taxpayers’ money at the financial world.

And there’s no quid pro quo here — nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving.

Unacceptable. Democrats must say no. And say yes to HOLC.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Judge Rules Cheney Must Preserve Records | Krugman on Bailout: No Deal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wrote this below (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    But I call your attention to this part of this absolutely INSANE proposal.......This is dictatorial and dangerous.

    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 should be thrown out. Furthermore, someone had to be working on this for awhile. Nobody comes up with this bail out in one day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I fear this lame congress will do what they did with the Patriot Act, the war, etc. Pass and read the fine print later. This time however, they could entirely destroy the country.

    The nonreviewability provision ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by gentlewomanfarmer on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    Yeah, we'll see.  Marbury v. Madison is what I say to that.  No agency, or branch of government, gets to take themselves off the table where judicial review is concerned - and this matter is not a "political question".

    The problem is that the balance sheets of these institutions are full of worthless derivatives.  These institutions themselves don't hold the bad loans.  The piece that needs to be in place is the solution for the holders of the subprime mortgages, which in turn requires a solution for the borrowers.  I can't imagine what tracing all the paper back to the mortgages must be like.

    The other piece I would like to see is a retroactive repeal of the prohibition of states bringing suit against national banks for predatory lending.  

    What I predict out of all of this is perp walks; Cuomo and other AGs will be sniffing this out in the weeks and months to come.


    Yes. Heads better roll. (none / 0) (#27)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:45:12 PM EST
    The other piece I would like to see is a retroactive repeal of the prohibition of states bringing suit against national banks for predatory lending

    I am hearing the sound (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:34:58 PM EST
    of many golden parachutes being put on.

    Explanations would be good.

    If we don't fund this somehow, we can kiss the new green economy and the new health care restructuring goodbye.

    Reported that Paulson (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    will hear the debate about foreclosures and helping homeowners  ......

    "Frank, who has been in phone discussions with Paulson, said the secretary appeared receptive to adding some foreclosure-relief language. The second Democratic proposal -- to impose compensation limits on Wall Street executives -- is meeting more resistance."

    Warrren Buffett said this is the acid test; compensation for
    CEO's "....who have run the economy into the ground.


    More resistance? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:28:07 PM EST
    How dare they??

    What effing gall.


    CEOs (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 11:05:22 PM EST
    still have their millions.  They don't deserve their compensation packages when they're the ones responsible for this mess.  

    they deserve jailtime (none / 0) (#63)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 11:16:54 PM EST
    Will we have to settle (none / 0) (#30)
    by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    for SCHIP expansion and a less robust health care proposal?  Opening up the Congressional health benefits package to everyone will cost money especially when there are no mandates to get health care to control costs.

    We may just have to settle for technology upgrades for the health care system, ban the denial of insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions, allow importation of Canadian prescription drugs and have Obama's National Health Insurance Exchange as industry watchdog.  The big piece in the National Exchange is the public insurance/Congressional benefits package but I don't know how we're going to pay for that if we need the money to pay down the gaping deficit.  

    And what about the energy legislation?  I want New Deal style reforms on the financial market so this never happens again.  This is ridiculous.      


    When I said "fund" I meant (none / 0) (#32)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:08:37 PM EST
    we need to take in revenues to pay for the bailout. Revenues from the rich. Lots of revenues that will go directly to paying this off.

    If we don't there will be no money left for all those great federal programs. The tin foil hatter in me thinks this may be a republican "hail mary" to avoid the programs they fear under an Obama administration that is looking increasingly probable.


    Also, it can be used (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST
    as the rationale that obliterates resistance to funding universal health care, public infrastructure rebuilding, gov't investment in development of green technology, etc. If it's OK to nationalize the toxic debt of Wall Street why not nationalize the health insurance industry? The rationale against it will be discredited. It would take some political gall though. It remains to be seen whether Obama will be up to something like that.

    Problem: (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM EST
    we will be too far in debt to do any of that.

    Step one needs to be: tax the hell out of the weathy to pay for our debt.


    That too. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:35:30 PM EST
    Man the barricades!

    Especially with the possibility the US gov't could lose its AAA rating as a result of all this.

    What really needs to be done is to cut back on military spending. I'll bet that's one solution no one in power even dares raise.


    great idea. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:52:12 PM EST
    Or we can ask military contractors where the billions that they stole went.

    Call it (none / 0) (#40)
    by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    a tax surcharge on the rich.  By what method should this be achieved?  Not just rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% but also add extra marginal tax rates for people making more?  Capital gains increase?  What else?

    Whatever we can think of (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    We can make it temporary as Bernie Sanders says...but there seeds to be some "hurt redistribution"

    Are you joking (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    What money do you see that will fund either of those things with this bail out? The debt is junk. Nobody even knows what it is. These companies don't even have to open their books. It is the biggest fraud perpetuated on tax payers in the history of this country.

    the biggest fraud? (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:13:28 PM EST
    Is it the "biggest fraud?" I confess to little economic knowledge. So, all I can do is ask questions. The first and central one: Admitting that this proposal is not a longterm solution (and, the possible negative side effects), what happens in the short term if they are allowed to fail? (For me, personally, I did not want to see AIG bailed out in some respects--even tho we have a substantial sum invested there. Why? Because I was disgusted with their overextension and irresponsibly expansive approach.) After a few counting-to-ten moments, I moved from various theories and from myself to ask about the effect on jobs and the blue-collar workers? If we "burn down the barn to kill the rat" (aka "let them fail"), do we further maim the American worker and others' well-being? Yes, yes. The increasingly common socialism-for-the-rich wherein the airlines, the auto industry, and more and more financial institutions argue that they are too large to fail is not unlike societal blackmail. Yet...again, what about the average Joe and Mary? What happens to them in the short term before the systemic fix?

    The average joe and Mary (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    will tighten their belts and the economy will continue to slow down.

    This bail out cannot go forward without

    1. many strings attached to guarantee the taxpayer isn't screwed

    2. raising taxes on the weathy to pay for the bail out.

    All this talk about us (the taxpayer) actually making a profit from this is baloney happy talk.

    Don't think (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:30:04 PM EST
    most Americans know enough about the complexity of all this and not much about how money and the economy works.

    Read this:  Glenn Greenwald  (scroll down)

    To the streets!


    Let me rephrase the ? about Joe & Mary (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    Will Joe & Mary lose their jobs? Their cousins and friends? Of course, they will spend less, but will the "let them fail" determination adversely effect the week-to-week job market and the putting-food-on-the-table reality? I do believe that the government has more leverage in the negotiation department than it may have demonstrated here; but, if Joe & Mary live per paycheck, we really do need to consider the short term fallout throughout the country ... as well as the practical implications in the job markets in places like Penna., Ohio, & Michigan. My thinking is that if Democrats are seen/believed to disregard that latter job market, we may not get a chance to look at desireable changes to the tax and regulatory structure.

    yes. they will lose their jobs, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    This is the flaw in the plan...the failure of the GOP (predictably) to understand that this economy is driven by Joe and Marys. If they hurt, so does the economy.

    And...I hope to GOD Dems look to change the tax and regulatory structure. I am struggling to underswtand all this too...but I want to hear the same things you do.

    More regulation
    Higher taxes  on the weathy.


    You can't (none / 0) (#51)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:10:13 PM EST
    tax your way out of this mess. You can't even regulate your way out of it. It is much more complex.

    can I SPELL (none / 0) (#54)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:24:04 PM EST
    my way out of this mess?

    the answer (none / 0) (#50)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:08:18 PM EST
    isn't quite so straight forward. We have already begun a downturn. People are getting laid off left and right. However, much of the layoffs in the midwest (OH, MI, etc) are directly tied to the loss of manufacturing jobs. That has nothing to do with the financial sector mess.

    Will people lose their jobs in the financial sector? Yes. This will happen whether we bail out the sector or not.

    Here is the thing, our economy has dramatically shifted from a manufacturing economy to a financial services economy. The manufacturing sector traditionally provided the good paying jobs that allowed the middle class to buy a home, send their kids to college and perhaps have a second home on a lake or in the mountains.The problem is those jobs have disappeared and have been somewhat replaced by jobs where people move paper = worthless paper as the debacle on Wall Street has shown. A lot of the money lost there isn't real money. It was bad "investments" and crazy deals that didn't produce real assets.  

    We have for lack of a better word been living in a "fake" economy. We don't produce goods that can be sold to consumers. Consumers only buy goods and invest when they have the money to spend on them. If they no longer have good paying jobs, they can't afford houses, vacations, clothing, furniture, cars, etc. It is a vicious cycle.

    We have  systemic economic problem - compounded by globalization, bad free trade deals, etc. Saving Wall Streets bad investments isn't going to fix this. In fact, it might make it worse. Someone has to buy the $1 trillion new debt. That will be the Chinese, the Russians, the Saudis, etc. They will then exact more bad trade deals and demand more access to our market which could make things even worse for Americans..not to mention the sell off of the country which has national security implications.

    Unfortunately, this isn't a one transaction fix. We have to go back to basics, regulate our financial markets so this doesn't happen again, review our trade policies, cut down on military spending, earmarks, etc.

    Both parties are complicit in this mess so we also have to do something about lobbyists. But anyone that thinks if we bail out wall street that the problems of our economy will magically go away are crazy.

    And yes, pensions will be burned and so will 401 Ks no doubt. But quite frankly, some of those funds might be worthless anyway when you really dig through the paper and see what they "own"

    Aside from Wall Street, this mess is going to expose the politicians for what they are. Thieves and that is why they will entertain this. They will also get pressure from abroad but like greedy americans, many foreigners have also participated in this fiasco.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:26:20 PM EST
    and all that was implied in my comment ;-)

    Christinep is right. It goes beyond a situation (none / 0) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:52:18 PM EST
    where belt tightening will do the trick. There is a very real potential for a huge collapse. When banks start to go (not Bear Sterns or Lehman Brothers, but Wachovia, etc.) we head into major economic collapse. The average Joe and Mary did not do well between 1929-194...

    I did not mean to say it would do the trick (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    what I meant was that they won't be buying things (i.e., stimulating the economy) any time soon...which means the economy will continue it''s downward spiral.

    And along similar lines: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:52:01 PM EST
    Greider in the nation.

    Will Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by prose on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    be able to speak against it after his statements yesterday?  I hope he can find a middle ground.

    Ha! (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Miserere mei on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    Obama find middle ground??? Which middle ground, he seems to invent them weekly?

    Thanks (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by prose on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    for adding to the conversation.  Very enlightening.

    These statements? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:02:05 PM EST

    In the coming days, I will more closely examine the details of the Treasury and Fed proposal, and as I do, I'll work to ensure that it provides an effective emergency response by including four basic principles that my economic advisors and I just discussed this morning.

    First, we cannot only have a plan for Wall Street. We must also help Main Street as well.... In the same bipartisan spirit that is being shown with regard to the crisis on Wall Street, I ask Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families -- a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, spark job creation through repair of our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes, and provide retooling assistance for America's auto industry.

    The second principle I would like to see in the emerging plan from the Treasury and the Fed is that our approach should be one of mutual responsibility and reciprocity. It must not be designed to reward particular companies or the irresponsible decisions of borrowers or lenders. It must not be designed to enhance the personal gain of CEOs and management.

    Third, this plan must be temporary and coupled with tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions, and there must be a clear process to wind down this plan and restore private sector assets into private sector hands after restoring stability to the system. Taxpayers must share in any upside benefit that such stability brings.

    Fourth, this plan should be part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.

    ...We did not arrive at this crisis by some accident of history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it will end if I am President of the United States.

    That seems prudent. The question is whether he'll stick with that or cave to political pressure from the herd (including Dems) to go with whatever the WH is pushing or else risk ending up with the blame for the whole horrendous mess. Those who are trying to pull a Shock Doctrine maneuver here won't accept any of those restrictions.


    Politico sez that Barney Frank (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:02:02 PM EST
    is fighting for concessions. My impression is that the general outlines are going to pass, though. Fait accompli--nobody wants to be responsible for stopping the deal that could supposedly save the economy, even if it won't.

    It is pretty sure it won't (none / 0) (#5)
    by jes on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    so  eff em.

    If it helps the financial companies (none / 0) (#11)
    by fercryingoutloud on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    stay afloat it could help the economy and at worse help stop the bleeding while things naturally right themselves instead of getting worse if nothing is done.

    I agree with Krugman that regulations have to be put in place but that will take time, a lot of time, to decide what they are. In the meantime things could go so far south we might resemble the Titanic so we must stop the bleeding fast.

    There is one issue Krugman brings up I am not sure I agree with. And that is the government having to pay a higher than market price for the securities for this thing to work. If they are bought at a discount, which they should be, two things will happen. One is as the market rises from the ashes the securities could turn a profit in which case it would cost us taxpayers nothing. And two the financial companies don't have to get face value for the securities for investors to feel comfortable as Krugman says. All the financial companies have to do is dump a large enough dollar amount off their books leaving them to only have to write-off the balance which would put them in good shape even if they have to claim negative profitability in the short term as a result. It is in everyones best interest to keep them afloat including the people whose jobs rely on them.

    There are many things involved in this and I am only addressing two things that Krugman addressed.


    So if I'm understanding this right (none / 0) (#12)
    by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    Treasury wants the $700 billion in order to be a buyer to all the crappy assets those companies amassed.  

    No one wants to buy those assets right now but with the $700 billion in funds, the government can be a buyer to bad assets.  

    Companies can then not have to be in so much financial pressure because those stupid investment decisions they made have now been sold to the government.  The taxpayers are stuck with the bill but in exchange everything is stabilized.  

    Knowing Wall Street greed, wouldn't they want top dollar for these crappy assets?  I hope there is some sort of guarantee that people aren't profiting at the taxpayer expense by having the government becoming the buyer of assets that no one else wants.

    I'm a bit ambivalent about accepting this bailout now in order to hopefully stop the bleeding and then we can hope for reforms later.  Or we shouldn't hope for reforms later and demand one now where there is bargaining power?

    If there is a bailout, there better be major New Deal style reforms to be built and the financial sector better not get in the way.    


    AIG is paying 11% to stay alive. (none / 0) (#15)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM EST
    I will be curious to see what Paulson negotiates with Citi, BofA, Chase,....

    Question (none / 0) (#14)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:12:24 PM EST
    If financial institutions sell these assets at a loss, can they then write off that loss on their taxes?  So would the taxpayers be paying twice?

    They write-off the loss (none / 0) (#22)
    by fercryingoutloud on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EST
    on the remaining asset balance left on their balance sheet as a charge-off and it can affect income which in turn will affect the amount of taxes they pay.

    As for the double hit on taxes to the tax payer they would get hit with a charge-off either way I think as the companies will either go BK or charge-off the amount that the assets are overvalued in todays market. It really depends on how the companies are structured on a tax basis.

    The upside is they get rid of bad assets (viewed now as liabilities) and get an influx of cash in return which makes the companies more liquid with money to lend which is what our economy needs - money to lend. Without money to lend, particularly mortgage money, the housing market would be very slow to recover which would hurt homeowners. so there are more people being helped here that this diary talks about and more than the homeowners and employees that I mentioned.


    How does this guarantee that (none / 0) (#26)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:43:05 PM EST
    lenders will want to lend money? THat's the part that I don't get. They seem to have lost confidence in their own ability to assess risk....having the govt buy them out may help keep us from a collapse, but how does it increase confidence enough for lenders to increase liquidity?

    Well they are LENDERS (none / 0) (#42)
    by fercryingoutloud on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    If they don't lend money they don't make money. They have to lend in order to be a viable business.

    As for the insurance companies like AIG, if they are involved in this deal, they can't write insurance to make money unless they are liquid - and they may not be able to pay-off current insurance claims unless they are liquid which is another example of how this whole thing could hurt the average Joe if not fixed.


    The lenders could lend money NOW and arent. (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:49:35 PM EST
    because of lack of confidence.

    Your point about AIG is good, but I don't see where the confidence issue is addressed.


    Well this is a complex issue (none / 0) (#60)
    by fercryingoutloud on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM EST
    Many things are dovetailed here and are probably beyond the scope or comprehension of this blog.

    Sure some but not all lenders could lend. But in order to do that they need to sell their paper and the biggest buyers of that are Fannie and Freddie which are also entwined in this mess. This is not as easy as fixing one piece of the puzzle and the others just fall in place. This is pretty much a collapse of the financial system similar but not the same to what we saw in the Great Depression.

    I think most people here are over reacting without really having an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of it all. I understand some of what is going on but certainly not all. And the little I know allows me not to prejudge. I agree with some private and government people who are far more knowledge than myself that there are additional steps that must be taken. But IMO this is not a event where we can say let's take 6 months or a year and hash things out and do this right before we do anything at all because in that 6 months to a year of non-tangible action things would unravel even more and believe me the common Joe will get hurt also.

    As for you not seeing where the confidence issue is addressed, that is because you don't know what you don't know. If you are not current in macro economics this is all hard to understand even on a surface level little on in the details of the entire mess.


    Do you mean (none / 0) (#62)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 11:08:38 PM EST
    I don't know what I don't know? Or do you mean that you don't understand it quite well enough to explain it to me? Either way, it's fine.

    I pick up a smattering here and there.

    Why do they need to sell their paper?

    Once upon a time peoples savings was borrowed by the banks to be lent out. Has that been supplanted now by all the bundling? Is that why we cannot make a decent interest in savings now?


    It can't be explained in one post (none / 0) (#64)
    by fercryingoutloud on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    or even several posts. Go to wiki and lookup macro economics and even there you will have one percent of the picture if that. But at least you will see how many things are entwined. And if you are that interested go to the library and get a book on the subject. Get one on the financial aspects of the Great Depression while you are at it. Then you will have a cursory understanding but that will take you reading several books. I'm not about to try to explain something that would take several books to learn just how complex it all is. And I'm not about to take much time here with you who is trying to insinuate that I don't have the knowledge to explain things. I think my posts so far shoot that down as I obviously have an understanding of the situation beyond a knee jerk reaction.

    As for selling paper - no lender has an unlimited supply of their own money. And the money they do have they lend out and get paid back slowly (i.e. 30 years on a mortgage). So they write the paper ( the loan) sell it to Fannie to get back the money they originally loaned and loan it out again - all the while making a few bucks on each loan. When they sell the loan to Fannie they are selling paper (using industry jargon). Hope that helps.


    You are very helpful, fercryingoutloud (none / 0) (#65)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:32:27 AM EST
    and thanks for taking the time to post on this.  I think superficially we all want to make the guilty parties pay.  However human that may be, I doubt that will do the trick here.

    I consulted with 90-year old mother today, since she has been through the Great Depression. She said her parents were then paying a mortgage from the local bank. When they could no longer pay, grandmother (she was smarter than grandfather) went to negotiate with the bank president.  Note, she barely spoke English.  As it turned out, president agreed that if they could just pay a fraction due on the interest, there would be no foreclosure.  Homestead was saved; I grew up in it. The neighborhood bank still is up and running and when my parents got their mortgage, that bank held that mortgage for its life.  

    Those were the days when there were neighborhood banks and they knew their clients and they held the mortgage for its life.  So, when you got your mortgage you knew who you would be negotiating with and they knew you.  

    I have friends who somehow have gotten mortgages in excess of 2.5 million dollars for a construction/development project.  They barely have income.  They have no experience or track record with RE developments.  They did not lie, as far as I can tell.  Of course, now one is about to loose her home which she foolishly put up as collateral.  Of course, the bank did not mind.  They felt secure that they could take her house.  The market value of her house has amazingly dropped in the past two years. She is up sh**s creek, without a paddle, and the bank will be out at least half, assuming they can even sell her house.

    There needs to be systemic change.  Bail out is not the answer; it is the necessary bandaid.      


    Please don't take offense (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM EST
    And I'm not about to take much time here with you who is trying to insinuate that I don't have the knowledge to explain things

    none was intended.

    I find it REALLY difficult to explain complext things to people in other fields. I don't consider it an easy thing to do AT all.

    Sorry if I unintentionally insulted you.


    Deny helping out our economy? (none / 0) (#16)
    by supertroopers on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:15:49 PM EST
    So let me get this straight, the democrats have no issues about funding the $1,000,000,000+ Iraq War but when it comes to helping our own economy it's a no-go?

    Repubs are eatin this stuff up man. This+Palin=McCain Traction in the swing state polls continues.


    That should be $1,000,000,000,000 (none / 0) (#18)
    by supertroopers on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    the Democrats have voted to fund to fight an illegal war.

    Tell me again how this joke of a congress should NOT help out our own economy?

    Let me guess, it takes the issue off the table and that's bad for Obama? Just so we are clear.


    McConnell says (none / 0) (#52)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    "absolutely not'. No attachments, no chanes, no addendum's.

    Rewarding the undeserving (none / 0) (#7)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    is the American way!

    Krugman is a commie.


    Will Obama change his statements? (none / 0) (#8)
    by stefystef on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    And will it be considered a flip flop?

    BTD, I hope you mean (none / 0) (#13)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    negotiate it, not "just say no"....

    Not only no, (none / 0) (#17)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    but hell NO. This does NOTHING to fix the problem. In fact, it will make it worse. Anybody have any idea where interest rates will be this time next year. They will be through the roof and who is going to pay for that. We are.

    Further Saudi Arabia, the Chinese and host of other wonderful nations will OWN THE US.

    I say let them fail. If there is a worldwide depression then maybe the world will have learned a thing or two about greed and globalization.


    You may not have been paying attention. (none / 0) (#20)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:23:55 PM EST
    The proposal has done very much to turn around not only American finacial markets but world financial markets.  Now, the devil is in the details.  

    TEMPORARILY (none / 0) (#21)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST
    This is as false as the WMDs. Further, why should the American people be the sole entity to bail out a WORLD that participated in this scheme?

    It is beyond stupid. I have been paying attention, thanks.


    False as WMDs? (none / 0) (#25)
    by supertroopers on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:41:12 PM EST
    Okay and this joke of a congress approved $1,000,000,000,000 so far. What is different about approving something that will undoubtedly help home values, the American public, and our economy?

    Home values (none / 0) (#28)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    You need to stop parroting the media. This will do NOTHING to stabilize the housing market. Houses are overvalued. The correction will come with or without this bail out. Further the price of the average home is out of alignment with wages. A bail out to investment banks isn't going to fix that. And oh by  the way, interest rates will go through the roof. Just wait til you see your credit card bills and nobody will pay super high interest rates to get a house. Their payments will be to high.

    This isn't rocket science. It is econ 101. We are all going to pay for the madness of the last three decades. This is nothing but welfare for thieves. It doesn't change the fundamental problems.


    more. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    all this bailout stuff completely ignores one fact:

    the consumer is the engine of this economy.

    If we aren't feeling comfortable in our own finances, we won't be buying.


    Check out the latest UofM Consumer Confidence Poll (none / 0) (#70)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST

    this guy (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 09:18:43 PM EST
    is most likely a troll. I haven't seen him before.

    Correction WILL? (none / 0) (#69)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    What country do you live in? Sure isn't the USA. Maybe you missed it but the correction in housing already happened. You must be a short-seller who got their lunch served to them on Thu-Fri.

    Houses have bottomed now.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#58)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:38:32 PM EST

    To the Streets (none / 0) (#59)
    by dissenter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST

    HOLC transcript (none / 0) (#67)
    by Amiss on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:56:25 AM EST
    can be found here. LINK

    I like Hillary's plan, hope other lawmakers will follow her lead.

    Saying no is not enough (none / 0) (#68)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:24:09 AM EST
    Democrats need to work constructively to address this problem.  Krugman raises some valid concerns.  Answers are needed.  If the HOLC is part of the answer, by all means get it in there.  However, it seems to me that the HOLC does not address Krugman's oncerns.  My sense is that even with the government taking on the risk for these securities some financial institutions will fail.  This plan may not work but doing notning will fail for sure.  The government can not be seen as standing by or being deadlocked while Rome burns.

    Politically, I am troubled by the attempt to pin this all on the deregulation happy Republicans.  As this article mentions, Democratic advisors have had a hand in crafting the current rules.

    Former Clinton Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, both Obama advisers, supported and helped negotiate the bill. At the November 1999 signing of the legislation, Summers praised it as "a major step forward to the 21st century."

    That quote is in regrds to the 1999 bil that among other things

    ... broke down the firewalls between Wall Street and commercial banks and banned regulation of credit default swaps, an insurance-like product bought by financial services companies to cover their risky subprime mortgage investments. American International Group, rescued by the Federal Reserve on Tuesday, is one of the biggest sellers of these swaps.

    A Democratic congress has also been in place well over a year and a half and has not shown any haste in addressing this issue.

    Blaming the Republicans may be good politics but it isn't good policy or good governance.