home

AP: BushCo To Accept Dem Plan

According to this AP story, the deal about to be struck between the Bush Administration and Congress will essentially be the Dodd/Dem plan:

President Bush is bringing presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain into negotiations on a $700 billion rescue of Wall Street as Democrats and Republicans near agreement on a bailout plan with more protections for taxpayers and new help for distressed homeowners.

. . . They're still wrangling over major elements, including how to phase in the eye-popping cost a measure demanded by Democrats and some Republicans who want stronger congressional control over the bailout without spooking markets. A plan to let the government take an ownership stake in troubled companies as part of the rescue, rather than just buying bad debt, also was under intense negotiation . . . With the administration's original proposal considered dead in Congress, House leaders said they were making progress toward revised legislation that could be approved.

(Emphasis supplied.) Good stuff, but one sticking point that I think creates an opportunity:

Democrats are pushing to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages to ease the burden on consumers who are facing foreclosure a nonstarter for Republicans. Democrats acknowledge privately that the provision will almost certainly be dropped in the interest of a bipartisan deal. Obama told reporters it's "probably something that we shouldn't try to do in this piece of legislation."

. . . Democratic demands that Congress be given greater authority over the bailout and that the government be required to help homeowners renegotiate their mortgages so they have lower monthly payments already have been accepted in principle. Under the bailout bill, which will let the government buy huge amounts of toxic mortgage-related assets, "we're now the biggest mortgage holder in town, and we can do serious foreclosure avoidance," Frank said.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think Frank is right. The bankruptcy provision is a nice bargaining chip to allow the Congress to do that which they are looking to the bankruptcy courts to do. Which leads me to my favorite subject - HOLC. It is my hope and I exhort Senator Clinton and other Democrats to insist on a HOLC mechanism, even in principle in this bill, if without actually legislative authorization. This bill must recognize that a HOLC solution is part of this package.

I will gladly exchange HOLC for the bankruptcy change that has been proposed. Let's do this Democratic deal.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain Working Hard In DC . . . Um At The Clinton Initiative In NYC | Bill Clinton On The Wall Street Crisis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well, for a change some (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM EST
    extraordinary delightful news.  What the hell is the world coming to?

    Bush, Paulson, and the gang... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    maybe they really are scared to death that the system that favors big money really is in danger.  It has got 'em turning pinko-commie:)

    Caving on failed executives compensation?  It can't be!  Unless there are enough exploitable loopholes they've already got mapped out...yeah, that's the ticket.

    Parent

    How about this for confidence building? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    "In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

    "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

    http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html

    Parent

    Hey, they already looted us (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    now they have to angle for not having to pay taxes on the booty.  I think they realize the looting is over though, now is the time to hole up (in South America even if that's required) and take cover until the next looting :)

    Parent
    Easily loopholed (none / 0) (#44)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    The bailout creates a liquid market in bad paper. one broker buys bad paper from banks and sells it to feds; then only the broker's compensation is restricted, as retained earnings build up inside the brokerage - liquidated later to the benefit of the principals.

    Parent
    Does anyone know how the (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    CEO Compensation limits are working through this?

    I heard a reportTuesday on NPR that said no matter what limits they put in there, it will be easy to get around it with alternative forms of compensation.

    I also heard that Bush, in his speech last night, only addressed the fact that he wanted no "windfall profits" going to those involved.  And, that was interpreted as meaning that an executive currently earning a million per month could continue to earn a million per month because it wouldn't be a change or "windfall"

    I'm not sure how to accomplish it, but I want the executive who drove their companies into the ground to end up just as poor as their employees and stockholders do.

    I also read an article earlier that said the Lehman Bros, that went belly up, has a fund of over 7 BILLION dollars to be used for employee bonus payouts this year.  How can that be true?  They couldn't have earned a bonus, they lost all their money.

    You've got to remember (none / 0) (#24)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    that there is a whole industry of very smart consultants who make a very nice living telling companies how to structure their compensation plans to avoid taxation and legal problems.  They will be working overtime to try to game the bill, so to that extent the NPR report is right.

    You also have to remember that, for people working in the financial industry, a substantial portion of their annual compensation - sometimes several times in excess of their base salary - comes in the form of year-end bonuses.  Those are calculated on the basis of the firm's profit, and it's a form of profit sharing.  

    I once knew someone whose job title was something like "head of corporate finance" for a large I-bank.  His W-2 for base salary was in the mid-seven figures, but his bonus (which derived from profits on deals he'd made or supervised) was 5 to 10 times that.  

    Plus, the bonus is used for all sorts of conditioning (in the rat-in-a-maze sense) and reward-punishment of employees.  Divvying up a pot of bonus money among your subordinates is part of being a supervisor in those companies, as is lobbying and politicking with your superior for a bigger share of his pot of bonus money - not just for yourself, but for your subordinates.  That model of compensation goes all they way from top to bottom in those companies.

    A little public shaming, though, would remain in order for those who get a lot.

    Parent

    your discussion of "profit sharing" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:38:53 AM EST
    is why I was flabbergasted to hear that there supposedly STILL EXISTS a fund with over 7 billion in it to be distributed to Lehman Bros employees as bonus money.

    Now, just what "profit" can there be for Lehman Bros to "share".

    If that fund of BILLIONS exists, they better hand it over.

    Parent

    The bonus pool is not (none / 0) (#45)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    contractually owed to the employees; bonuses are discretionary.  Employees are creditors for purposes of their contractually guaranteed salaries and wages. But if Lehman has $7 billion hanging around for "profit-sharing," and a company is in bankruptcy, its an asset of the bankruptcy estate. It can't be paid out to the employees without approval of the bankruptcy court, and why would a bankruptcy court approve it?  

    BTW, many CEOs of companies in bankruptcy, as well as other senior execs, get performance bonuses for getting the company OUT of bankruptcy. Many debtor companies seek approval early on from the court to continue paying top salaries of their senior execs on the grounds that it is necessary to retain the key people who are supposed to lead the company out of bankruptcy (after having had led it in).  But profit-sharing bonuses?  Nah. And if the profits come from the government bailout? Nah nah.

    Parent

    Lehman bonus pool (none / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    Sorry, I had it wrong.  It's a mere 2.5 BILLION.

    Here's the article

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#51)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    Well that's alright then.  :-p

    Parent
    AIG (none / 0) (#53)
    by jedimom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    wow! well AIG didnt go this way, the Executive Deferred Compensation Fund announced to the holders that there was zero protection and zero rights of any employee to any funds that AIG puts aside to pay its creditors etc etc

    I think the claw back provision in this bill will allow the Congress to take that bonus pool from Lehman

    and I LOVE LOVE BTDs and Franks, great minds, approach to use bankruptcy cram down as lever to get HOLC, yay yay!!

    Parent

    OT but a hot discovery (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    I don't know how to post links, I'll try....last Feb. Eliot Spitzer had a really strong column in WaPo about how all 50 state AGs tried to stop predatory lending and the Bushies prevented them. Also, it was right after this that the stuff about Spitzer came out and ruined his career. Interesting timing:

    I'll try a link here and see if it works.



    To get link up (none / 0) (#22)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    I would like to see this link.  

    Go to the page you want to link.  Then immediately go to www.tinyurl.com and create a link to it.  Then go back to this page where you post.  In the body of your post, press control and simultaneously press v.  The link to the article should then appear when you post.  

    Sounds more confusing than it actually is.

    Parent

    from google (none / 0) (#52)
    by ding7777 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
    How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

    By Eliot Spitzer
    Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

    Spitzer article link

    Parent

    Thanks!!! (none / 0) (#68)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    Well, the message box showed it was a link but (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    Good find, so let me try to link it for you (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    if I can make it work from this different computer for me today.  Here we go: Here it is.

    Parent
    I still tend to think the Dems got conned on this (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    by going along with the Bush framing and agreeing to do it fast this week.  But I've been wrong before....

    If they get this crisis addressed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by votermom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    I want phase 2 to be about investigating Wall Street for malfeasance.

    thought I heard yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:41:20 AM EST
     that the FBI is already investigating amny of the Wall St executives for fraud and such.

    Parent
    Why focus on bankruptcy? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    When the government owns the mortgages, they can arrange new repayment schedules with the home owners without the owners having to resort to filing for bankruptcy.

    This will actually result in FEWER people having to resort to a bankruptcy filing and a complex renegotiation of all their debts.

    I think there's been too much conflating of the concepts of bankrupcy vs. foreclosure.


    That's what I was thinking.... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:41:10 AM EST
    oversimplified, if the govt. (or preferably, private business) pays 50 cents on the dollar for bad mortgages, re-works them and reduces the payments 20-30-40%, and with the reduced payments the vast majority of the mortgages get paid off, whoever buys 'em at 50 cents is turning a nice profit.

    I mean nobody wants to get foreclosed on or file bankruptcy, if the payments are reduced people will pay.  The original holders of the mortgages lose, the entity providing the bailout and the homeowners win.  Works for me.

    Parent

    It won't happen (none / 0) (#34)
    by Makarov on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    because if the govt pays 50 cents on the dollar, troubled institutions will be insolvent. The plan is to apparently pay close to book value - probably 90 cents on the dollar or more - to bail out the companies carrying these bad assets.

    What is amazing is they want to reward companies who wouldn't become insolvent if they just wrote the bad securities off entirely.

    Parent

    Not clear that the govt owns the mortgages (none / 0) (#47)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    Most bad paper under discussion is in the form of derivatives - swaps, for instance - in which whoever hods the paper (a credit default swap) has no proprietary interest in the underlying asset (a mortgage). (This is often the whole point of a swap - to transfer all the benefits of ownership without legally consummating a sale.)

    Parent
    General Wes Clark said the ultimate way to get... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    of this financial crisis is to place monies into the alternative energy market - exactly what I have been proscribing. This was on CGI's panel on "Energy and Climate Change Working Group: Renewables Revolution".  I disagree that we have to wait for the next President - the Dems can start this now.  I believe the bail out money should help jump start this process.

    I like Wes Clark. And I absolutley believe (none / 0) (#36)
    by tigercourse on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    we must put funding into alternative energy. But funding alternative energy does absolutley nothing to get out of the current problem. It's a liquidity crisis in financial markets. Building windmills and electric cars does nothing to address that.

    Parent
    No one stated that nothing should be done about... (none / 0) (#41)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    the "liquidity" problem.  This is a short gap, put out the fire crisis, however, why would this bailout preclude including at a minimum, the seeds for the "ultimate" solution(s) to the overall economic  crisis?  The fundamental (i.e. ultimate) crux of this is the increasing gap between the super wealthy and the rest of us and the shrinking of the middle class.  I don't care how much liquidity you have, if people don't have the money, they won't get the credit. Plus, this gives investors an opportunity to invest in a huge, growing field that gives real returns in the form of solar panels, wind mills etal.  

    Senator Clinton has been out in the forefront on this issue as well as the HOLC.  Senator Sanders also has a good plan:

    "Any plan to clean up the mess on Wall Street must:

       1. Ensure that middle income and working families are not the ones who are paying for this bailout by
              * Imposing a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue over five years;
              * Ensuring that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and
              * Requiring that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the taxpayers' assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up.

                Taken together these three provisions will substantially reduce the likelihood that this bailout will end up on the backs of average American taxpayers.

       2. Include a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect our must vulnerable families from the very difficult times they are experiencing.

       3. Repeal the disastrous de-regulatory legislation that facilitated this crisis.
       4. End the danger posed by companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up.

    In closing, we believe it is appropriate to act quickly to address any systemic danger to our economy. But that does not mean that we need to give a blank check to the financial sector."

    BTW, Carol Browner at the CGI forum just stated if we can give billions on to the financial sector, why can't we go with trillion for alternatives.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    it precludes taking other measures of any significance because there isn't time to get agreement on them, even among Dems never mind getting the Republicans on board, before this "bail-out" (which is really a misnomer) absolutely has to go into effect.

    One thing we do not want is either good guys or bad guys playing chicken with this thing.

    They're very close to agreement now on what I guess one could call Paulson + Dodd and will almost certainly have the bill done and signed by sometime Sunday before the Asian markets open.

    Parent

    So it is ok to play politics like the Repubs... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    and Bush are doing with their lobbyists but we can't have the Dems propose an outline including these measures?  So, the Dems cave again.  Give me a break!  Hillary Clinton says this:

    "If we do not take action to address the crisis facing borrowers, we'll never solve the crisis facing lenders. "  That means the HOLC, plus doing something about the wealth gap and job creation while solving our energy problems.

    I have made my arguments on the alternative energy investment.  I have also spoken about the infrastructure.  Hillary Clinton's plan has many of the same elements as Sanders and others.  Dems can act like Dems and push through the broad outline and sell it to the American people.

    Parent

    my only concern about the "cram down" (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    I am afraid we will end up with nothing for the homeowners in distress.

    Yep, and the fat cats win while the Dems cave.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    to the weakest, most lame duck President ever with his Wall Street buddies.

    Parent
    My conservative colleague (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    says: "Ok, when the HOLC restructures people's mortgages, will the government be taking an equity share in their home?"  He's a sharp guy.

    great idea (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:41:53 PM EST
    why doesn't the govt give the money to the homeowners instead and take a share of the home.  I would give the gov't 8% of the value of my home for 200k

    Parent
    since they are willing to give (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    60 cents on the dollar for the bad paper to the banks for 8%, I will take 40% on the dollar for 8% of my home in cash.  

    I like the idea Steve, will you call Boehner and sell it for me?

    Parent

    if the feds (none / 0) (#62)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    will bail me out of my mortgage now, I'll leave the house to them in my will.

    Parent
    why leave it all (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    when you can take cash for a tiny percentage.  I think Steve is on to something here.  Imagine the flurry of people who would stop making payments so they could get 40 cents on the dollar for 8% of their home. The gov't would own a lot of real estate with a tremendous amount of long term benefits.  I am thinking of changing my last name to Chase or something to see if I can qualify.

    Parent
    Do you (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM EST
    know if HOLC is going to make it into the bill? It seems that Obama isn't so hot about that.

    Obama likes HOLC (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    He is not the best negotiator in that he has been weak on the bankruptcy provision.

    The reality is Frank and Dodd are the lead negotiators here and they seem to be doing a good job.

    I do think Hillary Clinton should speak up on this.

    Parent

    HRC talks up HOLC all the time.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    "I've proposed a new Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The original HOLC, launched in 1933, bought mortgages from failed banks and modified the terms so families could make affordable payments while keeping their homes. The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. We should also put in place a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and freeze rate hikes in adjustable-rate mortgages. We've got to stem the tide of failing mortgages and give the markets time to recover."

    How much more can she do?  How much more do you expect her to do?

    Parent

    Agree, unfortunately she is not the nominee. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    pressers (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jedimom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Hill did lots of pressers on HOLC and spoke from the floor, she was on CNBC on it after meeting with Tim Geisner NY Fed chief Monday. I hope she is getting through..Big Dawg is spreading her HOLC message on every interview he does as well..

    Parent
    My point is the Hillary and Bill are doing.... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    everything they can, but where is Obama, the "nominee"?

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:41:08 AM EST
    I'm of the opinion that if HOLC or the bankruptcy provisions are not put in now they are dead.

    Parent
    So Frank (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    is proposing a compromise, by enabling the government to facilitate a workout of only the mortgages it purchases?  I really liked the bankruptcy judge provision, but that would work for me.

    I still think the industry is foolish for opposing this, as mortgage defaults create a no-win situation in the current housing environment.  But hey, it's their money.

    That is how I understand it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    But I think the workout means a HOLC remedy imo. I think it should be stated expressly in the bill.

    Parent
    Bankruptcy provision only works for mortages (none / 0) (#40)
    by fairleft on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    of people who are bankrupt. So, HOLC seems like it would likely cover more potential and real foreclosures than either Frank's ad hoc or the 'only people who are bankrupt' approaches.

    Parent
    Listening to Obama now. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pianobuff on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    It sounds like he is supporting any ROI from the assets get returned back to taxpayers.  Does that mean he is not looking for that to go into a distressed/low-income housing fund?

    Should have added.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pianobuff on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:41:25 AM EST
    From BTD's link,

    "Democrats also want any potential proceeds the government reaps from the bailout to go to a fund designed to pay for housing for poor families."

    Does Obama have a position on that?

    Parent

    how does that work??? (none / 0) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    do they plan to send us each a check in the mail?

    Parent
    no slushy (none / 0) (#55)
    by jedimom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    this is the part I think needs more specific language, where the percentage that comes back to the taxpayer under Dodd plan, which IIRC is 20% of 15% or something similar, goes to a broad fund..

    we need to really nail down how that money can be used. I know there are excellent groups and maybe CBG can be used. (comm block grants) some groups like ACORN are in some things that dont need to come from the taxpayer funding in this bill, please, we need to have it really go to direct housing lending somehow,

     I dont buy the banks are going to lend when this is over, I predict incredibly tight lending through 2010 unless we legislate it somehow, which GOP will claim is how we got here, oy!

    so let's get these monies into housing somehow for those who will need it and be squeezed out of market or have been...

    Parent

    I don't like the (none / 0) (#6)
    by Makarov on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:40:09 AM EST
    Bankruptcy provision on the surface of it. It implies that one has to enter bankruptcy (an expensive process) before mortgage assistance is available. A growing problem is people "walking away" from mortgages they can't afford before outright bankruptcy, due to the long term impact that has on consumers. In many states, a mortgage holder can't go after the borrower for anything other than the home, so even if someone is in negative equity (owes more than property is worth due to declining values), it makes no sense to declare bankruptcy if your financial problems are related to a mortgage and credit card debts (the latter not being wiped out anymore thanks to Biden et al).

    Maybe I understand it incorrectly, but I didn't think bankruptcy courts around the nation had dockets so thin they would have the time to act to help re-write mortgages for people not entering bankruptcy in any case.

    That's why I like HOLC better (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:07:40 AM EST
    It should not have to get to the point of bankrupcty before the loan can be restructured. Keeping people out of bankruptcy should be the object.

    Parent
    That could be easily remedied (none / 0) (#11)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    by appointing employees whose specialty would be precisely the mortgages.  Federal court has employees/staff counsel who "screen" pro se complaints from prisoners and there are many of those.  No reason there could not be specialists to do this with mortgages.

    Parent
    Why does Obama think we should wait? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM EST
    Would that many Republicans oppose it in an election year? It's not just Democrats getting foreclosed on.

    I hate to see us give up. I'd like to see them say that they are trying to help the people, not just Wall St, and the Republicans are holding it up.

    Many voices out there saying wait (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:53:33 AM EST
    Some economists think this is the wrong time to jump in and that the market needs to take some correction before we start bailing out otherwise or bailout money will simply be eaten in another market slide.

    Parent
    Yes! (none / 0) (#17)
    by votermom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    Good news!

    Is anyone concerned that Shrub... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    agreed so quickly that, once again, the Dems are going to be hoodwinked (whoops, sorry to use that prase...but you get the idea).  It has happened almost 100% of the time in the past.

    Parent
    Here's what I mean... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    See Anglachel's latest post about James Galbraith's article today in the Washington Post.

    Parent
    Excellent article! (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    This is exactly what I have been saying what the Democrats should be doing.  Why are they being reactive to a horrendous proposal from a discredited administration.  They should be following Clinton and Sanders lead on this.  Dodd and Frank are just working on the margins.

    Parent
    Good article (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    I suspect jsut that thing (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    and we are not alone.  This from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic today:

    My colleague Nora McAvalnah tells me that sources close to Senate Democratic leadership
    now fear that McCain's true motivation for calling off his campaign and coming back to DC is simply to cast a "no" vote against the bailout, despite his private statements to the contrary. And it's a smart maneuver: nothing says "maverick," like voting against Bush and
    standing with the American public, who remain very wary of the proposal.

    If McCain is smart this is exactly what he will do. The combined approval rating of Buch + Congress is unde 40%.  Standing against them would be the best move ever.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    what? I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was the case. I'm so tired of people thinking "we've got it in the bag" and all Obama has to do is "stay above the fray". blah, blah, blah. NEVER underestimate the GOP and always run like you are 10 pts behind. Best advice Bill Clinton ever gave any Democrat.

    Parent
    As a layman (none / 0) (#31)
    by JThomas on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    just trying to get my head around the whole mess, I am left wondering if creation of HOLC is precluded if it is not specifically addressed in this bill? If the govt has taken this bad debt,don't they need to create some type of mechanism for working out these bad mortgages with homeowners? Now, maybe this would be another bureacracy that adds to spending problem but on the other hand, I do not want to pay former Lehman Bro. executives as consultants to perform that duty at inflated prices..

    Very confusing,but I do want equity in the bailed out firms and limits on compensation to execs.
    Hillary seems very well-versed on this...maybe she can head up the effort in the Senate?

    Barney Frank has been fantastic throughout this (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    he is my rock. When he comes on TV I sit up and listen.

    Armando, thanks for putting him up near the beginning of all this, it made me pay more attention to him.

    WSWS: Evasions, half-truths and lies (none / 0) (#64)
    by Andreas on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:08:45 PM EST
    The WSWS today published a statement of the Socialist Equality Party:

    The Socialist Equality Party emphatically rejects President George Bush's call, in his televised speech Wednesday night, for a massive bailout of Wall Street.

    Bush's 13-minute speech was a compendium of evasions, half-truths and outright lies. While declaring that the United States is "in the midst of a serious financial crisis" and demanding the immediate passage of legislation that will hand over at least $700 billion to Wall Street banks--by buying up their unsalable assets at inflated prices and placing the burden for their losses on millions of working class families--Bush offered no credible explanation of the cause of
    the crisis. Nor did he explain how the proposed bailout of the bank will be implemented, let alone how it will stave off economic disaster for the working class.

    His claim that the "rescue effort" will "help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs" is patently untrue. ...

    But amidst all the banalities and despite his own intentions, Bush's speech amounted to a devastating and unprecedented exposure and indictment of the social, economic and political system in the United States. Speaking before a national and international audience, he admitted that the largest capitalist economy in the world stands on the very brink of collapse. ...

    But he could not explain how the handover of more than $700 billion in taxpayer money to the banks and investment firms will resolve the crisis.

    In fact, his bailout plan is a naked attempt by the most powerful sections of the American ruling class to exploit a crisis of their own making to further enrich themselves, while imposing the burden on the working class of the United States and the entire world.

    Evasions, half-truths and lies
    Bush demands passage of Wall Street bailout

    Statement of the Socialist Equality Party, 25 September 2008

    65 Trillion Dollar Credit Swap Defaults (none / 0) (#65)
    by Richard0Thomas on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    Most of the world doesn't know about the 65 Trillion Dollar Credit Swap Defaults still looming. It dwarfs the mortgage crises.

    It is on http://coinage.me . where the flaws are articulated in detail unlike anything you see on the news, and a detail solution is provided to fix the foundation. Which everyone else seems to lack.

    Many people only see the appearances they do not see the fundamental flaw in the system itself.


    i posted something on this the other day (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    this 700 billion to free up the credit markets is simply not based in reality.  I got called from my banker AGAIN asking to up my credit line.  Only those with collateral and great credit will get the lines and most will not take them. I am barely collateralized and I am terrified of the upcoming months and maybe years of economic turmoil.  I have no intention of raising the line to hire more people.

    Do people really think large corporations are going to take on more lines to hire more people?  Bubbles burst and there is usually a small mess to clean up.  This bubble looks a hell of a lot like Chernobyl only messier.

    Parent