Bush wants OK to spend $700B

[Bob Juch]

Bailout proposal sent to Congress seeks authorization to spend as much as $700 billion to buy troubled mortgage-related assets.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/ec ... 2008092012

[Jeemie]

Anyone that thinks $700 B is all that it costs is insane.

Worse...the package has a two-year clause in it- government has the right to buy up this bad debt for TWO MORE YEARS...meaning that's two more years bankers/financiers can take huge risks without worrying about the consequences.

But Bob, please do not try and make this partisan.

The government is fucking us in the ass in a bipartisan manner.

"Bend over, Americans...it's your patriotic duty".

[mrkelley23]

Anyone that thinks $700 B is all that it costs is insane.

Worse...the package has a two-year clause in it- government has the right to buy up this bad debt for TWO MORE YEARS...meaning that's two more years bankers/financiers can take huge risks without worrying about the consequences.

But Bob, please do not try and make this partisan.

The government is ********** in a bipartisan manner.

"Bend over, Americans...it's your patriotic duty".

This is the kind of post I was afeared of when we decided on no Otto, no nothing with regard to censorship.

I may get exercised from time to time, and I have often used inappropriate language in my time, but gratuitous vulgarity still bothers me.

[Jeemie]

Anyone that thinks $700 B is all that it costs is insane.

Worse...the package has a two-year clause in it- government has the right to buy up this bad debt for TWO MORE YEARS...meaning that's two more years bankers/financiers can take huge risks without worrying about the consequences.

But Bob, please do not try and make this partisan.

The government is ********** in a bipartisan manner.

"Bend over, Americans...it's your patriotic duty".

This is the kind of post I was afeared of when we decided on no Otto, no nothing with regard to censorship.

I may get exercised from time to time, and I have often used inappropriate language in my time, but gratuitous vulgarity still bothers me.

And I rarely use it...but there's nothing gratuitous about my using it this time.

What the government is doing deserves it being described with such words.

[Weyoun]

Anyone that thinks $700 B is all that it costs is insane.

Worse...the package has a two-year clause in it- government has the right to buy up this bad debt for TWO MORE YEARS...meaning that's two more years bankers/financiers can take huge risks without worrying about the consequences.

But Bob, please do not try and make this partisan.

The government is ********** in a bipartisan manner.

"Bend over, Americans...it's your patriotic duty".

This is the kind of post I was afeared of when we decided on no Otto, no nothing with regard to censorship.

I may get exercised from time to time, and I have often used inappropriate language in my time, but gratuitous vulgarity still bothers me.

And I rarely use it...but there's nothing gratuitous about my using it this time.

What the government is doing deserves it being described with such words.

Unfortunately, I do not think we have much choice. Talking to my friends in the banking industry, it got VERY bad this week.

We can snort and hoot about free market, or minimal government, or letting bad businesses go belly up like they deserve, but this would have @#$%ed in the ass millions of Americans if this course continued, and principle wouldn't have done crap to help us out of the mess.

[Jeemie]

This is the kind of post I was afeared of when we decided on no Otto, no nothing with regard to censorship.

I may get exercised from time to time, and I have often used inappropriate language in my time, but gratuitous vulgarity still bothers me.

And I rarely use it...but there's nothing gratuitous about my using it this time.

What the government is doing deserves it being described with such words.

Unfortunately, I do not think we have much choice. Talking to my friends in the banking industry, it got VERY bad this week.

We can snort and hoot about free market, or minimal government, or letting bad businesses go belly up like they deserve, but this would have @#$%ed in the ass millions of Americans if this course continued, and principle wouldn't have done crap to help us out of the mess.

Of course they would say that.

But, IMHO, a collapse of some sort is pretty much inevitable anyway.

30 years of trying to avoid any deep recession is only going to make the one that finally comes all the worse.

[15QuestionsAway]

Unfortunately, I do not think we have much choice. Talking to my friends in the banking industry, it got VERY bad this week.

We can snort and hoot about free market, or minimal government, or letting bad businesses go belly up like they deserve, but this would have @#$%ed in the ass millions of Americans if this course continued, and principle wouldn't have done crap to help us out of the mess.

There's two parts to this problem. One is whether the bailout is necessary. Let's assume for argument's sake it is, although I'm not so sure.

The second part is how do we pay for it. I'm with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on this one: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=303313

Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be another clusterfrak like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War authorization. Ram something through when folks (and congresscritters) are scared, and worry about the consequences later.

When the bill comes due, your children and grandchildren will hate you even more. Or we'll all be millionaires, but it will cost us $500k to buy a loaf of bread.

[Bob Juch]

Unfortunately, I do not think we have much choice. Talking to my friends in the banking industry, it got VERY bad this week.

We can snort and hoot about free market, or minimal government, or letting bad businesses go belly up like they deserve, but this would have @#$%ed in the ass millions of Americans if this course continued, and principle wouldn't have done crap to help us out of the mess.

There's two parts to this problem. One is whether the bailout is necessary. Let's assume for argument's sake it is, although I'm not so sure.

The second part is how do we pay for it. I'm with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on this one: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=303313

Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be another clusterfrak like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War authorization. Ram something through when folks (and congresscritters) are scared, and worry about the consequences later.

When the bill comes due, your children and grandchildren will hate you even more. Or we'll all be millionaires, but it will cost us $500k to buy a loaf of bread.

I thought the right-wing was supposed to be against socialism?

[Shade]

I heard about this bill, it makes me very nervous. If the Bush administration thought of it there must be some kind of problem with it. The very fact that the national debt will go up by 1 trillion is alarming enough.

[15QuestionsAway]

I thought the right-wing was supposed to be against socialism?

Only of profits. The losses - not so much.

[BigDrawMan]

I heard about this bill, it makes me very nervous. If the Bush administration thought of it there must be some kind of problem with it. The very fact that the national debt will go up by 1 trillion is alarming enough.

bush intends to keep this money off budget, along with the iraq boondoggle

all hail conservative ideals


hail





hail

[flockofseagulls104]

I heard about this bill, it makes me very nervous. If the Bush administration thought of it there must be some kind of problem with it. The very fact that the national debt will go up by 1 trillion is alarming enough.

bush intends to keep this money off budget, along with the iraq boondoggle

all hail conservative ideals


hail





hail

All hail the Bush haters. At least we have one single person to blame when all the decisions made by the crooks and shysters we've sent to Congress all these years (on both sides of the aisle) come home to roost. That should make everyone happy.

As I understand it, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, but the Congress has oversight on what the Armed Forces are committed to do. No money, no war, right?

Also the President is the head of the Executive Branch. The President executes the laws passed by the Congress. Right?

But it's so much easier to blame one person. That's the nutshell of the democrat platform, and has been for a long time, hasn't it? As if apportioning blame is going to fix anything.

It doesn't matter in the long run whether Obama or McCain is President, or if the pres is black or the vice pres is female, until Congress gets cleaned up and focuses on what's good for the country instead of their district or themselves. Likely to happen? I don't think so.

Bush is no prize, but I'm sick to death of the blind, ignorant Bush bashing.

[BackInTex]

And I rarely use it...but there's nothing gratuitous about my using it this time.

What the government is doing deserves it being described with such words.

Only for those with limited vocabulary or intelligence. Neither of which fits you.

[tlynn78]

I'm trying to avoid "political" (hack, cough, snork) threads, but when I saw the header that indicates apparently our CiC is pissed off enough at Oklahoma that he wants them to foot the $700B mortgage mess bill, I need to hear about it.

Judy, what did you do?


t.

[Sir_Galahad]

I heard about this bill, it makes me very nervous. If the Bush administration thought of it there must be some kind of problem with it. The very fact that the national debt will go up by 1 trillion is alarming enough.

bush intends to keep this money off budget, along with the iraq boondoggle

all hail conservative ideals

Once again, you're equivocating Bush with conservatism. He is not now nor has he ever been a conservative. He's an f'n Republican.

Plus, this crap has been building since the Clinton years, so you can't point the finger solely at the current administration. Also, you should take a good hard look at your buds Chris Dodd and Barney Frank - two of the biggest crooks in the Senate. If they had any sort of fiscal responsibility whatsoever we may not be in the mess we're in.

[ne1410s]

fos:

But it's so much easier to blame one person. That's the nutshell of the democrat platform, and has been for a long time, hasn't it? As if apportioning blame is going to fix anything.

I think that one person can be blamed when he creates an atmosphere that is conducive to playing fast and loose with the people's money and trust. Bush was pretty much a failure in everything he tried--but there was always someone there to bail him out. Yes, the POTUS is the CIC. But he appointed the "worst Secretary of Defense in the history of the US" and let him play soldier when our kids lives were at stake. And, yes, he is to execute the laws Congress passes--unless he vetoes them or puts a "signing memo" on them that completely changes the intent of the the law.

Deep, deep down I don't care if Obama or McCain wins: anyone will be better than the intellectually challenged moron that now sits in the Oval Office.

YMMV

[Beebs52]

fos:

But it's so much easier to blame one person. That's the nutshell of the democrat platform, and has been for a long time, hasn't it? As if apportioning blame is going to fix anything.

I think that one person can be blamed when he creates an atmosphere that is conducive to playing fast and loose with the people's money and trust. Bush was pretty much a failure in everything he tried--but there was always someone there to bail him out. Yes, the POTUS is the CIC. But he appointed the "worst Secretary of Defense in the history of the US" and let him play soldier when our kids lives were at stake. And, yes, he is to execute the laws Congress passes--unless he vetoes them or puts a "signing memo" on them that completely changes the intent of the the law.

Deep, deep down I don't care if Obama or McCain wins: anyone will be better than the intellectually challenged moron that now sits in the Oval Office.

YMMV

I think it's very simplistic to attribute an atmosphere of playing fast and loose to the current administration alone. I honestly don't see how one could say that with a straight face. I grant you, Bush is not the intellectual equal of, say, William Buckley, but, eh, based on his grades, he passed over Gore and Kerry.
Speechwise, "uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh" well...

I was going to say I don't get the visceral hatred, but I do. Because, as vaiunted as Bill Clinton's "intelligence" was, I fail to see his lasting legacy of it. As vaunted as "Hillary's" intelligence is, I'm failing to see the present legacy of it. I used to almost hate Hillary (more so than Bill, but he's a mouthbreather and can't help it, plus having other uncontrollable urges that are distractions) but I don't anymore. I think she's way smarter than her husband (that's a joke), but, she's not in play right now.

Get over it.

Bush isn't that dumb. He may be wrong on things, but he's certainly not that dumb. He's done some things right, some things wrong.

We're in a mess right now and it started a ways back. If anyone, anyone, can pinpoint one specific action that caused the recent financial catastrophe, I shall gladly say, "Bless your heart."

[nitrah55]

I can't blame Bush for this mess, because he didn't cause it. What caused it was a perfect storm of greed and stupidity that was precipitated by a somewhat worthy goal, that is, finding a home for the $35 billion in worldwide investment capital in 2001 that had turned into $70 billion by 2006 (booming economies in China and other less developed places will do that).

People wanted to invest in US mortgages, but all the good ones were already taken. Brokers and banks started coming up with ARMs where the standards were lower than before (eventually, no income check, no asset check). Dumb and/or greedy people bought houses. Dumb and/or greedy brokers pitched mortgages that the purchasers couldn't afford. Dumb and/or greedy bankers lent money and then sold the mortgages to investment banks. Dumb and/or greedy inventment bankers sold the package of loans to investors. Dumb and/or greedy investors bought the packages without knowing or maybe not caring that the loans in the package were not your basic 30 year, fixed rate mortgages with income and asset checks. As long as real estate prices went up, it worked. Real estate prices went down.

This story is as old as the hills. Read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," particularly the chapter about the tulip bulb bubble that hit Holland in the 1600's.

So now we have a problem, and how do we fix it? Well, this is one of those events where I think that people across the political spectrum can agree: we would rather not give the Secretary of the Treasury $700B and tell him he can do whatever he wants with it. Liberals and conservatives do agree that the government should stay out of certain things; we do often disagree on what things the government should stay out of. But I digress.

But this? $700B that Paulsen could use for coke and hookers, and there'd be no recourse? This would be a bad idea even if Paulsen hadn't said three weeks ago that the banking system was ok.

[Spock]

I can't blame Bush for this mess, because he didn't cause it. What caused it was a perfect storm of greed and stupidity that was precipitated by a somewhat worthy goal, that is, finding a home for the $35 billion in worldwide investment capital in 2001 that had turned into $70 billion by 2006 (booming economies in China and other less developed places will do that).

People wanted to invest in US mortgages, but all the good ones were already taken. Brokers and banks started coming up with ARMs where the standards were lower than before (eventually, no income check, no asset check). Dumb and/or greedy people bought houses. Dumb and/or greedy brokers pitched mortgages that the purchasers couldn't afford. Dumb and/or greedy bankers lent money and then sold the mortgages to investment banks. Dumb and/or greedy inventment bankers sold the package of loans to investors. Dumb and/or greedy investors bought the packages without knowing or maybe not caring that the loans in the package were not your basic 30 year, fixed rate mortgages with income and asset checks. As long as real estate prices went up, it worked. Real estate prices went down.

This story is as old as the hills. Read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," particularly the chapter about the tulip bulb bubble that hit Holland in the 1600's.

So now we have a problem, and how do we fix it? Well, this is one of those events where I think that people across the political spectrum can agree: we would rather not give the Secretary of the Treasury $700B and tell him he can do whatever he wants with it. Liberals and conservatives do agree that the government should stay out of certain things; we do often disagree on what things the government should stay out of. But I digress.

But this? $700B that Paulsen could use for coke and hookers, and there'd be no recourse? This would be a bad idea even if Paulsen hadn't said three weeks ago that the banking system was ok.

We can only pray that it will be $700B. The way this stuff seems to come out-we will be lucky if it is only double or triple that amount.

The intersection of crony capitalism and socialism at its finest.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I can't blame Bush for this mess, because he didn't cause it. What caused it was a perfect storm of greed and stupidity that was precipitated by a somewhat worthy goal, that is, finding a home for the $35 billion in worldwide investment capital in 2001 that had turned into $70 billion by 2006 (booming economies in China and other less developed places will do that).

That's trillion, not billion

[ToLiveIsToFly]

From Eric Zorn's blog today:

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.



I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that nformation, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully,

Minister of Treasury Paulson

[ne1410s]

bb:

Get over it.

Sorry, Beebs. I will never get over what that stupid son of a bitch has done to our country.

[Bob78164]

Also, you should take a good hard look at your buds Chris Dodd and Barney Frank - two of the biggest crooks in the Senate.

Barney Frank is not now and never has been in the Senate. The two Senators from Massachusetts are Kennedy and Kerry. --Bob

[Beebs52]

bb:

Get over it.

Sorry, Beebs. I will never get over what that stupid son of a bitch has done to our country.

I understand. I do. I feel that way about things that other people in power have done as well, in the past, to things like our educational system, etc. etc. etc. and to the general tone of honesty and goodwill, which seems to be abused by all administrations.

I've been using that "get over it" in my head recently a lot, because I can't actually say it to people who feel entitled, that I have to be "customer-service-oriented-to" due to the hurricane. Some things have happened, are done and over with, and then we get on with trying to repair stuff. Sometimes we can't.

As an aside, you'd be amazed and astounded at how crazy out of touch people are that don't have it that bad. And many are not conservatives. I'm just talking locally. It would blow your mind.

No, actually, we will not clean up your yard for you. That mentality, similar to the crap happening in Washington, extends beyond all parties and politics.

[danielh41]

I'm glad that some Republicans are keeping their senses: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cdfbdcb6-89a3 ... fd18c.html

The two paragraphs I especially liked seeing:


Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate banking committee, warned “we could very well spend $700bn and not resolve the crisis”. He called on the US to exhaust “all reasonable alternatives” before committing itself to the plan.

Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina said: “I am very sceptical of this proposal and am extremely frustrated that we find ourselves in this position.” Jim Bunning of Kentucky added: “This massive bail-out is not the solution, it is financial socialism, it is un-American.”

Personally, I think the administration was too hasty in the proposal just because of the pressure to do something, anything.