The Ultimate Bailout

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Socialism is bad, except when it involves private investments.

source: Center for American Progress

March 17, 2008

As the Roaring Twenties were sowing the seeds of the Great Depression, the chronicler of that age, F. Scott Fitzgerald, famously remarked, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." By this measure, President George Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, apparently is an "A" student.

In the run up to the Federal Reserve Board's decision Sunday to essentially finance the takeover of collapsing investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the president, Secretary Paulson, and other top Bush administration officials adamantly told us that aid to neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures would be an unacceptable bailout of lenders and would remove necessary market discipline from punishing the sins of "speculative" homeowners.

In fact, their comments suggested that the current free fall in home prices resulted mainly from excessive individual risk taking and bad bets by individuals--and these speculators should suffer the consequences of their decisions. In Paulson's March 3 statement to the National Association of Business Economists, for example, he spoke dismissively of government intervention.

"We know that speculation increased in recent years; a resulting increase in foreclosures is to be expected and does not warrant any relief," he said. "People who speculated and bought investment properties in hot markets should take their losses just like day traders who speculated and bought soaring tech stocks in 2000."

Just yesterday, on ABC News' This Week program, Paulson again dismissed as ill advised the growing number of proposals in Congress to head off rampant foreclosures, instead arguing that "what's going on right now is an inevitable decline, and a necessary decline, in home prices." Asked about help for homeowners, the Treasury Secretary was clear: "I'm looking very carefully at any proposal. But all the ones I've seen, which call for much more government intervention, raise more problems and do more harm than they would do good."

So it would be unthinkable, wouldn't it, for the Treasury Department to throw taxpayer dollars into the breach while riding to the rescue of one of the central players on Wall Street responsible for originating, promoting, and selling billions of dollars of speculative overvalued mortgages? And surely the disciplinarian-minded Bush administration would never agree to open the Treasury to benefit other Wall Street firms holding mortgage-backed securities on which they already made record profits? Think again.

Defending the Federal Reserve's dramatic decision Friday to guarantee 28-day loans by JP Morgan to Bear Stearns to avert a liquidity crisis, Secretary Paulson asserted without a hint of irony: "We're very aware of moral hazard. But our primary concern right now, my primary concern, is the stability of our financial system." He then backed up those words on Sunday when supporting the Fed's decision to guarantee the value of Bear's entire loan portfolio after JP Morgan agreed to buy the investment bank for only $2 a share, and then to throw open the Fed's discount window to the rest of Wall Street's prime brokerages.

An awful lot of normal finger wagging about the hazards of bailing out those who make bad decisions from their consequences melted away in the face of Paulson's primary concern--the health of Wall Street investment banks amid the greatest credit crisis since the Great Depression.

"The beneficiary of this bailout, remember, has often operated in the gray areas of Wall Street and with an aggressive, brass-knuckles approach," noted New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson. "And as one of the biggest players in the mortgage securities business on Wall Street, Bear provided munificent lines of credit to public-spirited subprime lenders like New Century (now bankrupt). It is also the owner of EMC Mortgage Servicing, one of the most aggressive subprime mortgage servicers out there."

Now Bear's "difficult to value" assets -- our mortgages repackaged in pools -- are guaranteed by the Fed, and ultimately U.S. taxpayers. Maybe it is not so mysterious, though, that the Bush administration could simultaneously scold defaulting homeowners for the sin of striving to join the "ownership society" promoted so vigorously by the president until recently, while reversing course to drop all pretense of personal responsibility when a large financial house is at the brink. It seems to be all a question of vision, of who matters in the end in the priorities of an ideology-driven White House.

Bear Stearns is too important to allow to fail, but millions of homeowners can end up on the street when home prices plummet sharply. The Wall Street holders of overvalued mortgage pools are too important to fail, but homeowners drowning in debt are told to keep paying not matter what.

Or consider that big oil company tax breaks are too integral to our energy plan, but relief for millions of drivers squeezed by rising gasoline prices would be bad economic policy. Or that eliminating the estate tax is promoted as tax fairness, but vetoing the expansion of health care to millions of children through the State Children's Health Insurance Program as too expensive is prudent budgetary management. The list goes on and on.

There are many good reasons, of course, to act to avert a Bear Stearns bankruptcy when one considers the ultimate impact on millions of Americans and around the world of a Wall Street collapse. But the reasons are no less compelling when the devastation hits individual Americans directly -- home by home, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood -- instead of mainly in the boardroom circles in which F. Scott Fitzgerald traveled, and which have changed so little since the Roaring Twenties.

It's time for President Bush and Secretary Paulson to widen their vision and see the root causes of the problems afflicting Wall Street--under-regulated, bad lending practices that have left homeowners overly in debt. There is still time to act to correct the problem at its source, while doing something worthwhile for both American families and the financial markets. Averting a worsening global credit crisis requires action to restructure bad mortgage loans, put families into sustainable mortgages, buy up foreclosed properties that are ruining solid neighborhoods, and rebuild communities--not just seeing everything through the world of finance.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Selective Bailouts: Help for Wall Street, Not Your Street

Interesting T.O. Sounds similar to what McCain is saying.

QueEx
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Re: Selective Bailouts: Help for Wall Street, Not Your Street

Interesting T.O. Sounds similar to what McCain is saying.

QueEx


If you think McCain is going to change anything substantial from the way the Bush and the supply siders have conducted the economy over the last 25 years or so then, you have another thing coming. The Savings and Loan debacle, the virtual elimination of a manufacturing sector and the current meltdown, which Obama rightfully stated is not part of the normal economic cycle proves that the right doesn’t have a clue. A vote for McCain is a vote for the status quo.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Selective Bailouts: Help for Wall Street, Not Your Street

I said, "Interesting T.O. Sounds similar to what McCain is saying." Why all the "If you think McCain is going to change anything," etc. ???

QueEx
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Selective Bailouts: Help for Wall Street, Not Your Street

Because he only has onethought in his head, oneobsessivethought. If you don't insult Republiklans whenever they are mentioned then you must be one of them.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Re: Selective Bailouts: Help for Wall Street, Not Your Street

Because he only has onethought in his head, oneobsessivethought. If you don't insult Republiklans whenever they are mentioned then you must be one of them.

Why not, they all seem to fall in line like lemmings.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Paulson, Bernanke Push
New Plan to Cleanse Books </font size></center>



data

From left to right, Barney Frank, chair of the
House Financial Services Committee, Ben S.
Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve,
Henry Paulson, secretary of the U.S. Treasury,
Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), Christopher Dodd,
chair of the Senate Banking Committee, meet
with Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill in
Washington, D.C. on Sept. 18, 2008.
Photographer: David Brody/Bloomberg News


Bloomberg
By Alison Vekshin
and Dawn Kopecki
September 19, 2008


Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke proposed moving troubled assets from the balance sheets of American financial companies into a new institution.

Congressional leaders who met with Paulson and Bernanke late yesterday in Washington said they aim to pass legislation soon. The initiative is aimed at removing the devalued mortgage- linked assets at the root of the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression. Today, the Treasury announced a $50 billion program to insure the holdings of money-market mutual funds for a year.

The effort is a recognition that Paulson's and Bernanke's earlier efforts failed to revive financial and housing markets. The government took over American International Group Inc., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past 12 days, a period when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy and Americans pulled a record $89 billion from money-market funds.

``They were just worn out and weary from the one-off situations they had to deal with, and finally came to the realization that it's a much more pervasive problem,'' said Marilyn Cohen, who manages $185 million in bonds as president and chief executive officer of Envision Capital Management in Los Angeles. ``Hopefully, this will give the trading desks the confidence to start making markets again.''

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, who attended the gathering with lawmakers, said the SEC planned to consider more rules to guarantee market liquidity. Today, the SEC temporarily banned short-selling of financial companies' shares until Oct. 2 after Morgan Stanley fell 39 percent earlier this week. The U.K. took a similar step yesterday.


<font size="3">Stocks Rally </font size>

Stocks surged around the world after a three-day slide earlier this week wiped about $1.9 trillion in market value from the MSCI World Index. The U.K.'s benchmark FTSE 100 index rose 7.9 percent, the most since it started in 1984, futures on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index climbed 2.8 percent and Japan's Nikkei 225 Stock Average climbed 5 percent.

At the same time, investors are still seeking the safety of government debt. The yield on the U.S. three-month Treasury bill, which has tumbled almost 1.5 percentage points this week, was little changed at 0.07 percent today.

While the two-year note yield rose 21 basis points to 1.94 percent today, it's still below the Fed's 2 percent target rate for overnight loans between banks. Yields on 10-year notes increased 6 basis points to 3.63 percent, near the lowest in 12 months.


<font size="3">Government Options </font size>

Options that U.S. officials are considering include establishing an $800 billion fund to purchase so-called failed assets and a separate $400 billion pool at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure investors in money-market funds, said two people briefed by congressional staff. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans may change.

Another possibility is using Fannie and Freddie, the federally chartered mortgage-finance companies seized by the government last week, to buy assets, one of the people said.

``We will try to put a bill together and do it fairly quickly,'' House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said after the meeting. ``We are not in a position to give you any specifics right now'' on the proposals, he said when asked about the potential cost.

The likelihood of the government taking on yet more devalued assets, after the seizures of Fannie, Freddie and AIG and the earlier assumption by the Fed of $29 billion of Bear Stearns Cos. investments, may spur concern about its own balance sheet.


<font size="3">Debt Concern </font size>

The Treasury has pledged to buy up to $200 billion of Fannie and Freddie stock to keep them solvent, while the Fed agreed Sept. 16 to an $85 billion bridge loan to AIG. The Treasury also plans to buy $5 billion of mortgage-backed debt this month under an emergency program.

``It sounds like there's going to be a giant dumpster for illiquid assets,'' said Mirko Mikelic, senior portfolio manager at Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which oversees $22 billion in assets. ``It brings up the more troubling question of whether the U.S. government is big enough to take on this whole problem, relative'' to the size of the American economy, he said.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama and some other Republicans have criticized the takeovers of AIG, Fannie and Freddie for imposing a potentially high cost on taxpayers.


<font size="3">Shelby Skeptical </font size>

``We cannot protect all risk in the market, and we shouldn't do it at the risk of the taxpayer,'' Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television this week.

Still, Representative John Boehner, the head of the Republicans in the House, told reporters after the meeting with Paulson and Bernanke that he was ``hopeful that in the coming days we'll have a proposal that will pass this Congress.''

Senator Charles Schumer of New York, a Democrat who chairs the congressional Joint Economic Committee, warned yesterday against leaving the Fed with an expanding role for addressing the credit crisis.

``It's hard for them to do monetary policy, which is their primary task, and then run all these businesses,'' Schumer said yesterday in Washington.


<font size="3">Record Lending </font size>

The Treasury the past two days announced $200 billion in special bill sales to help the Fed expand its balance sheet. The U.S. central bank extended a record $59.8 billion in loans to investment banks and $33.4 billion to commercial banks as of Sept. 17. The Fed yesterday also joined its counterparts from around the world to pump $180 billion into global money markets.

An increasing number of lawmakers are advocating a stronger response to the crisis sparked by record homeowner defaults.

Schumer proposed an agency to inject capital into troubled financial companies in exchange for rewriting mortgages to make them more affordable. It would be modeled on the Great Depression-era Reconstruction Finance Corp., he said. Others have floated a type of Resolution Trust Corp., which was a 1990s fund to manage devalued assets from failed savings and loans.

Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Lehman Brothers alone had more than $500 billion of so-called Level 3 assets as of June 30, according to data in a Sept. 15 report from New York- based bond research firm CreditSights Inc. The holders of these assets say their values can only be determined through internal models because of illiquid markets.

Senator Christopher Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, said it was a ``sober'' gathering. The plan would likely come from the Treasury and Fed this weekend and ``nothing is more important than this,'' Dodd said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net; Dawn Kopecki in Washington at dkopecki@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 19, 2008 07:31 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBXk2Zku0B.Y&refer=home
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Federal billions for Wall Street will handcuff next president

<font size="5"><center>
Federal billions for Wall Street
will handcuff next president</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman
September 19, 2008


WASHINGTON — The next president will take office in January with little hope
of getting his pet programs enacted quickly, if at all, because of already-massive budget deficits likely to balloon even further from the hundreds of billions expected to be used to bail out Wall Street.

"The next president is just not going to have the money to meet his promises," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget-research group.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain have big plans that would add substantially to the deficit.

By 2013, when his changes would be fully implemented, Obama would boost the deficit by $360 billion with his tax cuts and by another $65 billion with his health-care plan while partially offsetting that with $139 billion saved through winding down the Iraq war and making other spending cuts, according to US Budget Watch, a nonpartisan research group.

McCain's tax cut plan would add $417 billion to $485 billion to the deficit, while his health-care policies would cost another $54 billion to $65 billion. Iraq troop reductions and "unspecified cuts to balance the budget" could save $291 billion to $304 billion, however.

The bottom line: Both would sharply increase the deficit, which already is headed to record territory.

"They've got to be asleep not to see this is bad news," said David Walker, the president and chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes sound fiscal policy.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends Sept. 30, will rise to $407 billion, while next year's figure could hit $438 billion, shattering the record of $413 billion in fiscal 2004.

The 2008 and 2009 numbers are conservative estimates, since they don't include the federal bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or failed insurer American International Group.

Friday, the government unveiled what's likely to be the most expensive twist of all: a still-evolving plan to create a way for the government to buy troubled bank assets, probably the biggest bailout in U.S. history.

"We're talking hundreds of billions" of dollars, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said.

As a result, "what was already a very difficult decision for the next president _how to deal with taxes and spending — has now become extremely difficult," said Brian Riedl, senior policy analyst at Washington's Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group.

Traditionally, the first few months of a new presidency are the White House's most successful. Ronald Reagan won approval of his 25 percent, three-year tax cut in July 1981. Bill Clinton saw his $496 billion five-year deficit-reduction plan pass in August 1993, and George W. Bush got his $1.35 trillion tax cut through Congress in May 2001.

McCain and Obama are touting ambitious efforts to revamp health care and provide tax breaks.

Add to that billions in new spending. McCain would increase funding to the No Child Left Behind education program, which would cost an estimated $13 billion in 2013, and would boost the size of the military, a $10 billion plan. Obama also would spend more on education — an estimated $18 billion — would create an "infrastructure reinvestment bank" for $6 billion, would double foreign aid — a $25 billion expense — and increase the size of the military, which would carry a $20 billion price tag.

Getting any expansion of health care will be particularly tough, MacGuineas said. "There's no bigger budget buster than health care," she said, as Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to continue increasing steadily.

Both candidates want to preserve at least some of the tax cuts that are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. McCain would keep all the key cuts, while Obama would end most of those that affect individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that make more than $250,000.

"While Barack Obama recognizes the need to take swift and systemic action to shore up the financial system, he also understands that we face a broader economic crisis that demands the kind of fully paid for, pro-growth economic plan that he has put forward, which will cut middle-class taxes, jump-start job growth and help turn our economy around," said Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro.

Analysts think the candidates eventually may be able to get some of their more ambitious plans enacted, but they warn that there are a lot of "ifs."

Experts agree on this much: It'll be hard to do in 2009.

"I suspect what may have been economically and politically palatable six months ago will have to be reviewed," said Doug Rediker, co-director of the New America Foundation's Global Strategic Finance Initiative.

James Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at Washington's Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, thought that one way the new president could use his mandate is to say, "The short-term problems are worse than expected, but let's look ahead to 2012. Everything I planned still makes sense."

Looking ahead has other dangers, however, notably the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare.

There's one glimmer of hope.

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, recalled that when the government set up the Resolution Trust Corp. in 1989 to help ailing savings and loan institutions, "the cost was less than expected."

When the government bailed out Chrysler Corp. in 1979 with a $1.2 billion loan, it earned an estimated $300 million profit.

However, even if the government winds up in the black from this financial crisis, it's unlikely that that'll show up on next year's balance sheet. No one knows how much the bailouts will cost at first, but most see the new president as inheriting a huge deficit.

As MacGuineas put it, "It's stifling."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52810.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Democrats Set Bailout Conditions</font size><font size="4">
as Treasury Chief Rallies Support


Democrats plan to rescue the nation’s financial
institutions includes greater legislative oversight
of the Treasury Department, limits on the pay
of top executives whose firms seek help; and
more direct assistance for homeowners </font size></center>




The New York Times
By David M. Herszenhorn,
Stephen Labaton and
Mark Landler, and written
by Mr. Labaton
September 21, 2008


WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats began to set their own terms on Sunday for a plan to rescue the nation’s financial institutions, including greater legislative oversight of the Treasury Department, more direct assistance for homeowners and limits on the pay of top executives whose firms seek help.

The Democrats’ demands came as Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. blanketed the Sunday talk shows to promote the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout package, emphasizing that it was needed not just for Wall Street, but for all Americans. He urged Congress to move swiftly to approve a “clean” rescue plan without tacking on extra programs.

“I hate the fact that we have to do it, but it’s better than the alternative,” Mr. Paulson said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The Bush administration proposal could be the largest government bailout of private industry in the nation’s history, and it calls for nearly unfettered powers to the Treasury secretary. There is intense pressure to pass a rescue measure quickly because the markets remain jittery.

Still, competing interests were already complicating the negotiations, as Democrats pushed for assistance for distressed homeowners and for oversight authority of the bailout program. Some lawmakers also said they did not want to be rushed into approving extraordinary new powers for the Treasury secretary and the government without full consideration of the consequences.

Both presidential nominees, who face the prospect of inheriting an enormous new program, said there had to be more oversight of the Treasury Department than the Bush administration had proposed.

Financial companies were already lobbying to broaden the plan. And the Bush administration did indeed widen the scope by allowing the government to buy out assets other than mortgage-related securities as well as making foreign companies eligible for government assistance.

Banks and traders also braced themselves for another tumultuous week in the markets. But early signs indicate that investors in Asia were reacting positively to the developments in Washington. Shares in Asia jumped in early trading on Monday morning, as investors took their cues from a rally on Wall Street on Friday. The Nikkei 225 index climbed 2 percent in early trading in Tokyo, and the Kospi index rose 3 percent in Seoul, South Korea.

The Standard & Poor’s/Australia Stock Exchange 200 index increased 3.6 percent after markets there opened a half-hour late. The opening was delayed to allow time for further details to be issued regarding a monthlong ban imposed by Australian regulators on all short selling of shares traded on the exchange.

Meanwhile, top Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill said on Sunday that they would act swiftly on the administration’s request, but not without setting their own conditions.

“Congress will respond to the financial markets crisis by taking action this week in a bipartisan manner that will protect the taxpayers’ interests,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. She added that the administration’s proposal did “not include the necessary safeguards. Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation.”

“We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street and hope for a better outcome,” she said.

Congressional Republicans, too, put the Bush administration on notice that they would not rubber-stamp the bailout proposal but would insist on a number of changes, including specific protections for taxpayers. Those would include a requirement that any profits from the program be returned to the Treasury.

Aides to senior House Republicans said that lawmakers would also demand greater oversight of the program and were proposing a joint select committee, consisting of members of both parties and both chambers of Congress.

Top administration officials and senior lawmakers said that the markets could be devastated if Congress and the administration failed to reach agreement on the plan.

On Sunday, Mr. Paulson defended the plan and the administration’s decision to expand it to protect foreign companies and authorize even wider latitude to buy assets other than those that were backed by mortgages.

Mr. Paulson, a former Wall Street deal maker, also suggested that the administration would have some flexibility in dealing with concerns raised by Congress.

Democrats said the plan would need to provide more specific relief for troubled homeowners. They said the program, which the administration proposed to be run by Treasury, would have to be more accountable to Congress. And they said that the plan must restrict the compensation of corporate executives from companies that make use of the program to sell the burdensome securities on their balance sheets to the United States.

“We need to offer some assurance to the American taxpayer that Congress is watching,” Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, told reporters on Sunday. “One of the things that got us into this mess was the lack of accountability and the lack of oversight that was occurring, and I don’t think we want to repeat those mistakes with a program of this magnitude.”

Mr. Paulson said he hoped that the government would recoup much of the cost of buying distressed mortgage-related assets. But he did not rule out that the initial cost of the bailout could rise beyond $700 billion, the limit set in the terse proposal sent by the Treasury to Congress on Saturday.

“That doesn’t mean we’ll go all the way there, or it doesn’t mean it will stop there and we won’t ask for more,” Mr. Paulson said on the CBS program “Face the Nation.” “What we need is something that is big enough to get the job done. We’ll ask for what we think is a right amount to give us plenty of flexibility.”

Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, put forward the Democrats’ proposed changes to the administration’s plan. They would give the Treasury secretary the authority to set “appropriate standards” for compensation of senior executives whose companies sell troubled assets to the government.

Under a so-called claw-back provision, the secretary would have the power to force companies to recoup previous payments to executives of companies involved in the program. And Mr. Frank’s plan would give broad authority for the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, to audit and oversee the program.

But Mr. Paulson said that he was concerned that imposing limits on the compensation of executives could discourage companies from participating in the program.

“If we design it so it’s punitive and so institutions aren’t going to participate, this won’t work the way we need it to work,” Mr. Paulson said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Let’s talk about executive salaries. There have been excesses there. I agree with the American people. Pay should be for performance, not for failure.”

But he quickly added: “But we need this system to work, and so we — the reforms need to come afterwards.”

Republicans, though troubled by some of the same issues as Democrats, seemed ready to give Mr. Paulson wide latitude.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said on ABC: “We don’t need 535 members of Congress adding their best idea. We need to keep it clean, simple, move it through the House and Senate, and get it on the president’s desk.”

Even as Ms. Pelosi and other Congressional leaders were pledging to act swiftly and said a deal was probable by the end of the week, some lawmakers said they would not be rushed into approving a plan.

“I realize there is considerable pressure for the Congress to adjourn by the end of next week,” Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, wrote in a letter to the Senate leaders of both parties. “But I think we must take the necessary time to conduct hearings, analyze the administration’s proposed legislation, and demonstrate to the American people that any response is thoughtful, thoroughly considered and appropriate.”

Mr. Dodd said he expected that Treasury would not be particularly interested in any of the Democratic proposals. But he said he had already warned Mr. Paulson to keep an open mind.

“I suggested strongly to him that he leave this door open, or he is going to find himself facing some significant problems,” Mr. Dodd said at a briefing with reporters on Sunday at the Capitol. Mr. Dodd, who met with several of his Democratic colleagues, said that reaching a deal could keep Congress in session past this week, when leaders had hoped to adjourn for the fall elections. “This is of such import that if it takes a little longer to get it right, so be it,” he said.

As they plotted an endgame, Democrats said they planned to consider the bailout proposal separately from an economic recovery program that would include new public works spending, aid to states and added unemployment and food-stamp benefits. Congress could consider that plan and a stop-gap funding plan for the federal government before taking up the Treasury proposal later in the week.

While House Democrats were the first to propose additional legislative language, Senate Democrats were working aggressively behind the scenes on several provisions that could set off debate among lawmakers and aggressive lobbying by an array of interest groups.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, has proposed a provision that would grant the government warrants to purchase stock in companies that participate in the bailout plan, so that taxpayers might be able to profit should the firms flourish after selling their bad debts to the government.

Several Democratic senators are interested in reviving a provision that was knocked out of legislation last summer to grant bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of mortgages for primary residences. That provision is opposed by the banking, lending and securities industries. But supporters say it would guarantee that lenders enter negotiations to modify loans to struggling homeowners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22paulson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
Obama: No Blank Check on Bailout</font size></center>



20080921obamacharlotte.533.jpg

Senator Barack Obama spoke Sunday in Charlotte, N.C. (Photo: Damon Winter/The
New York Times)


The New York Times
By Jeff Zeleny
September 21, 2008


CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Senator Barack Obama said the government plan to stabilize the nation’s financial markets came with “a staggering price tag,” but he told voters here on Sunday that any rescue plan needed to include new regulations of the financial system.

“First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money,” Mr. Obama told supporters at an outdoor rally in downtown Charlotte. “Second, taxpayers shouldn’t be spending a dime to reward C.E.O.s on Wall Street while they’re going out the door.”

In his first public remarks about the $700 billion proposal that the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve presented to Congressional leaders, Mr. Obama offered qualified support for the bailout. Until complete details emerge this week on Capitol Hill, aides said, Mr. Obama would not render a final judgment. But he said any plan had to include protections for taxpayers and assistance for homeowners at risk of losing their property.

“This initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering,” Mr. Obama said. “In return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects the basic principles of transparency, fairness, and reform.”


Here in Charlotte, with the towering offices of Bank of America and Wachovia in the background, Mr. Obama devoted a significant portion of an afternoon address to the financial crisis as he derided lax government oversight of the mortgage and financial system. He said the Bush administration has “run this economy into the ground.”

But Mr. Obama added that the country shouldn’t shoulder the burden alone, declaring: “This is a global crisis and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.”

In a weekend interview aboard his campaign plane, Mr. Obama offered guarded praise of how Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. is managing the crisis. The Democratic presidential nominee stopped short of pledging to keep Mr. Paulson in place in an Obama administration, but said the gravity of the turmoil in the nation’s financial markets was so serious that continuity would be important to avert further crisis.

“Getting a new person to start juggling those balls is going to be tricky,” Mr. Obama said as he arrived here in North Carolina. “Regardless of who wins the election, the issue of transition to the next administration is going to be very important. And it’s going to have to be executed with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation.”

While he is critical of how the crisis began, Mr. Obama offered kind words for the instincts and judgment exercised by Mr. Paulson in recent weeks. The two have spoken on the phone nearly every day for the past week about the problem.

“He has been put in a situation where there are no great options,” Mr. Obama said. “I think he’s a serious person. I think he is not an ideologue. I think he’s very practical-minded and he wants to solve the problem.”

To a large crowd of supporters on Sunday, Mr. Obama delivered a blistering critique of Senator John McCain, whom he accused of leading the push for deregulation during his years in Washington.

“We’re now seeing the disastrous consequences of this philosophy all around us,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “He calls himself fundamentally a deregulator, when reckless deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the problem.”

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, said the Democratic candidate had failed to outline specific proposals to address the calamity on Wall Street that has caused ripples throughout the financial markets around the world.

“Barack Obama called for decisive action, while offering absolutely no new ideas, policies or concrete solutions,” Mr. Bounds said in a statement. He added, “John McCain rejected complacency and political calculation in favor of a direct call for updated, effective regulations that will protect Americans’ homes, savings and jobs.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/obama-no-blank-check-on-bailout/
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Republicans express more skepticism
on bailout plan </font size></center>



The Hill
By Jackie Kucinich
and J. Taylor Rushing
September 23, 2008


House Republicans expressed skepticism about the administration’s plan for bailing out Wall Street during a closed-door meeting with Vice President Cheney and other administration officials Tuesday.


Lawmakers leaving the hour-and-a-half-long meeting said Cheney was told that the plan lacked the details they needed to grant swift approval for the Treasury to be given $700 billion to purchase failing mortgage-related securities from banks and other financial institutions.

“Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). Barton said he did not appreciate being told he had to vote for legislation with only one week to review complicated terms with which he was not familiar.


In the Senate, some Republicans said they also had doubts about the plan.


Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he has not yet made a decision but is hearing “all negative” feedback from voters in Utah about Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan.


“Secretary Paulson is a very bright guy with a lot of experience in the financial world, and I always want to listen to whatever he's suggesting. But I'm concerned about it,” Hatch said. He added that his Utah constituents are telling him “not to support that $700 billion bailout. They look at it as a bailout.”


The administration is pressing hard to sell the plan, which it has asked Congress to approve by the end of the week. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Tuesday morning and will visit the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday.


Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and U.S. National Economic Council director Keith Hennessey were invited to the House GOP conference to address members and answer their questions, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters.


Many lawmakers are struggling to understand the complexities of what they are being asked to approve this week.


“I had never heard of credit default securities until last week,” said Barton.


Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the chief deputy whip for the House GOP, said he too was still reviewing the Paulson proposal. “I still have a lot of questions how this works,” he said.


National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) said he has resorted to reaching out to economists for feedback and input.


“Because of the complexity of this, the vast majority of people don't understand it,” he said. “I can't even tell you how many hours I've spent talking, reading, researching and everything just to be able to make an informed decision.


“This is very, very complex but also very dangerous if we do the wrong thing. It's also very dangerous if we don't act,” he said.


Boehner told reporters the package must go through quickly given the gravity facing the economy. Stocks dropped nearly 400 points on Monday amid uncertainty over when Congress would act. On Tuesday, the Dow Jones average was up 38 points at midday.


“If you have three or four weeks, you might have options on the table. If you had three or four months you might have more options on the table,” Boehner said.


He added, “I want this bill as clean as possible.”


Democrats are pressing for the bill to include provisions to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure, as well as restrictions on the compensation that executives of the companies taking part in the bailout may receive.


Some Republicans have also voiced support for such provisions, and Hatch on Tuesday said the Treasury Department should receive an equity stake in return for shoring up endangered companies. Paulson has resisted such steps.


Such a move, Hatch said, “could really protect the taxpayer.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...re-skepticism-on-bailout-plan-2008-09-23.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
Original Treasury bailout plan is dead,
but revised plan emerging</font size></center>


McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman
and Margaret Talev
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Treasury's plan to spend up to $700 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out the nation's financial system was recognized as dead Wednesday as lawmakers in Congress made clear that they're going to make significant changes.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who has spent two days urging members to pass legislation quickly and cleanly, conceded Wednesday that any bill will have to have limits on executive pay at troubled firms and hinted he would accept other changes.

"The American people are angry about executive compensation and rightfully so," Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee.

His willingness to publicly agree to the pay provision was another strong sign that Congress and the administration were working toward the same goal — enactment of a major financial bailout package, and soon.

"It means we are closer," said Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. He predicted that House and Senate Democrats would have an agreement by Thursday to present to Republicans.

President Bush was to urge passage of a consensus plan in a nationally televised address Wednesday night.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said he would suspend his campaign Thursday and head to Washington to help pass a bailout plan. He urged Democratic nominee Barack Obama to delay their first debate, scheduled for Friday night. Obama rejected the idea, saying voters need to hear from the presidential candidates now.

Members of Congress talked privately with administration officials throughout the day about changes to the plan. Several provisions sought by lawmakers from both parties were expected to be added, notably strong oversight of any bailout, more aid to homeowners facing foreclosure and possibly trimming back the cost of the package, at least initially.

"Over the last 24 hours, I've seen signs of greater cooperation from my colleagues in Congress," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who's on the Senate Finance Committee. "Despite many of their well-founded reservations, (they) recognize the magnitude of the problems we face and the importance of getting something done."

One measure of Congress's disgust with the original Treasury plan came Wednesday when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson met privately with House Republicans. Afterward, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said that only four members raised their hands at the end when there was a request for a show of hands for support of the original White House bailout proposal.

Instead, members worked to iron out a consensus plan.

Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, said that Frank was including him in the discussions and that there was progress toward a bill. "There's a realization that we have to do something and that we can't leave town until we do," Bachus said.

A number of other ideas were surfacing, most aimed at reassuring taxpayers who've been flooding congressional offices with e-mails and phone calls, largely in opposition to the Treasury plan or simply puzzled as to whether or not they'd wind up bailing out renegade companies and executives.

"People are saying what does that have to do with me? The connection has not been made," said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. She brought together black and Hispanic business and community leaders in Washington to help push for more consumer aid.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio had similar thoughts, saying that Americans are "furious" and are "trying to understand will this plan in fact work."

"Right now what we have before us is a 'trust me' proposal," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, which she said wouldn't work because Americans' trust in the administration is broken.

"I want you to make the case to me so that I can make the case to my constituents," she told Paulson and Bernanke.

Despite his concession on executive pay, Paulson offered few other compromises to the House committee.

At one point, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., asked if he favored allowing courts to review a government action. The original Treasury plan would have barred courts from reviewing management of the bailout. A proposal authored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., would allow a bailout decision to be overturned if it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the law."

Paulson would say only that details need to be negotiated. "We need to get the right balance," he said, without elaborating.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked Bernanke how he and Paulson came up with the $700 billion figure.

"It's not science to figure out how much is going to be needed to stabilize the firms and the markets," Bernanke said. "But there are various metrics one can use."

Among them, he said, is that "there's about $14 trillion outstanding of residential and commercial mortgages. So $700 billion is about 5 percent of that amount, which is similar to some of the loss rates we've seen in some of these categories."

He also said that assets of U.S. commercial banks are "in a similar $10 (trillion) to $12 trillion category," so the $700 billion "seems an appropriate size relative to the scale of the problem."

Many lawmakers were not convinced.

"Would there not be merit in considering an initial set of purchases of certain classes of troubled assets in the amount of, say, $100 billion?" asked Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. "Then we could evaluate results, and move on with $100 billion worth of purchases of other classes of troubled assets."

Schumer pressed Bernanke hard on this point, asking him as an economist why $700 billion was necessary.

"You asked me my opinion as an economist," Bernanke said with a smile. "Unfortunately, this is a matter for psychology." A $700 billion federal commitment would reassure global financial markets that Washington was committed to the rescue in a way that $100 billion increments would not, he said.

But $700 billion, Schumer replied, "is an awful lot for psychological reassurance."

Members also were considering relief for homeowners with troubled mortgages, perhaps a multibillion-dollar fund that would allow them to refinance fixed loans that would be guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.

Meanwhile, Bernanke offered an unusually dismal picture of the economy in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee.

"Given the extraordinary circumstances, greater than normal uncertainty surrounds any forecast of the pace of the activity," the Fed chairman said, referring to future economic growth. "Financial stress could prove a significant drag on growth. The downside risks to the outlook thus remain a significant concern."

He predicted that the nation's gross domestic product "is likely to expand at a pace appreciably below its potential rate in the second half of this year, and then gradually pick up as financial markets return to more normal functioning and the housing contraction runs its course."

The economy's problems stem largely from the financial crisis, he said, "through several channels, most notably by restricting the availability of credit." He added that households "also appear to be having more difficulty of late in obtaining non-mortgage credit."

Agreement on details of a revised bailout proceeded slowly, and officials were starting to doubt that a package could be approved by the end of the week.

One scenario being pushed was for congressional leaders and the administration to announce an agreement in principle by Friday, and then enact it late next week, after a long weekend to give staff time to craft legislative language and let lawmakers go home to campaign. The November election is less than six weeks away.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53018.html
 

Cock Head Jones

Rising Star
Registered
How Wall Street has become so influential on Capitol Hill (video + graph)

Wonder just how Wall Street has become so influential on Capitol Hill that it can command the attention of the federal government from the President on down? The answer isn’t only in how gyrations in the stock market may affect the real economy. The answer is revealed by the fact that the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) industries that collectively are at the center of the current crisis are the single largest sector–by far–of all the major economic and interest groupings that give campaign contributions to federal politicians.

Our friends at the Center for Responsive Politics have been keeping track since 1990, and their data tells a compelling story. What you see is a new way of actually picturing the role of FIRE in relation to all these other sectors, and also in terms of how money from FIRE has tilted to one political party and then the other. You can click on the chart, which was built using Google’s Motion Chart tool, layered on top of a simple spreadsheet, and mouse over the colored circle to drill down on the data. First, we recommend you watch this explanatory screencast by our very own Larry Makinson.
- Ellen Miller http://media.sunlightfoundation.com/viz/sector_contributions.html

First checkout the video:



Then, take a look at the graph:
http://media.sunlightfoundation.com/viz/sector_contributions.html

Props to the folks at the Sunlight Foundation for the innovative way in which they presented the data.
 

ganjababy

Rising Star
Platinum Member
History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts

History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts

September 22, 2008 1:35 pm EDT

With the flurry of recent government bailouts--and a much larger one likely on the way--we decided to try to put them in perspective. The circles below represent the size of U.S. government bailout, calculated in 2008 dollars. They are also in chronological order.



Industry/Corporation Year What Happened Cost in 2008 U.S. Dollars
● Penn Central Railroad 1970 In May 1970, Penn Central Railroad, then on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid on the grounds that it provided crucial national defense transportation services. The Nixon Administration and the Federal Reserve supported providing financial assistance to Penn Central, but Congress refused to adopt the measure. Penn Central declared bankruptcy on June 21, 1970, which freed the corporation from its commercial paper obligations. To counteract the devastating ripple effects to the money market, the Federal Reserve Board told commercial banks it would provide the reserves needed to allow them to meet the credit needs of their customers. $3.2 billion
● Lockheed 1971 In August 1971, Congress passed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient. Its failure would have meant significant job loss in California, a loss to the GNP and would have impacted national defense. $1.4 billion
● Franklin National Bank 1974 In the first five months of 1974 the bank lost $63.6 million. The Federal Reserve stepped in with a loan of $1.75 billion. $7.7 billion
● New York City 1975 During the 1970s, New York City became over-extended and entered a period of financial crisis. In 1975 President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the city. $9.4 billion
● Chrysler 1980 In 1979 Chrysler suffered a loss of $1.1 billion. That year the corporation requested aid from the government. In 1980 the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act was passed, which provided $1.5 billion in loans to rescue Chrysler from insolvency. In addition, the government's aid was to be matched by U.S. and foreign banks. $3.9 billion
● Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company 1984 Then the nation's eighth largest bank, Continental Illinois had suffered significant losses after purchasing $1 billion in energy loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma. The FDIC and Federal Reserve devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank's top executives. $9.5 billion
● Savings & Loan 1989 After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989. $293.8 billion
● Airline Industry 2001 The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bailout the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released $5 billion in compensation and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments. $18.6 billion
● Bear Stearns 2008 JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward. $30 billion
● Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 The near collapse of two of the nation's largest housing finance entities was yet another symptom of the subprime mortgage and housing market crisis. In an effort to prevent further turmoil within the financial market, the U.S. government seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed up to $100 billion for each company to ensure they would not fall into bankruptcy. $200 billion
● American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 When AIG was unable to secure a private-sector loan, the federal government intervened by seizing control of the insurance giant. $85 billion
● Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 The Bush administration has proposed a rescue plan to ease the current crisis on Wall Street. If approved by Congress, the Treasury Department will be authorized to purchase up to $700 billion of distressed mortgage-backed securities and other assets and then resell the mortgages to investors. $700 billion
:smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh:
Note how $1.3 trillion of those bailouts happened while a Bush was on the Oval Office.

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched." -- George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Analysis:


<font size="5"><center> House GOP holds the cards on bailout bill</font size><font size="4">

House Republicans are forging a new identity
by strongly opposing the White House on the
$700 billion financial bailout bill, a bold maneuver
that distances them from a president that they
were in lockstep for most of his two terms</font size></center>

The Hill
By Bob Cusack
September 26, 2008


House Republicans are forging a new identity by strongly opposing the White House on the $700 billion financial bailout bill, a bold maneuver that distances them from a president that they were in lockstep for most of his two terms.

House rules do not traditionally give the minority party in the House much power. In this case, however, leaders, fearing a backlash if the financial rescue plan doesn’t work, are adamant that the bailout must be supported by a significant amount of House Republicans.

Yet, House Republicans say Democrats need to convince some of their own members because they are wary of voting for a bill that is not popular with the public.


Few House GOP members back Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan or the new compromise bill that was crafted by congressional Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House. House Republicans have pointed out that a majority of constituents have called their Capitol Hill offices this week to express their strong opposition to the bill.

Democrats say Bush and GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) must persuade House Republicans to get behind the measure, but members of the lower chamber are not budging.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed some of his Republican colleagues to come up with an alternative to Paulson’s plan. On Thursday, senior GOP lawmakers unveiled their proposal, which Democrats ridiculed. They said that even the Bush administration, specifically Paulson, does not support their proposal.

House Republicans are undeterred. Sensing the public’s skepticism about a bailout for Wall Street, House Republicans say they want Wall Street – not taxpayers – to help pay for the bill’s hefty price tag.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Thursday night that House Republicans are the stumbling block and blamed them for playing politics with a bill he says must pass soon.

The House GOP strategy is not without risks. If the stock market dips significantly on Friday, Democrats will blame the House GOP for being obstructionists. McCain, who was involved in many key meetings on the rescue plan, has not publicly detailed whether he backs the Bush plan or House Republicans.

The relationship between McCain and the House GOP is somewhat fragile, with some still bitter about his successful 2002 effort to pass campaign finance reform. However, many House Republicans say they are pleased that McCain shifted his policy on offshore drilling and rave about his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

McCain has kept his cards close to the vest, but he will soon have to answer questions about which bailout plan he endorses. Those questions could come as early as Friday’s scheduled debate with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), though it is unclear if McCain will show up. McCain has said the debate should not occur until there is a deal on the rescue plan. Obama disagrees, saying he will appear at the debate, even if McCain doesn’t.

House Republicans, who have generally backed of Bush’s domestic and foreign policy initiatives from 2001-2006, have spent parts of the 110th Congress bucking their president, whose approval ratings have consistently been in the 30s throughout this Congress.

Earlier this year, a majority of House Republicans disregarded Bush’s veto threat of a Medicare bill. Most of them also voted to overturn Bush’s veto of the popular farm bill.

But the defections on the bailout bill could be much larger. Political analysts have said the base of the Republican Party has been disillusioned with its government spending habits and view the bailout as a defining moment.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill have likened the proposed rescue plan to socialism. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who has helped pass major Bush-backed bills through Congress, has strongly criticized the administration’s remedy to the nation’s financial woes. Gingrich has warned that members who vote in favor of Paulson’s plan will be politically damaged in the November elections.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...lds-the-cards-on-bailout-bill-2008-09-26.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><Center>Lawmakers Reach Accord
on Huge Financial Rescue</font size>
<font size="4">
Vote on $700B Bailout Plan May Come Monday Morning</font size></center>


Washington Post
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2008

Congressional leaders and the Bush administration this morning said they had struck an accord to insert the government deeply into the nation's financial markets, agreeing to spend up to $700 billion to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets backed by faltering home mortgages.

House and Senate negotiators from both parties emerged with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. at 12:30 a.m. from a marathon session in the Capitol to announce that they had reached a tentative agreement on a proposal to give Paulson broad authority to organize one of the biggest government interventions in the private sector since the Great Depression.

Congressional aides worked through the night to assemble the package, and hoped to post it to the Internet by today. Meanwhile, as preparations were being made for a vote in the House tomorrow morning, the congressional caucuses were preparing their own private huddles to review the proposal. The most critical meeting, among House Republicans, was expected later this afternoon. They have been the most reluctant to support the plan to purchase the securities. House Democrats were likely to meet in mid-afternoon.

"We've made great progress, but we have to commit it to paper before we can formally agree," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has pledged to make the plan available to the public for at least 24 hours before the House votes on it. A vote could come as early as tomorrow in the House, with the Senate expected to follow soon after.

"We've been working on this a long time. We've still got more to do to finalize it, but I think we're there," Paulson said. "So far, so good."

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who represented House Republicans, the group that had raised the most serious objections to the plan, said he was pleased with the progress made but that he had to take the proposal back to his caucus before committing his support for it. "I look forward to what we're going to see on paper and presenting these ideas to my colleagues and getting their reaction," Blunt said.

House Republicans appeared headed for a potentially spirited fight.

The office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, without officially endorsing the legislation, put out a series of talking points in the early afternoon outlining the favorable portions of the bill for conservatives.

However, one leading conservative, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), issued what amounted to a call to arms to fight the bailout.

"The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy. ... Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principals. If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions," Pence wrote to House Republicans today.

A senior administration official, who requested anonymity to speak freely about the plan, said both sides had made significant concessions to achieve compromise. The Bush administration has agreed to accept a number of Democratic demands, including:

  • The money would be disbursed in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion immediately, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.

  • Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability. Taxpayers also would be first in line to receive repayment if a participating firm fails.

  • Firms that receive an infusion of government cash of $300 million or more will be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on "golden parachutes" at failing firms. For most firms, compensation limits will be enacted primarily through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay their top five executives more than $500,000 a year.

The administration also agreed to Democratic demands that the financial services industry should help pay for the program. Under the agreement, the president would be required to propose a fee on the industry if the government has not recovered its money through sales of the assets within five years.

Democrats also made a number of concessions, abandoning demands that bankruptcy judges be empowered to modify home mortgages on primary residences for people in foreclosure. They also agreed not to dedicate a portion of any profits from the bailout program to an affordable housing fund that Republicans claimed would primarily assist social service organizations that support the Democratic Party, the official said.


Meanwhile, House Republicans won a major victory, convincing negotiators to include a provision that would require the Treasury Department to create a a federal insurance program, funded by the banks, that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset.

According to summaries of the deal released this morning by leaders in both parties, the agreement also calls for strict oversight of the bailout program, including an independent Inspector General and an oversight board appointed by both parties in Congress. The agreement also permits Treasury to purchase bad assets from pension plans, local governments and small banks, as well as major financial firms. And it would permit community banks that hold now worthless stock in mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by the government, to count those losses immedately against ordinary income.

The House was gaveled into session at 1 p.m. today, starting with the usual one-minute speeches before actual legislative business began later in the afternoon. One by one, the most liberal and conservative members took to the well of the House to denounce the bill.

"Hold hearings, let's right this bill well," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee opposed to the legislation.

"I have been thrown out of more meetings than I thought possible," said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.), who opposes the bill and was ejected around 8 p.m. last night from a meeting with Paulson he tried to enter in the offices of Boehner (R-Ohio).

Leadership in both parties remained confident, however, that a consensus would form that the legislation would pass, likely with a large majority of Democrats and a sizeable portion of Republicans. Both Republicans and Democrats in the House were scheduled to huddle in closed-door meetings this afternoon to review the proposals. Passage in the Senate is considered much easier.

The plan to rescue the U.S. financial markets was first advanced by the Bush administration in a late-night meeting with lawmakers just 10 days ago. Under the proposal, Paulson would be authorized to purchase mortgage-backed assets from struggling firms in hopes of easing a credit crunch that has pushed global markets to the brink of collapse.

With home prices plummeting, many of those assets are now almost worthless, and investors have lost confidence in many of the firms that hold them. That has undermined some of the biggest names on Wall Street and caused banks to stop lending money, sparking a credit crisis that threatens to deliver a devastating blow to businesses, consumers and the broader economy.


Administration officials have stressed that the ultimate cost of the bailout would be much less than $700 billion because the government would eventually sell the assets it purchased and recover most, if not all, of its investment.

Yesterday's talks, conducted mainly in Pelosi's suite of offices on the second floor of the Capitol, were focused heavily on how to cover the cost of the program so taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.

"We believe that the taxpayer should not be left holding the bag at the end of the day, and we've proposed a way to address that," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.

Democrats said there were no outstanding issues remaining, but that negotiators need to see the words on paper before they can sign off on the plan. "It's really a question of seeing what we believe we've agreed to," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Even strong opponents of the plan said they expected it to pass.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, who has refused to participate in the talks, said a "critical mass" was forming behind the measure because of fears that Congress's failure to act would cripple financial markets and devastate the economy.

Yesterday's negotiations, which began shortly after 3 p.m., were at times tense and confusing, according to participants. At one point, according to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one senator sought advice from investor Warren E. Buffett, one of the world's richest men and a director of The Washington Post Co.

From 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Conrad and other lawmakers met with Paulson around a massive table in Pelosi's conference room under an ornate portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Among lawmakers, Democrats outnumbered Republicans nine to two, an imbalance that so irritated Paulson that he called and complained to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), according to three GOP sources familiar with the call.

Reid told Paulson he would not pull any of his colleagues out of the meeting. A Reid spokesman, Jim Manley, said: "If the secretary doesn't like it, that's just too bad, because he is going to need the help of each and every one of them to sell the president's plan to the Democratic caucus and the American people."

After a break for dinner, the sides scattered into at least three separate groupings -- Paulson huddled in House Minority Leader John A. Boehner's office with other GOP leaders, Democrats in Pelosi's conference room and Pelosi in a separate suite talking with other Democrats.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Pelosi's chief of staff spent a couple of hours in shuttle diplomacy, frantically walking from room to room carrying sheets of paper. Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the negotiators were "shopping language" of the bill's draft versions. He and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, also spent time in Boehner's office with Paulson.

By 11 p.m., the three groups had once again converged in Pelosi's office to strike a final deal.


Yesterday's focus on limiting taxpayer exposure may help rally support in Congress, where lawmakers have been reluctant to back the hugely expensive and unpopular bailout measure less than six weeks from the November elections. But it could unnerve Wall Street, where investors are seeking the largest possible program with the fewest strings attached. They also hope lawmakers approve it before tomorrow's opening bell.

In his public testimony and private remarks, Paulson has repeatedly emphasized the need to spend $700 billion to soothe nervous markets. At that price, the government's upfront investment in the rescue package would be more expensive than the current cost of the Iraq war, which stands at about $650 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But the White House and politicians on Capitol Hill have said the government could earn back much of its money, or even turn a profit.

"Many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages," President Bush said yesterday in his weekly radio address. "In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure."

Bush attempted to address criticisms from the right and left that the plan would bail out irresponsible financiers while doing nothing for regular Americans. Echoing frequent comments by him and his aides, Bush said allowing Wall Street to collapse further would pose greater dangers to the economy, perhaps triggering a "deep and painful recession."

"The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street," Bush said. "And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets."

Democratic leaders have emphasized to rank-and-file members that Paulson has told them that he could only spend about $50 billion a month on the securities purchase program. Of the $700 billion figure, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said: "Nobody believes that's going to be the final cost."

Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy....html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008092800943&s_pos=
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I hope it gets voted down, I know, it doesn't have a chance at failing, but still...:angry:

I hear ya GYH; but, they say if its not passed that dire things will happen to our economy. "Assuming" (because I don't know that it will; but also I don't know of anyting to the contrary) thats true, why would one want it voted down ???

QueEx
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
I hear ya GYH; but, they say if its not passed that dire things will happen to our economy. "Assuming" (because I don't know that it will; but also I don't know of anyting to the contrary) thats true, why would one want it voted down ???

QueEx
they also say they have no idea of whether or not it will work
 

histick

Potential Star
Registered
The bailout is listed at $700B but it is really at $1 trillion currently. There will be more money approved just like more money was approved for the war in Iraq. Six months from now, I would not be surprised to see the total amount of bailout money approved by various bills add up to $2 trillion.

:confused: Things are going to be very interesting next year.
 

histick

Potential Star
Registered
they also say they have no idea of whether or not it will work

Well the government has successfully bailed out companies in the past and profited from it. Lockheed is an example. This bailout could be profitable but fact is Americans will not benefit so who gives a shit.

Thing is, to me, it seems like the bailout is merely going to prop our economy and those closely tied to ours like Japans for instance. It will simply stall the economy from its current course and possibly make it worse. I do not think it will work as intended.

It makes more sense to assist the homeowners and those with high debt. Makes sense if that is achieved by creating jobs. Banks can get theirs by subsidizing the interest on renegotiated loans. Just an idea.
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
I hear ya GYH; but, they say if its not passed that dire things will happen to our economy. "Assuming" (because I don't know that it will; but also I don't know of anyting to the contrary) thats true, why would one want it voted down ???

QueEx

Things should never have come to this. I believe that the bailout will be temporary, thus many of the corporations will eventually go under and no one will be there to help out. The market rebound will be shortlived, the crash hard. I predict alot of resignations and plant closures, more foreclosures, they will not do not intend to help out the homeowners or smaller companies, it's simply a "bailout". Many of these clowns would have been prosecuted for white collar crimes some years ago will go scott free, with retirement pay to boot...
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Bailout plan faces a tough vote
in Congress on Monday</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall
Sunday, September 28, 2008

WASHINGTON — After a tumultuous week of round-the-clock negotiations, Congress prepared for a difficult vote Monday on a sweeping $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan to stave off a possible global financial meltdown.

The plan had GOP support in the Senate, but substantially less Republican support in the House of Representatives.

Racing a self-imposed 6 pm EDT deadline Sunday night ahead of the opening of Asian financial markets, bleary-eyed Democrats in control of Congress released the text of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Democratic and Republican leaders worked through the night this weekend to modify a plan put forth by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to remove distressed mortgages and similar toxic assets off the books of banks and other financial firms. Paulson had warned that credit markets are on the verge of seizing up, with grave consequences for consumer lending of all sorts.

"I am confident this legislation gives us the flexibility to unclog our financial markets increase the ability of our financial institutions to deliver the credit that will help create jobs," Paulson said in a statement that praised lawmakers for their tough decision. "We are taking the steps needed to be ready to begin implementing this legislation as soon as it is signed."

President Bush said in a statement Sunday night, "this plan sends a strong signal to markets around the world that the United States is serious about restoring confidence and stability to our financial system."

In detailing legislation that grew to more than 100 pages from its original three, lawmakers Sunday afternoon chose their words carefully to let angry American voters know they'd been heard.

"It's very clear that Americans have some reason to be concerned, even angry about where we find ourselves. We know there has been greed on Wall Street," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

But the cost of doing nothing was greater than what is being proposed, he said.

"Inaction would paralyze our economy, even now it is difficult for people to get a car loan," Reid said, adding that "the market is frozen in terms of buying homes in many parts of our country."

House Speak Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sought to assure Americans that their tax dollars weren't rescuing the well heeled on Wall Street.

"People have to know this is not a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a Sunday afternoon news conference that touted taxpayer protections and an effort to limit the compensation of some Wall Street executives who might partake in the rescue effort..

One of the lead GOP negotiators, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, said he was confident the measure would attract enough members of his party in both chambers of Congress to win passage later in the week.

"I think everybody got what they needed to have," he said.

Members of both parties supported measures to prevent so-called golden parachutes when a Wall Street executive departs. If a company has had government intervention, the five highest-ranking officials in that company will be denied bonus and incentive pay. And if a company sells as a whole $300 million or more in bad assets, there will be similar restrictions.

Additionally, companies taken over by the government or receiving significant support will have to give Treasury preferred stock that could be sold later when the company recovers, to the benefit of U.S. taxpayers.

As lawmakers neared the tentative deal, staff members had their cell phones confiscated to prevent leaks in what had become a heavily politicized negotiation. Lawmakers quickly published a copy of the deal online Sunday as night fell, giving an angry American public a look at the compromise ahead of a congressional vote. But computer servers crashed under the weight of so many requests to access the site.

A tentative deal had been announced Thursday, but then House Republicans balked. The new compromise gives Democrats more restrictions on the pay of Wall Street execs and a taxpayer stake if the program actually makes money. Republicans tacked on a parallel insurance plan that can work as an alternative to taxpayer funding and killed provisions that would have let federal judges modify distressed mortgages.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have warned repeatedly that absent an urgent response, credit markets could collapse this week, punishing Wall Street and Main Street alike.

"The deal should go a long way to stabilizing financial markets and putting the financial system on what will be a long road to recovery," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of economic forecaster Moody's Economy.com.

The rescue effort won't fix all that is wrong with the slumping U.S. economy, but it seeks to keep things from getting worse fast.

"It's mostly is a stop-gap to get through the election and let the next president deal with it. You've got to get the housing market stabilized and manage to get the economy growing," said David Wyss, chief economist for rating agency Standard & Poor's in New York. "This makes it more likely that it will be a mild recession, not a deep recession."

In a statement, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the legislation would provide "meaningful assistance" to financial markets.

Both Democrats and Republicans won language that they will trumpet on the campaign trail in weeks ahead, and the White House can breathe easier that a financial collapse may be averted, for now at least.

Specifically, the proposed legislation would provide:

  • $700 billion to help Treasury buy bad assets from banks and other financial firms, with $250 billion available immediately, another $100 billion upon report to Congress and the final $350 billion available only upon action by Congress.

  • Money to be used to buy mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets, taking them from investment banks, commercial banks, smaller community banks, pension plans and even local governments.


  • Government the power as the owner of the troubled mortgage bonds to facilitate modifications for the mortgages themselves.


  • A bipartisan oversight commission to monitor the program. If after five years there is a net loss to taxpayers, president will have to submit legislative proposals to recoup funds from beneficiaries.

  • New restrictions on CEO pay and executive compensation for some participating companies, a point demanded by Democrats.

  • A parallel insurance program that companies can voluntarily choose instead of giving up their bad assets, a point demanded by House Republicans.


  • Creation of warrants, which allows any windfall coming to participating companies to be shared with the government, thus the taxpayers.

  • Actions by Treasury will be posted online in real time.

  • Judicial review of Treasury's actions.

The presidential campaigns welcomed the legislation and took credit for it - even though Senate staffers say neither candidate was instrumental in getting a deal done.

In a statement, Democrat Barack Obama said it met the four core principles he laid out - independent oversight, treatment of taxpayers as investors, measures to keep homeowners in their homes, and rules to prevent rewarding Wall Street CEOs from cashing in on the rescue.

"While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles," said Obama. He later echoed that in an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation.

Republican John McCain, speaking on ABC's "This Week," said, "This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with." His running mate Sarah Palin credited McCain for the leadership that made a deal possible.

"I'm glad that John McCain's voice was heard," she said.

While House Republicans do not have enough votes to scuttle the package --Democrats have a majority of House seats -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wants about 100 GOP members to vote for it. Not only would that give the plan a bipartisan sheen, it would also give the Democrats political protection.

Should the financial market meltdown worsen despite passage of the rescue plan, Pelosi does not want Republicans pointing fingers and saying the Democratic plan sought by the White House was responsible.

Rep. Frank acknowledged the House vote may be close, since lawmakers will get little reward for doing the right thing.

"In politics, if you keep something from getting worse, you don't get a lot of credit for it," he said in a C-Span cable interview.

(David Lightman and Lisa Zagaroli in Washington contributed)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/53197.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

woodchuck

A crowd pleasing man.
OG Investor
I just heard on MSNBC that some banks are opting NOT to participate, because of the CEO salary ceiling.:smh: This will be about the 4th bailout in 3 decades. This ain't gonna change a damn thing. 10 or so years from now, there'll be another bailout.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4">Bailout Bill Fails to Pass House</font size>

The 700 billion bill failed to pass the House of Representatives.

The House vote went, as follows:

Republicans
Yes: 95
No: 133


Democrats
Yes:140
No: 95​

TOTAL VOTE:
Required to Pass: 218

Yes: 205

No: 228​

Billed Failed by 13 votes.


`
 

cranrab

Star
BGOL Investor
$700B bailout voted down - for now. were you aye or nay?

1st off, with all due respect, fuck a henry paulson.

2nd, i would have voted NO too, main reason being i don't like how they tried to sneak in that shit about credit card lenders being able to grab a piece of this bailout pie.

3rd, it was interesting (to me, at least) that most of the NO votes were from republicans. but then maybe it shouldn't be, considering that their constituents were probably the loudest objectors.
 

keysersoze

Star
Registered
The consequences of the bailout (or lack of) are now spreading to Europe.

Europe bank failures trigger equities collapse

By David Oakley
Published: September 29 2008 18:48 | Last updated: September 29 2008 18:48

Doubts over the US bail-out package and a spate of bank failures in Europe on Monday sparked one of the biggest stock market collapses since the start of the credit crisis.

The FTSE 100 and the FTSE Eurofirst 300 recorded their biggest one-day falls since January 21, while the Irish stock exchange saw its biggest one-day plunge in a quarter of a century.

In spite of a huge injection of liquidity by central banks across the globe, liquidity in the money markets deteriorated and key measures of risk rose. Investors worried that the watered down US bail-out plan, designed to mop up toxic assets, would fail to stem the crisis or avert a global recession.

In the money markets, overnight index swap rates, one of the best measures of credit risk, rose to all-time highs in a sign of fresh strains among banks.

The dollar OIS, which measures the extra interest banks have to pay for three month money above average overnight rates, rose 20 basis points to 220bp. It has risen 140bp since September 1.

Don Smith, economist at Icap, said: “This is measuring the increasing risk aversion, which just keeps going up and up every day. This ratchets up the levels of difficulty for banks.”

He added: “I was hoping last Friday would be the peak of the problems, but this is the worst day so far for the money markets in terms of activity since Lehman collapsed. They say it is darkest before the dawn. Let’s hope things can improve.”

Another key indicator in the money markets, three-month dollar Libor, or London interbank offered rates, rose to 3.8825 per cent, an increase of 12bp.

The TED spread, which compares three-month Treasury yields and three month dollar Libor, rose to all-time highs above 350bp as investors switched into the safety of government paper. The higher the spread, the higher the aversion to risk.

In equities, the FTSE 100 and the FTSE Eurofirst 300 fell 5 per cent, while the Irish Overall Index collapsed 12.7 per cent, its biggest one-day fall since 1983, as investors fretted about the state of Ireland’s property market and their dependence on interbank funding. Brazil’s Bovespa Index dropped 7 per cent, hit by a fall in the oil price. The S&P 500 fell 4 per cent by mid-session.

The rescue of four European banks, including Bradford & Bingley and Fortis, and a takeover of Wachovia’s banking operations by Citigroup also alarmed market participants as concerns grew that troubles in the financial sector might worsen the global economic outlook and constrain lending further.

Thiery Lacraz, strategist at Pictet & Cie, said: “Fear is driving the markets today. It is probably the first time you are seeing the banking crisis directly hit Europe with Fortis and Bradford & Bingley in trouble, while the US rescue package does not look as good for investors as we thought at first.”


Oil fell below $100 a barrel on concerns over the global outlook. West Texas crude dipped to a low of $98.15, a fall of $8.74 on the day.

Credit default swaps saw Iceland come under pressure as Glitnir, one of its leading banks, was nationalised. The country’s CDS, a kind of insurance against bonds defaulting, rose 23bp, or €2,300 for every €10m of debt, to 390bp. The spread is 130bp higher than at the start of the month.

The cost to insure Glitnir against default now stands at a record level of 1,450bp, nearly double its level of 850bp on September 1.

The CDS of Fortis, which was rescued by the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, rose to 640bp, from 116bp at the start of the month. Bradford & Bingley rose to 1,681bp, up from 424bp at the start of the month.

Bonds across the curve gained on safe-haven play with yields on 10-year US Treasuries falling 19bp to 3.65 per cent, while yields on two-year Treasuries fell 22bp to 1.86 per cent at mid-session in the US. Benchmark German bund yields fell too.

The dollar rose against the euro and sterling as currency investors switched their concerns from worries about the US bail-out to the state of the European banking sector. The yen was also higher as it benefited from a flight to safety.

Emerging markets were another casualty amid the increased selling pressure on riskier asset classes. The Embi+ emerging market sovereign bond index saw spreads against US Treasuries rise 32bp to 403bp, nearly 100bp up on a week ago.
 

m10_v

Star
Registered
Re: $700B bailout voted down - for now. were you aye or nay?

I'm against is unless it equally helps out people who were honestly screwed over by this climate of corruption and greed.

If you were faithfully paying a mortgage with legitimate rates then all of sudden were forced to pay $500-1000 more in the course of couple of months then there should be some assistance for you. At the very least people with adjustable rates should be allowed to adjust them to a reasonable rate.
 

djdez

Support BGOL
Registered
senate passes revised bill - now its $800B

This is a draft of the proposed $700 Billion bailout...it is 147 pages...found this on cnn.com

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/28/ayo08c04_xml.pdf


I've been reading it, but its hard to make sense of it since I haven't finished it ...

I know its 147 pages, but its more like 40 pages since the fonts are so big and because of all the spaces...
 
Last edited:

MoneyInTheBank

Unstoppable..............
Certified Pussy Poster
Re: $700B bailout voted down - for now. were you aye or nay?

If you dont have a house at this point. It will be atleast 2yrs before the banks will give out anymore money !
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Also, the stock market closed down today first time ever !!

Im going to the bank and get ALL MY MONEY OUT !!!

AND THEN RUN MY CREDIT CARDS TO THE MAX !!!
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

MoneyInTheBank

Unstoppable..............
Certified Pussy Poster
If you dont have a house at this point. It will be atleast 2yrs before the banks will give out anymore money !
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Also, the stock market closed down today first time ever !!

Im going to the bank and get ALL MY MONEY OUT !!!

AND THEN RUN MY CREDIT CARDS TO THE MAX !!!
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: $700B bailout voted down - for now. were you aye or nay?

. . . and then, change your username.

QueEx
 
Top