[thebigspendur]

I don't really post that often on this forum and I don't think I've ever started more than 1 or 2 topics here but this Government bailout matter has me more riled up than a grizzly bear who just raided an Africanized bee colony and is on the run while being stung for a mile or so.

What has me more outraged than the actual bailout is the attitude of most American's in that they really don't give a rats ass because it ain't coming out of their pockets after all. I mean the Government just runs the printing presses longer and prints up more money right?

Maybe when the next president takes office no matter who it is round about February 09 he goes on T.V to address the nation, I can hear it now. "My fellow Americans, as you all know it will cost around 500 billion dollars or more to resolve this situation so you know that $2500 tax return you got last year? This year you ain't going to get it. As a matter of fact every taxpayer no matter your income level or tax bracket will remit a check for $4,000 to the IRS."

Do you think that would outrage people some. probably the president would have to hide from the public because his life would probably be in serious jeopardy if he ventured outside.

So the Government will sell bonds and get loans from foreign investors to pay for this and some day a bunch of foreign investors will appear with their notes in hand at the Treasury dept and say we want our money and we want it NOW.

What then?

[xman]

I marvel at the irony of the most ruggedly corporatist administration in recent memory adopting the socialist solution. There was a different state administration in the past which operated with tyrannical impunity while espousing the glory of their business class, but those fascists were defeated in the last world war. I never suspected the Bush family colours to have changed since Prescott.

I'm surprised nobody has started a thread on this already.

X

[JMS]

The government has no business bailing out any company in a free market!
It removes the ability to make responsible decisions because you know there will be someone there to bail you out, namely, the tax payers!

[Nord Jim]

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I don't really post that often on this forum and I don't think I've ever started more than 1 or 2 topics here but this Government bailout matter has me more riled up than a grizzly bear who just raided an Africanized bee colony and is on the run while being stung for a mile or so.

What has me more outraged than the actual bailout is the attitude of most American's in that they really don't give a rats ass because it ain't coming out of their pockets after all. I mean the Government just runs the printing presses longer and prints up more money right?

Maybe when the next president takes office no matter who it is round about February 09 he goes on T.V to address the nation, I can hear it now. "My fellow Americans, as you all know it will cost around 500 billion dollars or more to resolve this situation so you know that $2500 tax return you got last year? This year you ain't going to get it. As a matter of fact every taxpayer no matter your income level or tax bracket will remit a check for $4,000 to the IRS."

Do you think that would outrage people some. probably the president would have to hide from the public because his life would probably be in serious jeopardy if he ventured outside.

So the Government will sell bonds and get loans from foreign investors to pay for this and some day a bunch of foreign investors will appear with their notes in hand at the Treasury dept and say we want our money and we want it NOW.

What then?

This is a completely legitimate question, and should be asked by patriotic Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Personally, as teed off as I am that we're in this situation, I see no choice but to help out some of these idiots. The reason: if some of these fail (AIG is a good example, as are Freddie and Fannie), it's average Americans who will lose their homes, their retirements, and their futures. So, in my opinion at least, it sucks but we have to do it -- and drop the bill on our grandkids. Or maybe we could suck it up and pay it off ourselves?

Bushie, you're doing a hell of a job.

The only given, as far as I know, is that the Repugnicans will under-regulate business, and the Dumbocrats will over-regulate.

End of sermon. We return to our regularly-scheduled programming.

j

[WireBeard]

I think it is time for CEOs and their ilk to no longer be immune from prosecution for driving corporations into the ground.

"Breaking News - The former CEO of <insert failed corp name here> <insert corporate parasite name here> has just been released after completing his 10 year prison sentence. Once owning 4 homes, 3 cars, a private jet, and spending <insert ludicrous $$$ amount here> per month on expenses and maintaining a "lifestyle" for his family, while <insert corp name again> was failing and eventually bankrupted, he will now begin 10,000 hours of community service working with the homeless, aged, and with disabled veterans. While the lion's share of his salary, bonus, pension, stock portfolio, and accounts in foreign countries went to compensate employees and stockholders whose retirement and investments were at risk, the court also imposed a punitive damage award which had no cap, stating that only 25% of his future earnings will go towards compensation. Mr. <parasite name> will be living in a trailer provided by the Dept. of Corrections. This reporter attempted to contact his ex-wife, now a waitress at the Waffle House, for comment, but was turned away. Ironically, Mr. <name again> was half-way finished with his sentence when he was joined by Sen. <pick one> and Rep. <any one will do> who had been convicted after Mr. <name again>'s trial, where it was revealed they knowingly covered up the impending failure of <corp. name> and prevented an investigation until they had divested their shares."

ZZZZZZZZZZ...snort....what? Where? Oh...I must have dozed off and was dreaming!

[Nord Jim]

Originally Posted by WireBeard

I think it is time for CEOs and their ilk to no longer be immune from prosecution for driving corporations into the ground.

"Breaking News - The former CEO of <insert failed corp name here> <insert corporate parasite name here> has just been released after completing his 10 year prison sentence. Once owning 4 homes, 3 cars, a private jet, and spending <insert ludicrous $$$ amount here> per month on expenses and maintaining a "lifestyle" for his family, while <insert corp name again> was failing and eventually bankrupted, he will now begin 10,000 hours of community service working with the homeless, aged, and with disabled veterans. While the lion's share of his salary, bonus, pension, stock portfolio, and accounts in foreign countries went to compensate employees and stockholders whose retirement and investments were at risk, the court also imposed a punitive damage award which had no cap, stating that only 25% of his future earnings will go towards compensation. Mr. <parasite name> will be living in a trailer provided by the Dept. of Corrections. This reporter attempted to contact his ex-wife, now a waitress at the Waffle House, for comment, but was turned away. Ironically, Mr. <name again> was half-way finished with his sentence when he was joined by Sen. <pick one> and Rep. <any one will do> who had been convicted after Mr. <name again>'s trial, where it was revealed they knowingly covered up the impending failure of <corp. name> and prevented an investigation until they had divested their shares."

ZZZZZZZZZZ...snort....what? Where? Oh...I must have dozed off and was dreaming!

They're not "immune," precisely, but perhaps they're not liable in the way you'd like.

They can be prosecuted for lying about the company's financial health to attract investors. But as far as screwing things up? Obviously, that's never been illegal in this country.

I know you didn't ask, but there are things we could do. It all starts with the repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. We need to make lending mistakes the concern of corporate management and eliminate the conflicts of interest that come from mixing banking, commercial banking, insurance, and investment. I know it sounds like a conflict -- I've just endorsed the bailout in a post above -- but lending institutions especially need to know that they're dealing with their own money. Gramm et al created a situation in which lenders figured they'd be bailed out. This, coupled with CEO incentives that were based on volume of business, not quality, created a bonanza of bad lending. We need to prevent that.

That said, I'd prefer creating a disincentive for bad lending, rather than a hard-to-enforce regulation that attempts to put the a--holes in jail.

No matter what Reagan (and Carl Icahn) said, greed is not always good.

j

[denmason]

I will be watching to see which of our representatives vote for this bailout, and will vote accordingly to see how many can be fired come election time. Call your Congressman. Stop blogging, posting comments, and call your congressman. This is the patriotic thing to do. Let them hear your opinion, show them this is still America and that you will not stand for this!! Here is one website that you can find your Congressman andRepresentativeswith the phone numbers. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Let them know you're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!!!
It looks like Wall Street has essentially already committed the same malfeasance that ultimately lead to the great stock market crash of 1929, but I think this time it will take much longer for the country to recover.

Washington’s bail outs are socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street; it is the continuation of a corrupt system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.
In fact, this is a quintessential characteristic of economies run by fascist regimes. For example, historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
~Santayana
So, Monday morning... Start making those phone calls.....

[thebigspendur]

So what I want to know is given they have to do this, why don't they say, well First National Bank of Paducah we're going to take 250 Million Dollars of bad debt from you. No problem but for the next 10 years the Taxpayer will also take 10% of your net profits each year.

[WireBeard]

Sadly, I have little faith anything will be done that will protect the citizens...the politicians and corp execs being 2 sides of the same coin. Someone commented on the being surprised the the administration was resorting to a socialist measure...I don't see that, I see one group of greedy SOB's bailing out their cronies.

Whether repealing Gramm, etc. or putting accountability in place or making the dividing lines between different types of financial institutions more solid and inviolable, we need to take action...

That whirring sound you hear is the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.....yet again.

[Nord Jim]

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

So what I want to know is given they have to do this, why don't they say, well First National Bank of Paducah we're going to take 250 Million Dollars of bad debt from you. No problem but for the next 10 years the Taxpayer will also take 10% of your net profits each year.

That's pretty much what they're doing with Fannie, Freddie, and, to an extent, AIG.

That raises another issue, though. Should government engage in competitive private enterprise, potentially competing with private companies?

j

[Nord Jim]

Look, we're getting screwed here. Nobody questions that. But that said, should we really allow these companies to tank completely, taking along with them the lives and dreams of millions of innocent people?

Look at it this way: The Great Depression was nothing more than a market adjustment.

I only hope that once government is in control it can re-negotiate the severance packages of the people who got us into this. After all, those people have done the same with the retirements of their employees.

j

[denmason]

We as taxpayers are writing a blank check to Treasury Secretary Paulson to spend $700 billion as he sees fit. The Bush Administration wants to rush through a congressional authorization as quickly as possible, no questions asked. It's actually over $1 trillion when you add fannie mae and fredie mac, and don't forget AIG. This will crush the dollar. The dollar already fell against the euro and 14 of the world's most traded currencies on Sept. 19 as Paulson unveiled this plan. What does the American tax payer get from this? Looks like a case of legalized extortion to me from all the reports I've read so far. The media is also keeping silent about much of this scandal. A friend that I chat with sent me a list for Wall Street with certain conditions in return for the blank check. I thought this was good.

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?

3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?

4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?

[thebigspendur]

I think if the administration wants to ram this down our throats no questions asked we should just say screw em all and let the system resolve itself. After all thats the capitalist way isn't it?

[denmason]

How many here looked up their Congressman today and made the calls??? Waddayawaitingfor??? the Amero?? or the October Surprise???
Here's the link again: Contacting the Congress

[maplemaker]

Originally Posted by denmason

How many here looked up there Congressman today and made the calls??? Waddayawaitingfor??? the Amero?? or the October Surprise???
Here's the link again: Contacting the Congress

Done and done, of course.

One thing that they're really being sneaky about is, if you notice the language and fine print, this is an open account on revolving credit. The wording is that they will use UP TO 4 billion at any given time, not that the total amount will equal 700 billion. Slight, but telling, difference there. Right now I'm too mad to think clearly. I never, ever, ever, ever thought I'd see the day...

I might also ad: Those who fail to learn history probably aren't doing too well in science and math, either.

[denmason]

Looks like both sides of Congress are pushing back hard against the bailout and so are the Taxpayers. Seems the phone lines at Capitol Hill haven't stopped ringing all day today. I just read this and was surprised by what section 8 of the plan stated... Bush and his boys really do think we're all stupid:

Members of Congress point to a severe lack of oversight in the proposed Bush administration plan. Section eight of the draft bailout plan states: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency," essentially stripping Congress of its responsibility to oversee the how these tax dollars could be spent.

Representative Dennis Kucinich is all over this. He has also come up with this proposal:

"Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, tomorrow I will offer legislation to create a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, at market value and not higher, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American. The Wall Street financial disaster is an opportunity to create a genuine ownership society. If Congress invests $700 billion in the market, then the American people must get something of real value for their investment."

Sounds good to me, but we really need to hear more about this proposal. Can't afford to forget that we are dealing with a very crafty lot, to say the least.

[davisbonanza]

Originally Posted by denmason

How many here looked up there Congressman today and made the calls??? Waddayawaitingfor??? the Amero?? or the October Surprise???
Here's the link again: Contacting the Congress

I just wrote all three of the dirtbags who claim to represent me this morning. To your other post Dennis, it's good to see we may be helping to win this one!! I'll also try calling their offices if I get a chance to today.

Let's all keep pushing harder!

[jockeys]

Originally Posted by denmason

Representative Dennis Kucinich is all over this. He has also come up with this proposal:

"Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, tomorrow I will offer legislation to create a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, at market value and not higher, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American. The Wall Street financial disaster is an opportunity to create a genuine ownership society. If Congress invests $700 billion in the market, then the American people must get something of real value for their investment."

Sounds good to me, but we really need to hear more about this proposal. Can't afford to forget that we are dealing with a very crafty lot, to say the least.

Holy crap, I actually agree with something Kucinich said...

those of you on the East Coast... you didn't happen to see a 7 headed, 10 horned dragon rising with the sun this morning, did you?