Bailout and Switch
It looks like that $700 billion federal bailout that was supposed to buy troubled assets and bailout the banks and financial institutions won’t get used for its original purpose.
Now it’s being used to bailout credit card companies because people ran up too much debt.
Feel free to gather your torches and pitchforks and go bend your plowshares back into swords!
November 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
As I’ve stated – this in nothing more than a transfer of wealth. The last official act of any government is to rob the people. That’s what’s happening now. The corporations have already divested themselves overseas – in India, China, etc. Now they’re taking their money and running.
.
The American people are in the midst of being strategically reduced to economic parity with the rest of the world. That will require that we are initially brought down lower than our neighbors so that economic integration will be appealing to us, and we’ll abandon soveriegnty in hopes of feeding our children.
.
In the process, as Richard Haas stated a couple of days ago when describing troubles that Obama will face, there will likely be attempts by citizens to retake Washington. But don’t worry. The corporations are in full control and they’ll prevent any patriotic movement from restoring Constitutional order.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The Pelosi crowd just announced part of it may go to the Big 3 autos.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
From Reuters- ‘Secretary Henry Paulson, in the most explicit sign yet that Treasury was abandoning its initial plan for the rescue funds, said on Wednesday he preferred a second round of capital injections into financial companies to help them weather the worst market crisis in 80 years.’
.
“…financial companies..” = credit card companies? Aren’t some “banks and financial institutions” the same as some “credit card companies”? Which one is worthy of the pitchfork and torch vs the other? My slender reed of hope is on bailing hurting vs doomed institutions. I don’t know which is which and would welcome Professor Will’s opinion if he were a guest on ‘Abdul in the Morning’.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Once again the sheep in Congress were led paniced into an ill-advised plan that now requires some….ah…. ‘slight revisions’. Maybe a new money surge is the answer. It has cost us our economy again to feed these swine at the government bailout trough. Meanwhile the people can only eat their fast food (cake). The chaos and ignorance is unbelievable. I can’t wait for the Obama Recovery plan but I am as pessimistic as a Shorebreak as to whether anything can get us out of this 12 trillion dollar mess we are in. Incidentally, there is already some debate about the proper meaning of “quadrillion” for the next plateau. I mean for real. Sheesh.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Patriot Paul: At least the auto makers actually produce something. The rest of this money has gone to ponzi schemes that you and I would be thrown in jail for.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Tom – You said:
.
“I can’t wait for the Obama Recovery plan but I am as pessimistic as a Shorebreak as to whether anything can get us out of this 12 trillion dollar mess we are in.”
.
Nothing can get us out of the mess. We’ve crossed the rubicon in terms of economic stability. The only possible recourse at this point is correction, which will achieve the goals of the folks who got us here in the first place: global economic parity. We’re now witnessing what happens when the fox gaurds the henhouse.
.
As far as the Obama plan, don’t hold your breath. His top choices to replace Paulson are all pertly responsible for the mess that we’re facing today:
.
Lawrence Summers played a key role in lobbying Congress for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. His timely appointment by President Clinton in 1999 as Treasury Secretary spearheaded the adoption of the Financial Services Modernization Act in November 1999. A member of the Council on Foreign relations, upon completing his mandate at the helm of the US Treasury, he became president of Harvard University (2001- 2006).
.
Paul Volker was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the l980s during the Reagan era. He played a central role in implementing the first stage of financial deregulation, which was conducive to mass bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, leading up to the 1987 financial crisis. He’s a leading figue at the Council on Foreign Relations.
.
Timothy Geithner is CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the most powerful private financial institution in America. He was also a former Clinton administration Treasury official. He has worked for Kissinger Associates and has also held a senior position at the IMF. The FRBNY plays a behind the scenes role in shaping financial policy. Geithner acts on behalf of powerful financiers, who are behind the FRBNY. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
.
Jon Corzine is currently governor of New Jersey, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Barry’s getting a little head start on spreading our wealth around. Isn’t that what you wanted, Abdul?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
American Express was approved to become a “commercial bank” by the Federal Reserve on 11/10. From Wikpedia & Yahoo Finance browsing, I don’t see that they have any extensive involvement in the suppossed root cause of the “bail-out”: home loans. Am I mistaken? This is getting nuts & it’s protest time again.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Incidentally, the failure of the Big Three Auto companies has one primary cause–unions.
What do the airlines, auto makers, and our public education system have in common(other than the fact that they have all failed miserably)? They are all heavily-unionized.
The unions were created originally to protect the worker from unsafe work conditions and management abuse. Now, they only protect the union worker from having to work too hard.
Barack Obama wants to strengthen the unions and wants to take away the right of the union worker to a private ballot when voting. That way, people can be intimidated and bullied by union thugs. Hell, Obama’s a thug and he named a thug as his chief of staff. What a great day for America!
November 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Rico,
For someone who is not long for this world you really should focus on happier stuff. It will make your last days more comfortable.
By the way, it’s the Bush administration that’s doing the bailout and switch.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
This is the largest money grab in history.
Clearly this about much more than some bad mortgages. Massive government intervention is causing most of the “credit freeze” problems as the government creates even more panic with every new “plan”. The only plan appears to be for Paulson to spend as much of the taxpayers $700 billion as he can before January 20th.
I never thought I would see the day that a Republican President would sell out every guiding principal of capitalism and abandon any semblance of fiscal discipline.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
If there were any good reporters left they would be covering Indiana Congressmen and how their knees jerked. Too, they could publish the names of Board Members of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac over the past 10 years. Guess what? Even folks in Indiana would recognize some of those sleezes. I think they include a would be chief of staff…..
November 12th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Paulson Calls for Investment in Monorail, Band Uniforms
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/11/12/paulson-calls-for-investment-in-monorail-band-unif.aspx
November 13th, 2008 at 1:06 am
“…not long for this world”? I feel energized, and will be just fine.
Like your hero, do you get a kick out of revealing (leaking, in Barry’s case) private conversations? Did it serve your purpose? I hope so.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:16 am
And, by the way, I completely disagree with the Bush administration and John McCain on these bailouts. But, it is a matter of record that the current administration repeatedly called for tighter regulation on Fannie and Freddie. This is a liberal (Democrat) issue, and you know it. You just try, at every turn, to disassociate yourself from core conservative principles if they don’t coincide with your Obama lovefest.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:44 am
“Feel free to gather your torches and pitchforks and go bend your plowshares back into swords!”
-
Torches, pitchforks and swords (US Citizens) against automatic weapons, armored vehicles and attack choppers?
-
Yeah, that’ll be a good fight.
-
We Citizens can’t even go to our Statehouse bearing arms, since armed Citizens have been banned.
-
BUT, if you’re a judge (lawyer in a robe) or a legislator (many lawyers), you are allowed to exercise your God-given right to self-defense (not to mention both the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions).
-
Doesn’t it seem odd that the very people sworn to uphold and defend our Constitutions are always violating it; crapping on we Citizens from our own Statehouse, and, by extension, Congress?
-
Government has granted a class of citizens (lawyers and legislators), privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to ALL citizens.
-
I suppose we could stage a protest rally, but don’t forget to get your permit (aka ‘permission’) from government first! Yet another Constitutional violation:
-
Article 1 Section 31. NO LAW shall restrain any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; nor from INSTRUCTING their representatives; nor from applying to the General Assembly for redress of grievances.
-
Hmmm….remember the Citizens who were forcibly ejected from CCC meetings while chanting “No new taxes”? They were ejected by force for INSTRUCTING their so-called representatives.
-
Ever wonder why our wonderful legislators refuse to cite the Constitutional provisions that authorize the laws they pass? Could it be that most of those laws somehow violate our Constitutions, and are an affront to our liberties?
-
Article 1 Section 25. NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.
-
People need to ask their legislators to articulate the Constitutional provision(s) that authorize ALL legislation enacted. Force them to be specific. Have some fun with them while they are raping you.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Rico, if it’s a “Matter of record that the Bush admin. claled for more regulation” on Fannie and Freddie. Please cite sources. Reckless comments like that, unfounded, are part of the bigger problem.
My dad’s a GM retiree, and I’m very suspicious of the auto company bailout. If current management and board are left in place, their old practices will only continue.
Unions may share some of the blame here. But in the grand scheme, they’re sheep. They can only manufacture what the geniuses in the corporate suites design and fund.
For three decades, Detroit has fought higher fuel and safety standards. If only…
November 13th, 2008 at 7:31 am
You voted for change, the Democrats are in control. You have it now, be quiet for the next four years!
What did you expect? Tax and spend Democrats.
“Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac include Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, and Kerry”
Is it any wonder after looking at the chart below, that Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Obama or Pelosi said nothing, did nothing about the corruption at Freddie and Fannie? Don’t forget the sweetheart mortgages given to Obama and other prominent democrats. Those numbers are not reflected below. You can bet you’ll never hear Obama or Pelosi accept any responsibility for doing nothing as the “middle class” (that Obama proclaims to advocate) is royally raped while the Messiah silently watches, collects his campaign cash, and acts as if nothing happened to us. Obama is IMMORAL!
Name Office Party/State Totals
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499
7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000
8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991
9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S R-MO $55,400
15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389
16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750
18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249
19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750
21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700
24. Hoyer, Stony H D-MD $30,500
Bought and paid for!
Between the Wall Street banks and mainstream media what has the Democrats pr You know which special interest has given more money to the Obama and Clinton campaigns than any other? If you guessed “trial lawyers” — well, okay, that’s too easy. But can you guess which special interest came in second? Labor Unions? Nope. The Green Lobby? Nope. AARP? Wrong, again. NEA? Not yet. Give up? Okay, here’s the answer: Wall Street.
That’s right. According to CNNMoney.com, Wall Street securities and investment firms have given over $35 million to Democratic candidates this election cycle. And the amount they’ve given to the Clinton and Obama campaigns is nearly five times the amount they’ve given to McCain.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
ebitda: “never thought I would see the day that a Republican President would sell out fiscal discipline.” Let’s look at the actual record. In the last 50 years there have only been four balanced budgets. Two were under the presidency of Bill Clinton, one was from the last Clinton budget in Bush’s first year, and the other was under Lyndon Johnson. Both Ronald Reagan and George Bush set records for increasing the national debt. The Bush years, six with a Republican congressional majority, have seen the debt more than double to nearly $12,000,000,000,000. And he is going to leave the new President with a trillion dollar plus bailout program. The Democrats have different spending priorities but they believe in pay as you go and are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. I don’t know where the Republican reputation for fiscal responsibility comes from but it’s not from the facts.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I mispoke…by “balanced budget” I actually meant budget surpluses…
November 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I knew this would happen. Now is a good time to buy gold, but it’s going to go even lower possibly into the 500′s before it skyrockets.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am
So now comments are reckless simply because the great Think Again doesn’t know them to be true? I won’t do all of your homework for you, but here are just a few examples of the administration called for tighter scrutiny and regulation of Fannie and Freddie( not including the 17 times in 2008 alone, before Congress acted):
April 2001: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
May 2002: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
February 2003: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September 2003: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
February 2004: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
June 2004: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
April 2005: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)
August 2005: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
December 2007: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
April 2008: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May 2008: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
Sorry, I included two times from earlier this year. Your friends Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxene Waters, etc. fought regulation the whole way. I thought you were better informed than the average idiot who voted last Tuesday. A great deal of the blame lies with Congress, but the profoundly ignorant American electorate blames the president’s party for all the nation’s ills. Thank God for public education!
November 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am
should have read “…calling for tighter scrutiny….”
November 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Rico – be wary of your sources. There’s a lot of partisanship and bias out there. They can’t spin this one on you – listen to Bush promise mortgages to minorities and people with bad credit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo
Melyssa – just make sure that you’re buying actual gold. Not gold certificates. The reason gold is falling is because institutions who traditionally bought gold certificates to insulate them from slumps are seeling – because they know that when the bottom falls out, the certificates won’t be worth more than the paper that they’re written on. Bullion and coin are the only 100% gauruntee.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Shorebreak,not only are certificates bad, but it is best to own the gold in collectible coins which are harder to confiscate!
.
I believe the REAL prices of gold are reflective on eBay. Recently gold was selling as high as $1100 an ounce for Krugerrands, Gold Eagles, Canadian Maples, Chinese Pandas, etc. Prices are higher for 1/10th and 1/4 ounce coins, which aren’t available from the mints anymore. I understand South Africa has also stopped production.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Much of what I cited above were the President’s actual words, Shore Break. No vague conspiracy theories here, just reality.
Just like Barney Frank’s actual words proclaiming the financial strength and stability of Fannie and Freddie a few years back. Are you now, like Think Again, telling us to not believe what we actually here? The American public ignored Barack Obama’s actual words and voted for him anyway. Words do mean things to some of us.
Can we now expect a reiteration of your contention that both candidates would have been equally bad for this country? Nothing could be further from the truth.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Rico – are you on crack? Seriously. You’re not making a gram of sense.
.
I linked you to Bush actually stating that he is removing restrictions, in order to allow high risk loan applicants qualify for mortgages. From the horses mouth – I gave you the recording to listen to. Everyone else reading this can link to the very same thing. Yet you say to me:
.
“Are you now, like Think Again, telling us to not believe what we actually here?”
.
Your response makes no sense whatsoever. None. I gave you something specific to hear. It is short, succinct, to the point, and irrefutable.
.
Clearly, YOU are the one who refuses to believe what you here.
.
Put the pipe down, step away from your partisan bias, and realize that we’ve been screwed by the Redemopublicratican Party. Or, you can continue to play their game of “he said/she said” until we’re all destitute. The choice is yours, bro.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Let’s see Rico…April 2001 – May 2008. Who was totally in charge for the first five of those years? Oh yeah, the Republicans. Talk is cheap but money buys whiskey. Looking forward to the Obama Recovery?
November 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Tom – pour some of that whiskey over this before you start sipping – you’ll need it:
.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html
.
The Dems are no less responsible than the GOP for this planned catastrophe. The regular outcasts and detractors (outcast by corporate media and traitorous politicians – detractors because they’re not afraid to speak the truth)were correct in their criticism back then, just as they are today.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Oh, I know. There are plenty of things I did not like that Clinton either pushed or went along with, often opposing his party’s consensus. NAFTA has been a catastrophe from the workers’ standpoint, for example. Remember though, he did not have the luxury of a cooperative congress. I am sure I will not be entirely in agreement with Obama, either. The Reagan & Gingrich Republicans spent a lot of time convincing the New Democrats that it was a good thing to balance the budget. Clinton produced surpluses and I admire him for it. The Republicans of course switched positions on a dime as soon as it was to their benefit for their neocon oil wars and unnecessary tax cuts for the superich. And now, eight years later, we have a $12,000,000,000,000 debt. Pass me the bottle, Shorebreak, it’s going to be a painful recovery.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I know, Shorebreak, corporate cabal, blah, blah,blah.
Of course, some blame lies with Bush. Nowhere did I hear him say, however, that there would be no oversight of these programs. In fact, I pointed to many instances in the years following those comments where the administration called for some oversight. Perhaps he didn’t realize how such programs would be abused and mismanaged. It is the dems(Nancy Pelosi and The Messiah leading way)who blamed Bush and the GOP. Yet the parties chiefly responsible for propping these companies up are now charged with fixing the problem. Where is the blame for Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al?
Your tin foil hat must be a little tight today. You seem a bit cranky.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Rico…Shorebreak is right. The GOP and the Democrats are both complicit in the mess.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I realize that, Melyssa. If one were to believe the media (and the Dem leadership), however, one would conclude that the blame lies squarely and solely at the feet of Bush.
There is plenty of blame to go around. If the MSM had an ounce of credibility and simply reported the facts, the American public would realize who the real perpetrators of this crisis are. It is not partisan to recognize reality. Those on the wrong side of this issue are overwhelmingly from the left side of the aisle.
I am no apologist for the GOP. In fact, I’m fed up with nearly all of them.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Rico – there’s not enough room here to debate the dynamics of the left/right illusion, but I can at least raise the subject so that you can consider it. At it’s historic root, the left/right dynamic began in French government, where those who supported financial and industrial control of government were on the right, and those who supported control by the people were on the left.
.
If we skip past the book that should come next to explain how the current left/right dynamic arrived in todays US politics, when you compare the meaning of left/right form it’s original definition, and the left/right that we have now in Congress, we’re talking about two completely different animals.
.
What we have now is support for corporate leadership on the left, and support for corporate leadership on the right. Different kinds of support at times, but neither are for the people. When it comes to representative government – the will of the people, per se, the left has left the building. There is only two rights. One coin – two faces.
.
And that, my friend, is a free gift from me to you to help you look at our situation from reality, rather than based upon the perception emitted by talk radio and cable news.