'The No Banker Left Behind Act'

[Buttercup McToots]

Quote:

This is section 8 of the proposed bill being discussed this weekend. This is a bill – that means if it passes it will be turned into law. Keep this fact in mind. The bill is sold to us as one designed to help the American taxpayer who is losing their home.


“Sec. 8. Review.
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.”

>>>>
Take a moment to re-read that. This new LAW would place the Secretary of the Treasury ABOVE THE LAW.
>>>>

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

Without review, what is to stop Paulson from giving his Goldman buddies and other friends better "pricing" on their assets??!?!?!?

So, this bill is being sold to us, the taxpayer, as a design to protect the American public. Ask youself, if this new law is so helpful to the American taxpayer, then why are we not allowed to review the decisions he is making with our money? Why aren’t courts or oversight committees allowed to see what exactly it is he will be doing?

Do you know what this bill does? So far, it doesn’t include anything to actually help those whose homes are in foreclosure, or about to be in foreclosure. This is what it DOES do:
1) Creates a NEW TAXPAYER FUNDED account, called the “RTC.”
2) In this account, trillions in bad debt from companies who failed due to irresponsibly risky decisions
3) In this account, billions in loans related to STRESSED COMMERCIAL real estate
4) In this account, financial institutions will compete with the Secretary for how little they will accept for their bad debts
5) With this law, the secretary will decide how much of your money he will pay for bad loans, regardless of the true market value.

To make this crystal clear: this account will be used to take YOUR money and then with that money (taken from you), PURCHASE the very liabilities that Wall Street can’t sell to any other business or country. And why can’t they sell them? It's simple: THEY ARE WORTHLESS!

We are told that this bill is the lesser of two evils. The other evil here, is allowing FREE MARKETS to work as designed – the very basis of our whole COUNTRY.

The U.S.A already had rules and regulations in place – rules created because of the Great Depression – to prevent this from happening. So why is this happening?

It’s simple really: it’s because the people you elected turned a blind eye and chose not to enforce the law while everyone was making a killing. They are not representing your interests. And I know, I can practically hear you now “Since when do they represent my interests?”

That’s right. Since when?

They weren’t thinking about you when they collected $100s of millions from lobbyists.
They weren’t thinking about you while Wall Street speculated with the money you placed in their bank accounts.
They weren’t thinking about you when they paid JP Morgan $30 billion (of your money) to buy Bear Sterns
They weren’t thinking about you when, all this time, they told you that this problem was contained.

And so, I ask you now, today, – what makes you think that they are thinking about you now?

America – how does that make you feel?
1) This new Law places Secretary Paulsen above the law; “Decisions… non-reviewable … agency discretion …may NOT be reviewed by ANY COURT OF LAW OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY”
2) Wall Street, where “Greed is Good”, is getting OUR money, to fund their 5 mansions, multi-million dollar yacht, and bonuses: (Goldman Sachs, alone, paid 18 billion (in 2007) and 16 billion (in 2006))
3) The U.S.A – the BASTION of “free market” capitalism – is utterly preventing, in any way it can, to allow the free market to actually WORK. If you think America is a free-market economy, stop that false belief right now. Even FRANCE would not embark down this path of socialist “financialism”.

Your Senators
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Your Representatives
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

[Eurobabe]

1. From another blog: this is the Economic Patriot Act of 2008

These motherfuckers better read this god damn thing before they sign away what is left of the USA.

God, I am so livid right now. Listening to Naomi Klein on public radio: http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=15830

:nuke: :nuke: :mad: :mad:

[malaise]

7. 100% correct

They have seized every other institution, why would they now hand them the money. Sign this and it is the end of the line. Pelosi and Reid will be digging their own graves and ours.

[1776Forever]

10. Where is Michael Moore to report on this crap? We need you Michael!

:applause:

[Javaman]

37. Nope, they won't, notice that suddenly it's an EMERGENCY

AND THIS THING NEEDS TO PASS NOW!!!!

[Fran Kubelik]

2. That would imply that NCLB is funded.

[Eurobabe]

24. I heard it was now NBLB

No banker left behind.

[Buttercup McToots]

3. Did you know Pelosi was loaded with "AIG" ? Socialism For The Rich

US Has Invented Socialism For The Rich

Look at this chart...I don't know how to post it...someone...
The reach of "AIG".

http://media.ft.com/cms/425ac584-841f-11dd-bf00-000077b07658.pdf



Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: FINANCIAL TERROR

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...eapon-and.html

Government Takeovers: Another Weapon, and a Truly Fearsome One
Step one. Via NYCweboy, via Corrente, I arrived at this graphic in the Financial Times.

I studied it for several minutes. You should, too. The "global reach" of AIG, indeed. Many different kinds of activities, all around the world. The kinds of activities that allow businesses, and individuals, and governments to continue to function efficiently and productively -- indeed, simply to function.

Let's move on to step two.

There are only a very few blogs with readers who offer insights that make it worthwhile to read through the comments. Calculated Risk is one of the rare exceptions.

Keep that FT graphic and its implications clearly in mind. Then consider this comment to this post:
Scooby writes:

Am I the only one who noticed that the US government has just bought itself the ability to inflict a whole bunch of "financial terror" worldwide by taking controlling interest in these huge financial firms?

Is everyone around the world too busy being smug that the US taxpayer is backstopping them to notice the big rusty iron vise into which their family jewels has slipped?
And you thought the takeovers were a problem. They're not a problem: depending on your goals, they're a huge, immensely valuable benefit. Depending on who you are and what you want, "financial terror" is an awesome and powerful weapon.

Consider. Country A through Z (look at that graphic again, lots and lots of countries all around the world, probably most of the countries on the globe) wants to renegotiate thousands, perhaps millions, of insurance policies. Or it wants a break on some rates, perhaps for a crucial construction project. Or it needs a grace period to make some payments, maybe in connection with a major government program. Or...fill in the endless possibilities at your leisure.

And the United States now says: "Well, sure! We'd love to help you out. In exchange, how about granting/extending/giving us better terms on those basing rights?"

Or: "But you know what we'd like? First rights to those valuable resources of yours. Plus waivers of all those environmental protections you have in place." Probably plus a bunch of other things.

Or: "We'd be happy to do that for you. But we need some overflight rights for the next year. Make that three years. We may have a few, well, operations we need to execute. We're sure you understand."

Or: too many possibilities to begin to list.

Get it? And if Country A through Z says, "no" ... well, gee, too bad, says the United States. Guess we can't accommodate you. How many people, and businesses, and governments do you think will say no, as the screws begin to tighten?

The AIG takeover is a huge weapon. A monumental weapon. I'm certain it is far from the only weapon of this kind the U.S. government already possesses. And as the economy further weakens, the U.S. government will probably pick up some more. (Here, I am referring to comparatively new mechanisms of coercion, pressure and extortion, such as those described above, in addition to those "normalized" and "legal" forms of coercion, pressure and extortion that have been among the major instruments of U.S. foreign policy for decades.)

And do you think Obama and the Democrats will want to give up weapons of this kind? Just like they gave up the FISA weapons? Or the Military Commissions Act weapons? Or the Patriot Act weapons?

Hahahahahaha.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The ruling class wins. The ruling class always wins.

Suckers. Yes. Me, too.

The ruling class are bastards. Whenever you think they've hit a major snag, consider the problem again. Then once more. You probably missed something.

As my post the other day indicated, there is still a lot of blood the ruling class can drain from the decaying body of the United States as a whole, and from you. They are very far from done.

Now I've cheered you up. Again. I would say I'm sorry, but it's probably better to understand what's going on and what may be coming as best we can. There is a great deal of exploitation, bombing, chaos, and death that still lies in the future.

Thank God I bought some liquor today. You should get some, too, if you don't already have it. Or something stronger. And screw your brains out. That is my solemn prescription. Follow doctor's orders now!

[bluesmail]

16. Corporations killing off other Corporations till there is only

one. Whoever controls the oil controls the world. Just saying, after hearing this theory years ago how neatly it now fits into the 'scheme' of things. head hurts

[Greyhound]

30. No, six. Energy, Transport, Food, Housing, Communication, and Luxury.

[valerief]

4. K&R

:kick:

[Papa Boule]

5. No shock left undoctrined. n/t

[WolverineDG]

6. Where's my bailout?

Hell, they could save money by giving every American a million bucks. Think of how many bills & mortgages could be paid off with that, with the remainder to be reinvested or spent. But no, GOP goons give their friends loads of $$; regular Americans only get a lousy $600.

dg

[dgibby]

8. Milton Freidman

reaches up from the grave and screws up again. Unfortunately, both parties ascribe to his school of economics. Corporate welfare at it's worst. If the Dems agree to this, I will NEVER give them another cent 'cause I won't frickin' HAVE one!:wtf: :grr: :nuke:

[Buttercup McToots]

9. Of course they will agree to it...Look at the AIG chart....

Sooo what are we going to do about it?
Life as we know it, have known it, is now gone...
Things will never be the same agin...

Where is our voice, damnit!!:mad:

[dgibby]

21. I'm wondering

if that's the reason Dodd and Schuymer were the first one's to the mikes-to soften us up for the kill.

[Buttercup McToots]

11. Summary

Summary of Paulson's Bailout in forum

- Treasury Secretary appoints asset managers (aka cronies) to handle $50B tranches

- Treasury Secretary sets prices

- Can't be reviewed or challenged in any court.

Anyone see anything wrong with this?



Oh, and how about this logic?

1. Banks can't sell MBS for any price (even 3 cents on the dollar in some cases)
2. RTC2 buys for 65 cents on the dollar
3. ???
4. Sell at a profit!!!

[Buttercup McToots]

12. 72 hours

We have 72 hours before Hank Paulson takes charge of $800Billion with NO OVERSIGHT.


At his discretion, Paulson can trade those mortgages for 95 cents on the dollar. The banks can keep the ones that are far from underwater and are current. The taxpayer gets trashed and the IB's make out like bandits.

At 75 cents, which was what Fox was using when I listented last night, I thought we were getting screwed. But this allows Paulson to pick and chose whatever he wants. Wonder if GS is going to get a good deal? That 85 Billion in level 3 (that should be 22 cents or less) they have on their books is probably money good now!

[Buttercup McToots]

13. Who drafted this bill?...Anyone know?

Congress was about to go home and just leave it in the hands of Bernake & Paulson. but now they have changed their tune (after admitting they didn't have a clue how to proceed under the circumstances).

What I want to know is who really drafted this. For instance it is public knowledge by now the Housing Bailout was all but drafted by one Bank, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was basically drafted by Citi's top man during the Clinton era.

Do not get confused here though, this is not a partisan thing by any means. Both sides of the political spectrum have had their hands in our cookie jar, perhaps thats why they are all deferring now to the people they let allow this mess?

[KoKo]

19. Paulson & Bernanke plus AEI, HERITAGE Foundation, and the rest...

All Congress, House: Nancy/Hoyer and in the Senate: Schumer/Rangel/Barney Frank have to do is "sign on the dotted line........sign, sign, sign.... :puke:

[Eurobabe]

23. How many pages is it, and did they really read it?

This smells alot like the rush to sign the Patriot Act in years prior. :puke: A year from now, when America is still in the toilet, Congress will be blaming each other for not having read the document!

Unfuckingbelievable.

[magellan]

28. Amazing, isn't it?

I was sure this legislation would take weeks if not months to put together and hammer out. Financial talking heads on SquawkBox Europe were saying it was basically an "infinitely complex" plan that would have to be carefully crafted.

And yet they (and I'm not talking about Congress) have the thing ready to go within a day or so. As if it had been written some time ago and just needed a dusting off....

[dgibby]

14. sub -titles to your post

How the Neocons stole the country, or How I learned to love the Oligarchy

[Buttercup McToots]

15. From Mish...Weep For The Unites States of America

Saturday, September 20, 2008



Weep For The Unites States of America


The New York Times has the Text of Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan. Given this is legislation, under fair use terms, here is the complete draft. My thoughts follow.


LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

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.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Weep For The Taxpayer

Notice that this bill raises the national debt. Notice that the bill is supposed to take into consideration "protecting the taxpayer".

The reality is this bill does not and cannot protect the taxpayer. Rather this bill only promises to take the taxpayer into consideration. The Treasury will indeed take the taxpayer into consideration, then immediately discard any such ideas.

Inquiring minds are also noting "The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time."

The idea behind the above statement is to allow for a continual dumping ground such that there will always be $700 billion in toxic garbage held under this program. As soon as any asset can be unloaded by the Treasury at cost, another toxic loan is eligible to be assumed on the books of the Treasury. This process can last for as long as two years.

Unconstitutional Provisions

Pay particular attention to section 8.

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 the law will state that whatever the Treasury does it is above the law. Such a provision is undoubtedly unconstitutional.

Weep For The Free Market

It's time to Weep For The Free Market (or rather what little free market the US had left).

Weep For The Unites States of America

At taxpayer expense, Bernanke and Paulson are willing to bail out their banking buddies at enormous expense to the average taxpayer of this country. Bernanke and Paulson should both should be fired. Instead Congressional sheep will baa yes to this bailout and Bush will baa yes when he signs it. It is a sickeningly sad that day for America that Congress will go along with this proposal that makes the US Taxpayer A Giant Dumpster For Illiquid Assets.

$700 billion will be wasted by this program and it is $700 billion the US does not have to waste. I ask that everyone vote against any congressman who votes for the passage of this bill.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

[Buttercup McToots]

17. Balkin...Law Blog

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Saturday, September 20, 2008
Meet the Odd Couple (Our Current Constitutional Dictators re the Economy)


Sandy Levinson


Tomorrow's NYTimes will include a just-posted article by Peter Baker on how "A Professor and a Banker Bury Old Dogma on Markets." It is, of course, about Ben Bernanke (the professor) and Henry Paulson (the banker). I include some passages from the article that are especially interesting if one is wearing glasses with a Schmittian lens, together with my italicized interpolations:



Talking into the speaker phone on a coffee table in his office, Mr. Bernanke told Mr. Paulson that it was time to stop treating the symptoms by bailing out distressed companies and instead start attacking the root problem with a comprehensive strategy.

Congress would have to sign off, and it would fall to Mr. Paulson, as the envoy of the executive branch, to take the lead.


Mr. Paulson understood. He had been reluctant to send lawmakers a plan that might not pass, worrying that a rejection would only further damage the markets. During two conference calls Wednesday night and Thursday morning, he agreed that they had no choice.


“It just happened dramatically,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview on Friday. “There was only one way that we could reassure the markets and deal with a very significant and broad-based freezing of the credit market. There was no political calculus. It was overwhelmingly obvious.”


Just like that, Mr. Bernanke, the reserved former Ivy League professor, and Mr. Paulson, the hard-charging former Wall Street dealmaker, started what would be the government’s largest economic rescue in modern times, one that rivals the Iraq war in cost and at the same time may redefine Washington’s role in the marketplace for years to come.


The plan to buy $700 billion in troubled assets with taxpayer money was shaped by two men who did not know each other until two years ago and did not travel in the same circles, but now find themselves brought together by history. If Mr. Bernanke is the intellectual force and Mr. Paulson the action man of this unlikely tandem, they have managed to create a nearly seamless partnership as they rush to stop the financial upheaval and keep the economy afloat.

Along the way, they have cast aside the administration’s long-held views about regulation and government involvement in private business, even reversing decisions over the space of 24 hours and justifying them as practical solutions to dire threats.

“There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises,” Mr. Bernanke told officials last week, according to one participant. .


The improvisational nature of their effort has turned President Bush and Congressional Democrats into virtual bystanders, sometimes uncertain about what comes next and left to wonder about the new power dynamics in the capital. Seemingly every time lawmakers tried to get a handle on what was happening and what role they might play with elections around the corner, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke would show up again on Capitol Hill for another evening meeting with another surprise development.




Returning to an earlier post, and a criticism leveled by Marty Lederman, it remains totally unclear whether the Professor and the Banker have "transgressed" any laws, and I am willing to believe that the answer, as Marty has suggested, is no inasmuch as certain New Deal legislation can be interpreted as sufficient delegation to justify the Administration's (and the Fed's) actions. But then there are two other questions that are relevant to other debates about Bush Administration actions:

1) To what degree were lawyers consulted by Bernanke and Paulson concerning their legal powers?

2) Perhaps even more to the point, did they receive any advice that they could not engage in any particular action(s) deemed "neessary" to resolve the crisis and to prevent the "cataclysm" of a meltdown of the US (and world) economic order, or did they receive consistently "happy endings," i.e., that they could in fact do whatever they deemed "necessary and proper" (to coin a phrase)? And, also to the point, what was the phenomenological disposition of any lawyers consulted? Were they rigorously detached and independent, ready to give bad news along with happier conclusions, or were they basically like John Yoo, ready (and willing) to read any ostensibly supportive legislation in a maximalist way that would justify whatever Bernanke and Paulson might want to do? (How critical would we be if the answer turns out to be the latter?)

I note another story just posted on the Times, "Administration is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street Bailout." I quote its first paragraphs:


The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed to Congress what could become the largest financial bailout in United States history, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets.
The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

Staff members from Treasury and the House Financial Services and Senate banking committees immediately began meeting on Capitol Hill, where negotiations were likely to be complicated but quick. Democratic Congressional leaders have pledged to approve legislation by the end of this week.


The Bush Administration, even in its waning days, certainly seems to like "unfettered authority." So is this the equivalent, applied to the economic sector, of the "national-security" unfettered authority asked for, and basically granted, by a submissive and scared Democratic Congress? Such legislation, of course, can be made to fit within "rule-of-law" paradigms if all that is required is ex-ante legislative acquiescence to the executive. But, as I have argued earlier, this is far, far away from any civics-book vision of how our ostensibly separation-of-powers system is supposed to work. I do wonder if Brandeis, Cardozo, and Stone would label what appears, at least today, to be the proposed legislation, which will presumably be added to the U.S. Code within the week, as being "delegation run riot" and whether we should care what the answer is.

A bonus question: Do any of us want, or expect, Senators McCain, Obama, and Biden in effect to suspend their campaigns over this next week in order to return to Washington to study carefully the Administration legislation and to participate in whatever will count as legislative hearings about it? Sarah Palin, of course, can campaign on her own and continue to dazzle the country with her deep knowledge of economic issues (but I digress...)



continue reading . . .

Posted 3:02 PM by Sandy Levinson (10) comments

[KoKo]

18. Yeah...well what about this Chuckie Schumer and the rest of the Dems? The ones we think work for US

Will you lie down one more time? Keeping that powder dry, maybe?

And, Mz Nancy.......where ARE YOU! HOUSE is the one who could nip this one...but sadly...you are shopping for a new "proper suit" this weekend, aren't 'ya?

Say it isn't so!

[KoKo]

20. MSRNC's Jim Cramer will love it! It's what Americans had to do to save "Goldman" and the rest

of the ones that the MSRNC/CNBC/GE media employees owe their wealth these days to. Particularly Goldman and lets through CitiBank in for our Dems...to keep it fair.

[Buttercup McToots]

22. Bump...up

because this is important...

[horseshoecrab]

25. kick and recommend

This is beyond belief. This is insanity. This is what we worried would happen before the election.

Call your senators and reps!

:scared:

horseshoecrab

[prayin4rain]

26. EXACTLY!!

http://current.com/items/89322147_the_financial_meltdown_explained great article posted earlier by kpete

[TexasObserver]

27. The History of Bailouts = the GOP protecting GOP interests

The only significant bailout the past 40 years by a Democratic president was Carter and Chrysler.

This is another GOP/corporatist scheme to stampede the congress and the parties into an Economic Patriot Act that hobbles government for years.

LET THEM FAIL!!

[Buttercup McToots]

33. k

k

[shanine]

29. kick

[Buttercup McToots]

31. Pitchfork Moment

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/20/bailout/index.html

:-(

If there is any "pitchfork moment" -- an episode that understandably would send people into the streets in mass outrage -- it would be this. Nobody really even seems to know how much of these losses "the Government" -- meaning working people who had no part in the profits from these transactions -- is undertaking virtually overnight but it's at least a trillion dollars, an amount so vast it's hard to comprehend, let alone analyze in terms of consequences. The transactions are way too complex even for the most sophisticated financial analysts to understand, let alone value. Whatever else is true, generations of Americans are almost certainly going to be severely burdened in untold ways by the events of the last week -- ones that have been carried out largely without any debate and mostly in secret.

Third, what's probably most amazing of all is the contrast between how gargantuan all of this is and the complete absence of debate or disagreement over what's taking place. It's not just that, as usual, Democrats and Republicans are embracing the same core premises ("this is regrettable but necessary"). It's that there's almost no real discussion of what happened, who is responsible, and what the consequences are. It's basically as though the elite class is getting together and discussing this all in whispers, coordinating their views, and releasing just enough information to keep the stupid masses content and calm.

Can anyone point to any discussion of what the implications are for having the Federal Government seize control of the largest and most powerful insurance company in the country, as well as virtually the entire mortgage industry and other key swaths of financial services? Haven't we heard all these years that national health care was an extremely risky and dangerous undertaking because of what happens when the Federal Government gets too involved in an industry? What happened in the last month dwarfs all of that by many magnitudes.

The Treasury Secretary is dictating to these companies how they should be run and who should run them. The Federal Government now controls what were -- up until last month -- vast private assets. These are extreme -- truly radical -- changes to how our society functions. Does anyone have any disagreement with any of it or is anyone alarmed by what the consequences are -- not the economic consequences but the consequences of so radically changing how things function so fundamentally and so quickly?

Other countries are debating it. The headline in the largest Brazilian newspaper this week was: "Capitalist Socialism??" and articles all week have questioned -- with alarm -- whether what the U.S. Government did has just radically and permanently altered the world economic system and ushered in some perverse form of "socialism" where industries are nationalized and massive debt imposed on workers in order to protect the wealthiest. If Latin America is shocked at the degree of nationalization and government-mandated transfer of wealth, that is a pretty compelling reflection of how extreme -- unprecedented -- it all is.

But there's virtually no discussion of that in America's dominant media outlets. All one hears is that everything that is happening is necessary to save us all from economic doom. And what's most amazing about that is that the Natural, Unchallenged Consensus That Nobody Questions can shift drastically in a matter of days and still nobody questions anything. This is what Atrios observed as I was writing this post:

It's fascinating to watch how easily consensus is manufactured. A few days ago elite opinion seemed to be cheering Paulson's "no bailout" line, and now they're cheering a trillion bucks thrown down the crapper. All the Very Serious People will spend their days coming up with their pony plans, oblivious to the fact that the pony plan is not an option. The Bush administration's plan is the option.
The way it works is that Bush officials decree how things will be, and then everyone -- from Congressional Democrats to the Serious Pundits -- jump uncritically and obediently on board, even if they were on board with the complete opposite approach just days earlier, and then all real dissent vanishes. That's how the country in general works. As Atrios says: "We've seen this game played before."

I don't pretend to know anywhere near enough -- in terms of either raw information or expertise -- in order to opine on the necessity or lack thereof of The Latest Plan in terms of whether the alternatives are worse. But what I do know is that an injustice so grave and extreme that it defies words is taking place; that the greatest beneficiaries are those who are most culpable; and that the same hopelessly broken and deeply rotted institutions and elite class that gave rise to all of this (and so much more) are the very ones that are -- yet again -- being blindly entrusted to solve this.

UPDATE: Here is the current draft for the latest plan. It's elegantly simple. The three key provisions: (1) The Treasury Secretary is authorized to buy up to $700 billion of any mortgage-related assets (so he can just transfer that amount to any corporations in exchange for their worthless or severely crippled "assets") ; (2) The ceiling on the national debt is raised to $11.3 trillion to accommodate this scheme ; and (3) best of all: "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" .

Put another way, this authorizes Hank Paulson to transfer $700 billion of taxpayer money to private industry in his sole discretion, and nobody has the right or ability to review or challenge any decision he makes.

-- Glenn Greenwal

[Greyhound]

32. Kick

:kick:

[Buttercup McToots]

34. Bump

K

[radfringe]

35. also known as FEBA - Federal Emergency Bailout Agency (n/t)

[horseshoecrab]

36. kicking n/t