The bailout agreement is not a blank check. Don't let the "dividers" spin this into a negative

[mzmolly]

counter productive lather. There was no perfect progressive solution.

WASHINGTON - A key Democrat negotiating a $700 billion financial bailout says the Bush administration has agreed to include mortgage aid and strong congressional oversight in the plan.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Financial Services Committee chairman, says a great deal of progress has been made in talks between lawmakers and President Bush's team on the rescue.

A government official with knowledge of the talks also said the administration has agreed to create a plan to help prevent foreclosures on mortgages it acquires as part of the bailout.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown">AP-YAHOO

[Marie26]

1. Bailout for Dummies

Is anyone willing to break this down in terms that even an English major could understand? Pretty please?

[htuttle]

3. We're going to cash a lot of bad checks written on closed checking accounts

[mzmolly]

4. Not sure if I can, but I'll give you what my understanding is.

Democrats demanded oversight, CEO penalties and stock shares for the bailout. We also demanded that homeowners get help for foreclosure prevention via judges restructuring mortgage terms etc.

[HamdenRice]

5. Here are a few posts

I've been trying to explain some of the underlying economics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4027506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4057340

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4059821

[Marie26]

62. Thank you

for the replies. I do get it a little better now - it's hard because this is such a huge issue & most laypeople don't understand enough to know if the plan is a scam or not. Right now I'm just thinking that it's a scam because it involves the Bush Ad., & that's usually the case!

[ixion]

2. hmmm... let's see... because I don't want to cough up a TRILLION dollars that we don't have

I'm a divider.

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

:eyes:

Oh, and just because the * cabal says they'll come up with a plan, that doesn't mean there will be actual oversight. Haven't you seen how these guys operate yet?

[mzmolly]

6. If it were a matter of a few Bush cronies saying we were in trouble I'd agree.

But both Reich and Krugmann said something needed to be done. The debate came over what was to be done.

Vote for Obama and we'll not have to continue with the shock doctrine mentality.

[endarkenment]

10. Something needs to be done. That does not mean this is what should be done

and neither Krugmann nor Reich have signed onto this bullshit bailout scam.

January 09 may be way too late to undo a trillion dollar bailout. That might just be the whole point of why now and why this.

[mzmolly]

19. Actually I am reading what Krugmann recommended now.

We have implemented some of his suggestions. I'll see what he says about the compromise when all is said and done.

[ixion]

15. I don't disupte there's a problem...

just that what must be done (or what is going to be done) will not only not solve the problem, but in fact make it worse.

Here is the truth: We don't have that much money to bailout these companies, so we're going to create it out of thin air. This will have the effect of devaluing the current further, and in fact just prolong the inevitable. The longer we avoid facing up for decades of abuse, the worse it will be.

It's not a pretty picture, but it's real.

[mzmolly]

36. Yep,

it seems we're damned either way. :(

[Supersedeas]

46. see to be the talking point -- along with a bunch of fine print that NO ONE has read yet

[bemildred]

7. I don't want a "plan" I want laws that forbid things, with teeth in them. nt

[ddeclue]

8. I'll believe it when I see it. I suspect we are gonna get screwed again n/t

[endarkenment]

Your faith in our government is touching.

Sorry if I am a big bad divider by being completely skeptical of the terms and intentions of this bailout. As far as I am concerned this is a scam to kill social security regardless of who wins in november.

[mzmolly]

21. If McCain wins you have a valid point.

If Obama wins, I don't believe you have a concern in this regard. Saying no to the bailout would not prevent them from raiding SS, in fact it might have made such a move easier.

[Atman]

9. Until the signing statement that says "Barney Frank can kiss my ass. - W"

:eyes:

Yeah, right. Bull fucking shit. I don't believe a word of it, and I can't believe anyone who has been paying attention the last eight years does, either.

.

[nolabels]

11. Divider is such a subjective word

No matter how many times you try to step out of this reality you will still be part of it.

[sandnsea]

12. Yes it *was* a blank check

We're getting some concessions by calling it that. We'll see if we get enough to save OUR country, or whether it's a great big vacuum to suck our money to China and India.

[mzmolly]

22. A blank check was what they wanted.

We have oversight, CEO pay limitations and stock in exchange.

[sandnsea]

31. Did we get the CEO limitations?

I wasn't sure that was in yet. I also wish they wouldn't bail out banks in other countries, do you know anything about that?

I agree, if we've got the proper concessions, then we need to support it. I recognize that DU is just as reactionary as the freepers sometimes, so we'll be hearing about Dems caving on this for years too. :crazy:

[mzmolly]

35. Supposedly the agreement includes a limitation on CEO comp as well as help for homeowners. I am also

skeptical of the foreign bank bailout portion. I agree we'll be hearing about Dems "caving" in spite of the fact that we added protections. And of course Nader will capitalize on it as well. We're continually put in a damned if we do damned if we don't position it seems? The only way to stop that of course, is to elect Obama. ;)

[GeorgeGist]

13. Good Golly mzmolly ...

you've been fooled again.

The rescuers are throwing an anchor, not a lifesaver.

[mzmolly]

37. Can you be more specific?

And can you expand on the "fooled again" assertion.

Thanks.

[Greyhound]

14. Does not address false valuations, makes no provisions for executive salaries,

carries no guarantees of performance nor remedies for lack thereof, creates no new liabilities for the industry at large, in short, this is nothing but another huge giveaway of taxpayer money for no benefit.

[HamdenRice]

17. These are things we need, but do we need them in this bill?

I realize that the Bushistas are not to be trusted, but what's to prevent a deal in which these provisions come next week?

[Greyhound]

18. Absolutely, have you been paying attention at all for the last 30 years?

Once the deal is done, it's done and they will grab everything that isn't bolted down on their way out the door. If these provisions are not set to be contingent on the deal, they will never be met, period.

ETA for clarity; a deal has to be done, but this is the time to drive a real bargain, we will need the assets to give Obama some tools to work with over the next 4 1/2 years.



WAKE UP AMERICA!

[mzmolly]

23. You haven't read the terms of the new agreement it would appear?

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

32. I believe I have, would you care to be specific, please? n/t

[mzmolly]

39. We have added oversight measures, CEO pay limitations and homeowner

help.

[Greyhound]

41. I find nothing of the kind, if you have a source please share it. n/t

[mzmolly]

47. It was in the news yesterday and noted briefly in the OP.

I'll wait until the deal is hashed out on paper before commenting further, however.

[Neshanic]

16. "no perfect progressive solution". Wow, you are easily pacified.

[mzmolly]

25. No, I'm simply realistic.

Sorry if I hit a nerve.

[Neshanic]

26. No nerve, just try to stay in the real world with the rest of us if you can.

[mzmolly]

30. Well bring me into your world then.

What do you take issue with specifically in the new agreement?

[northernlights]

20. fuck progressive solution

I want a solution that won't bankrupt us.

Sorry, but I'm not buying all the mushroom clouds and Iraqi oil will pay for this war. Ever hear of the bushboy who cried wolf?

No bailout without consequences.
No bailout without significant oversight.
No bailout without transparency.
No bailout without re-regulation.
No bailout without reciprocity.

Otherwise, I'm ready for a tea party.

Furthermore, that is what I both emailed and phoned into the offices of Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and Rep. Tom Allen this morning.

From the red senators aids I heard, "Gulp." "Gulp." "Gulp." "I'll give her your message. Would you like a written response?"

To which I replied, "The ONLY response I want is a no vote on a bailout without consequences, oversight, transparency, regulation and reciprocity.

"Don't think we don't know how they vote. Don't think we aren't watching, because we are."

"Gulp."

On the other hand, from blue Tom Allen's aide, I was told a cheery, "Sounds like you and Tom are on the same page!"

[mzmolly]

28. Barney Frank feels that we've made good progress, here is why.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

[Jeroen]

24. Strong congressional oversight? Ask Rove all about it n/t

[Junkdrawer]

27. The Paulson/Bush proposal is absolutely a Blank Check...

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.html

[mzmolly]

29. I'm not talking about the original proposal. I'm talking about what we have

added in terms of oversight and protection for home owners etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

[Junkdrawer]

33. Have yet to see the important details, but this does NOT give me a warm and fuzzy feeling...

...

The proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, would give the government broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset — including credit card debt or car loans — from any financial institution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets.

...


Most importantly, who decides which asset to buy and at what price? That is the Blank Check question.

[mzmolly]

34. Good question.

To my understanding we're appointing someone from both houses as well as an independent "czar" of sorts?

[CaptJasHook]

38. Bullshit

Read 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.

This means the Dept of the Treasury will have ALL the authority.

[mzmolly]

40. This is the original proposition.

This is not the final agreement.

[Truth2Tell]

42. And neither Frank's nor Dodd's proposals are the final agreement either.

These guys will make a little bit of noise and apply a little dollop of turd polish and then vote for the deal on Paulson's terms. Bank on it (pun intended). But if it makes you feel better to cheerlead for The Team, more power to ya.

[mzmolly]

44. Cheerlead for what team?

:eyes: I'm saying we did not give them the blank check they wanted. We're still in deliberations but some basic agreements have been hashed out.

We'll all be affected if we don't act. I've not heard one progressive economist disagree with the fact that we have to do something. Yet, we'll have the piss and moan team hear bitch about "Democrats caving" no matter what we do.

[Truth2Tell]

50. we did not give them the blank check they wanted

What are you talking about? The deal is not done. We may still give them the blank check. Making noise about how things "should" be, and actually following through are two very different things. The Democratic leadership has a very lengthy history of big talk followed by capitulation, in case you haven't noticed. I'll believe the "no blank check" when I see it.

[mzmolly]

51. Exactly.

My comments were based upon yesterdays assertion in the article above etc. that the WH agreed to our conditions of oversight, a return on investment and help for homeowners. Apparently there is no agreement as the AP asserted?

However, regarding the "blank check," I'll believe IT when I see it. However, I'm prepared for some here to call it a 'blank check' regardless.

[Truth2Tell]

52. And I'm prepared for some here

to put lipstick on a blank check. :hi:

[mzmolly]

53. Perhaps you'll define "blank check" upfront in that case?

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

54. Fair enough

http://www.truthout.org/article/democrats-reject-700-billion-blank-check">The latest reports of the democratic proposal include this:

Closer oversight, including an emergency board to keep an eye on the program, with two congressional appointees and a special inspector general appointed by the president.

Sounds a little watery to me. I'd like to see the full makeup of the "emergency board" and be assured that the "no legal supervision" provisions are gone. I'd like to know that "keep an eye on the program" means something with real teeth.

Buuut... I'd grant you that if they pass the bailout with this new proposal fully intact it would not be a blank check. I just don't think they will. Time will tell.

[mzmolly]

55. We agree.

Thank you. :hi:

[earth mom]

43. I'm starting to think that those who have money in the market want this in the worst way.

While the rest of us poor peons who don't have a dime in the market are ready to tell Wall Street to FUCK OFF! :grr:

[mzmolly]

45. I don't have money in the market. But to my understanding this

will effect us all if we don't act. However, we don't have to give Bush unfettered, unregulated access to tax payer cash as he requested.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Right, if we let the RICH steal from THE MIDDLE CLASS, we'll get extra chocolate rations while

they enjoy their gated communities far behind the soup lines. :grr:

Not only "No, but HELL NO!"

[BraneMatter]

48. Right...

I believe everything Bush and Paulson say...

Paulson said all they care about is the taxpayer, and I believe him!

He just LOOKS honest. I looked into his eyes, and saw his soul...

[mzmolly]

49. A shame that you do.

I don't, which is why I'm thankful Democrats are demanding oversight. As I've said to others, I'm willing to entertain your solution to the matter at hand.

[yodoobo]

56. 700 billion dollar payout is close to a blank check as anything ever was

700 billion is, in a real sense an infinite amount of money.

If you earn $100,000 a year. Its enough to pay your salary for 7 million years.

Any hoops that banks have to jump through to get it, they will do so.

Anything they have to do to get hold of this pay out they will do.

its the biggest blank check in the history of mankind.

[ShortnFiery]

57. B.S. it's a LAST "power grab" for the upper .1%. NO!!! eom

[TexasObserver]

59. The Bailout is another GOP/Bush scam and should be rejected.

It's cash for a big pile of junk, and it IS a blank check.

[mzmolly]

60. According to the economists on Matthews we'll get equity in return?

I'm growing more skeptical by the day, and I think Obama needs to vote against it unless they put forward his plan.

[TexasObserver]

61. As it is proposed, it's a blank check. Obama wants some restrictions and other provisions.

I believe that if there is to be any bailout, it should be only case by case. Let each proposal come to congress for a week's hearings. If AIG needs $85 billion, should we at least make them and the Bush admin. spend five days making their case under oath, before congress and America?

Any proposal to pay any money to any group must not be at the discretion of the Bush appointees. That is simply insane. We must put off bailouts until after the election, and even then, let the new president assemble the team, not use the losers Bush has put in place.

Do we let the Captain of the Exxon Valdez run your merchant navy? No, you get him as far from them as possible and put in new leadership. We cannot allow any of the Bushies to have any significant role in this. They are the failed leaders, and must not be allowed to screw things up further.