Why we Need an Immediate Massive Transfer of Wealth from the Poor and Middle Class to the Wealthy

[Time for change]

The recent demand by Treasury Secretary Paulson that the U.S. taxpayer (mostly the poor and the middle class) bailout Wall Street (the wealthy) has left many Americans wondering: Why?

Fortunately for the American people, Secretary Paulson appeared on Meet the Press last Sunday to explain why this is necessary. The following are the relevant excerpts from Meet the Press where he tried to explain why the American people must immediately hand over nearly a trillion dollars to Wall Street – with key points in italics:

Last week there were times when the capital markets or credit markets were frozen. American companies weren’t able to raise financing. That has very serious consequences. So what we need to do right now is stabilize the markets, and this is for the, for the benefit of the taxpayers we’re doing this, the American public…

But it is far better than the alternative. The situation we had last week, where credit markets were frozen – you know, the stock market… They watched the stock market drop about 1,000 points and then recover on the news of this plan…And when companies can’t borrow money and – this has a big impact on everyone. It’s difficult to get jobs, it hurts people’s budgets, retirement savings…

We’re preventing failure. We – the financial institutions are clogged with illiquid loans, so what we need to do is quickly buy those loans. They won’t be giving us control of real estate, but this – we need to manage these assets and manage them quickly…

It would have been, in my judgment, unthinkable to have AIG declare bankruptcy. And you know, Tom, they were a few hours away from declaring bankruptcy…we avoided a real catastrophe in our financial markets…we did this to protect the taxpayer…

We’re going to stabilize the financial markets.

To paraphrase this whole thing, I would simply say: We need to immediately stabilize our financial and credit markets in order to protect the American taxpayer and the jobs and savings of the American people. To do this, the American taxpayers must immediately give $700 billion to Wall Street.

Well, speaking as someone who admittedly is not an economist, I must say that this sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook to me. We must save ourselves by immediately paying nearly a trillion dollars to the same people who got us into this mess.


Where have we heard stuff like this before?

When evaluating the demands that are made upon us, it is often worth while to consider situations from the past when similar demands were made upon us, and how those situations turned out.

Trickle down economics
Trickle down economics, otherwise known as “Reagonomics”, was introduced in the United States as an economic theory by the Ronald Reagan presidency in 1981. It is based on the theory that increasing the wealth of the wealthy is good for the poor (and everyone else) because the additional wealth will eventually trickle down to the middle class and to the poor. Consequently, the economic policies that derive from trickle down theory primarily involve attempts to increase the wealth of the wealthy.

We can evaluate the effects of trickle down economics by looking at the 12 year period, from 1981 to 1993, during which it was initiated and maintained by the Reagan/Bush presidencies. Let’s consider median family income, poverty rate, and national debt. Surely if trickle down theory had any validity we would expect to see, during this period of massive wealth accumulation by the few, a good rise in median family income (adjusted for inflation), a decrease in poverty, and no massive increase in the national debt.

This chart shows median family income levels, beginning in 1947, when accurate statistics on this issue first became available. With the top marginal tax rate approaching 90% at this time, median family income rose steadily (in 2006 dollars) from $22,433 in 1947 to more than double that, $48,976, by 1980. Then, for the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush presidencies there was almost no growth in median income at all, which rose only to $51,494 by 1992, a paltry growth of only 5.1% over 12 years.

The graph on page 11 of the U.S. Census Bureau publication, “Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006”, plots poverty trends in the United States. That graph shows that beginning with President Lyndon Johnson’s much maligned “War on Poverty” in the early ‘60s, poverty in the United States declined precipitously, from about 22% to 12% before leveling out beginning around 1970. Then, with the onset of the Bush/Reagan presidencies starting in 1981, poverty began to rise again, reaching a maximum of about 15% twelve years later, just prior to the Clinton Presidency. The poverty rate then began a slow steady decline, to about 11% by the end of Clinton’s presidency.

This graph (Scroll down to “Annual Change in Debt 1941-2009”), which plots change in our national debt by year, shows two huge mountains of increasing national debt. One began with the Reagan administration and went on for the 12 years of Reagan and Bush I presidencies. Then following 8 years of precipitous decrease in the rate of debt accumulation, the onset of the Bush II presidency was marked by another, even more precipitous increase in debt accumulation than was the Reagan presidency.

So, where was the benefit to our nation as a whole from trickle down economics? There was none at all, except to the wealthy

The Bush tax cuts for the rich
Shortly after becoming president, George W. Bush told the American people that we needed massive tax cuts for the rich (He didn’t use those words of course) in order to make our economy healthy. The argument was very similar to that of “trickle down economics” and Secretary Paulson’s current argument that we need to bailout Wall Street in order to save our economy. So, what have been the results of that?

An extensive analysis of the Bush tax cuts separately evaluated the results for the wealthiest 1% of our population versus the rest of us:

From 2001 to 2006, 99 percent of U.S. residents received an average tax break of $2,616, but their added debt burden rose by $9,782 per person, leaving an additional net debt of $7,166 per person.

Because the benefits of the Bush tax cuts have gone primarily to the wealthiest 1 percent, this small group still comes out ahead even after the added debt burden is factored in. For the wealthiest 1 percent, who have an average 2006 income of $1,272,000, the tax breaks outweigh the added debt burden by a net average of $30,352 per family member.

Got that? The Bush tax cuts gave us an average of $30,352 gain per wealthy person, and an average loss of $9,782 for the rest of us. What else has happened economically during the Bush era?

Median family income actually decreased by $991 (in 2006 dollars). The poverty rate reversed itself and began to rise again, going from about 11% at the end of the Clinton administration to 12.3% by mid-year 2006. The current economic downturn (or recession) will in all likelihood send another 5-10 million Americans into poverty, thus raising the poverty rate in our country another 1-4%. And our national debt has risen astronomically, reaching unprecedented levels.

The Iraq War
In addition to Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the Iraq War has been his other biggest priority. Just as he is now telling us that we need to spend nearly a trillion dollars to prevent our economy from failing, in 2002 and 2003 he told us that Iraq was a serious threat to our national security. What a laugh. Even if Saddam Hussein had actually produced a good many of the weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney claimed he had, the idea that he represented a security threat to our country would have been preposterous. Yet George Bush managed to bully Congress into giving him a green light to go to war. And what did we get for that? We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, spent the lives of 4,170 American soldiers, added hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt, and greatly increased our risk of being attacked by anti-American terrorists. BUT, the war turned out to be enormously profitable to a select few friends of the Bush administration.


A summary of the current situation by Paul Krugman

What I love about Paul Krugman is that he is one economist who purposely writes and talks in a manner that makes complex issues understandable to ordinary people, and his economic goals are aimed at providing benefits for everyone, not just the wealthy elites. He also wrote a wonderful book called “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century”, which is a thorough and detailed rebuke of George W. Bush’s economic policies, written long before they became unpopular or were even initiated.

For those reasons I’ll end this post with a http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26thQ26emcQ3Dth&OP=1683753fQ2F)iQ25Q60)-l0yEllzO)Oqqb)qH)OO)l6JQ5DJlQ5D)OOWE5Q51Q23sQ5D!hzQ23_">summary of his views of the current situation. With regard to Paulson’s demand that we solve the crisis by giving him $700 billion to spend as he sees fit, Krugman says that that will leave our financial system:

crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms – and their stockholders and executives – a giant windfall at taxpayer expense…

Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached – no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

Krugman also warns Congress of falling into the same stupid old trap once again, reminding them that they’ve been down that road before:

I’m aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.

The bottom line is that whenever Congress does what the right wing ideologues demand it to do, the American people end up getting screwed. Congress is told that it must be done immediately in order to stave off catastrophe. But the only reason it has to be done immediately is that the right wing ideologues know that if Congress has time to think about it they might figure out what's going on. That's what happened with the USA Patriot Act. That's what happened with the Iraq War. That's what happened with almost everything that George Bush and Dick Cheney have demanded since they took office. Any Congressperson who trusts anything that George W. Bush or any of his minions have to say is beyond hope and doesn’t deserve to represent the American people.

[Mojorabbit]

1. I am no expert

but I have been glued to bloomberg for the past week and the impression I get is if the banks will not float overnight loans to each other because they don't know who is solvent or not then everything falls apart.

For example if you get paid by your employer with a check from Chase bank and take it to your bank it will be cashed and they will get the money from Chase at the end of the day to settle accounts/books. If no loans are floated between banks to facilitate these transactions then you would only be able to cash your check at the bank it was written at, ie Chase. Credit cards work the same way and atms. I can see where this would freeze everything up.

It seems a big part of what needs to be done is to find out which banks are really insolvent instead of making insolvent banks solvent with taxpayer money. I think a lot of what is happening is psychological re the market and there is no confidence. I really don't want my tax money used to improve market confidence.

I am sure my understanding is to simplistic and I have no idea what will happen if it is not passed.

[spag68]

4. Paulson

Need I remind everyone here that prior to his current job, he worked for Goldman-Sachs for 6 months and received 18.2 million pay. I would like to work for the next month and get my 3 million, I think I could retire on that.

[Larry Ogg]

13. I don’t get paid for my good sense, so I guess that makes me…, no expert!

But I think, to keep on paying someone to clean up their own mess is foolish. And hiring the arsonist to put out the fire is fucking insane. But it’s a whole different story when the arsonist says “give me what I want and do what I say without question or I’ll burn down the whole fucking country.” Now of course, in the real world and our political system, the arsonist has been for generations, the perfect government expert, and the ones our elected officials consult when they don’t want the whole country to burn down.
So goes the banality of evil, that ‘we the people’ should grow accustom to it, and perish with complicity.

[FreakinDJ]

7. You know by law - they took away the Banks ability to renegotiate

the home loans

Me and my father - together have been watching this "Really Long, Slow Train Wreck" unfolding. (my father by the way lived through the Great Depression - he was 15 in 1929)

The biggest difference then and now was this-

Nobody had any money, not the banks, not the people. But yet the Banks did not rush to foreclose on homes, at least not in San Francisco. Many of the Banks were willing to accept what you were able to pay and many of those loans were "Renegotiated"

Now the Banking laws are forcing "Short Sales" further depressing the market, creating the failure of additional mortages

Its like a snow ball - the more they foreclose the more that fail

[Pete2069]

10. People have nothing in the great depression to lose.

The only people which lost their a.. was mostly the wealthy. 
Most Americans had nothing to lose.  People grew their own
vegetables and raised chickens and hogs.  They didn't have to
run to the giant , Home depot or other stores they were to
damn poor to buy anyway, so there  was not as much for them to
lose.  
This is what Bush , Paulson and this administration is during
making sure that the wealthy banking institution get their
money if it has to come from you , your children and your
grandchildren..
Bush has done Bin Laden's job better then Bin Laden or any
terror could ever dream of.  Bin laden wanted to destroy
American's democracy , freedom , economy , social programs and
our military ,,,, soooooo bingo Bush did it totally...  
They only difference is the wealthy just keep taking and the
working Americans are the losers.

[FreakinDJ]

14. Bush : "Making the Terrorist Dreams come True"

My father's experience was in San Francisco and his father worked in the Insurance industry at the time.

Lots of Wealthy people lost every thing - those that were completely dependent on the stock market for their wealth. But the J.P. Morgans, the Rockefeller's, those that monopolized the American economy actually profited by the Great Depression

[AntiFascist]

31. This is what separates the National Socialists from the less wealthy n/t

[slipslidingaway]

2. Kick for later, thanks. n/t

[whistle]

3. There is another name for what this is, extortion and perhaps even blackmail

...We do not need Wall Street, Wall Street needs us. We do not need Fat Cats, Fat Cats needs us. And we certainly do not need swindlers and crooks, those people need to be put in jail.

[varelse]

5. Brilliant as usual

kicked, given "must read" rating and bookmarked... now to forward it to my small group of friends :)

[Time for change]

23. Thank you -- Very glad to hear

people making use of it.

[phrigndumass]

6. The "annual change in debt" graph tells the story

Borrow-and-spend republicans never, ever have a plan to actually pay off the debt, or what they borrow. It always ends up on the taxpayers' shoulders sooner or later. Democrats are labeled as Tax-and-spend, but we don't really do that. We re-prioritize spending. It's the interest we have to pay on these huge debts that necessitate increases in taxes, not spending on social programs.

Terrific summary, T4C! K & MR

:hi:


On Edit: The $700 billion bail-out is the "tax bill" on all their borrowing, or as redstate_democrat puts it, it's the biggest "earmark" in history.

[Time for change]

29. Thank you -- I like the way you summarize the situation

:hi:

[BraneMatter]

8. Definition of extortion...

To paraphrase this whole thing, I would simply say: We need to immediately stabilize our financial and credit markets in order to protect the American taxpayer and the jobs and savings of the American people. To do this, the American taxpayers must immediately give $700 billion to Wall Street.

This sounds like the definition of "extortion" to me.

Extort To wrest from a person by force or any undue or illegal power or ingenuity.

Extortion The offense committed by an officer who unlawfully, by color of his office, claims and takes money or other thing of value that is not due.

-- from, Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 5th ed, 1945

[Larry Ogg]

17. You like words? Here’s one you might enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy">Kleptocracy

I hadn’t heard of it before a few weeks ago, but I think it is one of many words that describe what our government has become since being taken over (imo), by organized crime, thus making such things legal for government. Including but not limited too, extortion, fraud, deceit, counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen elections, murder, assassination, coup d'état, terrorism, war, genocide, environmental destruction and any other crime / political tools you could possibly think of.

And of course such things are sugar coated by our Kleptocracy form of government, and ostensibly done under the façade of democracy and the pretence of making the world safe from the evils they themselves commit.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Even better: Kleptofeudalism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3503637&mesg_id=3504124

[Octafish]

41. Don' forget Klepto-Kakifeudalism

And they mean to hurt us in the process, my Friend.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Above Market Pricing, Greater Taxpayer Risk

From your post...

"Krugman says that that will leave our financial system:


crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms – and their stockholders and executives – a giant windfall at taxpayer expense…"


Paulson Plan Shows A Weakness: Above Market Pricing, Greater Taxpayer Risk

http://www.247wallst.com/2008/09/paulson-plan-sh.html

"One of the aspects of the Paulson bailout bill that was not clear until today is that the Treasury has no intention of running a true action for the toxic assets on bank balance sheets. An auction would tend to set very low prices on the current value of mortgage-backed paper. Based on the few transactions which have taken place in the past, this might be as low as 30 cents on a dollar.

It has been widely assumed that banks would need to take large write-downs on the devalued assets, creating the need for them to raise more capital and further dilute shareholders...


In testimony today, Ben Bernanke described the plan by saying "it is designed to avoid forcing banks to sell or value their mortgage assets at a `fire-sale' price. In a harsher tone than he has ever used in testimony, Bernanke spelled out the benefits that would accrue when the government can buy these mortgage assets at close to "hold to maturity" prices instead of the "fire-sale price."


...What has become clear is that Treasury plans to purchase bad assets from banks at prices very near their original value. The risk to taxpayers under this program would be tremendous. If housing prices continue to fall, so will the value of the paper the government has purchased. Under this set of circumstances the public could be at risk for underwriting the great majority of the Treasury's purchases and never having a chance to recoup their investment."

[Time for change]

32. "Bernanke spelled out the benefits that would accrue when the government

can buy these mortgage assets at close to 'hold to maturity' prices instead of the 'fire-sale price.'"

That is completely beyond my comprehension. Is Bernanke trying to tell us that the more money we hand over to Wall Street, the more benefits would accrue to us, the American Taxpayer?

[slipslidingaway]

36. The wording in this sentence is confusing, my understanding

from the article is that the benefits would accrue to the firms from which we are buying the assets.

Such as...

"One of the aspects of the Paulson bailout bill that was not clear until today is that the Treasury has no intention of running a true auction for the toxic assets on bank balance sheets. An auction would tend to set very low prices on the current value of mortgage-backed paper...

...It has been widely assumed that banks would need to take large write-downs on the devalued assets, creating the need for them to raise more capital and further dilute shareholders..."


I suppose we could say that if the first assets are managed properly when sold we might expect to sell another group at a similarly high price, but we know that does not always work.

[bleever]

11. Paulson was being "polite" by not circumscribing the oversight he'd be under,

by declaring, in a fair chunk of his Three Pages, that no one or thing or group of ones and/or things could review anything, ever.

Same crap stinks more than others.

[Time for change]

34. Yes, Paulson is very polite

He even said thank you to Tom Brokaw after being interviewed by him on Meet the Press. :P

[OakCliffDem]

12. K & R

[Turbineguy]

15. It's a complicated plan

to recompense Wall Streeters for fees and commissions they would have gotten from Social Security privatization. That said, we are over a barrel. Sometimes it's just cheaper to pay the extortion.

[Time for change]

18. So, do you think that it would be better to pay the extortion in this case?

If so, why? What would we get by paying it, and would do you think would happen if we didn't?

[Turbineguy]

27. I think that paying is simply cheaper

than running the risk of another (and far worse than the last) depression. Obviously, as part of the bailout we have to change the rules, like re-instate Glass-Siegal. Just giving away the money is another Bush wealth transfer.

In the end, I think the government will get their money back.

Certainly faster than if the whole economy collapses.

[Time for change]

28. It just seems to me that there are better ways to prevent an economic collapse

than for the American taxpayers to hand over almost a trillion dollars to Wall Street.

I think that Paul Krugman had some very good things to say about it. What do you think of his ideas?

[avaistheone1]

42. Why do you think we will get our money back?

From the way Paulsen was talking about how they would value the assets we would get the raw end of the stick. The U.S. government would then be responsible for maintaining and securing these homes until the market turns around which could be a very, very long time. You could put poor people in the homes, who can not afford to keep the homes up and then you also have the normal wear and tear during their occupancy. Vacant homes are being stripped of their wiring, fixtures and basically anything of value. Keeping homes on the books is a very expensive venture.

Now what kind of assets to we get in return for bad credit cars, auto loans and defaulted credit cards??

This is bad deal for the taxpayers. Just say NO to the Wall Street bailout.

[Turbineguy]

43. It's not really about

pricing the assets with the bad loans attached. The houses and cars in default are measly compared to the larger problem of an entire financial system.

People for years talked about Bush bankrupting the U.S. I did too. But in my heart of hearts (if you will) I did not actually believe it to be possible. But now I do.

Wall Street people are like teenagers. You can't let them run completely free. But they are part of your household and you have to live with them. If you are not careful, they can get you in more trouble than you can get out of.

And so you buy them an Xbox because it's less risky than having them driving your car.

[geckosfeet]

16. Thank - you inspired my morning message to my congressman -

Dear Mr.XXXX

Please allow me to express some sentiments regarding Secretary Paulsons proposal to give billions, likely upwards of over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to a select few in a select industry.

Us folks in the "workforce" have been told that we need to stabilize financial and credit markets in order to protect the American taxpayer and the jobs and savings of the American people. To do this, the American taxpayers must immediately give $700 billion to Wall Street. No detail. No economic analysis. Nothing to substantiate the theory that widespread chaos will occur if we allow these poorly run businesses to fail.

I don't know about you Mr.XXXX, but to me this sounds like a threat. It also has the now familiar ring of Bush-Cheney-Rove style deal making - "do what we say right now or bad things will happen". The politics of fear.

May I make two additional point:

1. Any plan should include assistance to the mortgage holders that allows them to honor their debt (loan restructuring, direct assistance - SOMETHING!). This will lessen the burden of financial institutions and ultimately reduce the burden to the taxpayers.

2. Regulation and oversight. To give anyone this much money without demanding that they reform their business practices and without regulating how the money is used is nonsense.

I hope Mr.XXXX, that this time, we stand up to these criminals.

[Time for change]

30. Very nice letter

[lunatica]

19. This is the Paulson version of paying for your own rape kit

Only with a twist. It's the rapist who sells you the kit and has not only rewarded his criminal act, but turns around and makes a profit off of you too.

[Gin]

20. they couldn't get S S money in to the market...so they drain the funds from another

angle.

[Poseidan]

22. yay or nay?

If we reject the bail-out, what's the worst that could happen? We have to scale back our military empire; instead of bases all over the planet, we have them only in our own country?

[ms liberty]

24. Marking for later reading...n/t

[PA Democrat]

25. A question. Is the reason Paulson is pushing for paying a premium price for these

mortgage backed securities related to the even greater value of credit default swaps tied to them? Wasn't the reason for the AIG bailout related to their holdings of CDSs?

[Time for change]

26. I can't specifically address that question. What I can say is that

everything the Bush administration has done in almost 8 years of office has had the purpose of screwing the average American citizen in order to enrich their cronies and other wealthy people. I don't see why this would be any different. To my mind, it takes a lot of arrogance for a federal employee (Paulson) to ask Congress for almost a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, while at the same time demanding that there be no oversight over how he handles the matter. The fact that it appears that the people who got us into this mess will profit immensely from it if we go with Paulson's plan certainly doesn't make me any less suspicious.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

33. Yes, yes! 'Goldmine Saks' NEEDS our help to maintain their $550,000 average yearly compensation.

Count me in! :sarcasm:

Recommended.

[Frisbee]

35. One final money grab...

in case they're forced from office.

[checks-n-balances]

38. BINGO! Summarized in one succinct sentence. One question...

"Forced from office"? You mean if they LOSE the election? I thought they made sure that possibility was taken "off the table" eight years ago, or do you know something that the rest of us don't? Do tell!

[Frisbee]

40. Let's face facts...

they are incredibly incompetent, and even though I'm sure they expect they have it fixed, they might still find a way to blow it. Also, they may win the election, but if the theft is too obvious, well I really hate to think what may ensue, but I DO think that's why they have the US military preparing for civil unrest. This election has so much potential for disaster it is mind-boggling.

[Karenina]

37. Hold on cowboys! That includes YOU Mr Buffet

who assured us all Congress will do the "right thing" now that HE has hedged his bets. FIRST I wanna see some books opened and have oh mebbe Joseph Stiglitz and John Kerry heading the teams of auditors. Pigs in pokes aren't selling well these days ;EVILGRIN:

[snot]

39. Just like we had to invade Iraq immediately, before the inspectors

finished proving there were no WMD.

[DangerDave921]

44. wall street is not just the wealthy

You have to realize how many millions of americans are invested in the market. Not just rich people. If you have a mutual fund, you're in the market. If you have a 401(k) at work, you're in the market. If you have a pension plan at work, you're in the market. So millions of average, middle-class people are invested in the market either directly or indirectly.

[Time for change]

45. True

So why should we think that a cash transfer of nearly a million dollars from the American taxpayer (all Americans) to those who own, manage or are invested in the markets will help the situation? And especially why should we think that that will happen on Paulson/Bush's terms, which are essentially, "Trust us -- we'll take care of it"?

Better yet, as some on this thread have suggested, why not take the money out of the Iraq War budget? That way it won't cost the American people anything -- just Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, etc.

[DangerDave921]

46. agreed

To give $700 billion to these companies and allow them to engage in the same activities that got us here is ludicrous.

[On the Road]

47. The Key is Whether the Banking System is on the Verge of a String of Failures

and whether the bailout program will prevent that.

If the financial system fails, the transfer of wealth to the rich will exceed any of the costs being discussed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. In what sense is a mortgage an asset, if it doesn't imply control of the mortgaged real estate?

We’re preventing failure. We – the financial institutions are clogged with illiquid loans, so what we need to do is quickly buy those loans. They won’t be giving us control of real estate, but this – we need to manage these assets and manage them quickly…


If you don't control anything tangible, it's not an asset.

We're buying shit.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

49. This is a must read. Thank you for writing this. I'm going to send the link to some friends.

[defendandprotect]

50. Or...as another DU poster suggested let Wall St bail out Wall St ---

Wall Street moves on average 300 million to 450 million shares per day. Why not set an immediate surtax on all shares traded of between 1.5% to 3.0% to create a dedicated fund from which a bailout of Wall Street's toxic target assets could be paid-off, thus making the bailout request pay for itself directly from the source? The treasury could also recover the $350 billion Paulson/Bush bailout just in the past two weeks as well, taking the American taxpayer off the hook completely.

Then congress could take the $1.1 trillion and earmark that for the next presidency to begin massive recovery of the U.S. economy.