How about going through the whole bill before declaring we've been had?

[knowledgeispwr]

I see people pulling out single passages and declaring the world has ended.

Paul Krugman doesn't think the bill is great, but not terrible either.

Let the bill be read and studied (do it yourself if you have time and the background) before jumping to conclusions.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Surely DUers could refrain from talking about something they know nothing about...

But only at the cost of having nothing to say.

(a shamelessly adapted quote)

[silverweb]

2. Stop making sense!

:D

[knowledgeispwr]

4. LOL. It's like someone hit a hidden DU panic button!

I understand people's concerns and suspicions, but running around like chickens with our heads cut off doesn't help anyone.

[Warpy]

3. I'm about a third of the way through

and so far "I'll only put it part way in, honey," looks to be fairly accurate.

[samsingh]

5. someone needs to objectively explain it

i don't know why we are feeling pressured when it is a repug mess - let them clean it up or resign enmass

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. I am reading it, pulling out single passages I have a problem with, and posting them for discussion.

So we're not allowed to talk about it? Interesting....

[knowledgeispwr]

7. I didn't say we're not allowed to talk about it...

and I haven't seen your posts, so wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about visceral reactions to small portions of the bill or to the fact that there is anything being done at all. Some are taking the position (in incoherent ways) that any action is unwanted.

What I'm trying to say is that cooler heads should prevail.

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. Here's the part I'm deeply troubled with:

(e) PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT.—In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the resale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.
SEC. 102. INSURANCE OF TROUBLED ASSETS

This passage says that the Fed can't purchase the assets at a price MORE than what the institutions paid for them. This makes sense - of course the financial institutions shouldn't profit from the sale of these assets. The problem in that these assets are currently worth SIGNIFICANTLY less than the financial institutions paid for them. The bill makes it legal for the Fed to buy the assets AT THE PRICE THE INSTITUTIONS PAID FOR THEM. That would be a terrible deal for the American people.

Many on DU who have been pushing for the passage of this bill have claimed that the taxpayers may make a profit from this deal. That passage could mean that that CAN'T happen.

I haven't read the whole bill yet, so it's not out of the question that this is addressed later in it.

[nc4bo]

14. Exactly right. The assets were already overpriced in a bubble to begin with...WTF!!!!! nt

[Neshanic]

17. How does the "Mark to Market" part affect this? I am reading it now.

[dgibby]

8. I admit it. I'm guilty as charged!

I haven't read it yet, but ANYTHING that is prefaced with the words, "the Bush administration is pleased with...." really supercharges my spidy senses.:scared: :hide:

[knowledgeispwr]

12. I don't blame you for that reaction to....

"the Bush administration is pleased"

Like I've said elsewhere, I understand a lot of the reaction, I'm just saying we all need to be cool-headed about this.

[lse7581011]

10. I'm On Page 84

and going strong!

[Trajan]

11. When my momma dies ...

I'll give you a call ....

Here's to her long life and continuing health ...

*clink*

[galileoreloaded]

13. I readily admit that perhaps I am a guilty party....

but I read the bill, all 100+ pages, and I also contribute to many excellent economic blogs where participants take pieces and deconstruct for the best possible picture. This was dissected in 20 minuites, and exposed for the sham it is.

This is "feel good" politics at its finest, with little red meat.

Example:

About 5 years ago, here in Phoenix, a girl was tragically killed by a bullet that was fired in the air, came down and killed her in her back yard. Very, very sad. So people uttered the 4 most expensive (fiscally and socially) words that can be said aloud, "something must be done". They passed a law called "Shannon's law" that made shooting a bullet in the air a felony. Made people feel good. We did something. Never mind that it was ALWAYS a felony to discharge a firearm in city limits, and if you did it on purpose, it could be prosecuted as second degree murder not just manslaughter. The law did nothing to find the person who did it, prevent the exact same thing from happening again or anything at all substantive, just made people feel good. We did something.

The major changes are additional oversight, by congresspersons with little understanding of core issues, and it is longer, to fit preconceptions that we are doing something. I submit that this is feel good politics, with disastrous consequence.

I do apologize if my passion is worn on my sleeve.

[knowledgeispwr]

16. What do you suggest be done instead?

I ask honestly and earnestly.

As I posted in the OP, Krugman seems to think the current is "non-awful" enough for things to be more thoroughly addressed next year.

[galileoreloaded]

20. I really like the Karl Denniger plan, and the stark reality might exist.....

that we might not be able to fix it. Human history is replete with changes, upheavals, but the common thread is that through history, things get better. Not advocating collapse nor a survivalists wet dream, but history, our best tool for predicting future outcomes, follows a strict Darwinian path.

That said, personally, I would rather go through tough times now that I can provide for my kids, than when I am older and less able.

A link to Karl Denningers plan.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

[knowledgeispwr]

23. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I wish there were more posts like yours and less hysterics.

[magellan]

29. I asked my husband to transcribe Denninger's plan, it's here for all to read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4103567&mesg_id=4109804

[galileoreloaded]

30. You know whats funny, the "new" plan at 0% reserve actually INCREASES leverage. n/t

[magellan]

33. I'm sorry, I don't speak financial well

What do you mean?

[Captiosus]

21. Since I also panned the bill, I'd like to address the question.

Using the current draft as the template, here's some major changes I would make right off the bat:

Section 101(e): I would strike the merger, acquisition & bankruptcy loophole because that is just begging to be exploited. The language in that particular section is so vague that it would allow financial institutions to get higher than market value for troubled assets. Also, I would adjust it to pay "current, fair market value" on troubled assets, not what they paid for it because, as Finnfan states, this lets them get more money on their assets than their actual market values.

Section 114(b) (As referenced by girl gone mad): This entire section should be struck and rewritten demanding that all transactions and instruments be available for public disclosure, not just ones as determined by the Treasury Secretary.

Section 115(a)(1)(2)(3): I would strike the language saying that the President certifies that the Treasury Secretary is doing his job prescribed by Congress and to use said certification as the basis for distributing more funds. This undermines oversight because it allows the President to be the sole arbiter of whether more funds are distributed just by penning a note, or plan, and getting someone to jog said note across the Mall. I would replace the language with something to the effect of "the President may request additional funds may be released up to (350billion/700billion) out at any given time, but any such request must be approved by Congress before funds are released to the Secretary of the Treasury".

Section 120(b): This provision should be completely removed and no extension beyond the initial one year-3 month period should be allowed unless it is specifically added to future economic legislation in subsequent Congressional sessions.

As for what's completely missing in this bill... We've heard both Presidential Candidates and both Parties saying they want to make sure any bailout bill helps "Main Street", but nothing in this bill does.

I don't care if Pelosi says it's a dealbreaker; Judicial review/restructuring of mortgage owners in bankruptcy needs to be in this bill. More emphasis on equity stake needs to be in this bill. If both parties want to help "Main Street" then there should be provisions in this bill to do so.

[knowledgeispwr]

24. Thanks

Good, meaningful reply. I can't argue with what you've said.

[girl gone mad]

28. Here is the solution that I support:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=44442&mesg_id=44442

[Captiosus]

15. I've read the whole bill and I think it's a piece of trash.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4112427

Posts 12-17, most of them are mine and one from Finnfan about the passage linked in this thread.

This entire bill is a sham.
It does, officially, bail out Wall Street and does very little for anyone else.

[soothsayer]

18. oh please. you don't have to read it to know that if they like it, it's bad for us.

our politicians don't represent us, just big money.

[soothsayer]

19. oh please. you don't have to read it to know that if they like it, it's bad for us.

our politicians don't represent us, just big money.

[BlooInBloo]

25. You've said all I expect from Americans.

[Waiting For Everyman]

22. Before anything, we need to know who is holding the short side of the CDSs.

The SEC is investigating this. Why isn't that a part of this discussion in Congress?

If, as I suspect, the banks themselves shorted their own mortgage securities, then they have no interest in stopping foreclosures. That is the only thing I've heard of, which would explain their unwillingness to do workouts. And they're not doing them. If it's left up to them to do it voluntarily, it won't happen and these assets will decline.

[lonestarnot]

26. Is the one on our front page the last draft? That's the one I want to read.

Have a link to that one?

[girl gone mad]

27. I just finished reading the whole thing.

I can't emphasize enough how horrible I believe it is.

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. Krugman's mature assessment:

It isn't perfect, but it's necessary, and it's a start of the real task.

Pass it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

32. Dupe -- slow server.

.

[jtrockville]

34. You're suggesting we accept the premise

that we need to bail out Wall Street. I don't accept that at all. I think we have more than two choices (either bail or do nothing).

From listening to experts over the last few days, the worst consequence of doing nothing is: people won't be able to get loans for college, payroll, etc.

So let's create an emergency, temporary, loan program. Start by authorizing 10 billion/month for 3 months. Issue loans only to those who are credit worthy.

When Wall Street cleans up the mess it got itself into, we can end the temporary program and auction off the loans.

[rucky]

35. I hope Congress takes your advice. n/t