If you're so damn sure the bailout bill was correct, SHOW me where the money's actually gone

[bigtree]

. . . because most of the folks looking on have absolutely no clue what the initial outlays from the first $350 billion released to Paulson have actually been spent on. (only $60 billion has been left unspent).

I just don't know how anyone can credibly say that just throwing this money around, anywhere and everywhere (except where average consumers and homeowners can reach it) is a responsible or effective way to "shore up the credit market." If you can't tell me where the money has been spent, then how can you possibly know that it's contributing AT ALL to any 'stabilizing' of the market? There certainly isn't any evidence of that happening inthe credit market so far, or in any other market, for that matter.

There just isn't any accountability at all for any of the claims from the folks who convinced Congress to hand over $700 billion to the Bush administration with absolutely NO binding direction from them for where and how the money is to be spent. And, don't think that this is over the head of average folks looking on. They know when they're getting robbed.


from MSNBC First Read: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/13/1672073.aspx

"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson yesterday backed away from the original strategy behind the $700 billion US plan for propping up the limping economy, opening the door to pump government cash into credit card companies, auto financing firms, and other consumer lenders in addition to banks."

Does anyone else get the funny feeling that we're going to discover very soon that the $700 billion has been spent and no one is quite sure what it got spent on? So far, the Bush Administration has committed nearly $300 billion of the $700 billion. And the Washington Post notes there's no oversight. "Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed. ‘It's a mess,’ said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. ‘I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing.’”

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html

[stray cat]

1. The reverse - if it was a huge mistake show me what would have happened w/o any intervention

Although - I too would like transparency in how it was used.

[bigtree]

3. we can't go back, so that's just a strawman

The burden of proof is on the proponents.

[Donnachaidh]

4. that's just it -- we've had NO signs of either way happening

Exactly WHAT *HAS* happened since that money was given away? Do YOU have evidence that it has WORKED? We still see the stock market on a downhill run - we still get daily updates on how many people are out of work, how many companies are going belly up.

NOTHING about WHERE the money has gone and it's immediate effect. Just get to sit back as Paulson gives away money to *somebody* - and refusing to say WHO.

WTF?

[depakid]

22. The global credit markets have been loosening

You aren't hearing tons of stories about ships piling up in ports because businesses can't get letters of credit to facilitate transportation and delivery. States like California and Massachusetts (not to mention many businesses) are able to access short to mid term credit to meet obligation (like payrolls).

The spreads are still high, but fallling on interbank lending.

In the Treasury's case (as opposed to the Fed's loans) the government is recieving equity interests in return for much of its money- (so it's not being "given away) and there are records of these transactions.

People continue to ignore the fact that what the fall of Lehman precipitated was a GLOBAL CREDIT CRISIS- and had that been allowed to continue without intervention (coordinated intervention, I might add) from the industrialized nations of the world, the current sitation would be a magnitude worse.

Nothing that the US- or the rest of the world and the central banks was going to forestall a recession- or prop up the stock market under these economic conditions. And that wasn't the point of their action- the point was to keep matters from spiralling completely out of control.

[bigtree]

24. this is just bad money propping up other bad money

There is has been no firm direction given by the Treasury for where or how the money is spent and most of these 'equity interests' are going to be worthless as these companies just use the inflow of cash to feather their top line with no commitment to improve their operation or any assurance that they'll even be in business or in any position to positively affect the 'global credit crunch.'

We've allowed our money to be used as a slush fund for Paulson's craps shoot. It's amazing how none of these financial institutions have been challenged to sacrifice ANY of the money that goes out of their back door. The fact is, these banks and lending institutions are free in this atmosphere of a guaranteed re-gaming of their casino to conduct themselves any way they please.

That conduct is just going to be even more irresponsible as they are enabled and encouraged by the attitude of our Treasury to keep gambling and splurging with our borrowed money. To expect this craps shoot to produce any kind of stability which is sustainable or beneficial is ludicrous. No one except this wealthy class of investors is allowed to be such a deadbeat and still apply for and receive a support check from our government. That's the point where WE are actually affected. We will NEVER see any benefit from the money Paulson is throwing around. If you think some shift in a 'global' credit market is worth the expense, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

[TahitiNut]

6. Cultures that sacrificed virgins to the Gods were convinced it would have been worse if they didn't.

No wonder copulation became so popular. :shrug:

[Romulox]

16. Lisa: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.”

Homer: “Hmm; how does it work?”
Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!”
Homer: “Uh-huh.”
Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”

Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”

[moodforaday]

20. Nothing would have happened

different from what you're seeing right now: banks still don't loan money. Since the bailout money did not go where it was supposed to or is not being used the way it was supposed to, the money has made no difference, except for one side being robbed and the other side being able to buy more Caribbean islands.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I have a problem with the Credit Card companies getting their hands on it

They have already had their share out of the cookie jar with their usury.
The money NEEDS to go to food, housing, jobs and sustainable energy.
As far as I am concerned...CONSUMER DEBT can take a hike to the very bottom of the list...since the cardholders will NOT benefit from any money thrown at the CC companies--just the CEO's and it could possibly ENCOURAGE new cardholders to incur MORE debt.
That is hardly a solution.

[bigtree]

5. there's no guarantee that these 'companies' who get the cash will even stay in business

. . . after they clear their debt. This is absurd madness.

[Horse with no Name]

7. The ONLY guarantee is the promise of Golden Parachutes at the end of the rainbow

That's not acceptable to me.:(

[pampango]

8. The only positive things said about the bailout bill here seem to be that

its existence seems to justify a bailout of the auto industry. (If you can bail out Wall Street and the financial industry, you can bail out the auto industry and its workers.)

That's a pretty weak defense of a $700 billion program, but it is all I can come up with. The secrecy and changing goals of the bailout are almost beyond belief. Only under a Republican, I guess.

[TBF]

9. Wall Street fat cats are getting their bonuses this yr. Will you?

I think many good people were taken in by Paulsen the looter, and didn't know what to do or think when he took their 401ks hostage.

If Bush were a human being with any compassion in his heart he would've taken that $700B authorized by Congress and requested that it specifically be used to back up 401K accounts so average folks wouldn't lose their retirement savings. It's an outrage that the money was poured into the pockets of investment bankers who make 6 or 7 figure salaries and indeed are receiving their bonuses this year. I view it as criminal.

[Horse with no Name]

11. I'm an RN

with 20 years experience at some major hospitals.
The last year I have seen our staffing matrixes drop staffing to the bare bones. Just enough to do what you HAVE to do to get by.
We are staffed so low that many of our departments have only ONE nurse on them at any given time. Nurses come in for their shifts and get sent home after 4 hours. This is a very frequent occurrence.
It's getting scary out there for ALL professions...and my 401k tanked with everyone elses.:(

[bigtree]

12. Money for hospitals should be included in any stimulus bill which emerges

That shouldn't have to wait for some resolution of some health-care proposal. Obama already acknowledged that hospitals are bearing the brunt of the health care crisis. Hospitals and their professionals and staff should be considered for immediate investment right alongside of energy and schools which Obama has already identified as first on his agenda for assistance in a stimulus package.

[progressive_realist]

17. Not in the same category economically

Investment in energy and schools increases our future productivity. The bulk of our health care, on the other hand, is for the purpose of extending the lives of people outside of their productive prime or who have serious chronic conditions. Investment in energy and schools increases society's future income, while health care spending mostly increases future expenses.

As a moral society, we choose to spend much of our surplus production supporting nonproductive members, but we shouldn't forget that this is only possible as long as we have surplus production.

[bigtree]

18. Well, the investments in Obama's health care plan are seen as a stimulus

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama's plan to extend health care to uninsured Americans will provide a boon to hospitals, along with medical centers and hospital equipment makers, according to Moody's Investors Service.

"Moody's estimates that the annual cost of the plan could be on the order of $100 billion to $200 billion, inclusive of participant contributions, on top of current annual government spending of about $800 billion," the rating agency said in a report this week.

"The expected spending could positively affect the top-line growth of many health care providers," the rating agency added, noting that the agenda of Obama's Democratic party includes increasing research funding and providing $10 billion over five years to health care providers to build up electronic-information systems.

The agency added that for-profit and non-profit hospitals alike could benefit from the plan, which was a cornerstone of Obama's campaign.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4A65W720081107

[kentuck]

10. They mailed credit cards to people's dogs....

at a 27% interest rate and now we are supposed to bail them out. Screw them!

[lelgt60]

14. I know...my dog ran up quite a bill

I should've watched closer. I knew something was up when I saw that picture of "Dogs Playing Poker" inside his dog house.

[benld74]

13. Will wind up JUST LIKE ANYTHING GOP pushes to have done

a huge effin mess! with nothing to show for it, a bigger mess afterwards, and them blaming the Democrats in later years.

[Raster]

15. Make no mistake, Paulson and his ilk are concerned about preserving the health of the

financial system THAT FAVORS THEM. This is not helping the little guy--at least not directly. If it happens to "trickle down," than fine. This is about continuing to prop up a dishonest financial infrastructure that ultimately rewards and benefits the rich and richer.

We need real change in this country, including--and most importantly--financial change. First, any financial institution that receives any federal funds should be either out-right nationalized or, at the very least, give the citizens that paid the funds certain rights of ownership.

Second, we need to create an alternate financial infrastructure aimed at aiding the average American citizen and it needs to be not-for-profit. This entity should manage personal savings and issue mortgages, all not-for-profit.

Third, we need de-tangle this country's finances from those of Wall Street. Wall Street does NOT have your best interests at heart. They have THEIR best interests at heart. And unfortunately, Paulson is one of THEM.

Fourth, we need to IMMEDIATELY re-examine and take action on the "immortal person-hood" status of corporations in the United States. Corporations and business entities are not people, and never will be. They have no conscience, nor any concept of higher good. They exist to MAKE MONEY. Period. Supposing or imaging anything else from corporations is folly.

[wroberts189]

19. actually its 5 trillion they have given away.. google it n/t

[LuckyLib]

21. Haven't you heard? They don't have to tell you what they do with it. That's part of the plan.

[bigtree]

25. great plan

. . . give the Bush thieves a slush fund to consolidate and enrich their golden parachutes as they bail.

[earth mom]

23. It was obvious from day 1 that the bailout was a theft of epic proportions to fatten the wallets

of Wall St. shysters.

And don't forget the "dividends" paid to investors of those banks! :grr: