Posted on 09/29/2008 11:44:14 PM PDT by curiosity
Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown. This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Against Pelosi-Frank's wishes, of course, but it's BUSH'S bailout.
If it passed, it'd be the Congressional Bailout Success.
I think it's time to jettison the waste. We'd be better off propping up smaller institutions with injections of capital at low interest rates to get the credit flowing again. That way these institutions will get a chance to show their competitiveness and to grow and thrive.
Media speak with fork-ed tongue.
Great white Mother in Washington Pelosi is always on winning side.
She pullum extra votes out of Biden’s hairplug-holes
Don’t forget Hussein 0bama. It’s the Bush-Pelosi-Frank-0bama bailout. 0bama said he deserved ‘credit’, too, so let’s be sure we give it to him.
I’m just surprised he didn’t thank Sergeant...uhhhh’s mother because knowing she was out there guided him in doing whatever the heck it was he did during this crisis—oh, right, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Heap big whitewash.
Don’t worry Nancy!
CNN has got your back!
I have been saying for a long time it is time to replace the 535 and start over. This may be our opportunity.
And if MCLAIM had half a spine ... HE would do it!
Politicians are now in Katrina mode. Everything’s a meaninglessly natural disaster and the govt must ride to the rescue.
Sorry I Don’t think is going to happen. There all politically spineless eunuchs.
1. Explain in simple understandable terms exactly WHO is responsible for this mess and WHY.
Thats not going to happen. The main culprits are the many, many people (and businesses) that have simply been living beyond their means, on credit, for years and years and years.
You dont win many votes telling people they are fools.
They can’t explain why we need this bail out without going into the social policy political payoffs.
They would have to explain who is responsible for pushing loans based on skin color qualifiers.
They would have to explain why some lobbyists were hired NOT to lobby for opponents.
If they explain it the way you want, barney frank and maxine waters would be going to jail.
<<”So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.”>>
Bingo!! But lotsaluck getting a Rat to support this plan.
We're totally disgusted by both candidates at this point (of course we were always disgusted with Obama.)
McCain gets no pass because he's playing "finger to the wind" politics just like Barry. Watching Barry is getting amusing because he's just trying to stay far away from any committment on the issue (which really makes one feel good about his leadership ability /sarc.)
But the bottom line is somebody in this country of politicians needs to exhibit some leadership no matter what the consequences. I do feel like the House Republicans did that yesterday.
If McCain comes out strong on the issue and loses the race, sobeit...he did the right thing. But pussy footing around the truth (on so many levels) makes me angry.
Yea, that is why they blocked it.
Bill Sammons was on Fox & Friends this morning and said that defeat of the Paulson bailout package actually puts House Republicans in the driver’s seat regarding the next version of the rescue plan. He said some of the things they considered like getting rid of mark-to-market, reducing capital gains taxes and reducing corporate taxes may be included in the next plan. I don’t know if thats really going to happen, but if it does it will be a real ‘feather in the cap’ of the House Republicans.
Very, very interesting.
I’ve forwarded it to friends.
Thanks for posting it.
Seriously ... I'm interested in hearing your ideas.
Bankruptcy is an effecient way to do away with poorly performing organizations.
I kinda feel sorry for McCain. He used to amend his brand of conservatism to attune to the desires of the NY Slimes and the TV network anchors. Now they won’t touch him no matter where he comes down. Poor thing. All those years of kowtowing to those leftists and then they stab him in the back.
While FR was down I ventured over to ...the other side. It is always amazing to read some of the stuff over there, but it was a few posts of republican rebuke regarding the bailout that left my head spinning! Or at least wanting to post a rebuttal to their stupid forum, yet the MSM is doing the same darn thing! Uggghhhh?
It was Republicans that stopped this bill! Republicans! Dang it all! It wasn’t your swarmy small minded business inept crook democrats, it was Republicans!
Good God we need someone to come forward and educate the public about what the heck happened and we need people to take that long walk in new bracelets!
The ones who were pushing this plan were democrats.
Every two years there are 435 opportunities
I was going to post it but FR was down. I'm glad others have found it.
If McCain had any horse sense rather than the usual wall street gadflies in his ears, he'd run against the bailout and for a sensible resolution, protecting taxpayers, like proposed in this piece.
Technically you are correct. But in reality, there’s no risk to the overwhelming majority of those 435 incumbents. There aren’t the good candidates willing to run and there certainly isn’t the funding to mount serious campaigns in most of those districts. You won’t get even one debate. Lastly, thanks to gerrymandering you’d have to nuke most of the electorate just to get someone of the other party even a snowball’s chance in hell of being considered let along elected.
Did anyone notice this at the end of the article?
“The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.’
I have never seen CNN cover themselves with this before in all the crap they post. I guess they can have it either way depending how the wind blows.
ping
Now THAT was a fantastic article. Thanks for posting it.
I'd guess they did that because the author of the piece is a . . . LIBERTARIAN! OH DEAR, A POTHEAD!
No, it’s just that with modern technology the notion that you can only fund the larger institutions is absurd, inefficient, and not cost effective. Making funds available directly to the smaller institution would cut out the middleman. Reward the prudent, and maintain credit flow for families and small businesses.
bump
Yes, until proven to the contrary, this small-’l’ libertarian professor should become a new favorite on Free Republic. His underlying message seems to be one of small government, which of course is the base on which Reagan built his coalition.
There are many, many people who contributed to this mess. There were mortgage brokers who knowingly originated loans based on fraudulant information. Fannie and Freddie contributed to this by giving favorable terms to brokers who originated subprime loans. There were the rating agencies who rated toxic paper as AAA. And then, there were the risk management departments at the big banks who either because of laziness or incompetence or greed, or a liitle of all three, looked the other way while their traders loaded up on subprime exposure. Finally, there were the boards of major financial institutions who failed to provde any oversight over their risk management departments.
2. Have the guilty prosecuted to the full extent of the LAW.
While there are some illegal acts behind the crisis, like the mortgage brokers who ignored obvious fraud, most of the bad acts were imprudent but not illegal.
IMHO, the root of the crisis is poor corporate governance at the financial institutions. If the boards had been doing their job and keeping an eye on management, the firms would not have taken on all this subprime exposure. Excessive reliance on credit ratings is also a major problem.
3. If Republicans are responsible then let us know.
The one area they might bear some blame is in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which sheltered the credit derivatives market from regulation. But I'm not sure. I have to study this issue more.
While most claims that deregulation is responsible are pure BS (eg., the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999), there might be some truth to the assertion that the CFMA contributed to the crisis. But like I said, I have to study this more.
Here is an explanation:
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1
CAUTION, CONTAINS WRITTEN ADULT LANGUAGE. IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED, DO NOT OPEN THIS LINK.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.