Posted on 10/02/2008 1:50:28 PM PDT by BGHater
During a time when most of the commentary and news “analysis” has been in favor of the Wall Street takeover plan, Rep. Brad Sherman of California was on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC show on September 30 to cite evidence that the legislation potentially “provides hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts to foreign investors,” including those in Communist China.
The offensive provision is Section 112, “Coordination With Foreign Authorities and Central Banks,” which “Requires the Secretary to coordinate with foreign authorities and central banks to establish programs similar to TARP”―the Troubled Assets Relief Program.
In another strange twist, in order to get around the constitutional requirement that revenue raising bills must originate in the House, the Senate attached the Wall Street takeover plan to a House bill, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. The socialist-style bailout passed 74-25 with one senator (the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy) not voting. Of the 25 opponents, 15 were Republicans.
Presidential candidates Senators Barack Obama and John McCain both voted for it.
Obama, perhaps the most radical candidate to run for president on a major party ticket, is coming in for strong criticism from supporters of Ralph Nader, who is running for the presidency on a third party ticket. An article on the Nader-for-president website says Obama has been fronting “for the most vicious predators on Wall Street.”
Those Senators voting against the legislation, known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, were Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Cantwell (D-WA), Cochran (R-MS), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Enzi (R-WY), Feingold (D-WI), Inhofe (R-OK), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-FL), Roberts (R-KS), Sanders (I-VT), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS), and Wyden (D-OR).
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
And now, foreigners get money from the bailout! What a shame! Are these people determined to sell out our country?
If they thought we would default they would not buy our debt.
Can't let that happen, can we? After all, this is the cornerstone of globalism: intertwined economies, making us interdependent. That's the CFR buzzword.
All will be sacrificied to this False God: America, its people, its independence.
When we decided to become a debtor nation, we signed on to a plan that would see times like this come up, and our nation have to provide assurance to foreign investors that they would not lose money. Look, I don’t like it, that’s were we are. If we want foreign investment to continue to show up in the U.S., we can’t telegraph the fact that those investments may simply disappear. If we don’t want foreign investment, by all means, let foreign investment crash and burn.
“debtor nation”
That the same as a Financial service based economy?
This is a sort of companion article to this one:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20915.htm
Here is a video of that senator too(with everything else stripped out).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUSxiGN4m4
Both Candidates DISGUST me .... but I’m still voting McCain.
I don’t see it as the same.
On Tuesday Angela Merkle urged congress in this country to vote for the bail out but yesterday told the EU she wouldn’t be writing any blank checks to bail out european banks. Sounds to me like she’s waiting for the money to come in from “elsewhere”.
It’s worse than that. This Wall Street handout bill authorizes the Treasury to buy mortgages for overseas real estate. Note that foreign real estate is way more overvalued relative to foreign incomes than US real estate is relative to US incomes.
Right you are. We will probably have to borrow money from China to pay for the bailout. This is a facelift to sustain the the stock market bubble for a while longer. We are committed to be a sub-prime borrower hoping that interest rates do not reset.
Let it crash and burn. And let some foreign wahoo come over here and try to collect his debt.
I’m not worried about the stock market. It will find it’s equilibrium. I am worried about the availability of credit, so that businesses, jobs, and real estate don’t tank. In the end that sinks the market too, but those things remaining relatively strong, the market will be okay.
According to the bailout crew, that’s what we are. Since we have no manufacturing...
I think you’re missing the point. Nobody is coming over here to collect. They do have choices about where they will invest their funds in the future though. And since we rely on their investments, we better hope they continue to see us as a solid safe place to invest.
I see it the other way around. Where would any of these countries be without the USA?
I say call their bluff.
I believe there is a meltdown going on behind the scenes right now. I further believe that if we do not find some reasoned way to infuse confidence, we’re going to be looking back in three years kicking ourselves for not doing more to stave off what will have occurred by then.
I think the right has every reason to demand pork, special projects, other unrelated items, and earmarks stay out of this. Further, I want unsupportable loans to individuals who cannot possibly pay them back, ended immediately. ACORN and other such concerns should be mothballed.
The bottom line is that I do think that secured loans to lending institutions (some would call a bailout) framed properly would be a good thing.
That does not imply that I think business as usual should be the follow up to this. A review of lending practices and a refusal to allow this to happen again, are vitally important immediately.
CFR and the international banking families that control our Fed and it's member banks are calling the shots.
I don't have a reasonable theory on why just yet but, IMO they caused the problems in 1929 (and the '80s) and are doing so again. Could be they know something is fixing to happen and want to milk the markets while there are reasons to blame it on.
I forgot to mention that they are Socialists.
those not getting loans are the ones with poor credit rating-the car dealership that folded was due to bad loans they made to people who didn’t have the ability to pay
“The bottom line is that I do think that secured loans to lending institutions (some would call a bailout) framed properly would be a good thing.”
They’re not secured. It’s buying paper.
“I believe there is a meltdown going on behind the scenes right now.”
Hard to say. Is there one expert in the world supporting this, and the alarmism? Everthing I see says this is the wrong way to do it. There’s Bush, but he is scared his tax cuts without spending cuts won’t be funded by the Saudis and Chinese in the last months of this presidency. There’s Paulson, but he has got his own legacy problems too. Every recent deal seems to involve Goldman Sachs somehow, or bailing out foreign interests. The voices of complaint are foreign. France, Putin, the President of Colombia complaining that “we financed America” and this liquidity.
Unless the car dealership extended the credit themselves, it’s more likely a sales slump that them in. The lending institution is the entity that loses out on the vehicle loans that aren’t paid.
No the dealership was giving the loans-
Shermy, isn’t the bad paper secured with an empty undervalued property, or has this been completely disassociated with the property? If it has been disassociated, then you’re right as I understand it.
Rush was reported to have said the government should purchase the good loans from the institutions to pump in money. It seems to me that might actually be a good thing. It would get liquidity into the system, but the government would have equity that wouldn’t expose the taxpayer to great losses.
These deeds could then be sold to other healthy institutions that could service them.
Were they giving out bad loans? Was that your impression?
Paper, mortgage backed securities, are “secured” with real estate. Paulson wants to buy it outright for more than market value. Not a loan.
The idea that he can buy it and sell it for a profit is not well founded. The wished for property values were those at the height of the bubble. Plus, the securities themselves were overvalued above the bubble prices by loans for more than assessed value and the probability the banksters fiddled with the valuation of the derivative paper in ways easily hidden from reality.
What to do, there are many ideas.
There is an expert now for the Paulson plan, Warren Buffet. But, this was after he bought into Goldman Sachs some days ago. So is he credible?
“Were they giving out bad loans?”
“Sub-prime,” reminescent of “junk”. They were bad, but this is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is a cool down in housing prices across the board, thereby making related derivatives less valuable too.
He went to say something to the effect that the financial crisis is just too great and the bill that is before the House will likely make the situation worse in the long run and much more money will be needed worldwide and here as well. Did anyone else catch this interview If so please elucidate. I stand to be corrected.
If he’s buying it at inflated values, I would disagree with the move. If he wants to buy it at deflated values, I would consider it.
I’m carrying on several conversations here. I believe that question about poor loans was directed at a person talking about a dealership that went out of business.
Even staunch U.S. allies like Colombian President Alvaro Uribe blasted the world’s most powerful country for egging on uncontrolled financial speculation that he compared to a wild horse with no reins.
“The whole world has financed the United States, and I believe that they have a reciprocal debt with the planet,” he said.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081001/lt_meltdown_pointing_fingers.html?.v=1
I think there’s more in that statement about what’s really going on than anything Paulson has said.
I agree, but I’m not convinced these things aren’t all inter-related. We try to shore up the value of foreign investment so that more of it comes our way. Yes, the world has been financing a lot of what we do. Unless we want to alter that, we will want to implement policies that make it appealing to the nations that do.
The problem is that foreigners bought bad debt, too.
Profits & LOSSES are part of competitive, market economy.
That is part of the process of decision making in a free society.
Why do we “need” to bail out foreigners, OR bail out domestic investors who made bad decisions?
This is not the taxpayers’ business - or problem.
Whether foreign or domestic, people should NOT repeat the same mistakes — and third parties, taxpayers, should certainly not shoulder the costs (losses, burdens).
If we bail out investors, whether foreign or domestic, we have the Moral Hazard problem and — the same bad investment decisions will happen over time.
Sorry, Chi Coms — welcome to the free market.
And sorry, Democrats — no more “anti-redlining” social experiments (social engineering) — Thank You!!!
Yep, on a small scale I certainly agree. When it gets to the point that markets collapse if you don’t take action, you have to take action. I realize you and a lot of other folks don’t agree. I still say that if we didn’t intervene now, you would be angry that we hadn’t in a few years, due to the fall out from not having done so.
IT'S NOT FOR "MAIN" STREET, IT'S FOR (CHOW) "MEIN" STREET
http://www.fedupusa.com
I’d rather take a hit... then pass the problem (bill) along to our children. We are going to have to BORROW the Trillions — or inflate the money supply — after all.
Markets go up - AND DOWN. People want only the ‘upsides’ of competition, nowadays, but none of the risks (volatility) that come with them.
That is selfish & unrealistic. It needs to stop. Even some Republicans sound like “entitled” democrats, when it comes to the market economy lately.
Take care,
4L
then = than
Vested Interest.
“In the fall of 1917, a group called “The Inquiry” was assembled by Col. Edward M. House to negotiate solutions for the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles. They worked out of the American Geographical Society doing historical research, and writing position papers. The Inquiry was formed around the inner circle of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which was a group of American socialist-oriented intellectuals.
House, President Wilson's most trusted advisor, was an admirer of Marx. In 1912, he anonymously wrote the book Philip Dru: Administrator (published by Fabian B. W. Huebsch), which was a novel that detailed the plans for the takeover of America, by establishing “socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx,” and the creation of a one-world totalitarian government. This was to be done by electing an American President through “deception regarding his real opinions and intentions.” The book also discussed the graduated income tax, and tax-free foundations. The novel became fact, and “Philip Dru” was actually House himself.”
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn05-2
This site attempts to explain and chronicle the march toward a totalitarian one-world government. (use index at bottom of page)
If this thing were to snowball into a depression, do you honestly think your children would escape the downside? I understand where you are coming from, but I honestly don’t see the problem with the federal government stepping in to provide stability. I realize there’s an honest disagreement on this. Folks have a reason for opposing this. The stated reason sounds reasoned, avoiding socialism, but I’m still not convinced that’s what this is going to turn into being when it all shakes out. If the $700 billion is utilized, the hoped for stabilization is achieved, and the government gets our money back, where’s the socialism? We’ll see in time. I appreciate your expression of an alternative view.
Thanks Wolfcreek. I’ll check it out.
You won’t have to try very hard to convince me we’re mired in a socialist enclave at the present time.
Economists argue that is wat the government’s actions that in fact CAUSED the severity of the Great Depression.
I tell you this, because you are under the impression that “the market” is the problem.
Milton Friedman, Tom Sowell, and others have said the Great Depression was as bad as it was, because THE GOVERNMENT literally reduced the Money Supply back by one third - and erected protectionist policies that prolonged and deepened matters.
So, bottom line — if Govt does NOT do this, we should not have a bad time of a few bad loans and corrupt banks and democrats.
Please, == don’t be scared (spun) by these greedy politicians and their corporate welfare seeking lobbyists.
You sound like you’ve been brainwashed by their spin, is what I’m trying to warn, here.
Economists tell a dramatically different story about the Great Depression —government WORSENED & PROLONGED the problem, it did NOT “fix” it.
take care,
4L
I think there are a host of problems that need to be addressed right now, and I’m not limiting them to the ones that caused this mess.
We need some people with their heads glued on squarely, to start taking down the hard core leftist that did cause this mess, and then turn around and address the others.
We have the $700 billion plan in place. I would have changed it if I could. At this point I’m going to have to watch this play out to see which of us was right. If we’re lucky, games won’t be played and we’ll know.
What I don’t like to see is Neil Cavuto et al go on a constant harangue trashing the plan that we are hoping will stabalize the liquidity markets. All it takes is a few useful idiots to convince the public the end of the world is here, and $70 trillion wouldn’t save our bacon.
The plan is in place. Let’s not play the fools game of doing our best to make sure that $700 billion plan has no chance of calming the liquidity markets. If it works, that’s great. If it doesn’t right now, you folks will have been right. I personally think it was the right thing to do.
I do appreciate the take on it that you and a lot of others have. I can’t say with certainty that you are wrong. If you plan would have been implemented, I would not have tried to make sure it couldn’t work by trashing it constantly. I would hope those who were against the plan that was implemented will give it a chance.
We need this to work, even if in our hearts we think it was the wrong move, or simply contained too much crap. It’s a done deal now. We’ll see how it goes.
Thanks for your warning. I know where you are coming from.
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.