Just give us back what FDR put in place.

Sometimes this guy seems too good to be true.

If it wasn't for the corrupt media this guy would be hailed as the great candidate all Americans have been waiting for.

MY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, can you explain how it is that the Democrats are in charge, yet the Democrats back down on their demand to give bankruptcy judges authority to alter the terms of mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, that Democrats also failed in their attempt to steer a portion of any government profits from the package to affordable housing programs?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I mean, those are two of the most glaring deficiencies in this bill. And I would maintain there was never any intention to—you know, well, many members of Congress had the intention of helping people who were in foreclosure. You know, this—Wall Street doesn’t want to do that. Wall Street wants to grab whatever change they can and equity that’s left in these properties. So—

AMY GOODMAN: Right, but the Democrats are in charge of this.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Right. You know, I’ll tell you something that we were told in our caucus. We were told that our presidential candidate, when the negotiations started at the White House, said that he didn’t want this in this bill. Now, that’s what we were told.

AMY GOODMAN: You were told that Barack Obama did not want this in the bill?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: That he didn’t want the bankruptcy provisions in the bill. Now, you know, that’s what we were told. And I don’t understand why he would say that, if he did say that. And I think that there is a—the fact that we didn’t put bankruptcy provisions in, that actually we removed any hope for judges to do any loan modifications or any forbearance. There’s no moratorium on mortgage foreclosures in here. So, who’s getting—who’s really getting helped by this bill? This is a bailout, pure and simple, of Wall Street interests who have been involved in speculation.

And I don’t, for the life of me, understand why this is going to do anything to address the underlying problems in the economy, which actually had to do with the recklessness. This is what the president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas said, that—and, you know, I might have the actual quote here. Listen to this quote: he said, “The seizures and convulsions we’ve experienced in the debt and equity markets have been the consequences of a sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior, not a too tight monetary policy.” This is the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank president, Richard Fisher.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress

No money for wall street unless it's a "loan" which they'll repay with interest. If there's going to $200+ billion spent, it should be spent on infrastructure, on green technology, on anything that produces something or puts money into the economy and not into banks.

A better bailout would throw out the parasitic lenders and traders that caused this. It would focus on helping the normal people, not these mega money scarfers.

Greenspan, Volcker, Paul O'Neil, hundreds of economists and a lot of Americans see why this is a sham.

The market regained most of what it lost yesterday. You have to consider that since 75% of the trading is done by institutions, they could have plunged the market to punish and scare america for not bailing them out.

You also have to trust the mastermind of the plan who lied to us more than two weeks ago (Paulson) and said the banking system was solvent

wall st. is asking us for a band-aid. they say it's only a "flesh wound", like the black knight in monty python & the holy grail.

abolish the federal reserve.

there is NOTHING in the u.s. constitution that says we have to have this symbiotic relationship with a PRIVATE BANK.

your kids will thank you one day.

Nicole, in another posting, you listed many of the books that you had read while a young woman. Here's a couple of titles that I think you might find engaging and enlightening and perhaps provide a measure of conceptual framework that helps make sense of what's going on:

"The Unconscious Civilization"

"Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason"

Both are by John Ralston Saul, a Canadian philosopher and political essayist. In my assessment, he deserves to be placed among luminaries like Chomsky, Zinn and even the flamboyant Gore Vidal.

For what it's worth . . .

curtilingus @ 11:

Greenspan, Volcker, Paul O'Neil, hundreds of economists and a lot of Americans see why this is a sham.

The market regained most of what it lost yesterday. You have to consider that since 75% of the trading is done by institutions, they could have plunged the market to punish and scare america for not bailing them out.

You also have to trust the mastermind of the plan who lied to us more than two weeks ago (Paulson) and said the banking system was solvent

paulson's not the mastermind. go higher up. WHO controls paulson? it's not bush, cheney, or even chertoff.

CONNECT the dots. even scooby doo & shaggy could solve this one.

scared to utter the family name? WHY?

One key issue they HAVE to address, the random (BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION) "700 billion" figure.

It has already been admitted that this number was just pulled out of thin air, that they just wanted to ask for "a really big number."

Thats insane. We need to be furious that we actually came close to approving anything that allocated such an incomprehensible sum of money based on an arbitrary huge number...

I give up Bullfrog.

I'm to stoned to connect the dots.

What is the family name!

(Timpanis thundering in the background)

$700 Billion doesn't even put a dent in our troubles.

That's the next shoe to drop at some point.

one more thing, nicole (& readers):

calling the 2008 democratic party financially "progressive" is ridiculous.

the 1912 bull moose party, on the other hand...

Is it the Rothschilds bullfrog?

curtilingus @ 18:

This is the "Mirage" economy people have been referring to. 70% of spending is done on credit. This could not sustain itself forever. By the credit markets freezing up and the taxpayers being asked to buy more time, it is like declaring bankruptcy but not tearing up you credit cards.

The mirage is over. Reality is supposed to be painful.

Noooooo! Please oh man come on, just one more hit! Damn! Just one more, I promise I'll quit tomorrow! You know I'm good for it.

Jeffrey Stewart @ 14:

Please Ms. Belle, enlighten me. Why, exactly why, must something be done? Dr. Dean Baker takes the opposite view here:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/why-bail...

I look forward to your answer.

Actually, I corresponded with Dr. Baker as I tried to get my head around this crisis. Fundamentally, for me it comes down to lines of credit for small business owners.

I don't believe in giving anyone a blank check. I think all of this should be tied with some significant changes to the way business is done (a return of some form of Glass Steagall, for example) and relief for taxpayers in bankruptcy. Donna Edwards has a plan I've linked above that I think is a smart way to solve this crisis.

A sucker is born every minute...

I do not accept the need for ANY bailout...

Making it better? Is this what 4 years of Obama will be?

We'll need to save a little for the credit card bailouts that are just around the corner. I can't wait for the pleasure of paying off all those defaulted cards at 30%, but that's what tax payers are for. We can't let Citibank go under, they have 3 trillion dollars in "assets" (ie, bad credit card debt).

L.A. Confidential @ 34:

Securities & Investment Industry Total to Candidates

Barack Obama (D) graph $9,873,356

Donor: Goldman Sachs & Co.

How Much: $627,730

What They’ll Want: Goldman Sachs is one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks. Like others in the securities industry, it advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. The firm has been a large proponent of privatizing Social Security, a move that would likely make billions of dollars available for private investment, one of Goldman’s special forte. However, with potentially a Democratic Congress and President, Goldman will likely shift gears. Look for the powerhouse investment bank to continue pushing forward on legislation that would essentially further deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. This includes a hands-off approach for any legislation barring speculative bets made on oil and other commodity prices, an activity some blame for higher oil prices. The firm will also likely tap executive privilege to continue its aggressive expansion into China’s sensitive financial sector which will invariably require acquiescence from Chinese leaders. More than any other Wall Street firm, Goldman features a revolving door between New York and DC (Governor and Senator Corzine, countless Treasury Secretaries including the current, Hank Paulson) so don’t be surprised if many are donating to secure Obama Cabinet posts.

So the Centrist Dem's alliance with the Republican Minority crashed and burned.

Congressional switchboards were jammed with calls reportedly running 99-to-1 or even 999-1 against the bailout.

Impromptu demonstrations broke out all over the country.

The PEOPLE said NO. The Progressive Left and the Populist Right agreed.

I'd say it's time for the Progressive Left to lobby hard for Nationalization of the Banking Industry in exchange for the bailout.

This is Paul Krugman's suggestion.

He wrote this last Sunday, the day before the Failed Bailout Vote.

The good, the bad, and the ugly

Brad DeLong says that Swedish-style temporary nationalization is the right answer to a financial crisis; he’s right. I haven’t been clear enough about this, it seems, but it’s where my basic diagnosis leads: the problem is insufficient capital, you want to inject capital, but you don’t want it to be a windfall to existing stockholders — hence, take over and recapitalize the failing firms. By the way, that’s what we did with AIG 10 years days ago.

So that’s the good solution. The Paulson plan, which is some combination of sheer giveaway and mystic faith that a slap in the market’s face will make everything OK, is a bad solution (and probably no solution at all.)

But nationalization doesn’t seem like a politically realistic answer now. This leaves the rough question of whether to hold out for a good solution, which won’t be possible until Jan. 21st, or accept the ugly compromise that the WH and the Congressional Dems, once again, say they’ve reached. It’s a tough call, but as I’ve written, I’ll probably hold my nose and say OK — as long as it has broad Republican support.

If not, go back to the good plan.

chopper @ 30:

A false choice is being presented.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

A more limited bailout (100-200 billion, still astronomical figures), with tangible benefits and protections for taxpayers, to keep the economy working until the new President is in office will work just as well as no-strings-attached 700 billion. Once the new President and Congress are in power, they can then create a long-term solution.

This is a false choice. Paulson himself has admitted they basically plucked the figuer out of thin air. They just wanted an extremely large number.

It doesn't have to be 700 billion now, or disaster.

I hope you aren't suggesting that I said it had to be $700 Billion. Paulson admitted he pulled that number out of his ass. I think a staggered bailout with oversight is an excellent idea.

What does FDIC mean to most of us. Do you have $100,000 in the bank, let alone $250,000, that this is necessary. It's just another asthetic add-on to make this bill marketable. We need solutions, and as long as there isn't a serious adjustment made to correct the regulation and remove corrupt loopholes, it is just a matchbook dam. It won't holdback the floodwaters once this grows seriously out of control. I'll have to wait and see what they come up with, but what was introduced and denied yesterday in the house wasn't the answer.

Everyone, please stop paying you Mortgage Insurance Premiums. (see the line item on your mortgage)

Tell your lender that if you should default on the balance of your loan that our government will pick up the tab.

It's part of our new Freedom Tax Benefits Package. No universal health care, but you may get a free house out of it.

Actually, I corresponded with Dr. Baker as I tried to get my head around this crisis. Fundamentally, for me it comes down to lines of credit for small business owners.

I don't believe in giving anyone a blank check. I think all of this should be tied with some significant changes to the way business is done (a return of some form of Glass Steagall, for example) and relief for taxpayers in bankruptcy. Donna Edwards has a plan I've linked above that I think is a smart way to solve this crisis.

Ms. Belle, I corresponded with Dr. Baker too! I asked him to explain to me exactly why he thought there was a crisis. After a few attempts where he couldn't I emailed him again and I asked about the Fed's role and that was when his new position in this article appeared.

I don't mind the lack of attribution as long as the message gets out there.

Also, I don't understand why your last paragraph is there. Did you answer my question or not? If not, you shouldn't assume there is a crisis.

Why a bailout?

Maybe they should call it an Investment in America so people can overlook all the white collar criminals being "bailed out".

I agree with Nicolle, we have to do something, and if something gets done, let it have the progressive stamp on it.

Since when do banks need cash to give loans?

CNN currently is asking "Can you save your house & credit?" OMG.
"Worry just will not seem to leave my mind alone."

This bailout is all about fear. Remember how we got into Iraq, got the Patriot Acts, Military Comissions Act, agita?

Cut the credit card, pay down debt, live within your means (not everyone can afford a house), build an emergency fund, pay with cash for everything besides home, drive a reliably cheap used car, save from profits to pay employees (as opposed to paying them money you don't have?!), and for goodness sake leave your investments alone...taking them out now means you will lose money!

Hard times, yes, but not b/c some pols say so now. I've been eating ramen, rice, beans and garden goods for years now. My hope is not in Wall Street or a government.

The crisis on Wall Street can be summed up as a falling out among thieves. After screwing each other with shady derivatives, CDO's and junk mortgages, nobody on the Street trusts anybody else. So you're an undercapitalized, over-leveraged financial institution and you go looking for a short-term loan so you can make payroll or meet some other obligation. Nobody is going to lend you a dime because now they know you're shady, untrustworthy mofo and might never pay them back.

Make no mistake, the reason for the "liquidity crisis" is that nobody believes the lies they're being told anymore. Until everyone comes clean and engages in a lot of transparency they're going to be up the creek. But don't shed too many tears because most of the executives and shareholders of these companies made billions over the last 10-15 years running up the dot.com and real estate bubbles.

If you want to look for bail-out money, look no further than the bank accounts of the criminals who perpetrated this fraud. You can start with Paulson and then work your way through his Rolodex.

But it’s good to hear people talking alternatives rather than just stating that the bailout is either good or bad.
The first one-page $700B “bailout” gift to Paulson was moronic. The second (which failed yesterday) only divided the gift between the SEC, Bush, and Congress. Not much else changed. Where the money was to go, and why, was never spelled out – only that the financial market “needed it.”

It should be noted that this bail-out money is primarily intended to bail-out an inverted debt-pyramid built on bad mortgages. This bill does nothing to help out the bottom of that inverted pyramid, but the top where credit-default swaps went caflooey.
Also, as many have noted, our economy is in the best shape is can be in at the moment. In other words, the financial system is mired in an “optimized position” and no matter what steps are taken – it’s going to get worse. Recent reports have the Fed losing 90% of its $250B backing over the last year, and right now they’re scrambling to prop up the Dollar with the remainder. It won’t last.

But what are the alternatives?

For too long our financial sector has relied on debt-financing to suck the infrastructure dry. That needs to stop. I say, let the banks that did this fail, but keep them solvent while a regulated replacement for infrastructure investment can take place.

That’s a start for me.

Jeffrey Stewart @ 47:

Actually, I corresponded with Dr. Baker as I tried to get my head around this crisis. Fundamentally, for me it comes down to lines of credit for small business owners.

I don't believe in giving anyone a blank check. I think all of this should be tied with some significant changes to the way business is done (a return of some form of Glass Steagall, for example) and relief for taxpayers in bankruptcy. Donna Edwards has a plan I've linked above that I think is a smart way to solve this crisis.

Ms. Belle, I corresponded with Dr. Baker too! I asked him to explain to me exactly why he thought there was a crisis. After a few attempts where he couldn't I emailed him again and I asked about the Fed's role and that was when his new position in this article appeared.

I don't mind the lack of attribution as long as the message gets out there.

Also, I don't understand why your last paragraph is there. Did you answer my question or not? If not, you shouldn't assume there is a crisis.

Very influential you are. :)

What I meant to say is that politically, financially and globally, there really is no way we can choose not to respond to this, despite Dr. Baker's statement. We have to do something. His posit that acting will cause a Great Depression actually doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (although I fully admit that my understanding of economics is significantly less than his). I'm less concerned with the stock market than I am in global confidence in the US and making sure that LOCs are available to small business owners, who make up a significant portion of employers in the US.

So if that's the case, let's do this right. Let's bring back the regulations that the corporations lobbied to rid us of. Let's fix those bankruptcy laws and offer some relief on foreclosures. Let's bring back Glass Steagall. Let's get rid of No Doc loans. I'm not a believer in 'free markets'. I've seen no evidence that they work well.

We'll never be able to steer the country towards full socialism, but we can bring back smart regulations and I think this is the time to do it. That's what I meant by a progressive shock doctrine.

bullfrog @ 13:

wall st. is asking us for a band-aid. they say it's only a "flesh wound", like the black knight in monty python & the holy grail.

abolish the federal reserve.

there is NOTHING in the u.s. constitution that says we have to have this symbiotic relationship with a PRIVATE BANK.

your kids will thank you one day.

Yes - now, once more, with feeling:

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Professor Wagstaff @ 56:

Rain on the Parade @ 48:

And the market was up over 400 points today. I thought we had a liquidity crisis. As soon as investors determined that no free money was going to flood the market, they got off the sidelines and scooped up some value buys.

Business-as-usual. Where was the crisis?

Bush is still threatening to kill our dogs if we don't fork over the dough.

"I want my sheep shorn, not shaven."

Rain on the Parade @ 60:

L.A. Confidential @ 54:

Rain on the Parade @ 48:

And the market was up over 400 points today. I thought we had a liquidity crisis. As soon as investors determined that no free money was going to flood the market, they got off the sidelines and scooped up some value buys.

Business-as-usual. Where was the crisis?

1929

Three phrases—Black Thursday, Black Monday, and Black Tuesday—are used to describe this collapse of stock values. All three are appropriate, for the crash was not a one-day affair. The initial crash occurred on Black Thursday (October 24, 1929), but it was the catastrophic downturn of Black Monday and Tuesday (October 28 and 29, 1929) that precipitated widespread panic and the onset of unprecedented and long-lasting consequences for the United States. The collapse continued for a month.

L.A.C - The stock market of 2008 is not the stock market of 1929. We do not have the margin exposure that ultimately brought down the NYSE in 1929 and a variety of rules and mechanisms are in place to prevent a repeat of that event. In 1987 we saw a 22% single day decline in the market, followed by a bull market that continued into the early 90's.

Besides, there are very good economic reasons why people should be bearish on equities. American consumers are so deeply in debt that it is unlikely that corporate profits are going to look good anytime soon. But the answer is not to make credit easier to get or encouraging consumers to bury themselves under even greater debt. The answer is to take a dose of austerity, raise taxes on the wealthy, restore a progressive tax structure, and get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan ($10B a month and counting).

$1 trillion of market value in American equities disappeared in a single day. The Dow Jones average set a record for quickest suicide dive in a single day. The only major stock that actually advanced on Monday was Campbell Soup.

Seriously, if this is Obama's idea of leadership, we are all doomed. He can't even be bothered to listen to his phone messages or read his email.

Even the Bolivarians to the south have not nationalized their banks. That's because they limit private investments. But then, they also have governments that acually represent the people. They only nationalize essential services and resources, because that is the job of governments. Keep the lights on and quit turning every possible service into a for profit enterprise.

Kucinich is right on (huh?) about where the progressive Dems stand. But the "populist" repugs want LESS regulation. Kucinich wants to work across the aisle but he will be greeted with a cold shoulder. Any bill that does not ultimately shift some of the bailout money to the population, whether it be foreclosure assistance, small business credit support or infrastructure job creation, is only going to bring temporary relief. Then we will be right back to the very problem that sparked this wildfire in the first place.

I'll throw in my 2 cents here now. After primarily being quiet on this subject. I have to agree with Nicole up there to a certain extent.
First, There is a crisis. It is the result of corrupted politicians deregulating damn near everything on the books that FDR put in place. It was a neocons wet dream.
Actually, I think there are two financial crisis. One in the credit sector and the other in the stocks and bond sector(Wall Street)
1st we witnessed all of those financial institution going under or damn near going under.These are related to both sectors.
If credit dries up, small business goes out of business. The Unemployment rates go up,and the States pay out even more money.
To be honest. I'm still trying to figure this out. So please, bear with me.
After all of the institutions were failing, that made millions of people here and around the world who invest in our stock market uneasy.
Scared or downright scared shitless that they were going to lose there investments.Primarily retirement pensions. I'm sure there are others, but we'll just stick with retirement pensions for now. Hence the massive sell offs.
The cause can be dealt with later. We need to fix it in the very near future.

You see, the thing is, if we do nothing. Millions of innocent people will suffer for the misdeeds of a few thousand.
Do I think these people should be prosecuted? Absolutely. But don't make the mistake of making other people suffer for life.

Alot of this was caused by hyperbole. Yes, I have to agree with the Shock Doctrine perspective on this.
But alot of it was caused also by corrupted politicians. We need to find out just who the people are, no matter what party and prosecute them. After the dust settles. I happen to like Obamas plan, from what I've heard of it, he wants to make money on the bailout/rescue for the country. Not off of the country. If this doesn't happen, millions of people in America will be out of work. I'm not saying jump at the first option. I'm saying do it right. And in the end, this shouldn't cost the tax payers a dime. If anything, we/they should make money off of it.
Ok, let the slings and arrows start.

this is nothing short of a bank heist, except instead of some poor scrub robbing the bank, the bank is robbing the poor scrubs.

L.A. Confidential @ 65:

Rain on the Parade @ 60:

L.A. Confidential @ 54:

Rain on the Parade @ 48:

1929

Three phrases—Black Thursday, Black Monday, and Black Tuesday—are used to describe this collapse of stock values. All three are appropriate, for the crash was not a one-day affair. The initial crash occurred on Black Thursday (October 24, 1929), but it was the catastrophic downturn of Black Monday and Tuesday (October 28 and 29, 1929) that precipitated widespread panic and the onset of unprecedented and long-lasting consequences for the United States. The collapse continued for a month.

L.A.C - The stock market of 2008 is not the stock market of 1929. We do not have the margin exposure that ultimately brought down the NYSE in 1929 and a variety of rules and mechanisms are in place to prevent a repeat of that event. In 1987 we saw a 22% single day decline in the market, followed by a bull market that continued into the early 90's.

Besides, there are very good economic reasons why people should be bearish on equities. American consumers are so deeply in debt that it is unlikely that corporate profits are going to look good anytime soon. But the answer is not to make credit easier to get or encouraging consumers to bury themselves under even greater debt. The answer is to take a dose of austerity, raise taxes on the wealthy, restore a progressive tax structure, and get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan ($10B a month and counting).

$1 trillion of market value in American equities disappeared in a single day. The Dow Jones average set a record for quickest suicide dive in a single day. The only major stock that actually advanced on Monday was Campbell Soup.

Let's ask ourselves: "What exactly is 'market value' with respect to the stock market?" Is it not simply a reflection of what investors believe the shares of traded companies are worth at any given time in relation to the larger economy? Naturally, there are a lot of things going on in the market - investors are executing different strategies and seeking different objectives.

So, when the market sheds $1 trillion in value it's basically telling us that investors' confidence in a variety of things has declined and they prefer to shift their assets somewhere else - e.g., U.S. Treasury Bonds, gold, oil futures, etc. $1 trillion flies out of the market and flies into different things. If that is not liquidity I don't know what is. Lack of liquidity is when you can't even give your shares away and that is precisely what happened in 1929. There were no buyers because everyone was so totally overextended on margin and people who were also overextended couldn't meet their obligations. Such is the danger of being over-leveraged, just like all the banks that are going to fail in the next couple of years.

Do something about the 10,000 mortgages going into default each month. Something like buying them as FDR did.

Here is Kucinich with Rachel Maddow on the 'Bailout'.

Dennis Kucinich:

3:07 …This plan is immoral Rachel, this plan is a disgrace…

If the banks are desperate for liquidity it is time to make them give up something in exchange for that liquidity.

Nationalize the Banks.

No bank employee should make over $250,000 a year.

The bank should exist to manage money, not make money.

Like health care, managing our money is too important to allow for profit.

“We cannot have another day like yesterday.”...We, Senator? Who exactly is "we"? You and Paulsen and Bernanke and Robert "What meltdown?" Rubin, and former Goldman Sachs CEO John Corzine?

"As much as I didn’t like the bailout bill that lost on Monday, I do recognize that we must do something. For those screaming, “NO! Let them fail!” that’s all well and good for you, but the ramifications are far-reaching. How many of you own small business that rely on lines of credit to pay employees? Or are you employed by a small business owner who uses LOCs? How many of you have children who need a student loan to go to college? How many want to buy your first home or sell the one you have before it’s foreclosed upon? All of these very common scenarios require loans and lending is at a standstill right now."

That is a fundamentally the Wall Street line. The Big Lie fed to him by the Director of Citigroup and a director of Morgan Stanley who both just happen to be his senior economic advisors . "Credit is at a standstill". That's a lie. Bank to bank credit has stopped.

Look...Credit will reshape, re-route and people will find liquidity in local banks and credit unions without the "help" of Big Credit. We can do this without the help of Wall Street and its private money machine, The Fed.

There is no reason any money should be transfered here. Strict, unyielding, massive and swift re-regulation of Wall Street and foreclosure help for the foreclosed upon is the only remedy needed.

You'd expect this from a whore like McCain. This phony "plan" proves beyond a doubt...Obama is a crook and a liar.

Dear American,

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a Nigerian born of noble descent.

If you would be so kind as to wire $2000 for everyone of you Americans there are, I would be so kind as to not destroy your entire bank balances.

This is a once in a life-time risk-free offer, but only if you act immediately and do everything I say.

Pleasant greetings to you and your family.

U. B. Intruble

Sorry, but BULLSHIT. The world will not end if more of these banks fail. Other banks, smarter banks that haven't played too fast and loose will buy up the failed ones. Other corporations will devour those that go ass up. The world will not end tomorrow if Paulson doesnt' get A NON REVIEWABLE Wad of cash that he can dole out to his friends and bush cronies as he sees fit.

This whole premise is ridiculous. I can't believe that Nicole and others who should know better from examples of the past twenty years (not just the Bush years) of this same ploy being foisted on the American public, over and over again.

This mass failure of banks could very well be the catalyst that the nation needs. Let the myth of free market supremacy die a very horrible and very public death. The morons on the right don't argue that we should eradicate the police, the fire department, and the highway departments in favor of a "free" system that somehow magically corrects itself. Why do we let these small minded nitwits argue that "free market" is some kind of panacea for healthcare, the economy, and wall street.

Burn their golden parachutes. Let them die. It won't hurt as much as you think. Hell, it won't even hurt as much as the billions wasted in Iraq and $5 a gallon gas.

NO BAILOUTS.

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 77:

Do something about the 10,000 mortgages going into default each month. Something like buying them as FDR did.

Here is Kucinich with Rachel Maddow on the 'Bailout'.

Dennis Kucinich:

3:07 …This plan is immoral Rachel, this plan is a disgrace…

"I'm for it." -Obama.

Any other questions?

Clay Burell @ 80:

Tim @ 50:

Reps Kaptur & DeFazio are offering a no bailout plan.. Sounds good to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNIiDSqqtJ4

Thanks for that link. DeFazio and Kaptur have a plan worth listening to and pausing to think about. Enough hysteria. The sky is storming, not falling. Tomorrow will come. Breathe.

Defazio Abides.

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 78:

I have a few suggestions that I would want in the bill:

1) I believe that there has to be a crackdown on the CEO's and their salaries. The one thing that disgusted me the most was their golden parachutes. Because they were able to leave with so much money, they raised the standards of what it means to have a CEO's salary. I also agree that they must be penalized by not only going to prison, but paying fines for running their companies in the ground.

2)Do not give the Sec. of the Treasury any powers other than what is stated for his office. What the other bill did was reward Paulsen for his part of creating these conditions. He should even have to step down for his part.

3) We can't forget the everyday people. I agree with those who suggested to bring back the basics that FDR suggested that brought America out of the Great Depression. A lot of people cannot buy groceries, pay bills or even find a job. A lot more can't even keep a house. We've got to put these folks to work so that they can get their lives back. We've got to help ease their mortgages. Unless we don't, we will only have nation in debt and nothing else.

There are more, but these three ideas are a start in my book.

I like these ideas, Ceci, and I think that they are not dissimilar to Donna Edwards' plan (Other than the Paulson part, I believe).

Heads must roll for this mess. We, the people, as well as our representatives cannot let these crooks escape with the government's money. We cannot let the predatory lenders get away with what they did as well.

And I also agree with other folks that the Glass-Steagall Act must be brought back. Phill Gramm and the rest of neo-con crap must be thrown out. Regulation must come back. There's no other way around it.

Johnny2Bad @ 87:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 77:

Do something about the 10,000 mortgages going into default each month. Something like buying them as FDR did.

Here is Kucinich with Rachel Maddow on the 'Bailout'.

Dennis Kucinich:

3:07 …This plan is immoral Rachel, this plan is a disgrace…

"I'm for it." -Obama.

Any other questions?

Securities & Investment Industry Total to Candidates

Barack Obama (D) graph $9,873,356

Nicole Belle @ 76:

Jeffrey Stewart @ 68:

But moreover, public sentiment in the country REQUIRES a response. To not do anything would be a crisis of leadership and that will have impact on markets globally and further sink the value of the dollar.

Call it stupid, I won't argue. But them's the facts.

Nicole, that's an argument, not a fact.

Why can't we argue that the "REQUIRED" response be one of announcing in a calm and measured voice that the fastest plan is not the best one, and that proper time will be spent deliberating before rushing to action?

If that doesn't calm people, at least it might save us from giving $.7 trillion to Paulsen to give to Wall Street.

it's called sacrifice... goddamnit! i say take 'em down...

Clay Burell @ 97:

Nicole Belle @ 76:

But moreover, public sentiment in the country REQUIRES a response. To not do anything would be a crisis of leadership and that will have impact on markets globally and further sink the value of the dollar.

Call it stupid, I won't argue. But them's the facts.

Nicole, that's an argument, not a fact.

Why can't we argue that the "REQUIRED" response be one of announcing in a calm and measured voice that the fastest plan is not the best one, and that proper time will be spent deliberating before rushing to action?

If that doesn't calm people, at least it might save us from giving $.7 trillion to Paulsen to give to Wall Street.

I don't disagree with that at all. I don't think I've ever advocated either the full 700 billion or anything less that a deliberate smart approach.

Clay Burell @ 97:

Nicole Belle @ 76:

But moreover, public sentiment in the country REQUIRES a response. To not do anything would be a crisis of leadership and that will have impact on markets globally and further sink the value of the dollar.

Call it stupid, I won't argue. But them's the facts.

Nicole, that's an argument, not a fact.

Why can't we argue that the "REQUIRED" response be one of announcing in a calm and measured voice that the fastest plan is not the best one, and that proper time will be spent deliberating before rushing to action?

If that doesn't calm people, at least it might save us from giving $.7 trillion to Paulsen to give to Wall Street.

I don't see panic anywhere except in the rants of the partisan talking heads...Just like I didn't see any WMD.

curtilingus @ 36:

I hear you Nicole but how does 700 billion to purchase securities translate to consumer loans? Is there a provision that the money goes to consumer and doesn't stay on the banks balance sheet? is there a provision to make sure that B of A, Goldman Sachs or other financial institutions do not get a dis proportionate amount of the funds because they ACQUIRED so many bad assets as of late?

L.A. Confidential @ 23:

$700 Billion doesn't even put a dent in our troubles.

That's the next shoe to drop at some point.

When was it that any LITTLE guy got ANYTHING of VALUE 'trickled-down' (am not talking abt leaking piping flushing out pure gold..) -- the Feds LOWERED interest to absurd low levels, for well over a year.

HOW MANY LITTLE PEOPLE in the MAin Street saw their mortgage/any LOAN interest, etc getting LOWER - with refinancing or not ??? The difference is 3-4% and HIGHER !! This IS a FACT - so childish parrotting that 'we have to do something' is just that.

Wake up call to C&L'ers: Our Democrats have now officially become SELF-designated foster parents of the Bush miraculous economy.

It was another created crisis brewing for over 18 months, with related posts also here on C&L - anticipating Obama's win it is a loud message to Obama that 'powers that be" will ruin the U.S. and world unless he will allow them to keep robbing us, the sheeple (pple would be marching on Capitol
already). AIPAC rules, although there was NO Rosh Hashanah gift to the special ones from Bernanke and his crew of the size they are used to.

Feds pumped an additional $630 billion ALREADY into the global financial system just BEFORE the House bailout vote was taken !!

The most IMPORTANT piece is missing from the bill:

abolition of the “Federal Reserve" (NOT FEDERAL, and certainly NOT a RESERVE!), and return of ALL functions which the “Federal Reserve" has usurped back to OUR government.

The Rescue Package Will Delay Recovery

... It is true that the financial system must be rescued; it must be rescued from the institutions holding bad debt that are currently draining capital while waiting for a bailout and adding little in return. It is they that are preventing wealth-generating activities in the financial sector and the other parts of the economy from expanding real wealth.

I am suggesting an idea from Thom Hartmann. He proposes that we reinstate the Securities Turnover Excise Tax ("STET") to pay for the bailout/rescue. Thom Hartmann explains that a .25% STET would produce about $150 billion in its first year and it has the additional benefit of encouraging healthy investment, instead of the current "toxic speculation."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/26
Now, the stock market is simply a no cost gambling casino for the super rich. We financed 4 of our wars with the STET and stabilized our stock market from the mid-30's to 1966. Plus, with the STET, we don't have to borrow from China for the bailout.
Certainly, the republicans will complain about it being a tax but the tax worked for decades starting with the Great Depression. I think it could help us out of this economic mess.
I also think some kind of New Deal would help from the bottom up while also using money for productive purposes like improving our rotting infrastructure and putting people back to work.

I have to give my local government a bit of credit (pun intended). Within a week of my home being devalued $90K, I got a letter in the mail informing me that my property taxes were being reduced accordingly. Pretty cool... I suppose.

How about everyone gets a $6,000/person tax break this year and Wall Street sucks it? Remainder checks for economic incentive for those who don't owe $6,000 in taxes?

We'd still be borrowing the money from China but at least it would go straight to the people instead of "trickle down". What are the odds that would work better than D.C. shoveling the money straight to the billionaire destroyers of nations?

Obama may be the great candidate all Americans have been waiting for.

Alas, Janice@110, the "bail-out" (aka, "colossal give away to the rich") will not help small businesses or people whose homes are being foreclosed. What it will do is relieve financial institutions of the burden of billions of dollars of worthless assets, injecting them with capital that they can then invest in pursuit of profit. If you think that consumer or small business lending is where that money will end up, you are sorely mistaken.

Rain on the Parade @ 104,

I could never be half the man Guevara was.

And thanks for the clarification on asset values. I am only an egg. We are all trying to understand things more clearly. Thanks for your patient and informative reply. Be sure and watch the youtubel link to Defazio and Kapture's proposals/

Professor Wagstaff @ 35:

We'll need to save a little for the credit card bailouts that are just around the corner. I can't wait for the pleasure of paying off all those defaulted cards at 30%, but that's what tax payers are for. We can't let Citibank go under, they have 3 trillion dollars in "assets" (ie, bad credit card debt).

Watch THIS: In Debt We Trust (Full) - 89 min

When the credit card s*** hits the fan, our SOCIAL SECURITY goes on the BLOCK !! there will be NOTHING else left !! This BS bailouit just prolongs the agony of the MEGA_CROOKS.

AmericanInsurgent @ 107:

I am suggesting an idea from Thom Hartmann. He proposes that we reinstate the Securities Turnover Excise Tax ("STET") to pay for the bailout/rescue. Thom Hartmann explains that a .25% STET would produce about $150 billion in its first year and it has the additional benefit of encouraging healthy investment, instead of the current "toxic speculation."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/26
Now, the stock market is simply a no cost gambling casino for the super rich. We financed 4 of our wars with the STET and stabilized our stock market from the mid-30's to 1966. Plus, with the STET, we don't have to borrow from China for the bailout.
Certainly, the republicans will complain about it being a tax but the tax worked for decades starting with the Great Depression. I think it could help us out of this economic mess.
I also think some kind of New Deal would help from the bottom up while also using money for productive purposes like improving our rotting infrastructure and putting people back to work.

Great idea. Too bad when Rep. DeFazio suggested it at the Dem Caucus, Obama Advisor Laura Tyson told the members, "The street won't like it". Guess what? According to DeFazio, the idea died right then and there.

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 106:

Nicole Belle @ 98:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 88:

The CEO's salaries are determined by contracts. The guys that are there now will get what is in their contracts. You will not alter the present contracts.

They ARE outrageous, but the hope of doing anything about them immediately is misplaced. And misstated by the people that are telling you they ARE doing something. It might be future contracts but that is it.

But if the government buys into these companies to keep them liquid (not that I'm advocating that) and taxpayers in effect become their largest shareholder, we DO have a right to change these salaries.

I believe that all the current bills floating around have provisions for eliminating golden parachutes in exchange for the bailout.

If you explain to me how one breaches a contract without a reciprocal breach of contract lawsuit I will understand what you are talking about.

Regarding existing golden-parachutes...

A possible slippery-slope, yes. That anyone, government or otherwise, can arbitrarily step in and nullify an existing legal contract is a dangerous proposition. I wouldn’t want anyone doing that to any of my contracts without my consent.

But consent is the key. If you want the bail-out, renegotiate the contract or you don’t get it. It’s a little strong-arm, but it gets you off the slope.

mudshark I agree with most of what you said, but there is another side of the coin. There are two candidates who I respect, make that three. Obama, Kucinich, and yes Dr. Paul. Two out of three voted this bill down for different reasons. Obama is the only one of these 3 to really have anything to gain through political strategies.

I have always agreed with Ron Paul on his monetary philosophy as well as his foreign policy. If Ron Paul was the republican candidate instead of McCain, it would be a very tough decision for me to make. As it stands, I can't see how anyone could vote the McCain ticket without having their heads examined first! Cafferty said what most voters were thinking a few days ago.

This new credit-based financial system of America and global markets is very complex to most of us, me included. Where exactly does the 700 billion come from? If it is this easy to come up with 700 billion to pour into the market, then why not a couple trillion? Why not print up 9 trillion and pay of our deficit?

My point is that the dollar will become a peso in the very near future at this rate. This is what Dr. Paul is clamoring about and that is the only real part that I can understand. With an ultra-weak dollar, gas prices will go through the roof! Imports will go through the roof! China is holding the ace in the hole!

The only thing I can see then is that manufacturing "must" come back to America no matter what sacrifices consumers have to make. I personally would love to see our government own these new foreseeable manufacturing companies instead of private business. It would be better for the workers because it would guarantee that American jobs would not be shipped overseas. Call me a commie or a socialist, but it makes sense to me in my small mind.

Rain on the Parade,

Muchas gracias. May victory be ours. There are still some reasonable people in the House of Reps.

I definitely not a numbers guy. Most of the issues involved with this bailout business make my head spin. But even I can see that you can't say that Trickle Down Theory was a failure and then think that part of the solution is bailing out financial institutions from the top. I like Obama's tax plan, but any solution to the financial meltdown should similarly work from bottom up.

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 126:

Taarak @ 123:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 106:

Nicole Belle @ 98:

If you explain to me how one breaches a contract without a reciprocal breach of contract lawsuit I will understand what you are talking about.

Regarding existing golden-parachutes...

A possible slippery-slope, yes. That anyone, government or otherwise, can arbitrarily step in and nullify an existing legal contract is a dangerous proposition. I wouldn’t want anyone doing that to any of my contracts without my consent.

But consent is the key. If you want the bail-out, renegotiate the contract or you don’t get it. It’s a little strong-arm, but it gets you off the slope.

If you get the guys to fall on their swords sure, why not.

I have a what if question for you guys.
What if these contracts were signed, but something in them was illegal? What if the very foundation of the contract was based on an illegal premise?

Jeffrey Stewart @ 116:

Ms. Belle, What evidence do you have that lines of credit have closed? Suppose they have, then the Fed can act as lender of last resort and provide needed credit without a $700 Billion bailout!

If public sentiment requires a response to God knows what, then the unnecessary response has very little chance of doing anything! Think of someone blindfolded trying to shoot a moving target with an erratic gun.

Why, ask yourself, does the public demand a response? Have they been told there is a crisis and believe it?

That is not a good reason to do anything! We all need to more critical in our approach here. Make the people arguing for a bailout or any response be exact in explaining what is wrong and how it affects working people. If they can not, then no deal!

I find it fascinating that the government is so eager to spend to help the rich and well connected when we have infrastructure failing, unemployment and millions of people losing their homes. But the Dow falls and goes back up and falls and $700 Billion appears just like that.

In the words of the Ramones, "I'M AGAINST IT!"

So very well said.

I'm disappointed in Obama on this one.

And Nicole, apologies if I misconstrued the thrust of this post. I think your title - "Building a Better Bailout" - suggests you're for the current stampeded plan to, well, "bail out" Wall Street with Main Street money.

I want to wait and hear for alternatives TO a bailout, myself, and ideally not bail them out at all.

And I'm liking what Nader, Kucinich, Defazio and Kaptur are teaching me about those alternatives.

What saddens me is Obama. He's not teaching America with his posturing; he's giving it more authoritarian "trust me to think for you" leadership - as he sides with the bankers, by all appearances.

L.A. Confidential @ 34:

Securities & Investment Industry Total to Candidates

Barack Obama (D) graph $9,873,356
Hillary Clinton (D) graph $7,376,070
John McCain (R) graph $6,893,293

AmericanInsurgent @ 107:

I am suggesting an idea from Thom Hartmann. He proposes that we reinstate the Securities Turnover Excise Tax ("STET") to pay for the bailout/rescue. Thom Hartmann explains that a .25% STET would produce about $150 billion in its first year and it has the additional benefit of encouraging healthy investment, instead of the current "toxic speculation."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/26
Now, the stock market is simply a no cost gambling casino for the super rich. We financed 4 of our wars with the STET and stabilized our stock market from the mid-30's to 1966. Plus, with the STET, we don't have to borrow from China for the bailout.
Certainly, the republicans will complain about it being a tax but the tax worked for decades starting with the Great Depression. I think it could help us out of this economic mess.
I also think some kind of New Deal would help from the bottom up while also using money for productive purposes like improving our rotting infrastructure and putting people back to work.

Excellent idea!.

But, here's what SENATE is to vote on WEDNESDAY/morrow:

Senate to Vote on Revised Plan Wednesday Night

Leaders of the Senate, where most members have indicated support for the bailout plan, said they would seek a vote on a revised rescue package Wednesday night.

The bill is expected include three provisions aimed at winning over House Republicans: a one-year increase in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation caps for bank and credit-union accounts, extensions of numerous business tax breaks that have expired, and a fix to the "alternative minimum tax" for individual taxpayers.

Although the FDIC and tax provisions could make the bill more appealing to House Republicans, a coalition of conservative Democrats have opposed the tax provisions in previous votes. But Senate Banking Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, who helped to negotiate the revised package, said the package had been carefully vetted by
Senate leaders in both parties.""

I don't know what IS the ""fix to the "alternative minimum tax"" - but, Obama seems to have lost it, and is just in "DO SOMETHING" mode..

I called his/Obama's campaign earlier today -they were CLOSED, TOTALLY. Since when he became Jewish and celebrates Rosh Hashanah ???

The CAPITOL switchboard (ALL toll-free and paid lines) ALL shut DOWN today. I got through to Biden's office on direct line. SInce WHEN is Jewish New Year a NATIONAL holiday in OUR (???) U.S. of A ??!! Aren't we in this terrible CRISIS? How come they ALL went home ??? AIPAC RULES !!!!

mudshark @ 131:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 126:

Taarak @ 123:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 106:

Regarding existing golden-parachutes...

A possible slippery-slope, yes. That anyone, government or otherwise, can arbitrarily step in and nullify an existing legal contract is a dangerous proposition. I wouldn’t want anyone doing that to any of my contracts without my consent.

But consent is the key. If you want the bail-out, renegotiate the contract or you don’t get it. It’s a little strong-arm, but it gets you off the slope.

If you get the guys to fall on their swords sure, why not.

I have a what if question for you guys.
What if these contracts were signed, but something in them was illegal? What if the very foundation of the contract was based on an illegal premise?

That's sort of a tricky question. There are some contracts that are void for illegality. But contracting to do something legal for an illegal purpose might be perfectly enforceable.

For instance, I might contract to rent baseball bats from you because I want to go beat the living hell out of my neighbor. You might just be in the business of renting sports equipment. Since there's nothing wrong with a baseball rental contract, you could probably sue me for breach if I decide against my dastardly plans, and don't rent the bats or pay you. But if the whole purpose of the contract was designed to facilitate the beating, and both sides included terms relating to it, the whole contract is probably void.

I probably haven't explained that very well. 'Sbeen a long time since I've studied contract law.

i heard the reason the federal reserve printed up 630 billion yesterday as opposed to 700 was that they simply ran out of paper.

anyone know if this is true?

Credit lines ARE definitely being closed. I live in Michigan, you know, the highest unemployment, most fucked over state? (arguable but not by much)

People are getting mail every day telling them that their credit limits are being drastically reduced. Which is the problem in the first place with these fucks lending money to people who had no business or comprehension of how much is too much. They just "trust the experts."

The experts took advantage and lied.

Hi Enron.

You can always blame it on the consumer and call them the idiot but how many people really get it? They are living on credit. Our nation is living on nothing but credit into the TRILLIONS.

I don't know what's happening now but in the 1990's the credit card companies were mailing all new university students Visas and Mastercards. We're talking 17/18 year olds who grew up on Michael J. Fox's Family Ties, Kewl Kid Reagan lover character getting cute cards in the mail and lovin' it.

They counted on parents paying the debt off and they did. Very unlike the grandparents or great-grandparents who grew up during the Depression.

The 40 and under crowd is considered to be rendered very clueless by all of the nifty Gordon Gecko crowd.

What a nifty divide and conquer program: the greatest generation v. the IOU generations ad infitum.

TrePorcellini @ 138:

SiteMonitor - where is my message, plse ? Should be ~ # 125.

[Well. It's in the spam filter. I'll get it-Sitemonitor]

Thank you. It's an important info/warning that tomorrow Senate will try to get us into wide-stance, in addition to the House.

I like Obama, but I don't like the company line that he's promoting. I would like to see the whole thing WAIT until February of next year. I don't want a bailout. Whatever Tom Hartman, and Dennis K. think is fair I would back 100%.

Start throwing those responsible for this in jail.

Why is Nicole Belle inferring that those who opposed the bailout want it to fail?

We want to see a bailout, but what we want is corporations to be on the hook for it, not average taxpayers. Let those who profited most from the banking industry put in the money to keep it afloat - Halliburton, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Microsoft, etc. Tell them to pony up $200 billion to save the country, not those who don't have anything.

mudshark @ 131:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 126:

Taarak @ 123:

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 106:

Regarding existing golden-parachutes...

A possible slippery-slope, yes. That anyone, government or otherwise, can arbitrarily step in and nullify an existing legal contract is a dangerous proposition. I wouldn’t want anyone doing that to any of my contracts without my consent.

But consent is the key. If you want the bail-out, renegotiate the contract or you don’t get it. It’s a little strong-arm, but it gets you off the slope.

If you get the guys to fall on their swords sure, why not.

I have a what if question for you guys.
What if these contracts were signed, but something in them was illegal? What if the very foundation of the contract was based on an illegal premise?

.

This is Section 107 capsule of the Draft voted down by the House. Removing FARs compliance is opening the whole shebang to ANY and many shenanigans, right from the START.

Breakdown of the Final Bailout Bill
September 28, 2008

Section 107. Contracting Procedures.
Allows the Secretary to waive provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where compelling circumstances make compliance contrary to the public interest. Such waivers must be reported to Congress within 7 days. If provisions related to minority contracting are waived, the Secretary must develop alternate procedures to ensure the inclusion of minority contractors.

Allows the FDIC to be selected as an asset manager for residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. ""