The Networks were flooded with CNBC type reports on the bail out: Cavuto attacks McCain's Economic advisor
Man, that was fast. I think the "No" vote on the bailout took all of the Wall Street "free market"-championing Republicans and stock market shows by surprise and Tuesday they layered the networks (CNN,MSNBC, NBC, FOX, ABC, CBS) with story after story about credit problems that are going to come upon us. I think they had no idea that the deal wouldn't pass and got caught flat footed. Even Neil Cavuto was attacking John McCain's economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin, saying that it looks like McCain was playing politics with the bail out. Wow, when have you ever seen Cavuto do that?
Cavuto: But you're saying this isn't about politics Doug, but all you're doing is sounding like a politician.
Download | play 
Download | play
Well, something will get done I suppose, but I do believe Paul Krugman on the bail out narratives:
So now what? Like Jamie Galbraith, I'd rather see Dodd-Frank-Paulson, which is much better than the original plan, pass than not. The true cost to taxpayers will probably be close to zero, and it would buy some time. But I'm not passionate about this. The real financial rescue still lies in the future, probably under the Obama administration.
We all spoke up with new ideas and made a difference. (And there's my Naomi Klein interview.) You'll notice that the Republicans are so touchy about the fact that Conservatism is the root cause of this problem that led to the failure of the financial institutions that a little truth spoken by Nancy Pelosi was used as a wedge by them. Oh, please, don't blame us for more destruction. You're so bad for pointing out the obvious.
Glenn Greenwald says Pelosi played it very well.
Strictly on the level of "Democratic v. Republican" political strategizing, Nancy Pelosi did exactly the right thing yesterday--- all very well-played by the House Democratic leadership.
We have to keep speaking the truth. This is not a bi-partisan issue. Republican and conservative philosophies have paved the way for this financial financial meltdown and we need to tell the American people about this as much as possible.
Are we scared yet??? don't be... time for a correction to Wall Street's cowboy activities of these past 8+ years...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=237
I don't often find myself in agreement with Mr. Moore however on this ocassion he may have a point.
Hopeless fucking hypocrites....never wrong about anything. These sorry assholes truly deserve to lose.
This sounds like a variation on the "do nothing democrat congress" combined with an effort to distance McCain from his own party ("John McCain has been saying for months that Washington is broken").
While I'd love to see this as an unravelling of republican ideology and a harbinger of a long period of decline for them, the fact is that people are scared and therefore vulnerable to demagoguery. If a scapegoat narrative takes hold ("it's the coloreds-poor-people-illegal-aliens fault") then things could start looking like post-Weimar Germany pretty quick.
These are dangerous times.
boehner: it so sucks when Nancy won't let me be an indian giver.
apologies for the antiquated phrase. nothing else will do.
Have you ever read 'Animal Farm' by Orwell?
He's just mad that Pelosi outwitted his conservatives in Congress.
What to do?
Paul Krugman wrote this last Sunday, before the failed bailout vote.
The good, the bad, and the ugly
IF a bank wants TaxPayer's Dollars, then that bank must give the Taxpayers a percentage share of the bank.
That's the way ALL the European nations are currently handling exactly the same problems.
The nationalization can be partial or complete, temporary or permanent, but the TaxPayers MUST be given a stake in the bank in exchange for OUR money.
And the shareholders (many of whom are executives in the bank) must NOT be rewarded. THEY took the risk. THEY lost. No reason for the TaxPayer to be held hostage to THEIR greed.
Notice, how alot of the politicians say the problem with the first bailout bill was only 'marketing'? Now they're calling it a rescue! Rescue! It must be good! Sounds like, Patriot Act, it has patriot in it, it must be good!
At first they tell us the cost, $700 billion.. Then they say, but taxpayers will make a profit in the end! It will cost them nothing!
This is a scam. We're being showed who our politicians really work for, and it aint you or me..
GuyCybershy @ 2:
Wow. Great read. Thanks for that.
It's undeniably class warfare going on right now.
"Some call you the elite. I call you my base." - George W. Bush (he wasn't kidding)
This is a bi-partisan issue. The majority of Congress (plutocrats) have been bought and paid for, therefore in the end, they'll vote out a bill supporting bad business ethics and over leveraged derivatives and mortgages while allowing income averaging and tax cuts for companies, CEO's and Directors.
Get out your 100 grit petroleum jelly, 'cause we're getting shafted; again.
2 GuyCybershy Says:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=237
I don’t often find myself in agreement with Mr. Moore however on this ocassion he may have a point.
==========
Thanks for the link to Michael Moore's proposed solution.
It combines Paul Krugman's, Sen. Bernie Sanders' and Thom Hartmann's proposals - plus some other excellent ideas.
ok, bailout won't work, rescue, hmmm, sounds like there's a problem...what's the opposite of Wall Street Rip Off? lessee, uh,
oh! I know.
Let's call it the Main Street Taxpayer's Savings Protection Plan.
Good Heavens.
No bailout is necessary. What needs to happen is a reassessment and acceptance of the TRUE COST OF RENTING MONEY.
There is more than enough money available for loans - it's just being held hostage by an industry that wants 700 billion dollars of FREE money. They just don't want to pay market rate for cash.
After years of getting ridiculously low interest rates the financial industry doesn't want to go back to doing things the prudent way - paying each other ( and YOU AND I when we save ) using the real future value of the dollars they lend.
They don't want to revalue their lousy CDOs etc. so they might actually know the real value of their assets. Knowing the real value of their assets would allow them then to know what they could loan out - prudently - and at what interest rate.
Oh, but that would result in higher interest rates for everyone! OH NOES! The end of the world - higher interest rates in a recession.
There's going to pain. There is no way to avoid it. You cannot have the biggest boom in the history of the planet end and not have pain. Oh, wait, sure you can...you can be given 700 BILLION DOLLARS OF FREE MONEY!
Here is some interesting but not surprising "detectiving"
Financial Bailout Vote: House Members Voting 'Yes' Received 54% More Money from Banks and Securities. For Immediate Release:
September 29, 2008 ...copy-npastepaste...
House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting Yes and 95 voting No. Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as much as those voting No, $107,993.
House Republicans also split their votes on this bill, 65 voting Yes and 133 voting No (and 1 not voting). Republicans voting Yes received an average of $273,181 each, 50% more than those voting No, $181,688.
“Profit-driven companies wouldn't be making campaign contributions if it didn't buy them influence or access," said Daniel Newman, MAPLight.org's executive director. “Votes in Congress align with the river of money that flows through our political system.”
....continued...http://www.maplight.org/node/43109
our representatives are whores.
"cost will probably be close to zero"
Uhhhhh Yeah right.
This is Class Warfare 21st century style.
The masters want it all, and we have to keep them from getting it.
If you notice Obama wants to push this shit through. Marcy Kaptur says it all!!!!
Bernie Sanders is making sense, after Obama gave his floor talk, slathering yet more lipstick on a pig in a polk. Sanders: 'top 400 wealthiest increased their wealth by $670 billion under Bush'. Let them pay for it. Need more Bernie's
Let the Iraqi oil revenues pay for the bailout.
But the dem leadership spew this is not the time to blame.
Need that 700 billion.
Stinks.
No fucking bailout.
No bums rush.
Oh, god. Defeat this fucking thing.
So, tell me.. What is the real difference between the two parties? Not by their words but actions...?
8 MountainMan23 Says:
IF a bank wants TaxPayer’s Dollars, then that bank must give the Taxpayers a percentage share of the bank.
That’s the way ALL the European nations are currently handling exactly the same problems.
The nationalization can be partial or complete, temporary or permanent, but the TaxPayers MUST be given a stake in the bank in exchange for OUR money.
And the shareholders (many of whom are executives in the bank) must NOT be rewarded. THEY took the risk. THEY lost. No reason for the TaxPayer to be held hostage to THEIR greed.
I say, ...how about any "taxpayer" who wants a "percentage of these banks and (wants to) buy into this pyramid scheme (to save the 401-k perhaps) ...can go on a a special list and pay a little "extra" to the IRS every april 15th.
getalife @ 20
forget 'blame'. This is about correct apportionment of *responsibility* so the causes can be properly gauged and corrections can be properly applied.
My concern is simple: nowhere in these bills do I see any real oversight, by non-bushies, with a short correction cycle and teeth to keep 'em honest. Without real regulation of the rescue, it is not worth the congressional paper it is printed on.
Bushie @ 11:
Is it not absolutely apt that this is being added to the bill:
WRONG!
The creation of fannie and freddie created this. Telling everyone that can't afford it that they can have a home in the sake of "fairness" and socialistic ideals is what caused this.
A non-partisan issue? Really? You don't think that maybe there are more than a couple of people in the democratic party with some serious money to lose if this thing flops? Get real.
It's musical chairs, people. The only thing is when the music stops it's the taxpayer that winds up standing there, holding their ass while the corporations and politicians sit comfortably. Every time, ALL THE TIME.
Realistically, I'd suggest you start eating a spoonful of catfood a day, just so you can get used to the taste...
What a fucking tsunami of fear mongering on network tv. My Senator is voting in favor of this BS tonight and she's supposed to be progressive.... Obama is clueless or spineless. Looks like he's caving just like the FISA bill. The only bright spot was Kucinich on Maddow last night and some honest coverage this morning on C-span.
If there were ever anything you had to do in your life, it's call or write your elected representatinves and tell them to kill this bailout bill.
Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said the $700 billion bank-rescue proposal under negotiation in Washington is ``crazy,'' with potentially ``awful'' consequences for the world's largest economy.
``Doesn't this seem like lunacy to you?'' said O'Neill, who was President George W. Bush's first Treasury chief, from 2001 to 2002, in a telephone interview today. ``The consequences of it are unbelievably bad in terms of public intrusion into the private sector.''
O'Neill's objections mirror those of Republicans in the House of Representatives who rejected the plan in a Sept. 29 vote. The former Treasury chief said he's lobbying for an alternative solution that would offer guarantees for troubled assets, stopping short of purchasing the debt.
``Is anybody thinking there?'' asked O'Neill, who also served as deputy budget director in the Ford administration. ``It's too late, it's not going to make any difference and it's aggravating as h*** when there's a better idea and you can't even get it in play,'' he said, recognizing little success so far in pitching his own proposal.
O'Neill, 72, was fired after an almost two-year tenure marked by strains with White House officials and comments that roiled markets.
His plan to deal with the crisis would start with a ``discounted cash-flow analysis'' of distressed instruments that are clogging the financial system. The government would guarantee the assets, paring back the support as principal and interest payments were made, he said.
Liquidity Boost
``That should take care of the liquidity problem because if they have a government guarantee at a specified level they should trade just like cash,'' O'Neill said.
He likened his solution to the Treasury's decision Sept. 19 to guarantee domestic money-market funds for a year to try to stop a run on what traditionally have been among the safest of investments.
To replenish capital in banks, the government should make 20-year loans to institutions and charge 2 percentage points above the government's borrowing rate, he said. Regulators could count the loans as part of the banks' capital base, he added. Paying the premium would give banks an incentive to retire the government loans faster, he said.
O'Neill said he has shopped his ideas to congressional leaders including Joint Economic Committee Chairman Charles Schumer; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd; and Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee.
Lobbying Lawmakers
``I honestly don't think they really understand it and they're so much in a bubble that it's impossible to penetrate it,'' he said.
Meanwhile, the Senate is set to vote tonight on a modified version of the $700 billion rescue plan the House rejected two days ago. The House may vote again Oct. 3.
``If they pass this thing, it's awful what the consequences are going to be in terms of an ongoing federal relationship that doesn't need to exist with the institutions,'' O'Neill said. ``Are we going to insist on having a federal representative on boards of directors to protect our investment?''
The main component of the legislation now under consideration is giving the Treasury secretary authority to purchase distressed mortgage-related assets with an amount of money equivalent to about half of Canada's annual gross domestic product.
``We have no capacity in the federal government and it's not possible to create a capacity to manage a $700 billion property portfolio,'' he said. ``It's crazy. It's like we've lost our moorings.''
Newsflash, John- many conservatives criticize Bush and McCain when they are wrong.
You'd have more credibility yourself if you would introduce a concept called "intellectual honesty" and could acknowledge when Dems are wrong every once in a blue moon. Like on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle.
Any mention of the fact that the day after the bombshell of the NO vote, and the nation was reeling and peering over into the financial abyss, Congress went on holiday (celebrating a foreign non xtian religious one) !!!
24 Nargel Says
"My concern is simple: nowhere in these bills do I see any real oversight, by non-bushies, with a short correction cycle and teeth to keep ‘em honest. Without real regulation of the rescue, it is not worth the congressional paper it is printed on."
That is Sessions argument to vote no.
Shelby is playing the blame game.
Why does Holtz-Eakin need to look like an unshaven homeless person? I remember that the Wolfson guy who worked for Hillary looked the same way, like a sleazy, underhanded con man. Is this the best surrogate McLame can find for the TV?
What this financial disaster has already cost the American people and there's no end in site.
Bear Sterns............35 Billion
Fannie and Freddie...200 billion
Lehman Bros.............80 billion
AIG.........................85 billion
Operating budget.......650 Billion
Bailout Pkg................700 Billion
______________
$1, 750,000,000.00 That's ONE TRILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION an counting.
Make no mistake, this is not just about a 700 billion dollar bailout!!!!!!!!!!!!! And every damn penny of it gets dumped on the tax payer in both higher taxes and fees. This is total insanity and you have to let your Congressmen and Senators know how you feel about it.
Derek from Chicago @ 30:
So, I'm not the only one who noticed that.. I also noticed if the comments on a post are negative towards democrats, almost immediately, there's another post that takes the top of the page.
[C&L is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is not public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors’ point of view.
Bandwidth is expensive. The comment space is reserved for comments that relate to the topic of the post. Please return to the topic of this thread which is 'The Networks were flooded with CNBC type reports on the bail out: Cavuto attacks McCain's Economic advisor.' Thank you-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Tune IN to the CAPITOL: (cnn stream is smooth)
SCHUMER just lied his A** OUT in support of the bailout. Praised HIMSELF, Bernanke, all the AIPAC TRAITORS.
Am in NYC, will work hard to have this LYING F***** AIPAC WEASEL, who sponsored Mukasey crook, OUT of the pigs through.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont was waving the PETITION C&L'ers were signing also: 48,000 signed by now. The signature collection goes on - google him, go to his page, click on petition link.
He had GREAT factual speech, show-and-tell (w/pix!) which crook stole how much. Was NOT allowed an Amendment to TAX the MILLIONAIRES which would bring $300BLN.
DEMS are TRAITORS as bad as the repigs. The loyalty line is AIPAC, nothing else.
GuyCybershy @ 2:
Excellent... they can take this to the proverbial bank and I hope to Congress.
The media is out in force trying to CONVINCE us that the bail out is a good idea. NPR (National Propaganda Radio) today had a show where they had a fact checker guy say that the Americans actually are FOR the bail out. What a load of crock! We are not going to foot the bill for risky investments but they are going to try to ram it to us.
Read this http://www.cjr.org/essay/boiler_room.php?page=all it's an incredible opinion piece over at the Columbia Journal Review on this issue and why the people are not getting the information we need from our press. It applies to our financial crisis but could just as well explain why we are where we are in Foreign affairs and this election. Also there's one in particular amazing response below the article. Where is the press on this issue? All we're hearing about is the fighting and infighting. Where is the information that citizens need for making informed decisions. Where are our journalists? They've become nothing more than Oprah Winfrey.
Once again we're hearing the battle cry of the Republican's "Now's not a time to point fingers, now's a time for solutions". I love that. They f*ck up over and over and over again, lie and cheat to get what they want, exclude the Dems from any input, call us traitorous for not waving the Flag and standing up for true Patriotism and then when the sh*t hits the fan, we don't have time to play the blame game - we all need to come together in non-partisan brotherhood or the Pubs start whining about how we're just politicisiing the moment. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
And let's not forget:
THE IRAQ WAR $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS
Universal preschool for 3-4 yr olds = $30 billion
What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy (Jan 2007)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html
Andrew @ 34:
Let's not forget the IRAQ WAR at $1.5 TRILLION on top of the other figures.
What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html
this holes ekin guy is just another lying son of a bitch republican.
What someone needs to say is the truth. That the bush administration missed a chance to fuck the American people.
They don't give a shit what happens to anyone but themselves. If they did we would not have wasted so many lives and so much money in Iraq.
republican polliticans are liars and criminals, republican voters are selfish idiots that don't have enough sense to know what is good for themselves and they hate the American people so much that they will vote against their own best interest for hates sake alone.
These ignorant fools don't even understand that their actions have hurt themselves as much as they have hurt the rest of America.
I say when you meet a republican beat the hell out of the stupid son of a bitch and leave it laying. You will be doing a big favor for your country and it's people.
Now get out there and beat some republicans head off!
I just heard mcsame say on c-span that he would set a new level of honesty and openness whan he was president. WOW! Do you remember chimpy mcflightsuit saying the same thing?
Are you stupid enough to fall for the same lie again?
If you are you better look over your sholder every minute of the day.
Because I or someone else will kick your stupid ass one day.
Count on it!
If you have Netflix, do yourself a favor and get some historical perspective by renting Commanding Heights (a 3-disc doco by PBS).
The doco (2002) basically favors free markets over government control of the "commanding heights of the economy" (oil, banking, railroads, steel, etc.), but it provides an illuminating look at the Keynes/ Hayek dichotomy.
The doco doesn't quite go there, but when one watches it with today's perspective, one has to wonder: is the globalization/ recession of the 1990s/2000s just the next iteration of the globalization/ depression of the 1920s/ 1930s?
"This is not a bi-partisan issue. Republican and conservative philosophies have paved the way for this financial financial meltdown and we need to tell the American people about this as much as possible."
I think the problem is that the Republicans are plagued with ideologues more than we are. The laissez-faire, let there be no regulation economic ideologues are responsible for the current meltdown, but to vote for a bailout implicitly is a vote for regulation, because the government has a right to regulate to avoid bailouts. But parts of both parties have supported laissez-faire (free) trade with an ideological fervor. That's where I've had a problem with some of the Dems along with the Repubs. The ideologue is so convinced of the approach that analyzing the results is off the table. In the case of the no regulation group, the result is in the news nightly. Investment banks are gone, and regular banks are going.
Free trade has meant large trade deficits, a loss of our manufacturing, and most importantly, a loss of our self-sufficiency. The privatization ideologue has turned our health care system into one that focuses on enhancing shareholder value, not enhancing patient health. The result is that there is no incentive into developing cures, and while cancer kills 550,000 Americans a year, federal research dollars were reduced to $5B/year. However we have lots of maintenance regimes.
Then, there are the tax cuts ideologues that believe, as Cheney has said, that deficits don't matter. There is a magic money tree at the end of the rainbow that will pay off the deficit. This has resulted, among many other things, in China being our largest creditor, with $400B in federal IOUs. Couple that with the $1.2 trillion in cash thanks to the free trade ideologues, they're in a position to compromise our foreign policy. McCain, on 60 minutes, says he wants to continue the tax cuts, but then stammered when asked about the deficits.
Finally, there are the nation building ideologues from the Project for the New American Century, who ran Bush's foreign policy, and are responsible for orchestrating the $550B (not including 'tail' costs) Iraq fiasco. McCain has Randy Scheunemann from PNAC as his chief foreign policy adviser. I think the other ideologues will do these nation builders in because foreign lenders aren't going to continue to lend if they expect to be repaid in devalued dollars. We'll then have to learn to live within our means, which will dry up the budget for nation building. A "sky is falling" editorial from abroad.
Vote Democrat this time around. Clearly, less ideologues means they're the lesser of two evils.
Here is Nader on the 'Bailout' bill.
I haven't heard a single thing that makes me believe this bill will save the economy. And just what is Wall Street sacrificing? If my business takes a shit, no one is bailing me out. Let em pick up there toys and go back to their mansions. Jackoffs! All of em!
Despite all the back slapping and self congratulations, the Senators, following the bailout vote, should have said:
"To the American public, I'm sorry. Congress let you down by loosening regulations that have fattened wallets on Wall Street and Main Street at the expense of the common man."
This is such a sophomoric and moronic thread. Crooks and Liars? By advocating LYING to people about the cronyism of Democrats, by stating this is "financial meltdown" is due exclusively to Republican and conservative policies?
Uninformed. Unethical. Blow hard.
Democrats supported the same policies that led to this. They supported the policy of excessive cheap credit. They supported legislation compelling more loans, more home sales, distorting the market every bit as much as Republicans distorted it. John must clearly not understand historical fiscal and monetary policies of both parties if he ACTUALLY thinks this is a Republican/conservative problem exclusively. This binary logic that purports one party or ideology is without blame should be an AUTOMATIC red flag to anyone reading that the writer is at best an ideologue, and possible a CROOK AND LIAR.
We have a rescue going on................heck of a job brownie..........LOL
I emailed this to Arizona Congressman Harry Mitchell, a congressman who voted against the bill the first time. I sharing so anyone who wants to take a line or idea from it for a letter or email to their congressman can:
Dear Representative Mitchell,
Now that the Senate has passed the balilout bill, and after days of relentless media cheerleading for it that will onlly increase, you now will come under tremendous pressure to change your position and vote to allow 700 billion dollars from tax payers to be paid to numerous banks and financiers, foriegn and domestic, for over valued securities and derivatives. Please don't give in. It was a fiscal catastrophe when you first rejected it; and it still is. The premise of the value underlying these securities that Taxpayers would buy from the banks and others is that American home prices stay inflated. Home prices now, particularly in Arizona, have disconnected from the incomes of people available to service the debt on them. That is why they are necessarily correcting downward. More reasonable housing costs means people will have more money to spend on other things or even save and invest; and it will reduce inflation. By buying securities whose value is premised on home values staying inflated, taxpayers are betting against themselves. And the purchase scheme is not even directly linked to alleviating to the alleged problem driving all this, bank's purported failure to make ordinary course loans to business or consumers. If this really is the case (and that conventional wisdom being cheerleaded by the national media should not be assumed without critical and sceptical analysis), the solution would be the government making these loans directly as a market particiipant (something akin to ths SBA program on steroids). It would ensure that the loans to mainstreet would actually be made and its solves the bank's supposed capitalization problem (which the bailout may not even improve). Of course this has not even been discussed as a possibility because it would not bail out those banks and financial institutions that made reckless bets and wiill either be bankrupted or have their values and future profitability dramaticially reduced. And that is what this really all about, not letting Wall Street and the financial industry experience the results of its failure. If it was really about mainstreet; the bill would provide for the loans to be directly made to mainstreet but that is not happening.
If interest rates are artificially low because they are based on overvalued collateral and capitablization then they should naturally correct higher to where they really are. If the values of stock prices are high because they are based on overvalued mortgage backed securities or interests rate that are artificially low, they too should correct to what their values really are. Enron depended on its stock price being high so it could keep on refinancing its debt; it was a defacto ponzi scheme. America should not be Enron. If stock prices fall below their real value, then Americans (and their pension funds and retirment account) are presented with a buying opportunity. We should not be using tax payer monies to artificially prop up values in these markets. Let the market find its bottom so capital can start to flow into actual productive activity instead of rampant real estate speculation and synthetic financial intruments. We should be spending 700 billion dollars to convert this County from fossil fuels to renewable electrics; not propping up inflated real estate and stock values and artificially manipulating interest rates. That would actually increase this country's national defense and productivity, not continue to reward and propagate reckless, unproductive, and in part fraudulent activity which the bailout does. .
If this trainwreck passes, the dollar will be hammered, inflation will increase (and it will be stagflation), the deficit which is already awful will hit unheard of levels that placed on the shoulders of grandchildren, and the coup do grace is there is still no direct requirement or mechanism for the proceeds paid to these holder's of mortgage back securities or derivatives to be used to make the loans to mainstreet that the bill proponents say is the reason for all this.
I could go on but this letter has probably already gone on too long for the staffer tasked with reading it; so, I will close with this, please hang in there. No matter what bells and whistles they try to put on this thing, as long as it involves the transfer of 700 billion tax payer dollars to banks and others for overvalued assets it should still be voted down. If these assets are such a great deal then let Warren Buttet buy them. Notice that he, a prudent investor, has not to date done so. Anyway, thanks for your first vote. Please resist the media cheeleading on the purported need to pass this trainwrecik of bill and vote no again.
Republicans have been the ones really pushing for less regulation, so overall, I would have to say that they are more to blame.
But to pretend that the Democrats' shit don't stink is ridiculous.
Fannie Mae lobbied the crap out of both Democrats and Republicans.
As recently as September 11, Barney Frank said, "''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis."
And when Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that undid the Glass-Steagall firewall between banks and other financial institutions, both Democrats and Republicans were all gung-ho for it.
Clinton said, “This legislation is truly historic,” President Clinton told a packed audience of lawmakers and top financial regulators. “We have done right by the American people.”
His Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, said, "With this bill, the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century — one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy."
Now, if you wanna split hairs, you can say that of the 8 senators who voted against it, 7 were democrats. But when a bill passes 90 - 8, both parties are responsible for the results.
In contrast, The Great Prophet Byron Dorgan said, "This bill will also raise the likelihood of future massive taxpayer bailouts…I also think we will, in 10 years time, look back and say…we forgot the lessons of the past."
The dude deserves huge props.
Comments are closed on this entry