Lally's Alley: THE BAILOUT: WHOA!

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

THE BAILOUT: WHOA!

Here's one of the better articles on the bailout, from a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter (despite the typos). It's more questions than answers (though the answers are often implied), but now's the time to be asking them.

22 comments:

Unknown said...: For years, our Republicans have been shaking their heads and telling us that Social Security is broken and can't be fixed. They tell us that there are too many baby boomers retiring, and not enough money to fund the program. All the while, they have been using our payroll taxes as part of the general fund, which they have depleted and put into the hole with their profligate spending. When calls come out to fix Social Security, to properly fund the program, and to keep the funds in a lockbox, away from earmarks and pork spending, they just chuckle and say we can't afford to do that.

Meanwhile, if Bush wants a war, or a bailout of the Banking industry, Congress seems ready to write a check for a bajillion dollars.

It seems to me that these recent bank failures underscores our need for a social safety net. The fear that bank failure could wipe out savings, retirement accounts, and businesses makes it all the more apparent that we need a social program to protect us from the harsh consequences of free market capitalism. We need to hedge our bets against "the invisible hand".

This bank bailout seems to me like a last-minute money grab by Bush cronies on their way out the door. Big Oil started early by taking with both hands, and now Banking and Insurance are getting in on the act. But I think that if we are going to write out a blank check to trillion dollar banks, we could at least give five or six billion to shore up Social Security.; September 24, 2008 at 9:35:00 AM EDT
Harryn Studios said...: there’s something hinky going on on the hill ...

besides another rush to judgment that brought about the fiasco in iraq [and the subsequent problems with middle east instability, overextended military and resources, gigantic government contracts, loss of respect from international allies, the problems facing g.i.’s coming home without suitable benefits and opportunities for the future, national debt, etc.], and the patriot act - this $700 billion hand-over - as a last-ditch effort, doesn’t have a plan attached to it, and is likely to fail the people who need help most ...

paulson keeps saying: “we have to act fast” + “we’ve worked hard to come up with a plan” + “we’ll consult with experts” but there’s a reluctance to say more than the plan will provide more liquidity in the market - duh? - 700 billion drops ...

then i’m hearing that the top ceo’s they’re depending upon for expertise don’t want to be involved without assurance of bonuses ... isn’t that holding america hostage at a time of ‘national crisis’ - and by definition isn’t that terrorizing the publics’ well-being ... hell yes, less than that has earned some people single room accommodations at guantanamo bay ...

liquidity? what about the cost of this war in iraq and the billions that have been skimmed off wall street over the past eight years ...

from wall street to main street? most people don’t live on main street anymore - it’s unaffordable to the average american - more empty metaphorical bytes ...

people have taken mortgages without suitable credit ratings? do the math idiots - most working class americans are earning a few thousand dollars less today than they were in the year 2000 because of job restructuring while the cost of everything else began to escalate: gasoline, food, clothing, utilities, etc. - furthermore, these mortgages were convincingly being sold to the public as a means to weather-out the storm [but the storm still hasn’t ended] - who told the sellers of these mortgages to “go out and sell” ... the ones we’re bailing out that have already padded their accounts and investments - the bottom-feeders and the little people are blamed for bleeding ...

if anyone still needs bailing out - something everyone is missing - its’ the average guy and gal who haven’t been able to save a dime or who have lost just about everything over the past eight years - including their dignity and self respect - not to mention their respect for their neighbors and government ...

after a few weeks of delinquency on your bills, computers automatically shut off your telephone service, cancel your insurance, your utilities, effect credit ratings, etc. - and there is little or no recourse - what happens to all these people ...

ALL the beltway blockheads are missing the point - the bailout has to extend to the individual ‘off main street’ - restore credit ratings to the pre-bush ‘storm’ to allow the peoples to restore themselves - and place a minimum 90 day moratorium on collections or service disruption to give the people a chance - without it, nothing changes except for the worse ...

my late father - a two-job union worker, veteran [r.i.p.] - used to tell me back in the 60’s that this country needs a revolution against washington and corporate america - civil disobedience to show them what’s ‘real’ - but in my rebellious youth, i thought compassion, love, and diplomacy could solve our problems ...; September 24, 2008 at 9:58:00 AM EDT
JIm said...: We can curse the Democrat Party's incompetence in giving us the conditions that spawned this crisis like requiring banks to loosen lending practices and then blocking reform of the GSEs,but that does not solve the problem we face. We have been in a similar but smaller situation with the S&L Crisis. The Resolution Trust worked then and may work again.; September 24, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EDT
JIm said...: A Resolutin Trust Continued-
A solution to the mortage problem from Bill Gross from Pimco (largest and most respected bond manager in the US)

Critics call this a bailout of Wall Street; in fact, it is anything but. I estimate the average price of distressed mortgages that pass from "troubled financial institutions" to the Treasury at auction will be 65 cents on the dollar, representing a loss of one-third of the original purchase price to the seller, and a prospective yield of 10 to 15 percent to the Treasury. Financed at 3 to 4 percent via the sale of Treasury bonds, the Treasury will therefore be in a position to earn a positive carry or yield spread of at least 7 to 8 percent. Calls for appropriate oversight of this auction process are more than justified. There are disinterested firms, some not even based on Wall Street, with the expertise to evaluate these complicated pools of mortgages and other assets to assure taxpayers that their money is being wisely invested. My estimate of double-digit returns assumes lengthy ownership of the assets and is in turn dependent on the level of home foreclosures, but this program is, in fact, directed to prevent just that.; September 24, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EDT
Lally said...: Great comments John and Harryn, as for Jim, just another instance of your lying is calling the Democratic Party by any other name than it has always had. It's a rightwing trick, the misuse of language to create confusion and misdirect attention. Like calling "liberals" "socialists" and "communists" when most "socialists" and all "communists" have been more critical of "liberalism" than the rightwing is. Either you know these things are false, or you are deliberately fooling yourself, or just so lockstep behind Rush and Rove and tactics even they recognize as misleading and outright lying (I have plenty of Republican friends and relatives, some high in that party, regulars at the White House, who have legitimate political differences with Democrats but who nonetheless can ackowledge when rightwing Republicans distort or lie or make obvious mistakes based on incorrect assumptions, etc. and are generally ashamed of the current administration's mistakes and lies and handouts to cronies.); September 24, 2008 at 11:15:00 AM EDT
Unknown said...: jim:
Those poor bankers, being forced to make loans that they didn't want to make! If only they had greater resources to lobby the Democrats in Congress, and tell them that they didn't want to expand their lending into this riskier market. But that would take money, power, and influence-- things that banking firms lack.

Sarcasm aside, the banking industry writes its own laws, in a Democratic or Republican Congress. If you need any proof of this, look at the Bankruptcy reforms passed by Congress--written by the banking industry. The first six years of Bush's Administration had a Republican majority in Congress. The past two years saw a record use of the filibuster and procedural shutdown of the Democratic majority's legislative agenda. The Democrats in Congress are mostly docile and easily managed by the administration.

The Resolution Trust was a response to the Savings and Loan Crisis. This was caused by S&L's making unsound real estate loans. It would seem that the financial sector did not learn from this earlier debacle. And why should they, so long as the taxpayer is forced to eat the bad debts caused by bad lending practices?

If legislative oversight and regulation is not the answer, then we need to FIND an way to keep bankers from acting in their own financial interest. Throughout recent history, bankers have been tempted to tap into the riskier market of subprime lending, depending on the government to bail them out if and when it falls apart. If government does not regulate, then how do we break this cycle?

By the way, the name of the party is the DemocratIC Party.; September 24, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EDT
JIm said...: I would call the Democrat Party democratic if it adhered to democratic principles like freedon of speech and in liberty. There follows a short list of abuses:

1- Pres. Wilson - formation of a nazi like organization to eliminate and intimidate free speech and harass immigrants Americans.
2- FDR imprisonment of Japanese Americans, court packing etc.
3-Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Clinton support for the "Fairness Doctrine" to eliminate free speech on the airwaves.

That is just off the top of my head. I am sure there are more examples out there.; September 24, 2008 at 11:36:00 AM EDT
Unknown said...: Jim:

You have been asked, warned and told not to refer to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party by the blogger. Yet, you insist on doing so. Your comments are posted here-- on Lally's dime.

How can you possibly be against the Fairness Doctrine?; September 24, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EDT
JIm said...: John Lally
I am against the Fairness Doctrine because it sets up bureaucrats to decide what is acceptably political discourse. That is the type of regulation you would expect in Cuba not in the US. I and the US Constiturion prefers freedom of speech.

As for the other thing, Democrat Party, Democarat Party, Democrat Party!!!; September 24, 2008 at 12:34:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: In Cuba, I would expect to see State-Owned media repeating government propaganda without any opportunity for one to present an opposing view.

In the United States, we have Corporate-Owned media repeating government propaganda without any opportunity for one to present an opposing view.

Not much better.; September 24, 2008 at 1:13:00 PM EDT
JIm said...: John Lally,
Your use of “Corporate” as a pejorative is silly. There is nothing wrong with corporations. They are owned by individuals, labor unions, pension plans who benefit when they pay dividends and appreciate in value. These same owners are hurt when they do poorly. It is just one form of doing business. Some make money some do not. Some are good corporate citizens some are not. Does the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC and even Fox News repeat President Bush’s party line? You might want to remind Chris Mathews, Keith Obermann, Katie Couric, et al , that they are off message. Even conservative commentators Hannity, O'Rielly have often criticized the Bush Presidency.; September 24, 2008 at 2:22:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: Yes, even the New York Times has been guilty of repeating the Bush Administration propaganda. Remember Judith Miller? She fed us false information about Iraq as it was being fed to her by the White House.

Katie Couric's softball interview with General Petraeus was one of the most glaring examples of Bush loyalty and bias.

Chris Matthews is a right winger. It's laughable that you would use him as an example of someone being "off message".

If Hannity or O'Reilly ever say anything about the president, it is an exception rather than the rule, and you can bet it's already been approved by their higher-ups in the party before they air it.

Let's not forget the phony news videos prepared by the White House and shown on networks without mentioning their source, and the journalists who were being paid by the White House to promote certain Bush policies.

Insiders at Fox News have confirmed that they receive daily talking points from the administration, and that these points are used in their programming.

ABC network has been particularly sensitive to right wing political pressure. Despite objections of a large number of liberals, it aired the factually inaccurate and flattering "docudrama" about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This came after it bowed to pressure to drop a critical "docudrama" about Ronald Reagan.

When the general public has no idea whether their news is coming from independent sources or from government propaganda, it is important to allow dissenting views to be heard.; September 24, 2008 at 4:26:00 PM EDT
JIm said...: John Lally,
You leave me speechless with your inane thought process. Don't forget Air America, Moveon.org etc. Everyone gets talking points from Bush/Rove.; September 24, 2008 at 5:30:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: Dude:

Read Scott McClellan's book. The White House Press Secretary admitted they were doing it. After an admission like that, if you're still in denial, you are no longer willfully ignorant, you are dishonest.; September 24, 2008 at 5:55:00 PM EDT
JIm said...: John Lally,
Scot McClellan is that fearless liberal who found his liberalism belately at his Mom's apron strings, since she was running for office,as a Demorcrat. I think that that Scot engenders all that is of value to the Democrat Party.

To be a hero one must:
-attack Pres. Bush. It is particuarly melitorious, if you are lifted from obscuritity and elivated to a position of note and then attack the President who elivated you.

Unfortunately, for Scot the next presidential Press Secretary was soneone of extordinary character and effectiveness. Tony Snow has honest, beloved, true to what he said he was.

It is very telling, that you find Scot a hero, but do not mention Tony, who was heroic, in the extreme,in very difficult circumstances. Tony was also true to his values and to his President and did not need to check with his Mom on his political philosophy.; September 24, 2008 at 11:21:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: I don't find Scot to be a hero. I find him to be a flawed character. I find it very interesting that you are comfortable in believing everything he said when he was the President's mouthpiece, and disbelieving what he said aftewards-- based solely upon how his comments reflected on the President.
Tony Snow was picked directly from Bush's propaganda outlet. (The network that McClellan was sending daily talking point to). He had the same function at the White House as he did at Fox News-- government propaganda. Tony Snow was a disgusting liar with no redeeming qualities.
I watched Tony Snow as the lies streamed out of his mouth. The smug look in his eyes and the smirk on his face told me that he didn't believe what he was saying-- and he knew that we didn't believe what he was saying-- but there was nothing we could do about it. The disrespect he showed for his fellow press members was reflective of the hatred your party has for free press.; September 25, 2008 at 9:54:00 AM EDT
JIm said...: jm lally
You called Tony Snow, an enormously honorable and brave man, a liar. You sir, are a low life. Please list at least one of his supposed lies.; September 25, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EDT
Unknown said...: You know, after being called a low life, I really don't owe you a damned thing. But just for the fun of it, here's a clip of Jon Stewart busting Tony Snow on a big lie:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/18415/1/TDS-TonySnow-lying.wmv

Here's another from Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World".
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/13404/1/Countdown-WW-Snow.wmv

You've asked for one. I gave you two. He's a liar, but he was a spokesman for Bush. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Now, you give me one reason why he's an "enormously honorable and brave man" other than the fact that he died of cancer, as do more than half a million Americans every year.; September 25, 2008 at 3:59:00 PM EDT
JIm said...: jmlally
I was unabale to open your sources. The fact that your sources are a comedian and commentator who has been demoted for incompetence is not surprising.

Tony met with and encouraged other cancer suffers with his optimism and good cheer. He was determined to live life to the fullest as he faced down the enevitable.

You continue to be a low life.; September 25, 2008 at 4:58:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: I really should have invoked Godwin's law after the seventh post when you called Woodrow Wilson a Nazi. The discussion was bound to get absurd from that point on. I'm embarrassed that I wasted so much time with a troll. Well played, sir.; September 26, 2008 at 7:08:00 AM EDT
JIm said...: The Great Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in his own words
http://www.woodrowwilson.org/learn_more/learn_more_show.htm?doc_id=484135

The letter to Representative Webb represents Wilson's argument for the inclusion of a censorship provision in the Espionage Act that would prohibit the dissemination of information deemed "to be useful to the enemy" in times of national emergency. An amendment to that effect passed in the House but did not make it into the Espionage Act voted into law on June 15, 1917.

In May of 1918, Wilson was successful in getting the Sedition Act passed as an amendment to the Espionage Act. It became a crime to "utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane...or abusive language" about the United States government or to disagree with its actions abroad. The act was repealed in 1921.

View the original document; September 26, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EDT
JIm said...: Woodrow Wilson - Continued

American Protective League
The American Protective League was a quasi-private organization with 250,000 members in 600 cities was sanctioned by the Wilson administration. These men carried Government Issue badges and freely conducted warrantless searches and interrogations.[49] This organization was empowered by the U.S. Justice Department to spy on Americans for anti-government/anti war behavior. As national police, the APL checked up on people who failed to buy Liberty Bonds and spoke out against the government’s policies; September 26, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM EDT