Even though they include the automakers we need to stop it.

[fmccap]

Bush Administration Seeks "Dictatorial Power"

Notice how everyone wants to rush this through even though it is the biggest financial crisis in history. One might think that something this big should be carefully considered but no... Bush says: "This is going to be a big package because it's a big problem" and "We need to get this done quickly and the cleaner the better."

 

It seems the bigger the problem the quicker and cleaner it can be fixed. Indeed Congress will argue more over the cost of toilet seats than they will over this $700 billion (and counting) bailout.

 

This was perfectly avoidable. All we had to do we eliminate the Fed and fractional reserve lending. And that is what still needs to be done.

 

Instead Congress is lining up to give "Unreviewable Dictatorial Power"to the Treasury while increasing the size of the already ridiculous proposal.

 

Contact Your Senator Today!

It's time to contact your senator. Here is contact information for Senators of the 110th Congress.

 

Phone or Email your Senators today. Tell them in your own words

 

 

Urge your senator to Filibuster any bailout legislation.

Emphatically state you do not want a bailout of any kind for anyone.

No Dictatorial power for Paulson or Bernanke

 

Taxpayers should not have to bail out banks making bad loans

Tell them that "The Fed" and Paulson are systemic risk".

 

Email AND Phone Senators Shelby, Bunning, Kyle, Ensign, Hagel

[Ralph Greene]

It's popular to jump on the free markets bandwagon....and it sounds good....it's the American way.

 

However....for those who just listen to headline news, and who don't follow what is really happening, you need to catch up some on the news.

 

Last week (Thursday), the financial markets of the US almost froze up. Some money market funds "broke the buck" in price, and a run was beginning on the banks and securities companies. This was in the credit markets, not the stock markets, and did not receive much news at the time. But a 1929's type run on the banks was just a few hours away.

 

Paulson and company knew they could not let this happen, and they acted. You may not like what they did, I doubt if even they liked what they did, but it had to be done.

 

You can argue all you want about how this came about, who was asleep at the switch, who is to blame, how this could have been averted....but that just didn't matter much last Thursday afternnon. They acted, I'm glad they did, and now we have to deal with it. Rush Limbough is an idiot.

[fmccap]

It's popular to jump on the free markets bandwagon....and it sounds good....it's the American way.

 

However....for those who just listen to headline news, and who don't follow what is really happening, you need to catch up some on the news.

 

Last week (Thursday), the financial markets of the US almost froze up. Some money market funds "broke the buck" in price, and a run was beginning on the banks and securities companies. This was in the credit markets, not the stock markets, and did not receive much news at the time. But a 1929's type run on the banks was just a few hours away.

 

Paulson and company knew they could not let this happen, and they acted. You may not like what they did, I doubt if even they liked what they did, but it had to be done.

 

You can argue all you want about how this came about, who was asleep at the switch, who is to blame, how this could have been averted....but that just didn't matter much last Thursday afternnon. They acted, I'm glad they did, and now we have to deal with it. Rush Limbough is an idiot.

What does that tell you about the credit markets? Why was the action more of the same only letting the real problem get worse and delaying the inevitable, something that history shows we should be sure of.

 

P.S. I am far from the "headline news". I did know about this and I also knew what they did, throw money at it.

Edited September 22, 2008 by fmccap

[Ralph Greene]

I don't think any thinking American is very happy about recent course of events, and what the Treasury is attempting to engineer.

 

However....we were only a few hours away from a 1929 type run on the banks, and probably the beginnings of an economic freeze up, that likely would have started another 1929 type depression. We could not endure that again. No one on this board has ever endured anything like that, and Paulson and company figured almost any thing was better than having the country go thru that again.

 

The advice from the folks who are against this is the same type of advice Herbert Hoover got....and followed. And you know what happened next. A recession we almost did not recover from. Some think only the spending from WW 11 got us out of it. That could not be allowed to happen again. That is not an option.

 

I'm grateful to Paulson and company for acting quickly, and am confidant he will administer this plan as efficiently as possible. With as little cost to tax payer as possible. I also think (as others do) he may actually make money on this plan. Or parts of the plan. He is the ultimate free market guy, if you know his history. Ron Paul would probably like Paulson.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[fmccap]

I don't think any thinking American is very happy about recent course of events, and what the Treasury is attempting to engineer.

 

However....we were only a few hours away from a 1929 type run on the banks, and probably the beginnings of an economic freeze up, that likely would have started another 1929 type depression. We could not endure that again. No one on this board has ever endured anything like that, and Paulson and company figured almost any thing was better than having the country go thru that again.

 

The advice from the folks who are against this is the same type of arguments Herbert Hoover got....and followed. And you know what happened next. That could not be allowed to happen again. That is not an option.

 

I'm grateful to Paulson and company for acting quickly, and am confidant he will administer this plan as efficiently as possible. With as little cost to tax payer as possible. I also think (as others do) he may actually make money on this plan. Or parts of the plan. He is the ultimate free market guy, if you know his history. Ron Paul would probably like Paulson.

 

Well from this Socialist plan I would like to know how we are going to make money on this plan of buying worthless debt??? I think you say it best, "he may actually make money on this plan", considering he probably still has a stake in his old company.

 

 

They talk at about 4 minutes.

Congressman Ron Paul confronts Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on the dollar and the economy at the House Financial Services Hearing, July 10, 2008. Paulson, as expected, dodged the question.

Edited September 22, 2008 by fmccap

[fmccap]

I'm grateful to Paulson and company for acting quickly, and am confidant he will administer this plan as efficiently as possible. With as little cost to tax payer as possible. I also think (as others do) he may actually make money on this plan. Or parts of the plan. He is the ultimate free market guy, if you know his history. Ron Paul would probably like Paulson.

Did we forget where he came from?

Treasury Auction Scam and How To Stop It

As more and more details of the Paulson proposal become clear, the smellier the package is.

 

Bernanke is a liar. You know it, I know it, and Bernanke knows it. The idea that taxpayers are going to get "good value" of out $700 billion of pure garbage is insanity, especially if those auctions are rigged.

 

What does Ron Paul think of Paulson???

Ron Paul on the bail outs

Edited September 23, 2008 by fmccap

[Ralph Greene]

Warren Buffitt said this AM on CNBC that if he had 700 billion dollars backed by the treasury, at their borrowing costs, he could a make lot of money buying this distressed debt. And...he thinks Hank Paulson will make a lot of money for the American taxpayer....if Congress doesn't tie his hand too much.

 

You have to understand....this is not worthless debt. The vast majority of these morgage holders are still making their payments. It is just debt that has been marked down.....because there is no ready market for it....to very low levels....as required by the Sarbaines Oxley law. A stupid law designed to ferrot out any Enron scandels out there...where assets were carried on the books at inflated prices.

 

If Congress would just temporarily repeal the Sarbains Oxley law....and allow banks and brokers to carry this debt to maturity....they probably would get 70-80% recovery, instead of the 20-30 cents on the dollar it is marked to because of Sarbaines Oxley.

 

Temporarily repeal Sarbaines Oxley (at least on the financial companies)....and you wouldn't need the bailout plan. The balance sheets of the affected brokers and banks would be vastly improved. The credit crisis is about as much about an accounting issue as it is a real credit issue. The banks and brokers can afford a 20-30% loss. Just not a 70-80% loss. Collectively...Congress is probably too stupid to understand this.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[fmccap]

Warren Buffitt said this AM on CNBC that if he had 700 billion dollars backed by the treasury, at their borrowing costs, he could a make lot of money buying this distressed debt. And...he thinks Hank Paulson will make a lot of money for the American taxpayer....if Congress doesn't tie his hand too much.

 

You have to understand....this is not worthless debt. The vast majority of these morgage holders are still making their payments. It is just debt that has been marked down.....because there is no ready market for it....to very low levels....as required by the Sarbaines Oxley law. A stupid law designed to ferrot out any Enron scandels out there...where assets were carried on the books at inflated prices.

 

If Congress would just temporarily repeal the Sarbains Oxley law....and allow banks and brokers to carry this debt to maturity....they probably would get 70-80% recovery, instead of the 20-30 cents on the dollar it is marked to because of Sarbaines Oxley.

 

Temporarily repeal Sarbaines Oxley (at least on the financial companies)....and you wouldn't need the bailout plan. The balance sheets of the affected brokers and banks would be vastly improved. The credit crisis is about as much about an accounting issue as it is a real credit issue. The banks and brokers can afford a 20-30% loss. Just not a 70-80% loss. Collectively...Congress is probably too stupid to understand this.

I'm sure he would buy them at real cheap prices, that's why. This is why I think we stand to lose big.

Bernanke Signals U.S. Should Pay More for Bad Debt (Update2)

 

Bernanke: Not Only Should Taxpayers Buy the Toxic Waste, They Should Pay Premium Prices for It

 

I know of one in Congress that is not stupid.

Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act, which repeals Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed into law in the hysterical atmosphere surrounding the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies, by a Congress more concerned with doing something than doing the right thing.

The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations. These questions should be resolved by private contracts between a company and its shareholders, and by state and local regulations. Let me remind my colleagues who are skeptical of the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against fraud: the market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices, before Congress even held the first hearing on the matter

Edited September 24, 2008 by fmccap

[fmccap]

If anyone is interested.

http://www.buymyshitpile.com/?ref=patrick.net

With our economy in crisis, the US Government is scrambling to rescue our banks by purchasing their "distressed assets", i.e., assets that no one else wants to buy from them. We figured that instead of protesting this plan, we'd give regular Americans the same opportunity to sell their bad assets to the government. We need your help and you need the Government's help!

 

 

Use the form below to submit bad assets you'd like the government to take off your hands. And remember, when estimating the value of your 1997 limited edition Hanson single CD "MMMbop", it's not what you can sell these items for that matters, it's what you think they are worth. The fact that you think they are worth more than anyone will buy them for is what makes them bad assets.

[suv_guy_19]

If anyone is interested.

http://www.buymyshitpile.com/?ref=patrick.net

 

So do you honestly think that the US financial system should just be allowed to collapse?

Edited September 24, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[fmccap]

So do you honestly think that the US financial system should just be allowed to collapse?

It won't collapse, it will just make adjustments to where it should be. It will end sometime and the sooner the better.

Edited September 24, 2008 by fmccap

[suv_guy_19]

It won't collapse, it will just make adjustments to where it should be. It will end sometime and the sooner the better.

 

 

The US system according to many analysts was days if not hours from a collapse. When word of the bailout came through, that was abated somewhat. It is not really even known if this rescue will be close to enough. It still could collapse. The thing is though, they have to try to stop it.

 

Edit: By collapse, I don't mean complete failure, but rather a situation where no one can borrow money and huge numbers of people try to withdraw their savings. It would be disastrous.

Edited September 24, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[Ralph Greene]

fmccap....I can see you do not have a clue how our economic system operates....or you would not be constantly quoting those out of context statements by others.

 

Example.....When Merrill Lynch was forced recently to sell some of it's mortgage products at roughly 22 cents on the dollar....because that was all they would bring in this inefficient market....it caused all the other bamks and brokers to mark their similar assets down to same price (Sarbains Oxley) as required by law....even though they all know if they hold them to maturity they will probably recover 60-80% of their investment in these mortgage products. But if they hold them to maturity, it ties up their balance sheet, and constricts their ability to act like banks and make small loans to ordinary Americans to buy cars and such.

 

If this bail out is approved, and if all the treasury did was offer to buy them at a one time distressed sale price....no bank would accept that offer, because they know if they can figure out a way to hold them, they will eventually get a lot more. All Paulson wants to do is offer them enough to entice them to sell, there is still plenty of upside left in them. He may have to offer a tad over the 22 cents on the dollar...depending on the quality of the assets....they are not all the same.

 

It's important to get the banks to sell them, shore up their balance sheet, so they can go back to making loans to the American people.

 

There are several ways to make this Treasury plan work, I don't necessarily think it has to be a 700 billion plan, or even a plan that costs the tax payers, but lets keep the facts and info accurate.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[fmccap]

fmccap....I can see you do not have a clue how our economic system operates....or you would not be constantly quoting those out of context statements by others.

 

Example.....When Merrill Lynch was forced recently to sell some of it's mortgage products at roughly 22 cents on the dollar....because that was all they would bring in this inefficient market....it caused all the other bamks and brokers to mark their similar assets down to same price (Sarbains Oxley) as required by law....even though they all know if they hold them to maturity they will probably recover 60-80% of their investment in these mortgage products. But if they hold them to maturity, it ties up their balance sheet, and constricts their ability to act like banks and make small loans to ordinary Americans to buy cars and such.

 

If this bail out is approved, and if all the treasury did was offer to buy them at a one time distressed sale price....no bank would accept that offer, because they know if they can figure out a way to hold them, they will eventually get a lot more. All Paulson wants to do is offer them enough to entice them to sell, there is still plenty of upside left in them. He may have to offer a tad over the 22 cents on the dollar...depending on the quality of the assets....they are not all the same.

 

It's important to get the banks to sell them, shore up their balance sheet, so they can go back to making loans to the American people.

 

There are several ways to make this Treasury plan work, I don't necessarily think it has to be a 700 billion plan, or even a plan that costs the tax payers, but lets keep the facts and info accurate.

What did I say that was inaccurate? As far as how our economic system operates, you would have to say it is mostly "debt - based".

In the 20th century, economic growth resulted from improved technologies, new investment, and increases in labor productivity, which raised consumers’ incomes and purchasing power. In contrast, in the 21st century, economic growth has resulted from debt expansion.

 

Most Americans have experienced little, if any, income growth in the 21st century. Instead, consumers have kept the economy going by maxing out their credit cards and refinancing their mortgages in order to consume the equity in their homes.

 

The income gains of the 21st century have gone to corporate chief executives, shareholders of offshoring corporations, and financial corporations.

 

1. How did we get here? Was it too easy and too much credit that is now coming due?

 

2. If we don't let the market adjust it will only delay and make the later adjustment worse, right?

 

3. Considering #1, "so they can go back to making loans to the American people.", doesn't this only compound the problem?

Edited September 24, 2008 by fmccap

[Ralph Greene]

You and I could probably agree that somehow, someway, our country must begin to have budget surpluses to begin paying down our national debt. Since so much of our spending is embedded in law, I don't see spending being cut much, so that means taxes will have to rise. That's a tough sell.

 

Or you could just wait for "trickle down economics" to jazz up the economy enough to increase tax revenues at curent tax rate. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, although I do understand the philosophy behind that view.

 

Perhaps an economic calamity of sorts would wake up Americasns enough to be willing to pay higher taxes if they understood the advantages to our economy. Stronger currency. Stronger growth that all Americans would participate in. But most Americans don't understand economics, or need to sacrifice now to prosper latter (check national savings rate), so I'm not very optimistic for this to happen.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[Ralph Greene]

Another way I think we disagree....based on the links you drag into your posts.

 

I'm not sure what the right bailout plan is, nor what is the best plan to go with.

 

But I am convinced that there is no sinister motive behind those folks who are putting their plans forward. I am convinced Hank Paulson is seeking no direct personal gain. Same for Warren Buffet....if he gets asked to volunteer his advice. Sure they all own stock in financial companies (as I and many others do also), and will indirectly gain, but I don't think personal gain is their motive. I do not see a crook behind every rock. No one gains if the banks freeze up to protect their capital.

[fmccap]

Another way I think we disagree....based on the links you drag into your posts.

 

I'm not sure what the right bailout plan is, nor what is the best plan to go with.

 

But I am convinced that there is no sinister motive behind those folks who are putting their plans forward. I am convinced Hank Paulson is seeking no direct personal gain. Same for Warren Buffet....if he gets asked to volunteer his advice. Sure they all own stock in financial companies (as I and many others do also), and will indirectly gain, but I don't think personal gain is their motive. I do not see a crook behind every rock. No one gains if the banks freeze up to protect their capital.

When will it end then? The biggest thing I see this doing results in being able to have banks lend again, right? That's not real good in my opinion considering we already have the largest debt in public and private sectors.

[sprinter]

You and I could probably agree that somehow, someway, our country must begin to have budget surpluses to begin paying down our national debt. Since so much of our spending is embedded in law, I don't see spending being cut much, so that means taxes will have to rise. That's a tough sell.

 

Or you could just wait for "trickle down economics" to jazz up the economy enough to increase tax revenues at curent tax rate. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, although I do understand the philosophy behind that view.

 

Perhaps an economic calamity of sorts would wake up Americasns enough to be willing to pay higher taxes if they understood the advantages to our economy. Stronger currency. Stronger growth that all Americans would participate in. But most Americans don't understand economics, or need to sacrifice now to prosper latter (check national savings rate), so I'm not very optimistic for this to happen.

 

 

What the hell do you think will happen to the taxes if the government buys this toxic crap? The FED wants the government to bail out their friends, the pin stripe bandits of wall street, who put us in this mess? And on top of that they want no congressional oversight? Get the Vaseline ready.

[Ralph Greene]

What the hell do you think will happen to the taxes if the government buys this toxic crap? The FED wants the government to bail out their friends, the pin stripe bandits of wall street, who put us in this mess? And on top of that they want no congressional oversight? Get the Vaseline ready.

 

I see you don't understand the plan either.

[RaZor]

The Bush/Paulson plan is all but dead. A Rep Congressman from Texas (sorry didn't catch his name - Barton? and who has voted with Bush 96% of the time) just said that there isn't 40 votes for it in the House of 400+.

[fmccap]

I see you don't understand the plan either.

What is it I don't understand?

[fmccap]

The Bush/Paulson plan is all but dead. A Rep Congressman from Texas (sorry didn't catch his name - Barton? and who has voted with Bush 96% of the time) just said that there isn't 40 votes for it in the House of 400+.

Please Play It. I promise you will not be disappointed.

 

THEY WANT MAMA TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER!

[suv_guy_19]

The Bush/Paulson plan is all but dead. A Rep Congressman from Texas (sorry didn't catch his name - Barton? and who has voted with Bush 96% of the time) just said that there isn't 40 votes for it in the House of 400+.

 

 

Then I hope there's another plan.....and may God help us all.

[fmccap]

Then I hope there's another plan.....and may God help us all.

Are you starting with the fear crap those two keep spewing in these hearings? If this is the biggest crisis in this nations history why are they trying to ramrod this through before anyone can even think about it? It makes me wonder.

Edited September 24, 2008 by fmccap

[Imawhosure]

Then I hope there's another plan.....and may God help us all.

 

 

It, or something close will go through, and quickly. Of this, there is no doubt.

 

How do we know this?

 

I never like answering a question by asking a question, but this is one of those times that it is appropriate!!!!

 

QUESTION-------->How would you like to be part of the people in opposition, if the financial markets go into lock up? If the banks have a run?

 

I wouldn't want to be, that is for sure.

 

They are not wrangling over the premise, they are wrangling over lotsa add ons for the most part. They are playing politics by using the leverage of the fact that it must happen. They are rolling the dice that all will go well while they wrangle.

 

On another note--------->The government appears to be willing to sell bonds on these new companys to the public, backed by the Fed. They are also wrangling over what rate will be paid to the bond holders.

 

We shall see!!!!