the bail-out---ala cheney

fine tuning the game plan...egad--i cant believe this!!! "The administration's proposal says that the Treasury secretary's decisions "may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/52922.html

Democrats battling to add restrictions to $700 billion bailout

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats inched close to agreement Monday on the terms of a $700 billion rescue package to stabilize shaky financial markets, but continued to encounter White House resistance to key points.

"The Bush administration has called on Congress to rubber-stamp its bailout legislation without serious debate or efforts to improve it. That will not happen," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

People close to the negotiations said that at least three areas of disagreement remained: limits on executive compensation at troubled firms, the terms of oversight of the Treasury's management of the bailout and whether taxpayers would gain an equity stake in companies that benefit from the bailout so that taxpayers could share in the firms' later profits.

President Bush said in a statement that "Everyone recognizes that it's not easy to write a bill of this magnitude in a timely manner," and added he was confident that an agreement could be reached.

Another wrinkle may be developing, however: Some lawmakers are concerned that the plan is too complex and hard to explain to constituents, making them wary of quick approval.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the top Banking Committee Republican, was skeptical. "I am concerned that Treasury's proposal is neither workable nor comprehensive," he said in a statement.

"In my judgment, it would be foolish to waste massive sums of taxpayer funds testing an idea that has been hastily crafted, and may actually cause the government to revert to an inadequate strategy of ad hoc bailouts."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., spent more than an hour with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and wasn't satisfied.

"It troubled me that they had some problems answering specific questions," he said.

Negotiators spent most of the day behind closed doors and publicly declared themselves cautiously optimistic. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., still were aiming to enact a plan by the end of the week.

Several Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee joined Dodd for an afternoon news conference and said they also thought that a deal was possible by week's end.

The faster that Congress and Bush agree on a plan, they said, the better they can minimize the damage to the U.S. economy in the wake of a financial crisis that's had a massive ripple effect on Wall Street in recent weeks. Stocks were down sharply Monday — the Dow-Jones Industrial Average dropped 372.75 points — while oil prices soared by $16.37 a barrel to $120, heightening the urgency on Capitol Hill.

"I want to get something done here," Frank said. "This is not a time for point-scoring and chest-beating."

Dodd declined to discuss the fine points of the legislation but said, "We understand the sense of urgency. We don't have a lot of time. We want to act, but we also want to act responsibly."

Democrats appeared to agree on the broad parameters of a rescue plan. Among the key points:

A rescue package. The Treasury could purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-backed assets from troubled firms. While the source of the funding isn't yet clear, the Treasury wants the U.S. debt limit, now about $9.7 trillion, to increase to $11.3 trillion. Any profits from later sales of troubled assets would be returned to the Treasury.

***Tougher supervision. The administration's proposal says that the Treasury secretary's decisions "may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."***

Dodd wants the bailout operation supervised by a five-member board consisting of the Fed chairman, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman and two public members, one appointed by leaders of each major political party.

Frank said any oversight board would be independent and would have investigative power but not operational authority. He said the Bush administration had agreed in concept, but the administration was said to be balking at the board's broad authority.

*Foreclosure assistance. The federal government would gain more power to keep people in their homes; one way would be to let bankruptcy judges lower homeowners' monthly payments. "We'll now own a lot of these mortgages," Frank said.

Reid explained that wealthier homeowners often find it easy to seek mortgage assistance from bankruptcy judges, but that those who aren't wealthy cannot.

"That makes no sense, and we should change it," he said, by giving bankruptcy courts the authority to "reach mutually beneficial arrangements to allow families to keep their homes and prevent more foreclosures."

The administration's initial opposition on this point was said to be lessening.

*Executive compensation. Democrats want the federal government to restrict big salaries and severance packages for executives at troubled firms helped by the federal bailout. "If we have bought your assets," Frank said, "no golden parachutes while we own your paper."

While the administration has resisted this, some Republicans appeared willing to compromise. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said he thought some constraints on executive compensation were appropriate and that it would be difficult to explain opposing such limits to voters.

*Paying for the plan. "Democrats believe that in exchange for shouldering the enormous burden of the Bush plan, the taxpayers should keep any future economic rewards," Reid said. Democrats are pushing for an equity ownership stake for taxpayers in any firm that gets bailout help, so that taxpayers would share in any future firm profits.

That means, Reid added, that "this plan should not permit taxpayer money to purchase an asset at an inflated price exclusively for the benefit of private shareholders." The Bush administration was resisting the equity-stake proposition.

I saw that too... I'm torn on it too... The democrats could have proposed this legislation themseleves and got it the way they wanted it to be, with (what appears to me to be appropriate oversight). Or they could have done what they did and jacked around while the economy tanks on Bush's watch, so that the republicans put the proposal together and float it to congress.

The first way the democrats would have rescued the economy, the second way the democrats look like they are obstructing. In the world of politics, the congressional democrats have been outplayed....

I cant belive we tolerate this sh**..... seriously...

pez wrote:I saw that too... I'm torn on it too... The democrats could have proposed this legislation themseleves and got it the way they wanted it to be, with (what appears to me to be appropriate oversight). Or they could have done what they did and jacked around while the economy tanks on Bush's watch, so that the republicans put the proposal together and float it to congress.

The first way the democrats would have rescued the economy, the second way the democrats look like they are obstructing. In the world of politics, the congressional democrats have been outplayed....

I cant belive we tolerate this sh**..... seriously...

Pez, if you want to blame the democrats go ahead, but do you think if they would have proposed a $700 Billion rescue with OVERSIGHT that the republicans and President Bush would have signed the bill? Hell No ... so I think both parties are to blame for this mess. I can't believe that the Bush Admin expects to be given $1T and control over the financial industry with no oversight. Ain't happening. If that is what they want, let the economy fall to pieces. We gave him a blank check on Iraq and the Patriot Act and look what that got us.

Bman wrote:

pez wrote:I saw that too... I'm torn on it too... The democrats could have proposed this legislation themseleves and got it the way they wanted it to be, with (what appears to me to be appropriate oversight). Or they could have done what they did and jacked around while the economy tanks on Bush's watch, so that the republicans put the proposal together and float it to congress.

The first way the democrats would have rescued the economy, the second way the democrats look like they are obstructing. In the world of politics, the congressional democrats have been outplayed....

I cant belive we tolerate this sh**..... seriously...

Pez, if you want to blame the democrats go ahead, but do you think if they would have proposed a $700 Billion rescue with OVERSIGHT that the republicans and President Bush would have signed the bill? Hell No ... so I think both parties are to blame for this mess. I can't believe that the Bush Admin expects to be given $1T and control over the financial industry with no oversight. Ain't happening. If that is what they want, let the economy fall to pieces. We gave him a blank check on Iraq and the Patriot Act and look what that got us.

Bman, everyone is to blame... The democrats made a huge tactical mistake by not coming up with the plan themseleves, regardless of wether or not Bush would have signed it into law. If they had done that 10 months ago, they would have characterised the Administration as the obstacle, and certainly could be reaping the political rewards now that Bushco's handlers have told him to say how necessary it is. Also, the democrats could have watched the economy go down in flames, knowing that they attempted to stem the tide and were thwarted by a lazzeiz-faire administration bent on making rich people richer.... instead, they watched the economy go down in flames while they did nothing.

Also, there are plenty of republicans in congress that didn't do a damn thing either.

This is the sh** that I cant believe we tolerate... We elected the officials to look out for our well being and be good stewards of the money we give them... between the republicans spending 100 million a week in Iraq to the democrats lust for the white house... The members of congress is playing their own personal games with our money, our future, and our freedoms. This is not what government should be about, and every damn one of them is a piece of shit and they keep doing It by virtue of the fact that there is always another piece of shit that stinks worse than they do.

This country needs fucking leaders, not politicians.

Pez... you sound a bit perturbed about the current political landscape...

I have to say I completely agree with what you said, about the elected officials and everything else. Which is part of my problem with both candidates spouting off about change right now.. they were in office when all this crap was going down and really did nothing. McCain pointed out that Fre/annie needed more oversight, but then didn't really follow up on it, so I'll give him a half a cookie for at least recognizing that there was potential for a problem there and speaking up a little about it.

Sadly that's more than 99% of congress did.

It reminds me of the commercials (and I can't remember who it was for) a while back where a bunch of people are standing around while their co-worker is sinking in quick sand. They all see it, and start talking about what sort of a committee they should form to address the problem. Meanwhile someone from the company for the ad comes in and throws a rope to the guy and saves him. That's congress in a nutshell, only there is no guy walking in with a rope anymore.

i just heard on cspan the bailout money being used by the bush plan...the money comes from the chinese. no surprise there.

i think the who did what first is a moot point. from the beginning of the crisis it was announced bushco was meeting with the dems even in late-nite meetings to come up with a plan for how to handle it all. the same time bushco announced his plan chris dodd also had his plan to present which included alot of what bushco plan says but did have distinct difference points. obviously allowing a soon-outgoing prez the courtesy of putting his forth first was followed. makes sense to me.

rather than bellyache about who should have fired the first bullet at the problem...a whole lot more concern and discussion should now be given to the meat of the plan.

keep it 100% unreviewable and uncontestable plus dont punish the poor guys responsible by capping their bonuses etc...as bushco wants...

or NOT, as dems request.

I think for the purposes of the plan at hand, yes, the point of assessing blame is moot. However the general trend of inaction on the part of congress and the president is a very valid point indeed... there's almost 550 people that could have and should have, but didnt. In my book that meakes every last one of them a coward.... two of which are Senators Obama and McCain.

God forbid the day when we elect a president for some reason other than how he sucks less than the other guy.

I like how McCain claims to want oversight on Fannie and Freddie, while a head person from his campaign was paid $30,000 a month to lobby for deregulation.

I really hope this package doesn't pass in it's original form. If it does, I'm never voting Dem or Republican every again.

Jugomugo wrote:I like how McCain claims to want oversight on Fannie and Freddie, while a head person from his campaign was paid $30,000 a month to lobby for deregulation.

I really hope this package doesn't pass in it's original form. If it does, I'm never voting Dem or Republican every again.

Deregulation and Oversight are two entirely different concepts.

Deregulation allowed more competitors in a given field and/or stronger companies.
Lack of EFFECTIVE oversight allowed more cheaters.

Nice spin. The fact is, that McCain is just as guilty as everyone else, and now has flip-flopped on the issue as well. And he's losing ground because of it.

Jugomugo wrote:Nice spin. The fact is, that McCain is just as guilty as everyone else, and now has flip-flopped on the issue as well. And he's losing ground because of it.

At the rate McCain is going he will have been ....

"against it before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it before he was against it."

He is making me dizzy ...

Mort, your spinning icon made me think of a great song...

"Round and Round"

C'mon Sarah, lets dance.

And Meta your post made me think of the song "Sarah" by Starship...

Al Gore reminds me of "Mr. Roboto."

Bman wrote:He is making me dizzy ...

Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:And Meta your post made me think of the song "Sarah" by Starship...

Al Gore reminds me of "Mr. Roboto."

Gosh it's been a while since I heard me some Starship. Sarah makes me think of "Turning Japanese" by the Vapors.

Jugomugo wrote:Nice spin. The fact is, that McCain is just as guilty as everyone else, and now has flip-flopped on the issue as well. And he's losing ground because of it.

It's not spin..... deregulation allowed businesses to operate in multiple sectors... again, not the cause of the housing mess. The lack of oversight would have been an issue regardless of deregulation.

Making the two.. tada.. completely separate.

McCain isn't trying to shirk any responsibility.. he's flat out said everyone is to blame. Of course he's made his little hits about how he attempted to raise a flag about Fr/annie, but he's a politician, so that's expected. Regardless, he's laying the blame on everyone, and that would include himself.

[quote="cardinal5150"]

Jugomugo wrote:Nice spin. The fact is, that McCain is just as guilty as everyone else, and now has flip-flopped on the issue as well. And he's losing ground because of it.

It's not spin..... deregulation allowed businesses to operate in multiple sectors... again, not the cause of the housing mess. The lack of oversight would have been an issue regardless of deregulation.

Making the two.. tada.. completely separate. quote]

i agree on this.

i remember maybe 10 or more years ago when fanny completely changed their strict requirements on those loans that are for lower income people..the interest is adjusted annually according to their income or some such thing? a gal i worked with was approved and had a solid good quality house she qualified for..at a reasonable cost. then before she made a decision she got a bunch of new options because the loan amounts allowed just increased excessively, they no longer looked at closely at things like signs of potential foundation issues...just of current issues, didnt care how far from the house septic was, didnt care if concrete steps chipped and crackes, didnt care if the furnace was 20 years old, didnt care about alot of stuff that months previously would have prevented the loan. so she got a bigger fancier not especially well built place for alot more money. i knew then a plan with good intentions and good guidlines and restrictions had just sold out. she bailed on it after a couple years--with upkeep and maintenance she was in over her head. bad choice on her part but bad of fannie to loosen up some good regs.

I think the biggest fundamental issue was a push by the gov't to get everyone into a house and out of renting. It's great in theory, but some people simply shouldn't own, and weren't in a position to own.

Got this email last night, some of you may know of this guy and his "signs":
(just posting this, thought it was interesting, not getting into a discussion about it)

Wall Street Bail Out

It is very sad that we are in this position at this time (that is to say how close to being a third world country which I talked about in my last address). It is my opinion that we do not give one dime to bail out the GREEDY and CROOKED companies. Where were our leaders while this was happening? Our President and both Presidential candidates keep telling America that the backbone of our country and economy is the everyday worker and small business owner. As a small business owner I am tired of them breaking my back. While the speculators drove up the price of oil we paid and are still paying the price at the pumps while those same speculators made BILLIONS with no risk involved. Ask any small business owner if Wall Street and/or the Government will bail them out if they make bad decisions in business. These people on Wall Street make VERY VERY good money (which they still have in the bank or in their possession unlike the stockholder that they wiped out). Wall Street, AIG, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac etc employees are all still working, their fortunes and futures were not wiped out. If the President, Congress and both Presidential candidates pass this 700 BILLION bail out they are telling me Washington business as usual (PORK SPENDING JUST SUPER SIZED and under the term BAILOUT). I believe if no bailout is given the everyday worker and small business will not perish as they lead you to believe. After all we survive every other hurdle Government and big business throw our way. It is time they learn how to survive the way we do, by sucking it up and getting through with no guarantees like the rest of the real world survives. I would rather endure a few bumps in the road than have the Government sell the future of my children and grand children. If the big companies pay and suffer for their mistakes, we (as well as them) will evolve a better and stronger country for it.

Thank You,

Bill Balsamico
Casa D'ice
N. Versailles Pa. 15137
www.casadice.com

P.S. Just think about this: Those working on this BAILOUT are the same people that sat and did nothing to prevent it. MAKES ME WONDER... Let's hope Congress doesn't pass this BAILOUT just so they can go home.

You mentioned this before.... personally I dont recall the government going through a big push to get people into houses... maybe you are referring to the deregs themselves...

That said, I think that just about any renter should bbe able to own a home, so long as they grasp what it actually means, and the full price of foreclosure etc.

I rented for far far too long.... even after I was married I rented far too long. Maybe my exp[erience is unusual....

I'm speaking of the general idea... Bush and Congress wanted to get more people into houses and out of renting. They were floating the "American Dream" idea out there and America was following. Buying became cheap because of low rates and the gov't pushed the idea even more. Problem is most people who were renters fell for the "well, in 5 years I'll be living somewhere else" because they had the renters mentality (not all, but a lot). 5 years later their ARM's reset and the house wasn't worth as much and BAM, we have what we have.

Of course this is a dramatically simplified version.. but you see the point.

cardinal5150 wrote:I'm speaking of the general idea... Bush and Congress wanted to get more people into houses and out of renting. They were floating the "American Dream" idea out there and America was following. Buying became cheap because of low rates and the gov't pushed the idea even more. Problem is most people who were renters fell for the "well, in 5 years I'll be living somewhere else" because they had the renters mentality (not all, but a lot). 5 years later their ARM's reset and the house wasn't worth as much and BAM, we have what we have.

Of course this is a dramatically simplified version.. but you see the point.

Yea, but that was more the banks fault for the low low introductory rate ARMs.... My parents thought I was a fool to get a fixed rate when rates were 4.75%...

Here's a question...I've heard that the bailout will cost every person around $2,500, including infants. Soooo, am I going to get a bill in the mail for $15,000? If so, I may have to look up cousin Guido and hope they don't ask for too big of "favor" in return...