Bail Out Agreement MADE

I got a news update email from WANE 15!!!

Bailout agreement reached
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Key lawmakers have reported an agreement in principle on a bailout of the financial industry designed to avert a deeper economic crisis.

Emerging from a two-hour negotiating session, Sen. Chris Dodd said, "We are very confident that we can act expeditiously."

Sen. Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican, told reporters: "I now expect that we will indeed have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate (and) be signed by the president." Dodd is a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee.

This story will be updated when more information becomes available.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Get more news and information at www.wane.com

iberlingirl wrote:

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Get more news and information at www.wane.com

Sweet! I can't wait till the stormtroopers get here.

*sigh*

I hope we get a better ROI with this bailout than we did with the 1 Trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

thankfully they devoted two full hours to negotiations because it'd be shame to rush through anything that affects the next 2 or 3 generations without some careful consideration.

Following in the footsteps of the current administration.

Woot... I'm sure they wanted to do this before the trading day is over... wouldja look at that... DJI up 208 pts...

no agreement now. mcsame swooped in to rescue the plan and its in a complete stall.

I half expected a little better attempt at blaming the republicans for this from Barney Frank and his tools... but come one.. on one had they tell everyone that McCain did nothing but magically by doing nothing he threw off the plan? What a joke, anyone who buys into this is a fucking moron.

I was also interested to see that every single congressmen on TV today said their constituents were against this plan by calls of 300-2, yet they all wanted to get it done.

I think it needs to be done, but I think anyone who signs off on it congress risks losing their seat, regardless of the outcome.

I can't say I expect anything more than party bullshit to come out of anything going forward from anyone.

Kill the plan. It's the will of the American people.

Let the millionaire elites and executives save their companies. Oh wait, they have their money. They don't care.

cardinal5150 wrote:I half expected a little better attempt at blaming the republicans for this from Barney Frank and his tools... but come one.. on one had they tell everyone that McCain did nothing but magically by doing nothing he threw off the plan? What a joke, anyone who buys into this is a fucking moron.

I was also interested to see that every single congressmen on TV today said their constituents were against this plan by calls of 300-2, yet they all wanted to get it done.

I think it needs to be done, but I think anyone who signs off on it congress risks losing their seat, regardless of the outcome.

I can't say I expect anything more than party bullshit to come out of anything going forward from anyone.

Ummm moron ... the deal was pretty much in place until McCain met with John Boehner and the hard right wing Representatives in the House and then he (McCain) allowed the plan to be killed, even though he flew there to make sure it happened. Fluckin' politics on McCain's part ... the right wing told him they would abandon him if he caved. McCain is just a shell of a man.

Some of the Republicans didn't even buy this plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
55 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Even for a party whose president suffers dismal approval ratings, whose legislative wing lost control of Congress and whose presidential nominee trails in the polls, it was a remarkably bad day for Republicans.

A White House summit meeting on Thursday meant to shore up John McCain's shaky campaign "devolved into a contentious shouting match." And that's how McCain's own campaign described it.

The meeting revealed that President Bush's $700 billion bid to combat the worst financial crisis in decades had been suddenly sidetracked by fellow Republicans in the House, who refused to embrace a plan that appeared close to acceptance by the Senate and most House Democrats.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson begged Democratic participants not to disclose how badly the meeting had gone, dropping to one knee in a teasing way to make his point according to witnesses.

And when Paulson hastily tried to revive talks in a nighttime meeting near the Senate chamber, the House's top Republican refused to send a negotiator.

"This is the president's own party," said Rep. Barney Frank, a top Democratic negotiator who attended both meetings. "I don't think a president has been repudiated so strongly by the congressional wing of his own party in a long time."

By midnight, it was hard to tell who had suffered a worse evening, Bush or McCain. McCain, eager to shore up his image as a leader who rises above partisanship, was undercut by a fierce political squabble within his own party's ranks.

The consequences could be worse for Bush, and for millions of Americans if the impasse sends financial markets tumbling, as some officials fear. Closed-door negotiations were to resume Friday, but it was unclear whether House Republicans would attend.

Republicans and Democrats alike seemed unsure which way McCain was leaning. His campaign's statement late Thursday shed little light.

"At this moment, the plan that has been put forth by the administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people," it said. It was unclear whether McCain would attend Friday night's scheduled debate against Democratic nominee Barack Obama in Oxford, Miss.

Ordinarily a Republican president's problems are with Democrats, especially if they control the House and Senate. In this case, Bush seemed almost over that hurdle.

To be sure, Democrats demanded a number of changes in his $700 billion bailout plan, but administration insiders signaled they probably were acceptable. They included greater oversight, more protections for taxpayers, efforts to head off home foreclosures and piecemeal allocations of the federal money to buy toxic mortgage securities.

What caught some by surprise, either at the White House meeting or shortly before it, was the sudden momentum behind a dramatically different plan drafted by House conservatives with Minority Leader John Boehner's blessing.

Instead of the government buying the distressed securities, the new plan would have banks, financial firms and other investors that hold such loans pay the Treasury to insure them. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., a chief sponsor, said it was clear that Bush's plan "was not going to pass the House."

But Democrats said the same was true of the conservatives' plan. It calls for tax cuts and insurance provisions the majority party will not accept, they said.

At one point in the White House meeting, according to two officials, McCain voiced support for Ryan's criticisms of the administration's proposal. Frank, a gruff Massachusetts liberal, angrily demanded to know what plan McCain favored.

These officials also said that as tempers flared, Bush struggled at times to maintain control.

At one point, several minutes into the session, Obama said it was time to hear from McCain. According to a Republican who was there, "all he said was, 'I support the principles that House Republicans are fighting for.'"

Some at the table took that to mean the conservatives' alternative proposal, which stands little chance of passage.

A few hours later, Paulson and the handful of negotiators wearily headed for home. Frank told The Associated Press: "I did tell Secretary Paulson that this whole thing is at risk if the president can't get members of his own party to participate."

___

Associated Press reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and David Espo contributed to this report.

wow makes me so proud mcsame dropped everything (as his numbers were dropping) and rushed back to dc to show the world he is THE negotiator and bipartisan healer and leader this nation needs

Waits for the will of the American public to be done and kill this socialistic bailout.

http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/Investing/MichaelBrush/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=10686837

CEO pay crackdown is toothless
U.S. government has made a lot of noise about ensuring wealthy CEOs don't profit from the proposed bailout. But so far, it looks like executives won't have much to worry about.

By Michael Brush
September 26, 2008
Remember that old ruse "Heads I win, tails you lose?"

Wealthy CEOs at banks may soon play that trick with as much as $700 billion of Americans' money, thanks to a big shortcoming in the massive bailout bill working its way through U.S. Congress.

Here's how the game works: First, bank CEOs negotiate big paycheques by arguing they need rich rewards to compensate for the headaches of the U.S. mortgage mess. Then the American government uses U.S. taxpayer money to purchase messy mortgage debt from the banks -- taking away their biggest problem.

But the CEOs will still get the big bucks. That includes both those who collected millions while they led their banks into trouble -- many of whom have since bailed out -- and those who signed on more recently to fix the problems.

Either way, it's heads they win, tails Americans lose.

Who really won?
Longtime congressional opponents of runaway executive pay have made a lot of noise about adding measures to rein in CEO pay at banks that want to use U.S. taxpayer funds to move dodgy loans off their books.

But so far, it looks like they'll win only small concessions from U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. He has opposed stringent pay measures, saying they could reduce the number of banks willing to participate in the plan.

Of course, with an apparent deal falling apart on Thursday, things could still change.

It'll be too bad if Paulson get his way. The juicy pay deals for CEOs at the banks most likely to benefit from the bailout -- for instance, Wachovia (WB.N) and Merrill Lynch (MER.N) -- were struck well before anyone knew the U.S. government would make their jobs so much easier.

Now that the government is offering to take away their biggest job challenge, it makes sense to ask those CEOs to go back and review their juicy pay packages.

But that's not likely to happen because the provisions lawmakers made such a show of "winning" have no teeth.

No real standards
Here's the biggest problem: The latest versions of the mortgage bailout bill would leave it up to Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs (GS.N), to decide whether CEO pay is excessive at a bank getting a bailout from the U.S. government.

Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies calls this a bad joke. "That is not the job for a guy who made hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street," she says. "He has no perspective on what's excessive."


Two other provisions designed to deal with the issue look redundant -- and dumb.

One would "claw back" pay from CEOs in cases where fraudulent earnings reports helped them reap bonuses. This is a great idea, especially with rumours circulating that the FBI is investigating potential fraud at Lehman Bros. (LEHMQ.O), Fannie Mae (FNM.N), Freddie Mac (FRE.N) and American Insurance Group (AIG.N).

But we already have this provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, says Patrick McGurn, a special counsel for Institutional Shareholder Services. So it seems redundant, and, of course, fraud isn't easy to prove. Further, the CEOs who led many of the most troubled companies during the height of the lending boom have already left with their millions.

A third provision would bar golden parachutes while banks got public assistance. So what? CEO pals on the board can simply put the pay packages back in place after the bailout. And again, many of the CEOs most to blame have already parachuted out.

This isn't just the usual debate about how much CEOs earn. Those who deliver should be paid well for it.

But the heart of the problem here is that banking is supposed to be about taking risks in exchange for money. If you misjudge the risks and taxpayers bail you out of your problem, should you get the big rewards just the same?

That's what's probably going to happen. CEOs likely will take home huge paycheques at the banks most likely to go to American taxpayers for help with their home-mortgage problems -- banks such as Merrill Lynch, Bank of America (BAC.N) and Wachovia.

Let's look at some of the details.

Merrill Lynch
John Thain at Merrill Lynch is one guy who deserves a serious pay cut if the U.S. government steps in to bail out his bank. After all, when he signed on at Merrill Lynch last November, it looked like a tough job, given Merrill's growing problems with dodgy mortgage-backed assets. So Thain negotiated a sweet deal which netted him a $15 million signing bonus.

Now, if his bank gets taken over by Bank of America -- a proposed deal that would be much easier for Bank of America's board to accept with a pinch of government help for Merrill -- Thain will grab an additional $10 million worth of restricted stock, at the $29-a-share buyout offer price.

For doing what? For being lucky enough to have been CEO at the time the U.S. government bailed out his bank.

Even if the deal falls through -- say, because Merrill backs out, since the government bailout makes life on its own look more palatable -- Thain should still get a pay cut. After all, his job just got a lot easier, thanks to Uncle Sam.

Bank of America
It's the same with Kenneth Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America. He has made $98.6 million over the past three years, according to Equilar, an executive-compensation research firm in Redwood Shores, Calif. Now he now stands to gain big-time if the government bails out his bank by purchasing toxic debt from its Countrywide Financial division -- not to mention Merrill, if that deal goes through.

Here's why: Lewis has 1.7 million stock options, most with exercise prices between $40 and $45. He also has 388,000 shares of vested performance stock and 580,000 shares of unvested performance stock. A government bailout makes those stock positions hugely more valuable.

Washington Mutual and Wachovia
Washington Mutual (WM.N) CEO Alan Fishman negotiated a juicy pay package Sept. 7 when he signed on to lead the troubled bank. Besides a $7.5 million cash bonus, he got 5 million options and 612,500 restricted shares that will vest over time, $8 million worth of long-term incentive awards if he stays at the company for a year, a potential bonus of $3.6 million next year and $1 million in base pay, according to Equilar.

Washington Mutual was seized by regulators on Thursday, with most assets to be sold off to JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N).

Likewise, Wachovia CEO Robert Steel got a signing bonus of $10 million in July when he joined the bank. He also got $15 million worth of options and performance stock that will vest over time, a targeted bonus of $6 million for next year and base pay of $1.1 million.

The jobs for both of these execs will get a lot easier if the U.S. government takes bad mortgage-related debt off their books. Yet their pay will likely remain the same.

Some hope
At least two pay provisions in the mortgage bailout bill would actually give shareholders a better edge in controlling runaway CEO pay at banks, says Paul Hodgson of The Corporate Library.

One would give shareholders the right to "say on pay" votes at annual meetings for banks that accept help. The votes would be nonbinding, but they could be used to caution board members that they would get voted out if they were overly generous. The second would give shareholders greater access to corporate proxy machinery so they could more easily elect directors they thought would do a better job of looking out for their interests.

this cnn contributor had an interesting take on things today..the whole transcript is quite enlightening in general..what i am copying just pertains to comments on our financial meltdown..

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/05/fzgps.01.html

FAREED ZAKARIA GPS

Bill Gates Interview; Third World Development; Solving the Economic Crisis

T.S. Eliot was wrong. October is the cruelest month, at least for the stock market.

We're coming up on anniversaries of Black Thursday, Monday and Tuesday - October 24th, 28th and 29th, 1929, when the New York Stock Exchange went into a nosedive that signaled the end of the jazz age and the beginning of the Great Depression.

October was also the month that Black Monday took place, October 19, 1987, when stock markets around the world crashed, starting in Hong Kong and moving through the United States and Europe.

Remembering these previous crises helps put the current one in perspective. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 22 points, 6 percent, in one day in the 1987 crash. In 1929, by November 11th, the market had dropped 40 percent from its high six weeks earlier.

By comparison, last Monday, our own Black Monday, saw the Dow Jones drop by 777 points. But in percentage terms, it was a 7 percent decline.

I'm not in any way suggesting that we are not in a serious economic crisis. But I believe that this one will not mark the end of capitalism, laissez-faire or free markets. In fact, it will probably lead to a more mature, robust and resilient free market financial system.

The real question is how to regulate the markets so you get the maximum innovation and growth, but temper their wilder movements. And we do this by trial and error. No one knows in theory what the perfect system would look like.

Clearly, America's financial system needs new, different and better regulations for the 21st century, and this crisis should help produce those. Reorganization is not a sign of failure, but an acknowledgment that creative destruction is an essential part of capitalism.

Its one of the biggest ripoffs in American History and both Dems and the Rep's are to blame and the pork that follows it. Is there no shame at all right in front of the stupid voters.

But as we all know there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

Just once I'd like to see everyone vote Independent can you imagine?