The bailout: 32 words

Kingfish · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:46 pm

mugwump67 Wrote:

Kingfish Wrote:

I think more than anything else they want to have an immediate impact and not tie this up with unnecessary litigation.

That will be the republican argument. However, as the article pointed out, it is unprecedented.
.

It's far from unprecedented. Lazy journalism. Its actually IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:48 pm

mugwump67 Wrote:

Kingfish Wrote:

I think a bailout is unfortunately necessary, but there is no way in hell that I'm going to let them give Bush a trillion dollars and four months to spend it any way he wants.

I think some form a bailout is necessary. I don't like the plan.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:52 pm

PopTodd Wrote:

If Congress refuses to pass the bill based upon those 32 words (as they should), the administration will run around wildly waving their hands and screaming at the top of their lungs that Legislators are standing in the way! Then, the markets will take another tumble, thus "proving" the administration's point. (Who will refuse to budge on this point.)
This will scare Congress just enough to pass the bill because it is, after all, an election year.

Pretty sly for a bunch of dummies.

No it's smart because you're not arguing whether the plan will work but rather if Bush is evil again, which is almost moot at this point. But on the other end I think Bush will be forced to sign whatever Congress eventually sends him for the reasons you've noted. If you think Congress is rubber stamping the plan, you're crazy. They might basically pass the same plan but folks like Chris Dodd have almost as much as stake in this. He's already quibbling.

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:56 pm

Kingfish Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

Kingfish Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

Kingfish Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

Kingfish Wrote:

PopTodd Wrote:

Executive privilege anyone?

How so?

Before I get obner jumped, I'm not advocating that this should be non-reviewable. In fact I"m against this bail out plan. Just curious of the connections you see.

because it prevents any oversight of the secretary of the treasury who is a member of the executive branch.

Do you really believe that Congress is going to hand over blind authority to the republican sec. of the treasury? Like I said I'm against this, but I'm really not concerned about some whole sale take over in violation of separation of powers. And if It came to that level, SCOTUS would review it.

I think more than anything else they want to have an immediate impact and not tie this up with unnecessary litigation.

they gave away their exclusive right to declare war. if they aren't protective of their most important function, why should i trust them to be cautious about this?

Don't think this is the same for obvious reasons. You're just being reactionary on purpose now.

it is exactly the same. there is a disaster. the white house wants a solution immediately. they will pressure congress to cede power. how is it different at all? it's exactly the same script.

Because the administration isnt feisting this agenda out of now where. They pretty much have to do something. The Iraq War (I'm assuming your not talking about the War Powers Act) was completely driven by this administration and not by popular support. It had popular support but wasn't created by it. Not to mention this is a Democrat Congress with a lame duck president in an election year.

this administration likes to use a crisis to do some crazy shit that they have always wanted to do because it is easy to get unpopular shit done when everyone agrees that something has to be done immediately. so, i guess i am some crackpot conspiracy theorist for noticing a familiar pattern here, but i promise you that whatever they come up with is going to be something that some think tank had on their 'wildest dreams' list and we won't hear about it until it's too late.

if you prefer to blindly accept that the government won't do anything irresponsible and that basic safeguards will be in place and that common sense will prevail, then i am probably not the first person to tell you that you are pretty gullible.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:02 pm

I'm not blinding accepting anything. Can you read. I HATE THE FUCKING PLAN. I don't think it'll work other than fucking this up more. I think Paulson is rushing this out before it's been well thought out. I think the language is poor but I think I'm right on its intent. Who knows. I don't think its above this administration to pull some shit but I don't think this is it.

I just think that at the end of the day, Congress will add it's own safeguards because unlike wars, congress is involved in financial operations. And I also believe in other "safeguards."

I try not to jump to conclusions about anything as a basic principle. Let's see the finished product and if this provison remains in that form. I'd be willing to bet that the final bill is full of Congressional oversight. The wake of this is much different than 911. I think national sentiment is very different.

rogneeb · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm **Posts:** 12618

no one wants to stand up and make a difficult or unpopular decision so close to an election. maybe throw out some arguments in the press to fall back on if the whole thing blows up, but that's about it.

jewels santana · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:36 pm **Posts:** 10198

this whole thing is waaaaay over my head.

mugwump67 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:21 pm

Not that hard really. As it stands, Bush wants us to give him 700 billion dollars to spend in four months so he can finish fixing the economy.

billy g · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:41 pm **Posts:** 9020

thrillhouse Wrote:

this administration likes to use a crisis to do some crazy shit that they have always wanted to do because it is easy to get unpopular shit done when everyone agrees that something has to be done immediately.

true but that's what every administration does...this administration has just had more crisises and thus more opportunities for mischief.

for many more examples, see:

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:05 pm

billy g Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

this administration likes to use a crisis to do some crazy shit that they have always wanted to do because it is easy to get unpopular shit done when everyone agrees that something has to be done immediately.

true but that's what every administration does...this administration has just had more crisises and thus more opportunities for mischief.

for many more examples, see:

i think we both know that i am not about to read that

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:02 pm

and i have to say kingfish that yes i can read and i see that you keep saying you don't like the plan.

check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-kle ... 28433.html

Kingfish · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:53 am

billy g Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

this administration likes to use a crisis to do some crazy shit that they have always wanted to do because it is easy to get unpopular shit done when everyone agrees that something has to be done immediately.

true but that's what every administration does...this administration has just had more crisises and thus more opportunities for mischief.

for many more examples, see:

Is this based off of Hobbes's Leviathan?

Hegel · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:04 am

I saw this on CNN today from Ron Paul. I thought it was interesting and relevant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/ ... index.html

Spade Kitty · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:49 am **Posts:** 4401

Hegel Wrote:

I saw this on CNN today from Ron Paul. I thought it was interesting and relevant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/ ... index.html

As usual, I find myself mostly agreeing with him

neuroboy · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:34 pm

as a friend of mine said: do you ever have the feeling that this is just a 10mil payout to the 700 people who actually have a clue as to what is really going on? Not that I believe that but it feels like that sometimes.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:53 pm

billy g · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:41 pm **Posts:** 9020

Spade Kitty Wrote:

Hegel Wrote:

I saw this on CNN today from Ron Paul. I thought it was interesting and relevant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/ ... index.html

As usual, I find myself mostly agreeing with him

I agree with a lot of what he says there but I lost a lot of respect for him when he endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

Spade Kitty · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:49 am **Posts:** 4401

billy g Wrote:

Spade Kitty Wrote:

Hegel Wrote:

I saw this on CNN today from Ron Paul. I thought it was interesting and relevant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/ ... index.html

As usual, I find myself mostly agreeing with him

I agree with a lot of what he says there but I lost a lot of respect for him when he endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

Well yeah lol

berliner · **Joined:** Fri May 09, 2008 7:00 pm **Posts:** 1516

I must admit, I'm pretty impressed by your country at the moment.
you know, in the last months we had this debate about ceo salaries here in germany, always then when some enterprise struggled, which led into hundreds of lost jobs. there were plans from parties on the left wing to limit these salaries. all other parties laughed and declared these plans as absurd and communistic or whatever. yesterday I heard mccain saying that certain people earn too much, compared to that job he wants to have...
this will change a lot here in mind.

m.

neuroboy · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:24 pm

ok, wait a second. tony fratto (a white house spokesperson) just said this:

Quote:

With respect to executive pay, again, I'm not going to get into specific, point-by-point details on what our views are on that, other than the Secretary of Treasury said it would make [it] more difficult to make this plan work and effective if you provide disincentives for companies and firms out there who are holding mortgage-backed securities and other securities from participating in the program. You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them.

a) executive compensation necessarily only holds for those taking part in the bailout. right?

b) why the hell would they include successful banks in the bailout "that have done very well" in the first place?

c) disincentive to participation? how about "if you don't participate everything coupld fall like a house of cards". . . that's not incentive enough?

. . . which begs the bigger question. isn't this just rewarding bad behavior while the "successful" banks that didn't take on reckless amounts of risk are at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to partake in the big tough of money that's potentially being dished out?

and is the economy really that close to freezing up? the more i learn about this plan the less i like it. . . am i way off base here? someone want to edu-macate me?

Kingfish · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:30 pm

neuroboy Wrote:

ok, wait a second. tony fratto (a white house spokesperson) just said this:

Quote:

With respect to executive pay, again, I'm not going to get into specific, point-by-point details on what our views are on that, other than the Secretary of Treasury said it would make [it] more difficult to make this plan work and effective if you provide disincentives for companies and firms out there who are holding mortgage-backed securities and other securities from participating in the program. You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them.

a) executive compensation necessarily only holds for those taking part in the bailout. right?

b) why the hell would they include successful banks in the bailout "that have done very well" in the first place?

c) disincentive to participation? how about "if you don't participate everything coupld fall like a house of cards". . . that's not incentive enough?

. . . which begs the bigger question. isn't this just rewarding bad behavior while the "successful" banks that didn't take on reckless amounts of risk are at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to partake in the big tough of money that's potentially being dished out?

and is the economy really that close to freezing up? the more i learn about this plan the less i like it. . . am i way off base here? someone want to edu-macate me?

I'm on board with all your thoughts on this.

discostu · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:33 pm

Won't a lot of the i-Banking failures/personnel be brought on by Paulson as consultants to help "figure this out"?

neuroboy · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:58 pm

it just seems like the standard operating procedure for the bushies. . . scare tactics to ram legislation down the throats of the house and senate.

and apparently the repubs are none too pleased. great quote:

Quote:

“Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).

apparently cheney was dispatched to meet with house and senate leaders to convince them they need to vote for the plan.

discostu · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:06 pm

neuroboy Wrote:

it just seems like the standard operating procedure for the bushies. . . scare tactics to ram legislation down the throats of the house and senate.

and apparently the repubs are none too pleased. great quote:

Quote:

“Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).

apparently cheney was dispatched to meet with house and senate leaders to convince them they need to vote for the plan.

If ANYONE in Congress has any sense whatsoever, the fact the Cheney was dispatched should signal a giant RED FLAG.

billy g · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:41 pm **Posts:** 9020

discostu Wrote:

Won't a lot of the i-Banking failures/personnel be brought on by Paulson as consultants to help "figure this out"?

a few...most are too busy hoarding gas

The bailout: 32 words

Who is online