If a Legal Armed Robbery Happens in Front of Everyone, Does It Make a Sound?

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 14:33


I just read the proposed regulation that Atrios  pointed to, and he's right, this is a $700 billion blank check for the Bush administration and the financial elites.  Glenn Greenwald notes the pacing of the discourse is identical to the run up to war.  The political system is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth to corrupt actors with no debate (except in the foreign press and in the blogs) with no details made public.  Furthermore, the Democratic leadership is entirely complicit in what is happening.

The fact that Democrats are on board with this scheme means absolutely nothing. When it comes to things the Bush administration wants, Congressional Democrats don't say "no" to anything. They say "yes" to everything. That's what they're for.

They say "yes" regardless of whether they understand what they're endorsing. They say "yes" regardless of whether they've been told even the most basic facts about what they're being told to endorse. They say "yes" anytime doing so is politically less risky than saying "no," which is essentially always and is certainly the case here. They say "yes" whenever the political establishment -- meaning establishment media outlets and the corporate class that funds them -- wants them to say "yes," which is the case here. And they say "yes" with particular speed and eagerness when told to do so by the Serious Trans-Partisan Republican Experts like Hank Paulson and Ben Bernake (or Mike McConnell and Robert Gates and, before them, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell).

This is the moment when a Democratic candidate for Congress could stand up and call bullshit, as several did during the FISA debacle.  Dean Baker has a proposal on what the right kind of bailout looks like.  For my money, I'd throw in a massive tax hike for the wealthiest so they pay for the crap they caused (or just use Dean Baker's financial transaction tax and call it a 'speculator's tax), and a total revision of the bankruptcy code for ordinary people so that working Americans are allowed to have financial problems without being enslaved for the rest of their lives.

Now is a moment when a smart politician could put outrage on youtube and see it go viral.  This is bullshit.  And some leaders should step forward and use that word.

(Benny in the comments notes that it's worse than a $700 billion blank check, it's a revolving line of credit.)

Update: Here are proposed statements:

This is a corrupt blank check for $700 billion that will in all likelihood simply be put in the hands of the people who caused this mess.  It puts too much power in the hands of the Federal Reserve with no controls (no legal review at all, and only semi-annual reports to Congress), with no promises to help the actual people who were tricked into crappy mortgages and no promises of greater transparency or regulations on Wall Street.

Congress does exist.  At some point, it should accept responsibility for legislating.

Hillary's statement (which is pretty good) and other proposed statements are on the flip.

Matt Stoller :: If a Legal Armed Robbery Happens in Front of Everyone, Does It Make a Sound?
Here are some quips from Ian Welsh:

"blank check to bail out banks"
"no help for homeowners, but 700 billion for bankers"
"The screwups who blew it are in charge of the cleanup?"
"Why do homeowners lose their houses, but CEOs not loose their banks?"
"free money for banks, no money for homeowners"

And here's Hillary Clinton:


When the American people, facing a foreclosure crisis and struggling economy, turned to this administration for help, the answer was no. Now, the administration is turning to the American people for help, to rescue the credit markets and take on hundreds of billions in debt and financial obligations as a consequence of that same foreclosure crisis. The truth is, Main Street came to Washington and got little. Now Washington is coming to Main Street and asking for a lot. The American people deserve to know that this isn't a blank check. While the need to address the current crisis is clear, I will only support steps that will prevent a widening crisis, tackle the worst kinds of abuse tolerated for too long by the Bush administration, and address the root problems at work.

The proposed intervention outlined today by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would be a watershed moment for our economy. I believe that such an intervention demands that we fundamentally alter the priorities and policies of our nation under the Bush administration that allowed this crisis to take place and escalate. Corporations that will benefit must be held accountable not only to large shareholders but also to the American people. And American taxpayers deserve to know that their money will not allow for a continuation of the status quo: short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk taking that have placed the markets in so much jeopardy; rewards for those who foreclose on middle-class families and sell mortgages designed to fail to turn a profit; and outsourcing of good jobs to serve short-term stock prices instead of America's long-term economic health. The prevailing dynamic of corporate America, where the sole priority was the dividend, the inflated bonus and the quarterly earnings report, must give way to a new respect for the long-term prosperity of the American worker and the well-being of the middle class.

After eight years of failed policies - and two years of an absentee administration - our only option left may be an unprecedented government intervention into the private markets. The markets must be stabilized to stave off wider turmoil. Nevertheless, the urgency of this crisis does not mean that we should offer a blank check to financial institutions or the privileged few. Nor can we simply allow the administration to use the taxpayers like a "reset button." We cannot allow Wall Street to act without oversight by a vigilant SEC and administration - and without regard for the American people, who will now have paid twice: in falling prey to a widening credit crisis, and in paying the bill to hopefully bring it to an end.

I will be examining the administration's proposal very closely to ensure that we do not approve a policy that may stabilize the markets in the short term without addressing the root problems facing middle-class families or the kinds of reckless gambling that was permitted for far too long by the administration. The Bush administration may have changed its tune once the crisis facing Main Street hit Wall Street. But we need to be sure that the American taxpayers - asked to shoulder yet more risk and responsibility - have a voice.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What about Darcy Burner or Scott Kleeb, (4.00 / 2)
or one of the other insurgent progressive candidates? If this isn't a moment for them to differentiate themselves from the Bush-dog, business as usual crowd, what is?

True, that. What is unfolding is a travesty. We will be paying (4.00 / 2)
for this (in a variety of forms) for years.  And it'd be nice if some of our 'leaders' were saying so.  

Congress should demand resignations (0.00 / 0)
by Bush, Cheney, and Paulson before giving them a dime:
http://www.democrats.com/resign

[ Parent ]
They should demand more than that (4.00 / 2)
Every stockholder in these failed companies should lose everything. Companies who ask for loans should put their assets (including real estate) up as collateral. All golden parachutes should be forfeit. All bonuses for executives and investment bankers who were responsible should be forfeit. Big tax increases on the wealthy to pay for this.

And no blank checks. This is $2000 for every man, woman and child in America to cover up for the mistakes of a few. That's bullshit. Hell, I'd rather see more banks fail before we take action. An 800 point drop in the stock market isn't enough to inspire a trillion dollar bailout, I'm sorry. I don't remember D.C. bailing out failed dot coms when Nasdaq went bust. Should we have saved "Pets.com"?

And I'm really troubled by this talk about "stabilizing housing prices". Anyone who reads housing bubble blogs knows that prices are still too high and need to fall more. Those of us who have been renting because of the ridiculous housing bubble should get a chance to buy homes at reasonable values. I don't want to see reckless buyers have their poor decisions rewarded, I'm sorry. And I also don't think people should be allowed to walk away scott free when they lose their equity. All those people sending "jingle mail" to the banks should be forced to pay some of the difference. Young folks have to pay student loans, reckless home buyers should have to pay for their bad investments.


[ Parent ]
I don't know about going down to the level of the stockholders (4.00 / 1)
You would be bankrupting a lot of pension funds.  The board members and the CEOs should lose everything and probably go to jail.  But once you start factoring in 401(k)s and Pension funds, there are a LOT of stockholders that knew minimal amounts about this crisis, and had almost zero responsibility for this.  


[ Parent ]
So what? (4.00 / 1)
Valetan, I've heard this argument from a lot from other people, and not to accuse you of cynicism, but it is a strikingly cynical argument -- and one that ignores how this will all play out.

People with 401ks (ie, the middle class) are screwed coming and going on this one. Either they suffer a loss in their retirement investments, or they face the big pinch of hyperinflation in their day-to-day living expenses.

Either way, the middle class has lost in the past 8 years, big time. And the bill is now coming due. The only question now is: credit or cash?

Progressives shouldn't be arguing for a bit more time for the bankers to loot the treasury. They should be defending the promise of a sound American economy that has the potential to sustain and expand the middle class, even if it means a rough patch lies immediately ahead. This bailout achieves nothing of the sort.

Anyhow -- not trying to beat you up for raising a cogent point. But at the end of the day, this argument strikes me as the ultimate Finlandization of the progressive argument to the wealthy elite.


[ Parent ]
I'm not necessarily defending this bailout (0.00 / 0)
I'm just saying that the general practice of equating shareholders to board members and CEOs is very problematic.  Shareholders have been getting screwed all along, as executives have looted their companies.  And almost every non-social security pension fund is heavily invested in the stock market, so we aren't just talking 401(k)s, but the UAW pension fund, etc.

Perhaps the fact that people need to learn lessons outweighs things.  Perhaps the middle/working classes can't be saved.  But we should be very clear about the divide between stockholders and the boards, and we should be very clear about what effects just allowing stocks to lose their value would have on everyone, at least at the policy formulation level.  

At the selling level, of course, we go much mor edirectly and much less balanced.


[ Parent ]
Good point, well taken (0.00 / 0)
>I'm just saying that the general practice of equating >shareholders to board members and CEOs is very problematic.

I've noticed this tendency particularly in the discussion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stock owners. "Let's nationalize it and wipe them out!" But who owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stock? Public pension plans, among others.

Rereading your first comment, I see that was the point you were getting at.

Of course, this is exactly how the disaster capitalists hope to sell the plan -- by saying that they're saving your 401K. But the truth is, they're only saving it long enough for them to get their own money out. The bagholders will still be the middle class.

No easy answers on this one... a bunch of bad choices...


[ Parent ]
That's not all about the provisions (4.00 / 5)
According to the American Banker today:

As drafted, Treasury could use its power to buy far more than $700 billion worth of mortgage assets over time. The draft language only restricts Treasury to holding no more than $700 billion of mortgage related assets "at any one time." If it sold some assets back to the private sector, even at a loss, it could continue to purchase more, observers said. That could continue to drive up the potential cost of the plan to taxpayers.

"The authority is broad and the $700 billion represents the total amount at any one time but there is not a cap on the total amount of assets that can be purchased," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government relations at the Financial Services Roundtable. "It's a revolving line of credit."

Under the draft bill, Treausry's authority would sunset in two years. The agency said only U.S. financial institutions headquartered here could participate, but it did not specifically define what types of companies - other than commercial and investment banks - would fall into the category of financial institution.

Democrats are likely to seek changes to the draft language. For example, Democratic lawmakers may seek to require modifications on all mortgage loans purchased by the government. Other problems could also arise, observers said.

"There are going to be some hiccups of this plan because it's completely open ended - Wall Street runs this plan and there's no help for homeowners," said Howard Glaser, a mortgage consultant. "Congress will find it very troubling that the asset managers running this program will be asset managers hired by Treasury."

This is a disaster.  Obama is likely to support this, but we need to push him to ensure he makes good on his word about helping Main Street.  


He should read more about it first (4.00 / 4)
Obama is watching his middle class tax cut, health care plan, renewable energy plan, and budget balancing hopes get flushed down the drain by Bush and his cronies. He'd better talk to Hillary Clinton and get a reality check on how horrible this is. Otherwise he won't have room to complain about it next year.

I don't think there should be any bailouts at all. If many banks fail, so be it. The government can become the lender of choice to small businesses. if we have $700 billion to spend, send it to the states for infrastructure projects and universal health care.


[ Parent ]
Well it's great to have banks fail.... (4.00 / 4)
....until yours is the one that closes its doors...

Letting these big firms just collapse will put the country in a state as bad or worse than the great depression... on the other hand, $700 billion is a heck of a lot of money to just throw away...

No wonder Obama decided to step back a bit to digest what's happening before making a plan to move forward....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 4)
And the other thing is that a collapse of the credit markets is basically what led to the Great Depression.  I'd like to avoid that thank you very much.

I am no fan of having to do this but I see no other choice.  I am trying to start a business right now and there is no financing available even if you have excellent credit which I do.  Banks are hording money and won't lend it.  That's a problem and it will impact Main Street shortly.

I hate to have to do this but I see no other choice although I am open to other ideas.  The alternative is far worse.  What we can't and shouldn't do is give Paulson et al a blank check.  We should also finance part of it with a tax or assessment on Wall Street.


[ Parent ]
I understand this reaction, but... (4.00 / 2)
...we haven't seen the details yet. There is lots of stuff we want in there, but I don't see how such a comprehensive bill could possibly pass this week. Are you saying we can wait a few months before doing anything? Barney Frank has said they will be working on regulatory reform, but passage isn't likely until next January.

Are you proposing that we try to pass a comprehensive bill this week?


Exactly - This Is A First Position (4.00 / 2)
I predict Congress will either delay its scheduled recess this week or come back to vote on this in a few weeks.  I worked on the Hill during the S&L crisis 20 yrs ago and there is no way they will not get it done by Friday.  This is too complicated for Congress to move this fast.  I predict they'll have a finalized bill in a few weeks.  

Also, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are not going to give a blank check to the Treasury.  They have both been explicit about that.  There are going to be some strings attached including mortgage workout.

It is not going to have everything we'd like to see but it won't be this proposal either.


[ Parent ]
the mortgage workout (4.00 / 1)
Why isn't anyone talking about going after the home buyers who walked away after losing big time on their investments?

For example, Joe Blow buys a house in 2003 for $400,000, withdraws $200,000 in equity by refinancing in 2006, then walks away from the property in 2007 when it is only worth $450,000, leaving the bank with $150,000 in debt. Why should taxpayers cover that debt? Why should Joe Blow walk away clean?

They should set up a Sallie Mae-type program where anyone who walked away from massive debt has to pay some of it off. Maybe 50%, maybe 33%, whatever. They made the stupid purchases, they took the risk, they shouldn't rely on taxpayers to cover all of it. And of course the banks who made the stupid loans should take the hit for the rest of it.

I'm still paying off my $60,000 in student loans. The folks who bought homes they couldn't afford should also be required to pay back their debt.


[ Parent ]
This Is A Simplistic Repsonse/Solution To A (4.00 / 1)
really complicated problem. Most people with subprime mortgages don't own houses worth $400 or $600K.  I have no problem going after speculators who gamed the system but these aren't the vast majority of the subprime problem.

This is the more likely story of a subprime mortgage mess.  Sadie, an African American retiree, receives a solicitation in the mail to refinance her house.  She can use the extra money and they are offering a 2.5% interest rate for a couple of years which makes the payment affordable .  Sadie isn't all that well educated and doesn't understand that the impact of the baloon payment in year 3 that bumps the interest rate up to 7,8,9%.  She meets with the nice mortgage broker and it all sounds good.  He assures her she can refinance in a few years so don't worry about the big payment a few years out.  Sadie can't afford a good lawyer to warn her about the pitfalls and does it.  In the meantime, the bubble bursts, Sadie can't refinance and she can't afford the new payments.

Her mortgage is held by some European investor instead of the local bank so Sadie can't work out the mortgage either.  Sadie loses her house to forclosure.

Sadie is guilty of being somewhat ignorant but she loses in the end.  In the meantime, the mortgage broker and the initial investment houses that sold her mortgage made lots of money on her and her ilk.


[ Parent ]
Because of mortgage contracts. (0.00 / 0)
Even if these were stupid purchases, these mortgage contracts explicitly state what the homebuyers are liable for.  To suddenly say "SURPRISE!  We're going to shake you down for more than your home is worth even though the contract you signed wth the bank explicitly capped your liability." would be an unprecedented intervention in the way business has been done for centuries, and would turn the country into an economically rogue state in which contracts could no longer be trusted.  

So that won't happen, thank God.


[ Parent ]
haven't seen the details (4.00 / 5)
These are the disaster capitalists.  Do you really have any faith that the Bush administration will design a plan that actually serves anything but the interests of the wealthy?

There's no more benefit of the doubt for these people.


[ Parent ]
You want a few hundred billion? (4.00 / 9)
Here's how you get it:  

80% wealth tax on accumulated intangible assets over $50 million.

The hedge fund operators, Wal-Mart heirs, investment house CEOs, et. al. can have their bailout, but they've got to pay for it with their own money.

Does anyone have a problem with that?



and increase the estate tax (4.00 / 2)
50% over $5 million, 80% over $20 million.

[ Parent ]
Bernie Sanders (4.00 / 4)
Is proposing an emergency surtax on these people.  Of course no one pays any attention to him even though assuredly most people would support it at this point.

Bernie Gave one of his awesome speeches on this.  You would never guess there is dissent in the real Progressives and Populists on the hill.

I downloaded his floor speech and put it on EP (too big for youtube).  Here is the link for anyone interested.  Grabbed a few others speaking out on what's going on.

Bernie's Speech

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


[ Parent ]
This Won't Fly (4.00 / 2)
This is the Treasury Depts proposal and they are going to have to give some to get it through Congress.  I'd be shocked if this will work with Chris Dodd or Barney Frank who Chair the Senate and House Banking Committees and have been very vocal about the need to allow people to work out their mortgages and stay in their homes.  The Admin won't get a bill through Congress w/o their stamp on it.

One important note - this is not the run up to the war.  Bush was sitting with approval ratings in the 60s then and he is sitting with approval ratings in the 20s now.  The Dems hold a lot more cards in negotiating this bailout.

Just in case, I am going to contact my Congresswoman who serves on the Financial Services Comm.


Given what we know .. (4.00 / 3)
about how sucky Nancy and Harry are at poker .. I am not holding my breath for them to do what you say .. Petulant George wants something by the end of this coming week .. what makes you so sure the Dems won't cave to him like they always do?

[ Parent ]
Because Nancy and Harry (0.00 / 0)
are probably going to defer to Frank and Dodd on this one.  They are veteran committee chairs, understand finance and have already been the public faces on this one.  If Reid or Pelosi wanted to lead on this one they would have already.  

Plus, what advantage do either gain by not having morgage workout and other middle class benefits in this bill?

This actually looks like a huge political gift.  It would be a lot harder for us to spin politically if the legislation had crappy mortgage workout language.  Instead, its got none which gives the Dems a huge opportunity.


[ Parent ]
what you have to understand (4.00 / 1)
is that the "mortgage workout" crap is not enough to sell this to people.  In other words, this means that the banks win, the people who bought houses they couldn't afford win, and everyone else loses.

What about people who played by the rules and are waiting for houses to become affordable again? Are we just suckers because we didn't get a no money down ARM with hopes that Johnny Taxpayer would cover our losses and keep us in homes we shouldn't have?


[ Parent ]
I Played By The Rules (4.00 / 1)
I bought in 2006 and will no doubt take some kind of hit on equity for a while.  However, as a homeowner, I know most people don't walk away from their home b/c they are underwater on their mortgage.  They walk away b/c they can't afford the mortgage.  

The example you gave above of the person who took out $200K in equity and walked away reminds me of Ronald Reagan's welfare queen stories.  Do they exist, probably but they are few and far between.

One of the reason so many people are in trouble is that they bought ARMs and teaser loan mortgages they didn't really understand.  Should they have  - yes.

However, I have a graduate degree, worked in govt for 8 years and am generally pretty savy and I didn't completely understand everything.  Buying a house is a very complicated process.  Fortunately, I had a good real estate lawyer who walked me through everything but he cost a lot of money.  I could afford a good lawyer.  Not everyone could and I'd bet my last dollar these are the people who got into trouble.  

You need to work out the loans that can be worked out for two reasons:

1 - The people who are impacted by the subprime mess are disproportionately hard working middle class people living on the edge (they are a job loss away from being broke) and I believe we, as a society, should help them stay in their homes if we can.

2 - Part of the reason for the drop in real estate prices is the glut of houses on the market due to forclosure.  If we can get the forclosures down we can at least stabilize real estate prices which is good for the economy as a whole.


[ Parent ]
Two more points (4.00 / 1)
1) You and Greenwald and Cenk Uygur have been talking as if the Dems already accepted Bush's exact proposal. I haven't seen evidence of that.

2) This proposal goes against the very core of conservative philosophy. It's extremely embarrasing and damaging to the Republican brand. So unlike Iraq and FISA, what is the end game here? What are Republicans trying to accomplish? I don't get it.  


I Saw Dodd (4.00 / 3)
on TV last night and he said he wouldn't give a blank check to the Treasury and this is a blank check.  This is a starting point bill.

Also, this thing gives Obama a tremendous platform to blast the Rs and push for help for regular home owners who need help working out their loans.

I am not sure what the Rs were thinking here.  You have to remember Paulson knows the markets pretty well but he is not especially political.  This bill looks like it was written by a bunch of policy people with no thought for the politics.

This is going to be a very interesting debate.  I actually think the Dems have a huge opening.


[ Parent ]
Don't worry... (4.00 / 6)
1. The Democratic Congress will cave soon enough, especially when Bush starts yelling next week how the Democrats are destroying the economy by holding up the bill, if they even bother to try and hold it up.

2. What embarrassment? Republicans have a way of spinning things--both to themselves and to people at large--to make it seem as if nothing is the fault of conservatism, but everything is the fault of liberalism. My wife's family is part of the Rush crowd, and for the last few years, you would be amazed what twisted, psychotic logic I have heard from them to justify conservative failures. Basically, it boils down to: anything that has happened since 2006 is the fault of the Democratic Congress; anything before 2006 is the fault of Bill Clinton.  


[ Parent ]
The past 8 years .. (4.00 / 2)
2) This proposal goes against the very core of conservative philosophy. It's extremely embarrasing and damaging to the Republican brand. So unlike Iraq and FISA, what is the end game here? What are Republicans trying to accomplish? I don't get it.

Have been against the whole core of Conservative philosophy .. and when has that mattered to those in DC(or the carnival barkers like King O'Falafel and Limbaugh)?


[ Parent ]
philosophy? (4.00 / 1)
Where have you been living the past eight years? The Republicans have no principles whatsoever. They're about two things: wealth and power. This bailout is about making the wealthy and powerful remain wealthy and powerful, that's all.

You and Greenwald and Cenk Uygur have been talking as if the Dems already accepted Bush's exact proposal. I haven't seen evidence of that.

Just like up to the vote on the FISA bill, right? There was "no evidence" that the Dems would do what Bush wanted. Even after the House voted yes and Obama gave his statement blessing their vote as a great compromise, people were still in denial, saying there would be some last minute Hail Mary pass by the Democrats to stop it. And we all saw how that turned out.

When have the Democrats actually done anything but give Bush what he asked for? How many times does Lucy have to pull away the football before you realize you're being gamed?


[ Parent ]
When have the Democrats actually done anything but give Bush what he asked for? (0.00 / 0)
Social Security? The GI Bill?

[ Parent ]
My Favorite Part: The Rescue Plan Demands Deregulation (4.00 / 7)
Notice the awesome, awesome irony:

The fucking rescue plan for this catastrophe caused by DEREGULATION requires Congress to DEREGULATE the fucking RESCUE PLAN ITSELF.

To wit:

The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

Yeah.  Ha ha.  Here's your fucking annual report, bitches.  Read it and weep.


if this proposal passes (4.00 / 2)
don't pay your taxes.

Sign me up. (4.00 / 2)
Also, combine the tax holiday on April 15 with a general strike on May 1, and we may have some leverage.

Of course, everyone here will take this is a joke, but this is the kind of action we need to be talking about and organizing if we expect to have any kind of impact on the bipartisan Washington consensus.


[ Parent ]
i agree. (0.00 / 0)
to extend the metaphor that matt used - is it an armed robbery if you hand the robber the gun?

[ Parent ]
Further (4.00 / 2)
I'm posting my comments here rather than trying to reply in several different places.

1) I know the Dems are wusses, but the statements from Dodd and Frank and Clinton and Obama so far are good. What I don't like is defeatist language that makes it sound like they've already capitulated.

2) I don't see the end game here. They've got Senator Dunning (R) on the air blasting this as socialist. It's extremely divisive to the Republican party. This does not fit the mold of using the "shock doctrine" to get what they want. They don't want government funding business. It's very embarrassing to them. It would be like Democrats proposing the end of Social Security.


I'd gladly exchange "embarrassed" for $700 billion (4.00 / 1)
If these guys think Hank Paulson, former Goldman-Sachs CEO, can get free reign to do with $700 billion what he likes, I don't think they really care about the fortunes of the Republican Party, and they're more than happy to risk party disunity for that.  3/4 of a trillion will do that to you.

[ Parent ]
NOLA (4.00 / 1)
No money to really rebuild New Orleans.  The Republicans saw to that while Ted Stevens led the looting personally (those were $52 K trailers built in MS whose paperwork was routed through Alaska to pad the bill to $88 K per trailer or a $36 ,000 per Trailer Stevens "Tax" or theft).  No money for roads, bridges (thank you Gov. Pawlenty) or homeowners but $700 billion for Wall Street crooks and screw ups)

YOYO unless you are a billionaire or a high level corporatist.  Oh yeah.  Corporations paid 27% of federal taxes under Ike; it's hald that now (14%).


[ Parent ]
Detailed Timeline, events, analysis, concise (4.00 / 2)
A lot of what's happening is very difficult to understand, even for a highly education person, unless you are an institutional investor (a thief).

Over on The Economic Populist, Midtowng just wrote the best timeline piece on each bailout, with the details.  It's concise, you can follow it and it is detailed.

What the Hell Just Happened?

There are a lot of terms being thrown around that most people don't understand, such as CDS (credit default swaps), derivatives, CDO and so on.

We do a series called Friday Night videos, on some economic related topic.

This week, any video tutorial that could clearly explain the details on these various structured financial vehicles was posted.  Friday Movie Night - Derivatives De' Ride!

It's all well and good to hear opinions, rhetoric but if you want to scare the shit out of yourself, come on over to read about the real numbers, details and deficit details.

What the rhetoric is, and I'm sorry to inform you, but both parties, versus where the truth lies...and it's in the DETAILS are two different things here.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


The thing is the S.L.I.M.E. Act (4.00 / 2)
The Successful Looting and Investment Manager Employment Act.

Sorry to do a drive by here in comments, but I got to go knock on some more doors as part of the Million Doors for Peace.

Can it happen here?


If only she read the NIE on Iraq prior to voting (0.00 / 0)


Rangel (0.00 / 0)
The missing face here is Charlie Rangel, somebody who knows how to call bull sh**.  Rangel is entangled in a bunch of penny ante crap (the latest is storing a 1972 car in the Capitol garage) which is crippling him.  Even his opponents are up front in stating that Charlie is not getting rich.

If the Wall Street crooks could spend $2.1 million of their own money to get payback on Spitzer, they can spend lots more to feather their nests.  One of the anti-Rangel papers is the Albany Times-Union. Wtf are they getting involved taking down the most powerful NY member of the House in at least 50 years?  Cause it's easy and pre-written.


Dressing up a corpse? (4.00 / 1)
I am beginning to believe that all these bailout schemes are just dressing up the corpse of the failed U.S. financial and economic systems. No amount of dressing up is going to bring this corpse back to life.

My reading of the situation is that the U.S. is the first example of how predatory capitalists in league with government officials whom they control can wreck an economy, a banking and investment system and a democracy within just a few decades.

More smoke and mirrors like the phony bailout schemes that are on the table are not going to change the facts that are now only too well known around the world: bogus financial services designed around bogus assets eventually collapse, just like all the other Ponzi schemes that preceded them.

What is interesting is that financial services and schemes designed to be so esoteric that most experts cannot understand them allowed phony assets to be sold around the world to thousands of clueless people who did not understand what they were investing in.

Predatory U.S. capitalists in the failed investment banks - who are now begging U.S. decision-makers in Congress and federal agencies to use taxpayers' money to bail them out - snookered countless investors around the world into their schemes, hopefully once and for all.

Just as U.S. credibility and integrity as a leader in foreign relations has all but disappeared, during the Bush administration, so now has its credibility and integrity in global finance.

I predict that future American hucksters selling the same snake oil will be shunned here and abroad for the foreseeable future, while working people everywhere try to pick up the pieces of the livelihoods they have lost during the hay days of predatory capitalism that hollowed out their economies.

Kevin Phillips summed up what may be in store when he referred to the consequences of the UK's economic and financial free fall after its predatory global colonial empire disintegrated: food rationing inside the UK itself.

When all the phony schemes have been played out and there is no more money to borrow, the piper has to be paid by the governments that allow financial predators to replace genuine economic activity with their financial schemes.

What I rear is that the only way the American people are going to learn that they have to get savvy about predator capitalists and take control of the government these predators have hijacked is when push comes to shove and things like food get rationed.


He who pays the piper calls the tune... (3.00 / 4)
The fact that Democrats are on board with this scheme means absolutely nothing. When it comes to things the Bush administration wants, Congressional Democrats don't say "no" to anything. They say "yes" to everything. That's what they're for.

Of course they do!  Gore Vidal once said that something to the effect that there is only one party in the US and that's the Business Party.  It's divided into the conservative caucus and the "liberal" caucus, but it is owned/controlled by the same people.  (Let's not forget that the corporations that fund the lobbyists are owned and controlled by the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans.)  Sure the Ds have their unions, feminists, netroots, etc. and the Rs have the gun nuts, the Christian fanatics, the free marketers, etc.  It's all show, it's pretend democracy.  What the top 1% want, they get.  They own the means of production, they own the media, and they own the government.  And this situation will continue as long as there is no revolutionary changes to our electoral system.  (And I'm not talking about the Electoral College.)


Bill TEXT - ACTION ITEM (4.00 / 1)
Text of Bail Out Bill - Take Action

is over on EP now, with links to others making critical points on why this must be stopped.

There are posts on other blogs as well but if you do anything, read one of these and read this text!  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Democratic Senate candidates, about whom I'm concerned, could make some (0.00 / 0)
populist statements on this issue.  The public is being taken to the cleaners, and while something needs to be done with considerable regulation and accountability attached to a final agreement, this is a great opportunity for Dems to distinguish themselves from their Republican incumbent opponents.

I'm not an economist (4.00 / 2)
and I can't give a really informed opinion about the details of any deal.  All I can do is judge the broader strokes, and to a large extent make inferences based on what various people are saying about the deals.  I can't say it's much comfort that Pelosi and Reid are so willing to support this -- that just means, to me, that they don't want anything shaking up the status quo.

But, having said all that, it seems to me that we can make Corporate America swallow some serious medicine while they need our money.

1) Significant new regulations of the banking and securities industries;
2) Serious tax increases on the hi income, on capital gains, on inheritance, on certain securities transfers, and possibly on very large concentrations of wealth (sort of like a real estate property tax);
3) passage and signing of the Employee Free Choice Act.  If we're going to give the Chamber of Commerce's string-pullers $700,000,000,000 of our money, they have to stop attacking us and violating our rights.  They get our money.  We get our unions.  And, through organizing, we get our money back.


Some thoughts from William Greider (0.00 / 0)
William Greider has some useful thoughts over at the Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider):

Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough--using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets...

A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own--cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed...

...Paulson and the Federal Reserve are trying to replay the bailout approach used in the 1980s for the savings and loan crisis, but this situation is utterly different. The failed S&Ls held real assets--property, houses, shopping centers--that could be readily resold by the Resolution Trust Corporation at bargain prices. This crisis involves ethereal financial instruments of unknowable value...

Despite what the pols in Washington think, the RTC bailout was also a Wall Street scandal. Many of the financial firms that had financed the S&L industry's reckless lending got to buy back the same properties for pennies from the RTC--profiting on the upside, then again on the downside. Guess who picked up the tab? I suspect Wall Street is envisioning a similar bonanza--the chance to harvest new profit from their own fraud and criminal irresponsibility.

If government acts responsibly, it will impose some other conditions on any broad rescue for the bankers. First, take due bills from any financial firms that get to hand off their spoiled assets, that is, a hard contract that repays government from any future profits once the crisis is over. Second, when the politicians get around to reforming financial regulations and dismantling the gimmicks and "too big to fail" institutions, Wall Street firms must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system...

More important, if the taxpayers are compelled to refinance the villains in this drama, then Americans at large are entitled to equivalent treatment in their crisis. That means the suspension of home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies for debt-soaked families during the duration of this crisis. The debtors will not escape injury and loss--their situation is too dire--but they deserve equal protection from government, the chance to work out things gradually over some years on reasonable terms.

The government, meanwhile, may have to create another emergency agency, something like the New Deal, that lends directly to the real economy--businesses, solvent banks, buyers and sellers in consumer markets.




Now ... (0.00 / 0)
... is a good time for everyone to take a Basic Accounting course (or two or three) from their local community college.  A course in Finance would also be useful.  The GOPigs are counting on us to be ignorant.  If more Americans had a knowledge of accounting and finance, the Great Treasury Robbery of 2008 would already have been jeered out of town.



Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search