What Fresh Hell Is This?

September 23, 2008

Just Say No

Wall Street Bailout Act Text:
Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Senator Bob Casey, 202-224-6324
Senator Arlen Specter, 202-224-4254

Sign the petition at Credo.


John K. said...

John K: And when you call demand the resignation of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank. I did! Schumer should also resign. The manner in which the Democrats caused this mess is grounds for indictments. LMAO Look at me demanding a Democrat be indicted. LOL LOL That ain't going to sit well. LOL

John K. said...

John K: And then call back and ask why doesn't Rep. Rangel have to pay penalties and interests on the back taxes he owed. We of course all know why, don't we.

Anonymous said...

One of my most conservative friends, a retired Bayer exec, admitted yesterday that:

1) He agreed that the Execs of the bailed-out firms should be forced to take pay cuts, or fired.

2) McCain's tax cuts were out of the question, after the bailouts, and that Obama's plan seemed much more likely.

Very bad news for McCain-Palin.

John K. said...

John K: Now only a liberal can reason in the manner of Kimber. We have people out there struggling to make mortgage payments. And their solution is to raise taxes and reduce the income of these folks so they have even less money to pay the mortgage with. LMAO LMAO The question that should be asked of every liberal and Hussein Obama as well as Onorato. Do you know where money comes from? LOL LOL I am certain they will say taxes. LMAO

cathcatz said...

uh, to raise taxes on the WEALTHY people who have been raping this country's economy since the reagan administration, dear.

NOT us paycheck-to-paycheck people.

you really don't get it.

EdHeath said...

So, John K, you oppose the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act, not Revitilization Act, but you have so much contempt for everything you can't be bothered to find out), you blame the CRA for the current Wall Street Crisis (ignoring the subprime loans and their bundling up as securities), and then you tell us you are worried about people making their mortgage payments. Do you know where bailout money comes from? Debt. The Bush administration is going to push the country into record levels of debt (unlike the Clinton administration, which left the country with surpluses). Bush is screwing who ever the next President will be, because frankly he hates them both.

Anonymous said...


Taxes would be raised on those folks with $250,000+ in AGI.

That's the top 0.5% of taxpayers.

I guess "talent on loan from God" didn't mention that, did he?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Blame the Democrats?

Who do you clowns think you're fooling, John?

That's as laughable as listening to Mittens Romney blame the people who were granted these mortgages they couldn't pay - he conveniently neglects to blame the people who granted the loans, people, because of all their vast financial expertise, who should have known people couldn't afford them.

It's as ridiculous as listening to John Fund argue that what we really need now is to eliminate the capital gains tax and cut taxes for corporations - because why should the people who helped cause this mess be expected to help pay to fix it?

Unreal. The Republican Party needs to get a grip on reality and accept responsibility for the condition they've left the country in, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the currency and commodities markets looked at the bailouts, and their verdict was quick:

Higher deficits = Pump out more $$$.

The dollar fell, and oil, priced in dollars, rose $25, the largest-ever rise in a single trading session.

Tell us again how tax cuts will help the economy, johnk.

John K. said...

John K: Now Kimber is so smart she didn't hear when Hussein Obama then said that if the country were in a recession he would not raise those taxes. LMAO LMAO Come on here Kimber you have to do better. Removing money from the pocket of taxpayes gives the taxpayer less to spend on things like mortgages. And it is clear Kimber that you fail the test. You don't know where money comes from either. LOL LOL $250,000 LOL LOL LMAO

John K. said...

John K: To the rest of you liberal loons, they would raise taxes on the poor if they could but the poor pay no taxes. They feed off the public trough and then complain about it. See Cathcatz for a reference on this. LMAO Hello, left wing kooks, where does money come from? How is wealth created? Does anyone know? I bet not.

John K. said...

John K: Well Ed, you fail also. The Community Reinvestement Act of 1977 and 1996 was pushed by Clinton. He sent Janet Reno out there to threaten any bank that did not comply with federal investagators. And as Jerry Bowyer says, what bank worth its management wants federal regulators breathing down their neck? Just ask Cyril Wecht. So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac feed off this with Democrat Raines in charge and oversight provided by Dodd and Frank and bingo we have what we have. Bush tried 8 times to get a handle on this. Blocked by Democrats like Schumer. So left wing loons, continue to loan money to people who have no ability to pay it back and let's bet on fast you go broke. Ed, you have no idea of where money comes from do you. Admit it and make it easy on yourself. LOL By the way, Dodd and Obama were the chief recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. LOL LOL Obama, that community activist, knows where comes from. LMAO

Anonymous said...


In the absence of a tax increase, how will the Treasury find the money it needs to pay for the War on Terror, and the various huge bailouts, let alone all the other things that the Federal Government spends money on?

I am intrigued, though. I thought the mortgage crisis was caused by the CRA forcing loans in red-lined neighborhoods.....But, raising taxes on those with incomes over $250K/yr will hurt their ability to make mortgage payments.

So, logically, the subprime mortgages were taken out by the upper 0.5% of taxpayers?


If you had a job, you wouldn't have so much time to listen to Limbaugh's Oxy-fueled rants.

EdHeath said...

Actually, in all seriousness, an interesting debate is going on right now. Pundits with an economic bent are talking about how Treasury will spend that $700 billion. Specifically, the mortgage backed securities are essentially valueless right now, according to the market (for such things), in part because no one knows which mortgages are sound. So how muchdoes Treasury pay for such things? The going rate, pennies on the dollar, would wipe out the banks and other institutions hoding these things. But paying higher essentially rewards the (rich) speculators who bought there things. Granted, the purchasers did not know how risky they were, but they knew these were new things, and the news had all sorts of stories about how housing was in a bubble, how mortgages were being without due dilligence, etc.

So how to value those securites in such a way that banks/investment firms survive, but we don't reward risk-takers? Ahd the 64 trillion dollar question, why are we just buying up banks so we can sell them later (when things are stable), and so the taxpayers aren't forced to foot the whole bill (pay part with the proceeds of the sale of Mellon or Citibank).

EdHeath said...

That last paragraph should read "why aren't we just buying up banks so we can sell them later..."

Anonymous said...

Conservatives are joke...they attack the poor, but when the rich need a hand-out the first place they go crawling is the government.

We can give $700 billion to millionaires but heaven forbid we provide universal healthcare or increase education funding or invest in our infrastructure, etc.

Frankly, I say let Wall Street get itself out of this mess. If anything, the government should step in to bail-out the homeowners who were conned into these bogus subprime mortgages. And if Wall Street wants bailed out, they sure as hell can help pay the bill - THEY DON'T NEED MORE TAX CUTS(or have conservatives forgotten that all of this as come after George Bush's miracle tax cuts - why should we cut their taxes any more when wages continue to fall, good jobs get shipped overseas and the American middle class is left holding the bag?). They'll get tax cuts when they can prove that that fiscal policy produces the results they claim(which it doesn't - look at the last 30 years; there is no evidence to suggest that conservative tax policies have done little more than redistribute vast amounts of the nation's wealth to the top 5%, all at the detriment of the middle class).

And why are we bailing out institutions that aren't in danger? All of this is a free pass for the people who created this mess. It does nothing to address the underlying problems.

If they get this bailout, it will be a free pass to continue doing what they have been doing. And it will not solve the problem.

John K. said...

John K: Conservatives attack the poor? The CRA was a liberal program. The liberals, with back up from Janet Reno, sold mortgages to poor people who they knew could not pay. LMAO LOL LOL Cuomo, when in HUD, enforced it. LOL Liberal victimize the poor and keep them in slavery.

John K. said...

John K: I would also point out to the lefties that cutting taxes added more revenue to the coffers of the federal govt. The problem is not that, it is spending. Just ask Murtha who is raking in the defense pork for his district. Man is he getting rich off this war.

John K. said...

John K: So where does money come from? Ed, Kimber, Jaywillie any lefty or kook can answer. How is wealth created and who does that? Anyone? Cathcatz thinks it comes from the guy living under the bridge in a cardboard box.

Anonymous said...

You attack the poor right here, John:

"They feed off the public trough and then complain about it."

But when the rich need a handout, no questions asked, no strings attached - and they don't even have to help pay for it.

Give me a break.

You've made it explicitly clear John that you DO NOT believe in democracy but plutocracy; you believe that people who own 9 homes and 13 cars are feeling the pinch and need pampered.

And yet you can offer no evidence that conservative policies of "Trickle down" economics has benefitted middle class Americans - the dollar is worth less, wages are down, good paying jobs have been flowing overseas, access to health care and education are narrowing, income disparity is at its greatest level since the Great Depression - when do we see Trickle down working, John?

And for some reason you just can't bring yourself to blame the Republicans who have run government for 6 of the last 8 years(and, technically, with the White House, still effectively control the government) for the increases in spending(much of it a result of the war in Iraq).

But you don't want anyone to have to pay for any of this but middle class Americans.

And you certainly don't think that the people who caused this mess(and it's not Janet Reno or Andrew Cuomo or minority homeowners) should face any consequences for their irresponsible actions.

John K. said...

John K: Yah, the poor do feed off the public trough and complain about it. They pay no federal or state income taxes. In fact, they have their taxes returned to them. So who pays to plow the streets they drive on and who pays for the police who protect them? Oh yah I do. Of course they like to complain the loudest.

John K. said...

John K: Evidence that trickle down works. LMAO If this bail out goes thru then the money trickles down from the federal govt. LMAO You left wing kooks. LMAO The guy under the bridge in the cardboard box ain't bailing out squat. And the people responsible for this are in order: Dodd and Obama for taking campaign contributions. Schumer for demanding enforcement of the CRA. Frank for failure to provide oversight. And of course Raines for being a thief. And add if Reno and Bubba Clinton for threatening banks and lenders with federal investigators. YOU LOSE.

EdHeath said...

Jaywillie, as I understand the issue, there is a crisis of confidence with the financial market. Several financial institutions hold some number of these mortgage backed securities. Which were fine as long as the housing bubble didn't burst. But of course it did. No one now know how to value these securities. I don't particularly know how many of these things are in any particular bank. But if a bank does have some, it doesn't know if they are worth pennies on the dollar or not. Banks are frightened to loan other banks money, or buy bonds from anyone who might be holding these things. So credit is tightening, a lot, and people are buying up federal bonds.
But like I said, its not clear wat to do with the 700 billion. The feds could use it to actually buy shares in banks/investment firms, to sell later (the Swedes did that, I believe, and thus did not have to spend taxpayer money). But I suspect Henry Paulson doesn't wat to do that because it smacks of nationalizing, and we never do that (except when we do). It's a mess.

Anonymous said...


Thanks! Very insightful.

I'm currently reading up on "credit default swaps" which also seem to be a large part of this mess. The bottom line: there was a lot of funny business going on and a lot of non-existent money was floating around and being exchanged.

As to what you're saying, my understanding is that most of these firms have not planned for the long-term and were financing themselves on a short-term basis. In the case of Lehman's, because of all the bad assets they were left with nothing(except several billion to award bonuses to their top employees). And they were unreasonably and intentionally overstating the values on the housing market - when reality didn't match that value, pop!

There's a lot of chicanery at work here. And it's something I'm starting to see not only in the housing market, but a lot of other markets too, after eight years of George W. Bush.

Rampant specualtion has certainly been a factor(Glass-Steagall Act of '33). I've heard that energy costs, specifically oil, have been driven up largely because of speculation. It was probably a mistake to undo the regulations put in place by FDR to control speculation.

Also, the problem, from my take, has come from a dismantling of the walls that separated banks, investment firms, insurance, real estate, etc. Very much like the S & L scandal of the 80's, which came about because of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of '82, wherein S & L's were given the capabilities of full service banks but without the regulations.

It's the same story here - deregulation expanded the capabilities of various financial institutions but without the regulations(Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which increased opportunities for speculation). It also led to the creation of these "credit default swaps."

The two main acts that seem to be responsible are the Garn-St. Germain, Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

You can read more here, Ed.

On another note: I'm listening to some Wall Street wizard saying that if we manage this $700 billion, it could be a net gain for taxpayers. But it could also be a significant loss. Exactly why should we trust any of these people? This is all about the rich not wanting to take a hit, so they want the middle class to bail them out without any quid pro quo.

As for that guy living under the bridge you're always talking about, John, if Trickle Down Economics worked, according to what you conservatives say, he should have a job, he should be able to afford a home, health care, education for his kids, a car, a vacation every year, etc.

If Trickle Down Economics worked, John, people would have been able to afford these mortgages.

But we had a round of the Magical Bush Tax Cuts - so, how come we're in this mess if Trickle Down works?