What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
355 Comments
- modaman, on 09/23/2008, -7/+145These folks are committing a crime. It's Financial Elite Blackmail. They say "GIve us all your money, or you'll get recession...or worse. I say NO!"
- astroknave, on 09/23/2008, -9/+142Can anyone spell O-C--T-O-B-E-R S-U-R-P-R-I-S-E?
- CrazedLeper, on 09/23/2008, -5/+71"Patriot" act was all written and ready for 9/11 well in advance, too.
- elhaf, on 09/23/2008, -4/+68Not just an October surprise, a boondoggle for the administration to get away with the money and leave the Democrats holding the bag. The Republican congressmen are against this, and will vote against it.
- LeepII, on 09/23/2008, -15/+72This has been in the works since 1913. The Federal Reserve is slowly bleeding the country dry. Soon only the top 1% will have ALL of the wealth and the rest will live in poverty.
- laserdog, on 09/23/2008, -2/+57Everything this administration has done can be characterized as an advancement of a single goal: "How can we use the machinery of government to give our friends the most possible money?"
- maceelk, on 09/23/2008, -5/+52enraged.
- tRANIS, on 09/23/2008, -1/+44Let them fall and the pieces fall where they may. If its a depression then so be it.
How about a 700billion bailout for Americans under 50k a year. Just split it equally. - jackhowitzer, on 09/23/2008, -1/+44I dugg you up, but I think the main thing to be concerned about with this legislation is the, no oversight, no transparency, and no one being able to review what he's doing power that Paulson would be getting.
- RealmDown, on 09/23/2008, -2/+34Sure!
C-U-B-S W-I-N - inactive, on 09/23/2008, -0/+31It is true. They are literally robbing us to support their criminal excesses. I heard ralph nader say today, if the taxpayers bail out these banks, we should all be given shares in the banks we invest in. It only makes sense, but it'll never happen. You're expected to make an investment with no chance of return on that investment. What *****.
- Calinthalus, on 09/23/2008, -2/+31Let's not forget S190 from 2005. This was a long time coming...both parties knew it.
- Brownds, on 09/23/2008, -0/+29That would be a better use of the money IMO.
- econoar, on 09/23/2008, -56/+83I know I'll get dugg down for this but I'm going to say it anyways...
Does anyone on digg even understand economics and the financial markets or do you just love shouting "neo-con", and "nazi" every chance you get? It looks foolish. I love the obviously omission of counter-point articles from legit financial sites like the WSJ, Economist, etc. and we all just believe obviously slanted material from the Huffington Post and others. And with all the bitching of slanted media on here? Come on...it goes both ways. (As a side note, I consider myself more left than right).
Anyways, if anyone actually listened to the proposal today, it actually is our best option at this point. The call for no action at all is completely erroneous. These major financial instituions are so far deep in ***** right now that their collapses would cause a worldwide economic depression (housing market, lending market, everything). Just look at the foreign and emerging markets index's when bad news comes out of America. We can't afford for these major instituions to just fall. Sure, a "free market" thinking sounds great, but this deep into a financial crisis, it won't work. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be bailed out of it would have caused a housing crisis and collapse that no one would have imagined, then having a domino effect on the worldwide economy.
The government is now taking its best step to ensure that the tax payer gets some money back. (The government will borrow money via treasury bonds, t-bills, etc to finance it and the interest on those will be paid through taxes. In theory though, the assets are hurting more for lack of liquidity than credit costs. If the housing markets turn, that is how the gov would make money on this issue) First, let's not forget that the Congress is now run by the Dems, and they are going to have to vote on this issue. 2nd, the 700 billion dollar plan is an aim for a profit, NOT A BAILOUT. If they overprice the assets they are trying to buy (mainly mortgage based assets that are killing these institutions), that would be a bailout. That isn't their goal. Their goal also isn't to undervalue these assets, because no one will use the plan and it's a waste of time. They are going to consult financial experts in order to find the correct prices for these reverse auctions. Right now, it is one of the best ways that we are going to get out of this decline. They need to get the toxic assets out of the hands of these companies. It's an all around problem, sure companies were giving out ridiculous sub-prime mortgages, but the people taking them were just as stupid. If we're going to play the no government interference game, then people need to take the blame for their own stupidity also. - brjohnson789, on 09/23/2008, -3/+27Seriously. I have books on my shelf 3 years old + predicting exactly what we are seeing today. Presenting this as a 'surprise' is just a way to get this crappy plan past the lawmakers Patriot Act style. But I have no doubt they'll pass it anyways; they may get a few bull crap concessions but in the end there will be no doubt the the public will be paying for this and not the failed companies themselves. Welcome to socialism.
- Laminarcissus, on 09/23/2008, -0/+23Yes. There were three weeks in the Carter administration when everything was cool.
- ScottMitchell, on 09/23/2008, -0/+23staplez: Don't forget, Paulson also was able to sell $700 million dollars of Goldman Sach's stock TAX FREE per condition of taking his post as Treasury Secretary. Not bad, as he saved over $100 million in taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/01/paulson-tax-looph ... - woodyinthehoody, on 09/23/2008, -8/+30I'm 17, so all I have ever really truly known is the Bush/Rove political tactics and governing...can someone assure me that American Government hasn't always been this bad?
- mfc5200, on 09/23/2008, -1/+23Sorry, but I think you are dead wrong.
Go and watch Bernanke's Testimony from today. He's asking for
1) For congress to buy these securities at "maturity prices" i.e full value. So it's not a situation where congress would be buying these securities for pennies on the dollar just to take them off their books. The Fed, on behalf of the banks, is asking for the price they paid for them in the first place, when they clearly aren't worth that.
2) "No punitive measures". So these banks who are responsible for all this, want to sell their assets to the taxpayer at full value, and then be immune from any discipline. If there are no serious punitive measures...what's to prevent them from being irresponsible in the future? They won't learn any lesson from this. That will create "moral hazard" as they think they can just pull this ***** every 10-20 years.
---
I agree with you on the fact that this situation is indeed dire, but buying these securities at their "maturity" value instead of at a highly discounted value is just sticking it to the taxpayer. They are basically saying, "we ***** up, you pay the bill, and if you don't, we will take down the entire economy with us."
With regard to punitive measures, of course there should be a lot. You want to send a STRONG signal to all institutions in the future, that if you take risks, you can't pull this "socialized losses" in the future *****. You want the institutions that have been responsible these past few years and that don't require assistance to thrive once all of this is over, and you want the irresponsible firms that required government bailouts to be hampered afterwords, and hopefully lose their market position to the more responsible firms. Survival of the fittest.
Of course, you can't just let them fail outright, because they would indeed take down the economy with them, but you definitely don't want them walking out of this unscathed as if nothing has happened. Once all of this is over, you want to make it so difficult for them to do business, such that their market share erodes away. That way, in the future, banks will think twice about taking huge risks and putting the entire financial industry in Jeopardy.
I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist, but it is a fact that the Fed is owned by these major banks such as Citi, JPMorgran, etc. Bernanke works for them. It is his JOB to get them the best deal possible, as such, you have to take everything eh says with a grain of salt.
I don't blame him for what hes doing, it is his job, that's why he was hired. It's his job to get the best deal for these banks, and its congress's job to get the best deal for the taxpayer while at the same time preventing our economy from collapsing. And in my opinion, that involves buying these securities at a major discount, and receiving major equity in the companies or placing strong punitive measures on the firms that require assistance once all of this is over such that firms will think twice about taking risks in the future. - staplez, on 09/23/2008, -2/+24And power, don't forget power. And don't forget Paulson was Goldman's CEO. And don't forget Goldman is one of the banks that will benefit the most from this plan. This plan has been the most effective way to give everyone he cares about money AND POWER. Delicious sweet power.
- calipan, on 09/23/2008, -1/+22MONTHS!!?!?... try years. Paulson is the ex-CEO of Goldman Sacks. Why do you think he quit a job making millions for government work? Benefits? No he is the inside guy making sure that the fed pays full price on mortgages the Wall Street Banks sell to the Fed even if the house is worth 1/10th the value of the mortgage. The Banks get their money back, the taxpayer gets stiffed and Paulson quits and gets a job as CEO of some new super bank that survives the crisis
- Hetman, on 09/23/2008, -1/+21This is completly insane. The governmnent is basically trying to nationalize these businesses. I am sorry but if your business fails you have to deal with it on your own. Maybe they should have raised interest rates 6 years ago so we would not have been in this mess. I do not understand why the government thinks that throwing money at the situation is going to help.
- richmomz, on 09/23/2008, -4/+22Oh, so the government DIDN'T think the economy was sound despite their assurances to the contrary? I'm shocked... SHOCKED I tell you!
- WoollyMittens, on 09/23/2008, -0/+17The rich will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
- Hillsfar, on 09/23/2008, -5/+22"Since the White House has been planning this bailout for months, why wasn't congress consulted about the particulars?"
Phil Gramm slipped 200+ pages of deregulations into an appropriations bill at the last moment, in order to pass deregulation of the credit default swaps industry which led to this current financial crisis.
The Bush Administration was planning the invasion of Iraq since BEFORE 9/11.
It's always a bunch of laws with thousands of pages, that Congress is deliberately not given the chance to read and check up on - but instead pressured and urged to vote to pass.
Last minute slip-ins, no time for review, and harranguing for unquestioning obedience is what the Republicans do best, and is what gives them the pure ego to insert THIS into the bail-out plan: "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."
This is sick *****, folks. Even you Republicans better not try to defend this *****. - CatsAreGods, on 09/23/2008, -0/+16I just found an old newspaper from July where Bernakke was quoted as saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just fine and there was nothing to worry about.
If this is our financial leadership, I say let's just not give them a blank check, because they're either incompetent idiots or true conniving bastards. - ebolaworld, on 09/23/2008, -9/+25The Bush cronies just want to rip us off one last time before they have to go.
- jlhoben, on 09/23/2008, -0/+15Let it collapse. No more feeding off the middle class.
- maceelk, on 09/23/2008, -2/+17Look around 1776 to say 1830 ish? at least then the populace knew what the ideals were supposed to be and tried to keep their political leaders in check.
- blapierre, on 09/23/2008, -1/+15Hmm, I think we've this movie before.
U-S-A-P-A-T-R-I-O-T Act anyone? - muckemuck, on 09/23/2008, -0/+14They had a closed door meeting with Congress back in March..
it lead to this statement: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr07 ...
and lots of conspiracy theories about a total collapse of the market in Sept/Oct. Go listen to this
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/What_the_house_o ...
and you'll see what they were saying back in July.
So yes, they knew about it long ago. Did they do anything to prevent it? Nope. - UcIc, on 09/23/2008, -2/+15You apparently.
- inactive, on 09/23/2008, -1/+13Apparently someone (who typically claims to be a conservative) likes the idea of our immediate decent into socialism.
- pak314, on 09/23/2008, -1/+13They are not trying to nationalize these businesses. They are trying to nationalize their debt. Remember "privatize the gains; socialize the loses." These were the same monkeys that wanted to privatize social security. Imagine what would have happened with that.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 09/23/2008, -0/+12Maybe the OIL companies can use some of their billions of dollars of profits and help out the country. It is, in fact, their country also. If wall street fails, they will fail as well, so why aren't more companies interested in what is happening to the finance industry?
The fact of the matter is, investment banks, oil companies, energy companies... They are all in it to make profit at any expense. As much profit as fast as they can and then retire. Every large industry has gone through this. Why is it the public's responsibility to bail out these companies for these bad practices? Take it out of the CEO, CFO, Board, Presidents, Vice Presidents and the like of these companies. Or maybe we could just let the market crash. - brjohnson789, on 09/23/2008, -7/+191) You're just assuming their collapses would lead to death and destruction. I'm guessing they would too, but instead of DEFINITELY passing the losses on to taxpayers, how about letting us just take a chance?
2) You assume more government interference will be a good thing. I find it very hard to find an area where the US Gov't has gotten involved with that things are actually going 'well': healthcare, infrastructure, education...I'm getting tired.
3) You assume these 'financial experts' will do a good job; if they are anything like the so-called 'experts' like Paulson and Bernanke and Greenspan that got us into this mess in the first place, no thanks. The 'experts' I would actually rely on are the people that predicted this problem years ago, and these same people are saying the bailout is a BAD thing. - Flummoxer, on 09/23/2008, -1/+13I'm 18, it hasn't.
- kingUssop, on 09/23/2008, -2/+14I trust Bush like I'd trust a serial rapist and murderer to babysit some kids. Congress had better proceed very carefully, anything 'pushed through' could be the mother of all ***** you's to this country after the kind of stuff neocons are capable of.
- Idiggapony, on 09/23/2008, -2/+13Well, let's see. Econoar wrote a cogent and fairly detailed (by digg standards) analysis of the situation, advancing and supporting the argument that the "bailout" is the best option available in this bad situation that should have been avoided in the first place. Also, econoar has the word "econ" in his or her name.
On the other hand, maceelk said that interest rates will be at 10% next year, which isn't good, and also powerfully refuted econoar's claims with a resounding all-caps "DUH". Plus, he or she finished with "kthnxbi," which is how respected economists usually complete scholarly articles in prestigious journals.
On balance, I'm going with maccelk. - richmomz, on 09/24/2008, -0/+11Their activity may LITERALLY be criminal: the FBI is now investigating 26 Wall Street firms for mass fraud, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and Lehman. http://digg.com/business_finance/Fraud_This_is_whe ...
And we're about to hand these people and their buddies a 700 billion dollar check? This could be the biggest criminal heist in world history! - CrazedLeper, on 09/23/2008, -0/+11@econoar said:
"If we're going to play the no government interference game, then people need to take the blame for their own stupidity also."
True, there is no excuse for a lack of prudence; everyone borrowing *should* have counted the cost but, then, we're not talking about a $100 IOU, here. Home mortgages are very complex and almost nobody can acquire a house without a loan. The bankers have, therefore, set themselves up as *the* option and a foregone conclusion when it comes to one of the most basic needs we all have--whether or not we're savvy with economics.
I assert, therefore, that the "experts" are more to blame because they should have seen this along way off and, because they stand to lose little more than some face, I would further suggest that they did. - lnxfi, on 09/23/2008, -1/+12I don't know all the facts, nor will I pretend to. This is something almost everyone saw coming from a mile away. It's getting worse, and worse and worse, but the government did nothing to stop it (both dem and repub).
We get the shaft and still have to pay their salary.
B-Squared - WoollyMittens, on 09/23/2008, -0/+11No. Read up on how the federal reserve works.
The US money supply is completely based on debt. Debt that is owed interest on to the federal reserve. The interest on that debt is paid with loans from the federal reserve.
It's a cycle that will end in complete and utter inflation. - wjlaw100, on 09/23/2008, -1/+12Sounds like the government is protecting the WRONG people on this one.
- algaeturd, on 09/23/2008, -10/+20Revealing what we've known all along...this administration has abused their powers to reach for more powers and they've abused the taxpayers of this country. More secrecy within government, more questionable goals, more abuses for power...what a slap in the face to EVERY American.
The sooner people realize this isn't a bipartisan issue, the sooner we can make sure these EVIL people answer to the charges that they are guilty of treason against the country and the American people by abusing their powers, knowingly lying to the people of America and for hiding evidence in many cases for things like the Iraq war and post 9/11 legislation.
As long as Americans remain apathetic and ignorant on important issues, they will always play the victim to an administration that will GLADLY take advantage of them and SIPHON money into their pockets and the pockets of their unbelievably rich, elite friends. - Erect, on 09/23/2008, -4/+14dugg because it's nice to see a well-worded viewpoint from the opposing side.
- inactive, on 09/23/2008, -0/+10You forgot the /s I assume.
You can't seriously believe that they are protecting us with this crap, can you? - oldgal, on 09/23/2008, -0/+10The top lives in the global economy, not the U.S. economy. Their capital is Dubai.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/23/2008, -5/+15Why don't you do an emotional video to post on YouTube demanding that they leave Palin alone?
- Laminarcissus, on 09/23/2008, -4/+14You're right that something has to be done, and that there is a large contingent of anti-intellectuals who enjoy shouting about what "oughta" happen and about their own theoretical constructs more than understanding that some solution needs to be implemented.
*This* solution, however, should not.
It is yet another unprecedented expansion of executive power, giving the Treasury Secretary the ability to buy any assets he desires, at any price, and makes him above any administrative or even judicial review. It lacks any new regulatory structure to ensure that our $700 billion will be treated by the recipients with any more respect than they treated their customer's money. And the taxpayers, who are risking their own money in this deal, don't even receive stock in the companies taking advantage of the bailout, which would reduce the risk.
So yes, the knee-jerk Libertarians, so-called Constitutionalists, and condescending Ron Paul flunkies are knee-jerking themselves from dumb to dumber, but knee-jerking in the opposite direction and advocating a solution that would be a step in the wrong direction both financially and governmentally isn't any more correct. -
Show 51 - 100 of 358 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is