What is Digg?223 Comments
- BuddyOne, on 11/17/2008, -6/+270Oh my, you mean that our politicians have been lying to us? Will wonders never cease.
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -2/+199Did anyone think that the government was going to get this right? Did anyone think they had the best interest of the American people at the core of their motivation?
We need to stop these people, by whatever means necessary. - dremango, on 11/17/2008, -4/+106Press Release U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.):
November 15, 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), in a letter to his Senate colleagues, laid out his plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress. In the letter, Senator Inhofe writes that the lame duck session provides Congress a tremendous opportunity to change course. Below is the text of the letter.
Dear Colleague,
I write to inform you of the actions I will be taking during the lame duck session of Congress regarding the funding status of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Given the recent news about Secretary Paulson's execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. I plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress.
In my statement opposing the Paulson Plan last month, I laid out two primary reasons why I voted ‘no.' The first is that I wasn't convinced that asset-purchase program was the right way to do this, and the second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble.
I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan - not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms' balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government.... I'm not confident in its success."
The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted that "critics...say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face, as summarized by November 13th Investor's Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer. "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn't work."
I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.
During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions. First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment. I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.
Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th that "the financial markets have been stabilized." If that is the case, it is Congress's duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of a catastrophic financial crisis, which was the justification for the grant of such sweeping authority, has subsided. Perhaps the additional $350 billion should not be added to the deficit. Congress should have a debate.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to working with you in the coming week.
Sincerely,
Senator Jim Inhofe
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi ... - these3remain, on 11/17/2008, -4/+90Kudos to Jim Inhofe. Now write your senators and tell them to support his proposal - and NO MORE BAILOUTS!
- EMFK, on 11/17/2008, -2/+80We're shocked...absolutely shocked. /sarcasm
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -8/+79There are sleezy people and even some criminals on both sides of the isle. Citizens must be diligent.
1. Dump Paulson or at least put him on a shorter leash.
2. Let's talk about charges against BARNEY FRANK and CHRISTOPHER DODD. They we key players in the FANNIE AND FREDDIE mess. They need to be drummed out of Washington and perhaps to a nice country club Federal Prison.
3. It's about time we talk about TERM LIMITS one of these days... Career politicians in the House and Senate must become a thing of the past. - shnizep, on 11/17/2008, -0/+46The sad thing is we should be shocked by something like this.
- stuckinneutral, on 11/17/2008, -0/+45Wow. I didn't vote for this guy because he was saying McCain would win. But I am glad he is representing what is right.
- inboxnews, on 11/17/2008, -0/+41They lied again. This is really getting old.
- thecoolestguy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+36NoLibertarian wants absolutely no oversight over how the people's money is spent. Remarkable.
- Striker101, on 11/17/2008, -1/+30don't forget that both fool parties pushed it through
- ricker2005, on 11/17/2008, -2/+26That title is a blatant lie. Inhofe didn't suggest in any way that Paulson gave the money to his friends. Inhofe was saying that the distribution of the money from the bailout wasn't transparent.
This story is important. Don't coat it with crap. - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -1/+25NoLib, you are the #1 troll on digg. I've never witnessed anything like it! You should start a class at your local community college. It could be a no credit course, "How to troll Digg like a pro."
Maybe an infomercial. I'm telling you you could be the next Billy Mays. - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -2/+25possible titles for the 2008 American History Class in the next updated edition...
When Banks are Robbed by Bankers
The Great American Bank Robbery By Bankers
Do You Wanna Taste of My Ice Scream!? - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -12/+35Just imagine how well they'll do w/"Socialized med" . . . ! Has the gov't NOT f'd up any biz they've ever touched?
- lpferris, on 11/17/2008, -0/+23Never before have the words "No *****, Sherlock" been more appropriate.
- lanesharon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+21I am all for those TERM LIMITS, but as citizens, we have a job to hold them accountable for doing THEIR jobs. We need to start getting involved by watching legislation, pork that is added, and how it is enabled and utilized. Since the media will not be our watch-dogs, we need to do this job ourselves.
- richmomz, on 11/17/2008, -1/+22Why do you think he insisted on there being NO OVERSIGHT? No question; this bailout nonsense is the biggest heist in history.
- zizzybaloobah, on 11/17/2008, -6/+26These are the kinds of things that happen when an electorate 'votes for change' in the Presidency yet keeps returning the same old scoundrels to Capitol Hill again and again.
- wynja, on 11/17/2008, -1/+21Wow, who could have ever thought that Paulson would give all this money to his buddies. I mean he seems like such a stand up guy having overseen Lehman Brothers through the worst of the subprime loan purchasing.
- mshtml, on 11/17/2008, -0/+19They will scare the ***** out of the population over and over taking more and more every time. 9/11, the Patriot Act, $700 billion. Its just getting started. You'll beg them to stick you in a cage for your own safety by the time they get done with you.
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -1/+20There are a few beacons of light in the mire of Congress. Inhofe is one.
- superkendall, on 11/17/2008, -3/+21Gave "The Bush Administration"???
Hey, Obama and the Democrats were ALL IN on that bill! They have control, if they didn't like it don't you think they could stop it? - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -8/+25Ron Paul 2012.
- martalli, on 11/17/2008, -0/+15It's time for traditional action: tar and feather them and ride them out on a rail!
- muckemuck, on 11/17/2008, -1/+16HAHA! You voted for one of the crooks who voted that bailout into being. Have you learned your lesson? The Republicans and Democrats just ripped you off. Will you vote for them again in 2010?
- seventoes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+15"sorry, but the hell with the second amendment. i say we go straight to plan B: Violence. "
To hell with shooting them, let's use violence! - KMye, on 11/17/2008, -1/+16The fact that there is no oversight, and that those involved have been actively opposing all attempts at transparency is not in dispute. This doesn't make you worried at all? Inhofe didn't say that Paulson had given it to his friends, he said he could have and we'd have no way to know at present....
- allowners, on 11/17/2008, -0/+15Wow, change course at the end, what a concept. I guess they're all a great bunch after all, just misunderstood. Ass holes.
- thecoolestguy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+15The point of oversight is to be able to catch corruption. Without oversight corruption will go undetected. Remarkable how little you care.
- Troy64, on 11/17/2008, -3/+17I couldn't agree more about term limits, but it will never happen.
If it did, I would like to see three terms in congress and two in the Senate and no working as a lobbyist afterwords.
Let them stay in long enough to get something accomplished, but not long enough to forget who they represent. - engelb15, on 11/17/2008, -2/+16I completely agree with that, especially #2...but don't forget about Rick Davis, Alan Greenspan, Phil Graham, Chris Cox and Bill Donaldson. The financial problems we are currently facing are NOT due to partisan politics, they are about greed and the guilty should be prosecuted.
- muckemuck, on 11/17/2008, -0/+14over 90% were reelected.. stupid people voted for the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the bailout. Ugh.
- DifferentAngle, on 11/17/2008, -2/+15Are you just going to talk? Or are you going to use the 2nd amendment as its original intent?
- rexblade, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13Well technically no since we didn't have it anyway all this ***** is just throwing around deficit money. Really who do these bailout abusers think they are? The audacity that they would even pull a fast one with this should result in fraud charges, prison time and everything they have should be sold off. Then they can see what it's like on this side.
- iamghost, on 11/18/2008, -0/+13***** Guns
Use Violence! - beesaretasty, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13It's not often that I'll say this, but that republican senator is right on. It's horrifying to think that even our senators have no idea how much money is left of the initial 350 Billiion dollars, but to see Paulson changing his strategy from bad to worse with the rest of it is sickening. This plan is in no way a plan to make things better for the average American and it never was.
When companies fail, it's bad, but if they were providing a worthwhile product or service, you can be sure that somebody will step in to pick up the slack. If some people have to be laid off because their business wasn't providing a valuable product or because it was doing it inefficiently, so be it. - PleaseJustDie, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13Write him twice then.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -1/+13i seem to think a certain obama wanted this plan too...
i also think the largest opposition to this bail out was from the republicans.. and the opposition written of in this letter is from a republican..
just sayin.. - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12Aw shucks, I sure as heck didn't see that one comin'!
- AndrewMoyer, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12This bailout was basically the patriot act for Wall St.
- elleigh2, on 11/17/2008, -1/+13Hell no!
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -2/+13Considering the Bush family has been a shareholder in the Federal Reserve since the beginning, I doubt he needs the silver.
- martalli, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11Once again they pulled a "disaster looms if you don't vote this minute" ploy. Looking back, they have brought up imminent disaster only when thoughtful reflection was needed, and then failed to act on real disasters. It is not an ideological problem, but an issue of pure incompetence.
- rz8472, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11Jim Inhofe is the most far-right member of the Senate... and for once I agree with him.
- Striker101, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11good comment, except you forgot the DEM are deep in the same muckity-muck.
- jasoninoakland, on 11/17/2008, -4/+15The GOP seems to care about fiscal responsibility only when it's not running things.
If there were a better case for a GOP minority in government, I haven't seen it. - erasedgod, on 11/17/2008, -3/+14To which his colleagues responded:
tl;dr - Autodidaddict, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11How come congress can ***** things up bipartisanly but never fix things by working together?
Just sayin.... - klui, on 11/17/2008, -1/+12Is it any surprise that Congress has a lower approval rate than Bush? They were voted for it but didn't realize Paulson would be dumb enough to make their plans so well known to the general public. I'm disappointed Barack voted for it. And don't tell the people "I'll vote for it now but once I'm president, I'll do whatever I can to unlegislate it."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 233 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is