The "bail out" is another scam

[wolfstrike]

this "bail-out" money is going to turn out to be another big payday for these corporate idiots.

America is using an illegal monitary system, and suffering very badly for letting government people collect illegal taxes and piss their money away in calculated scams.

the heads of Freddy Mac and Fannie May were paid 20 million dollars.
what a nice way to file bankruptcy.

they are talking about using the money in a lot of ways, what their not talking about is how they plan to help individuals with their loans.

they are planning to use the money for other bad debts on Wall Street, foreign banks, and their are no limits to who they can give money to for what reasons.
in-other-words, CEOs are going to be walking away with public money.


this new "bail-out" is a power grab for the Federal Reserve which will be given all kinds of new powers.

probably the scariest part is, judges will be allowed to get involved with your PRIMARY home loan, they will be able to get in there and change your rates...and other things.

sure, the idea is to HELP you, ...and it's a great idea since the legal system has no history of taking bribes and working for the rich


____________________________________


the way i see it,

it all started when the Federal Reserve lowered the interest rates.

people all around the nation, and especially on the west coast started buying houses.

the unregulated money lenders got the idea to handle this market with scam loans and they relaxed the qualifying requirments, because they were making money off of the transactions, knowing that real estate was way over inflated and most people would have to give their property back.

so after the heads of the loaning houses collected their inflated paychecks, they simply go to their corrupt buddies in government and tell them they're broke.

the corrupt government approves a massive public money grab, which, no doubt, will end in higher taxes, and everyone walks away
laughing as usual.

[BamaCool]

:DI lost $200 this week on a compressor job. I'm trying really hard to get in on this "bail out", but can't get anybody at the White House to answer the phone!

[Andy Schoen]

I'm trying really hard to get in on this "bail out", but can't get anybody at the White House to answer the phone!

LOL!!! I feel your pain.

I suppose my greatest fear is our Government will soon have sizeable control over our financial markets. Given a little bit of intelligence on their part, they may decide to control it.

And with universal health care looming... :eek:

[batdude]

initial estimated tax hike per family to pay for it: $2 to 5 k.

ultimate cost unknown, allows 700 billion in the fund "at a time"
which could in theory keep turning over until they have stolen every dime.

saw this at afterDowningSt.
TEN REASONS WHY BUSH'S PROPOSED BAILOUT IS LARCENY

* 1. Lack of accountability or transparency, resulting in a "blank check" of up to $1 trillion. Section 8 of the Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan2 reads, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion... "

That means that the American people can never review and will never know how the (first)$1 trillion was spent by the Bush administration.

* 2. Lack of legal recourse for inappropriate use of $1 trillion in funds. Section 8 of the Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan3 concludes, "... and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

That means that no matter how the Bush administration spends the (first)$1 trillion, they can't be sued or otherwise held liable for it. Even if the funds are used fraudulently or for any improper or unrelated purpose.

* 3. Lack of specific or objective criteria to determine who should be bailed out, which could result in cronyism, fraud, favoritism based on political affiliation or other misuse of taxpayers' funds. (Wanna bet Goldman is first in line?)

Recipients of bailout funds are determined solely by the Treasury Secretary. There are no financial benchmarks, nor prohibitions of giving funds to related parties or based on partisan or other discriminatory factors. There are also no prohibitions of kickbacks.

* 4. Lack of specific valuation criteria for "illiquid assets" acquired by the federal government, which would result in overpayments to institutions who made or purchased the bad investments.

The Bush bailout plan is silent on what price the Treasury Secretary must pay the financial services industry to bailout their bad mortgage loans. Will the Secretary pay fair market value (i.e. what the "illiquid asset" is worth today) or will he pay the premium value of what the bad loan used to be worth before the market dropped?

This is important because if the Secretary pays the higher premium price, then American taxpayers are automatically stuck with losses that likely can never be recouped.

Normal business, and consumer, practice is to pay for an asset what it's actually worth on that day (i.e. fair market value). Princeton economist Paul Krugman describes4 "having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets" as "in effect throwing taxpayers’ money at the financial world."

For more, see Concerns about the Treasury Rescue Plan5 by the Brookings Institute.

* 5. Lack of plan, budget or staff to oversee and account for this massive new Treasury Department function, which will inevitably cause a significant expansion in federal government bureaucracy.

This would be a massive undertaking on an unprecedented scale, and would cost billions of dollars in new federal government bureaucracy needs.... costs that would be passed on (coincidentally?) to the next presidential administration, and not borne by George Bush.

And yet, Section 76 of the Bush bailout plan gives unlimited powers to the Treasury Secretary: "Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure."

* 6. Lack of reform or regulation of, or any measure control over, institutions bailed out. Incredibly, the Bush bailout plan requires no changes in the failed practices of the financial services industry.

Economist Robert Reich is spot-on when he writes that7 as a bailout condition, Wall Street firms must "agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation.

The regulations would "emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess."


# 7. Lack of restrictions on salaries, bonuses, stock options or any other compensation for executives bailed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banking firms, regards limits on compensation of Wall Street executives as a "poison pill."8

The Bush bailout plan proposal is silent on limits on salaries, bonuses, stock options or any financial penalties of any kinds for executives of firms bailed out by taxpayers.... despite that fact that top investment firm executives each take home millions annually.

For a glaring example, see "Fury at $2.5 Billion Bonus for Lehman's New York Staff"9.

In essence, Wall Street executives are protected by the Bush bailout plan, while "Main Street" Americans take 100% of the fiscal responsibility for the executives' bad decisions.

# 8. Lack of punitive measures for institutions or executives bailed out. Likewise, the Bush White House proposal for bailout plan10 is entirely silent on punitive measures or penalties for either the firms bailed out or or the executives of those firms.

# 9. Lack of any homeowner protections or any for individual investors. No protections of any kind are given to homeowners whose mortgages may be foisted on the federal government. In fact, the Bush White House proposal for bailout plan gives the Treasury Department several incentives to accelerate foreclosure on homes to generate more cash for Treasury Department use.

# 10. Lack of any plan to reimburse taxpayers, and lack of any plan to recoup taxpayer losses on these bad loans from future profits of institutions that made these bad loans.

At best, taxpayers will see only partial repayment of bad mortgage loans bought by the Treasury Department for two reasons: 1. The Treasury Department plans to pay premium prices to the bailed out banks, and 2. Under the Section 7 of Bush's Proposed BailoutPplan, "... the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued... including (for) the payment of administrative expenses."

At worst, of course, Americans taxpayers will see no repayment at all.

Bottom line: The Treasury Department plans to spend proceeds from the sale of foreclosed homes, and they aren't accountable to anyone for how they spend those funds, no matter how inappropriate or even fraudulent the expenditures. Summary of Bush's Blank-Check Bailout Plan
In summary, under the Bush administration's Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan11, the biggest institutions in the financial services industries would be protected from their losses and the executives would be shielded from any negative consequences.

U.S. taxpayers carry the burden (i.e. own) of up to $1 trillion or more of "illiquid assets," for which there is no plan or budget to collect the "assets" in order to reimburse taxpayers. This is the equivalent of a new tax on every U.S. household of from $2,000 to $5,000.

Meanwhile, those bailed out suffer no financial consequences and retain all present and future profits. And the brokers, realtors and investment bankers keep all their rich profits and commissions from these loans gone bad.


The end result?

By the grace of good timing, the Bush administration's $700 billion to $1 trillion bail-out plan for its donors, cronies and pals in the financial services industry will cripple the next president from undertaking universal health care, strengthening public education, shoring up Social Security, and so much more that... coincidentally?... the Bush administration despises.

All this just six weeks before the '08 presidential election, and just one short week before Congress adjourns until after the election... when Republicans and the Bush administration will presumably lose all opportunity to push legislation of this gargantuan magnitude.

Coincidentally fortuitous timing or one last ultra-greedy power grab by the cynical Bush administration?

Based on the Bush administration's checkered history, I vote for the latter.

[The Doctor]

LOL!!! I feel your pain.

I suppose my greatest fear is our Government will soon have sizeable control over our financial markets. Given a little bit of intelligence on their part, they may decide to control it.

And with universal health care looming... :eek:

Speaking of universal health care (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20080923/ts_pew/63governmentguaranteedhealthcare)

and from the text of that article,"even if it means raising taxes".

Count me out.

[frozensolid]

Well the general opinion around here is Reps are good and Dems are bad. Sure we can trust the Reps without oversight. The Dems are a bunch of commies just trying to wreck the economy…right. The sky is falling the sky is falling, hurry don’t think just give us the money. The American economy has been robbed blind by these guys now they want us to refill the kitty. Give me a break.

Only a fool will give this Admin or any other a trillion dollar blank check.

The two party system is a failure. It has only served to divide America. It is time to eliminate it and restore the power to the people. Instead of running as a Republican or Democrat you will have to run as an American. Partisan politics can’t happen without partisans.

I hope you all bought some gold like I have suggested before. Because the Dollar is about to hit the Sh!tter.

[frozensolid]

I guess to you guys George Washington was a commie too.

http://nowthatsironic.blogspot.com/2005/02/george-washingtons-view-of-party.html

[The Doctor]

"Media reports have said that banks may be asked to give up part of their equity to a new government fund that would serve as a last resort buyer for bad mortgages and other debt in order to rescue banks' balance sheets."

(from a Yahoo! news article on the "tough negotiations" :rolleyes: going on over the bailout bill.)

Translation: take more money from the private sector and put it into the public sector.

[forged alloy]

Earlier I feared the program that would change the fabric of our free society would be socialized healthcare.

Looks like I missed the forest for all the trees. The mortgage issue is only a portion of the ills in our financial problems. Our government prancing about trying to snuff out all the individual fires is unlikely to solve systemic problems.

The speed that our congessional and executive leadership wants to move headlong into such a radical solution is very troubling. What the **** is going on?

[k-fridge]

Well the general opinion around here is Reps are good and Dems are bad.

Nah, most of us here think both parties suck.

But sometimes one sucks more than the other. :p

[whec720]

I smell a rat with this bail out bill. I think we are better off just letting the recession run its course. Let the markets correct this. The government will just screw it up even more. Anyone who votes yes for the bill, pays at the ballot box. November 3rd, Congress....WE ARE WATCHING!!:p

[bootlen]

Totally agree, WHEC. My mom always said, "Be careful how long you dance...the band expects to be paid."

All those lenders and borrowers have danced. Let THEM pay the band.

[crackertech]

Totally agree, WHEC. My mom always said, "Be careful how long you dance...the band expects to be paid."

All those lenders and borrowers have danced. Let THEM pay the band.

Ditto.

[BamaCool]

LOL!!! I feel your pain.

I suppose my greatest fear is our Government will soon have sizeable control over our financial markets. Given a little bit of intelligence on their part, they may decide to control it.

And with universal health care looming... :eek:
Intelligence???? In the government???? Where do you think they'll get that from???

[Snoring Beagle]

Until this banking system that relies on "Fractional Reserves Banking" is turned into a "Full Reserve Banking" system this crisis will repeat itself again.


Any time you can lend money you don't have or sell stock you don't own your financial system is a house of cards built on sand.

Check out how Banker and Brokers do just that.

Fractional reserve banking is a way of turning $10,000 into $100,000.

The bank(s) can earn interest on $90,000 instead of $10,000.

That assumes if the reserve is 10%. In reality if certain criteria is met the reserve needed to be legal is only 3%.

This whole system has history dating back to feudal England and was considered fraud back then and should still be considered fraud today.

Fractional Reserve Banking is the main reason why Banks fear a "run on the bank" and why it took a just few weeks to bring down Wall Street.
Cause as of now, Wall Street as we knew it, no longer exists.

Check it out!.

[rango]

Way cheaper and more productive to give the people in danger of foreclosure a low interest government loan and take a percentage back on the upside when they sell.Does a couple things. Takes all that property off the market so prices stabilize, give the bankers only what the have coming, and doesn't cost us a s much. Maybe even gives us a profit in the future. It's worked before and should work again.

[mrs reb77]

Fraud? Funny that's mentioned.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/23/news/companies/fbi_finance/index.htm?cnn=yes

FBI probing bailout firms
Investigators start search for fraud at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG, sources say.

[mrs reb77]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/23/news/companies/freddie_mac_exec_comp.ap/index.htm

$900,000 salary for Freddie Mac CEO
The seized lender's new chief executive, David Moffett, will receive base pay that is 25% lower than his predecessor.
September 23, 2008: 6:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mortgage finance company Freddie Mac says its new chief executive is earning a base salary of $900,000 a year, a 25% pay cut from his predecessor who also received sizable bonuses and stock options.

The company, seized by the government earlier this month, said in a regulatory filing that CEO David Moffett will earn the salary while his final compensation package is determined by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which controls Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) and sibling Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500).

Moffett, formerly vice chairman of US Bancorp, started at Freddie earlier this month after ex-CEO Richard Syron was ousted as part of the government's takeover.

Syron received $19.8 million in compensation last year from McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac, including a $1.2 million salary, a nearly $3.5 million bonus and $771,585 in other compensation. He also received stock and options valued by the company at $14.3 million at the time they were awarded.