Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
The “No BAILOUTS Act”
There is nothing more frustrating than listening to defenders of fundamentally flawed bailout plan that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democratic and Republican leaders failed in passing Monday must be "saved" by Democrats who recognized when the House voted on Monday that this was the wrong response.
Pelosi's plan is based on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's wrongheaded scheming. Democrat leaders may have tinkered a bit with the Bush aide's proposal, but certainly not enough to make it acceptable -- let alone wisely enacted.
Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio says, correctly, that the problem with the Democratic speaker's bailout measure, which the House rejected by a 228-205 vote - with progressive Democrats joining fiscally conservative Republicans to say "no" - is that it "is still built on the Paulson-Bush premise."
DeFazio, a Democratic dissenter, says that the bill Pelosi tried to get the House to back Monday demands that taxpayers take on too much of the risk which creating openings for Wall Streeters to pocket millions (perhaps billions) in federal dollars. While the Pelosi plan may put some limits on so-called golden parachutes, it still allows for what DeFazio describes as "camouflage parachutes"--hidden payouts to the corporate CEOs who created the crisis.
"We can do better," says DeFazio. "We should start again on a new package."
That's exactly what the Oregon populist is doing with a new proposal, the "No BAILOUTS Act" (Bringing Accountability, Increased Liquidity, Oversight, and Upholding Taxpayer Security). Introduced Tuesday with co-sponsorship from some of the most outspoken critics of the Paulson machinations - including Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur, a leader of the anti-bailout movement in Congress - the measure would impose a securities tax equivalent to one quarter of one percent of profits and empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to deal more effectively with bank failures.
The plan is based on a proposal made last week by former FDIC chair William Isaac, who recalled that in the 1980s Congress enacted a "net worth certificate" program - which allowed the federal agency to shore up the capital of weak banks to give them more time to resolve their problems - and the FDIC resolved a $100 billion insolvency in savings banks for a total cost of less than $2 billion.
"It was a big success and could work in the current climate," argued Isaac.
The chair of the FDIC during Ronald Reagan's first term explained that that:
If we were to (1) implement a program to ease the fears of depositors and other general creditors of banks; (2) keep tight restrictions on short sellers of financial stocks; (3) suspend fair-value accounting (which has contributed mightily to our problems by marking assets to unrealistic fire-sale prices); and (4) authorize a net worth certificate program, we could settle the financial markets without significant expense to taxpayers.Say Congress spends $700 billion of taxpayer money on the loan purchase proposal. What do we do next? If, however, we implement the program suggested above, we will have $700 billion of dry powder we can put to work in targeted tax incentives if needed to get the economy moving again.
The banks do not need taxpayers to carry their loans. They need proper accounting and regulatory policies that will give them time to work through their problems.
DeFazio, Kaptur and their allies essentially agree.
So, too, does the powerful Service Employees International Union, which has endorsed DeFazio's proposal.
"We finally have a plan that will restore confidence in the financial markets without writing a blank check to the same Wall Street banks and CEOs who got us into this mess," said SEIU President Andy Stern. "This is an important, short-term solution that protects taxpayers and their savings accounts. To revive the economy over the long-term, we must address rising unemployment, stagnant wages, the healthcare crisis, and a tax system that is tilted in favor of the wealthy."
- Posted in
160 Comments so far
Show AllCall your representatives and yes call Republicans. And be nice.
Have. Did. I have to admit, Turner is alot "nicer" now that his re-election is coming up--lol. He has probably totally forgotten the screaming match we got into (I'm not kidding! He was cussing!) about 18 mos. ago. Once he started cussing, I just let it rip!! (It was about whether the laws should be followed, whether they are moral or not--he, in this one case, said that they shouldnt--I suggested that many people might think it was moral to kill Dubya, but, that you should NOT do it, because it would be against the law. He called me everything but a constituent!)
Apparently , he uses those words all the time or he would remember. And, a Cathlic! LOL!!
I got a "neutral " response this time, but, no matter waht he does, I'd never vote for him.
I'd like to see all Democrats unite behind Fazio's plan. If this cannot happen, there's no point in begging the Republicans. The Democrats are supposed to be the "people's party" right? This is why both parties are not worthy of being trusted. Any Democrat that votes against Defazio's plan deserves to be EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY !! NO FUCKING EXCUSES !!
They want to give the crooks tax breaks now too. Democrats give in to Republicans again. When will they ever learn? The local university (UCSC) mascot is a Banana Slug, and it has more spine than our current politicians. Well, most of them are going to be out of a job next year, so they'll have some time to reflect.
Vote Green locally, Nader globally
Obama needs to tell the truth.
Ha! I no longer believe that man even when he says "and" and "the"!
How about this for an incentive: All CEO's, their friends, relatives, congressmen and executive branch people who have made out so handsomly on the last ten years economic scam give back every penny they got from that scam and go to jail for, say, ten years. That should produce enough capital to put Wall Street back in business and restore the faith of the American people at least enough to get us started in the right direction for a change.
Hey! that's what I've been sayin'. Supposedly 39 billion last year alone.
I have made my phone calls and e-mails this morning to both my U.S. Senators, urging them to vote NO on the WORSE Senate bill and to wait and support the DeFazio plan (Kucinich, Katur, etc.). This whole debacle is more proof why we can't trust nor support Democrats in general.
so did i. but i have a bad feeling regarding the senaters in my state.... the reps all voted for the bush bailout monday.
down with the 2 party system. no more excuses.
But you never hear about any dissenting Democrats, it is always about what incentives they can dangle in front of the Republican holdouts. They are treated with the same indifference that the citizens--who oppose this bill 99 to 1, are dismissed with.
Obama is, by the hour, increasingly a disappointment. So much for the hollow platitudes of change. He, by even a small measure, is no Roosevelt, but rather a smooth performer of bipartisan rhetoric (the great compromiser)on a playing field skewed to the Right, play-acting a role, stumbling and feeble when challenged- and not especially driven by high-minded or honorable motives. HClinton was already compromised, but I have to say, she emerged as an increasingly steely brawler. There is something to be said for that with the emerging struggle of class: us sacrificing everything for the elites. She is convincing as any women even when she is not authentic. The same can not be said of Obama, he just does not connect.
Hillary is an incredible street brawler for Hillary. For the people, not so much.
Hillary and Obama are both 100 percent political opportunists. The only difference may be that Hillary has been in Washington so long that she has more entanglements with entrenched interests and it could be more difficult or even impossible for her to ditch those if the political winds blow another way. It may even be that it will always remain impossible for her to move left regardless of how clearly that becomes the politically opportunistic move.
Too bad Hilary said she would "obliterate Iran," on foreign policy she is very much a neo-con. And remember 1992 when she caved very quickly on single payer healthcare and now is the biggest recipient of campaign funds from the HMOs. Sorry but I just don't believe ANYTHING Hilary says.
I'll probably vote for Obama to keep Palin from being near the nuclear trigger and Greens for everything else.
Well, yes, but it was just a very small part of the larger picture I was musing over. But, with each passing day, I am not so sure I will vote for Obama under any circumstances. Why prolong the inevitable--that is all the Dems ever do. They just throw a bone to keep the pack quiet and maybe shaking the status quo is the only formula to really break out of the deepening rut.
BEWARE BAILOUT RD 11, NEW SHADE OF LIPSTICK
By David Swanson
SNIP:
I want a bill immediately to ban predatory mortgage lending, ban states
from preventing cities from restricting predatory lending, and commit
the federal government to allowing states full freedom to restrict
predatory lending.
I want a bill establishing a maximum wage at 10 times the minimum wage,
and including all forms of income in that calculation (and raising the
minimum wage how ever much required to pass the bill). I want the tax
system created by that bill to pay for any necessary bailouts, and want
such bailouts enacted and overseen by Congress.
I also want a Tobin tax on all transactions in finance, insurance, and
real estate, including currency transactions.
I want Congress to haul fraudulent bankers into Washington and force
them to testify, fire them without compensation as part of any bailouts,
and refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution.
I want serious regulation of Wall Street.
I want a five-year moratorium on foreclosures, and a bailout of
homeowners equal to any bailout of bankers.
And, finally, I want $700 billion invested in green energy jobs
immediately, to be paid for by a tax on carbon emissions.
In fact, I would like to see all of these steps included in a single
bill called the "Honest Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008."
Somebody explain to me why that wouldn't be a good move for our economy
and a smart political step for those who propose it.
Mr. Swanson,
It is completely unrealistic to think Congress would pass any bill for any purpose which created a "maximum wage". Especially one only ten times that of the minimum wage.
You know that, so why do you advocate it? It is the blogging equivalent of King Canute shouting at the tide.
And how do you define "predatory mortgage lending?" In the first place, the horse has left the barn and isn't coming back until a cold day in Hell. No one, predator or not, wants to lend mortgage money to anyone these days, even "prime" borrowers. In the second case, how would you discriminate (word chosen deliberately) between a "predatory" mortgage issued to a sub-prime minority homeowner by a nefarious broker and an opportunity for a struggling low-income individual to own her or his own home?
To avoid re-establishing red lining, you would have to rely on such arbitrary measures as outlawing "cold calling" and banning advertising for mortgage brokerage in low-income neighborhoods. Nearly any Supreme Court would knock down such restrictions on commercial speech.
Your proposal for a "five-year moratorium on foreclosures" would reward flippers as well as struggling homeowners and punishingly raise domestic interest rates. Remember that many of the purchasers of the various flavors of mortgage backed securities are foreign banks. It is they who have subsidized US profligacy through their willingness to buy this junk at low "prices" (e.g. low interest rates). If they go on a buyers strike against all debt American the interest payments 9+ trillion dollars the government owes could balloon to a $trillion per YEAR. In that way goes national bankruptcy and a huge crowding out of optional domestic spending. And soon enough a complete debasement of the dollar.
Those horrors may occur anyway, but by banning foreclosures you will speed not delay them.
Finally, if you do all these things you advocate, there will be little enough of Wall Street left that you won't need to regulate it.
As it currently stands, you can re-finanace a mortgage on a SECOND (or third or fourth ) house, yacht, etc, but NOT on your primary residence.
It would not be as difficult as you claim. It would take moreal courage. And, unfortunately the Senate lacks taht these days.
Lock in the interest rates of ARMs. (To 3%--that what we're gonna end up giving Wall St.)OR give Wall St. a "subprime loan" (for those subprime people), and let it adjust to 30% in 6 mos.
If there is no accounting for this rape of equity from the middle and working classes, things wil get worse, trust in the govt will get worse, (if thats possible), and, hopefully, there would be a general tax/work revolt. Of we had decent unions, and, a little "community", people could take care of each other, while working for change. It might be difficult, but no more difficult than this fricking roller-coaster and millions of boarded up houses.
I'm not confident enough that anything will change. There are some only "half-crappy" ideas out there. If they are ignored, I'm afraid Congress will go with the original. If the Mkt tanks anyway, they will say that they didnt pass it soon enough. If they dont pass it, they wil say viola! If they pass it changed, they will blame failure on the changes.
I dont know what to do.I dont think anybody really does. But, we know what has worked before. FDR wasnt called a class traitor for nothing. The GOP has been steadily erroding the New Deal, since before Reagan. We need to get it back,.
"...give Wall St. a "subprime loan" (for those subprime people), and let it adjust to 30% in 6 mos."
Now you're talkin'!
The "unrealistic" argument doesn't cut it any more. It hasn't cut it for a few years now. So now, real is what the people demand, do, think, say. Unreal is what elites demand, do, think, say. So now, the tables are turned.
Realism is now localism. Localism means detaching one's self from the power centers. Shifting one's exchange/association to the local independent economy, away from the global garbage economy. In this New Earth Century, real is local, unreal is global. We progressives have been saying for years now that it's a New Earth Century, NOT a New American Century.
."A man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?" Robert Browning (1855)
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Of course, we are banning EVERYTHING predatory, forever.
A maximum wage at 10 times minimum is excellent. It's well understood as necessary. Just compare the US society with other societies and you'll see why. We're having that along with limiting asset ownership and enterprise size to ten man-powers.
Tobin tax deters currency speculation. We demand the same STRONG deterrent against ALL speculation, BUT it doesn't make sense in non-speculative or non-vice industries. While finance/insurance are vices, they are at a different level than the speculation vice. Finance/insurance serve as a convenience. Unnecessary but not destructive on a fundamnetal level like speculation. The deterrent should be against ABUSE of these instruments.
Which laws can the banking crooks be prosecuted under? Since we lack the laws currently we will exploit this opportunity to pass the laws which will deter future skulduggery.
We won't bail out the homeowners. Taxpayers do not owe them a stay in a house they could not really afford. Let them pay the real price for the stay.
Fantastic idea to invest the same amount in carbon tax to green jobs. There are several related concession we will extract from the elites. We will REVERSE all of the legislation and spending from the past eight years, including all the war profiteering enterprises. It's all garbage isn't it? To the compose heap with all of it!
DeFazio plan is a vast improvement. Can't the "gangsters" can be prosecuted in the usual way? Using the Justice Dept., once the fools are voted out.
P.S. See that long Sat. thread for my belated response.
Which fools do you want to vote out?
Obama has $22 million in contributions from the financial sector in his accounts. And he's been fully on board with the Bush bailout plan.
Do you think an Obama Justice Dept is going to prosecute the people who've paid Obama $22 million primarily to make sure that they don't get prosecuted.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Sadly, absolutely correct.
Sen Obama is a SENATOR! He could put forth legislation right now, to fix the things he's voting FOR (wha??? did I just say?? LOL)
"In practice, we'll continue to have one standard of justice for them; another (much harsher) standard for everyone else."
You must be joking! Not even the O'Bama construct can stop the elites from completing their self-destruction. All of their ideas are broken. They don't work. Everybody knows it. Economic growth without end doesn't work. Fossil gluttony doesn't work. The military approach doesn't work. Wall St doesn't work. Madison Av. doesn't work. K St. doesn't work. Really there aren't many ideas proliferating in the USA today that work any more. The American Way as defined by the elites is over the cliff. And it's no surprise - none of them were conceived as sustainable. So their just demise was fully anticipated. Let it happen and make way for real progress.
Obama, the House and Senate Democrats are setting themselves up for big losses in November by approving a bailout. Perhaps their strategy is to to be the eternal minority party.
The film clip I saw of Obama this morning was striking.
Obama, standing behind a podium labeled "Change we need", giving the reasons why we have to continue the Bush policies of bailing out the rich with the money from the poor and middle class.
Notice that Obama is not for instance backing this no bailout plan.
The funny part is Obama's campaign has been floundering for the last month. The Republicans and the media have put the campaign where they want it. Slams and smears and negative ads and talking about Palin. Obama has been trouble getting any traction.
In some respects, this is a golden opportunity for Obama to win the election right now. Side with the vast majority of Americans who oppose this, and then watch the momentum and energy that would swing to his campaign. Get out with the people protesting outside Wall Street. Go stand with the bank-benchers who blocked the first vote.
If Obama would really stand up for change, he could win the election this week.
But, Obama instead choose to stand with the fat cats who put millions into his campaign. That says all you need to know about Obama and the Democrats. And the clear message is ...
Vote Nader!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I agree. I would hate to quote McCain (who has, sadly become a caricature of his former self), but, I have to think that Obama dosent understand. His
"handlers" (mostly former DLC, who Obama supporters love to rail when it comes to Clinton--they just have a different acronym now) must be advising him the same way they did Kerry and Gore.
He will still win, I believe. But, there will, I predict, be an outcry of disappointment.You certainly dont hear neo-cons rqanting about his financial poliicies, especially his glorifying of the free mkt.
Until we take the money out of politics (NO lobbying--it is NOT "constitutionally protected speech";campaign finance paid for by the taxpayers, and everyone gets the same;no bundling and no corporate donations, of any kind), we will continue down the slope to Third World status.
Obama understands perfectly. He understands who the kingmakers are that took an unknown State Senator and quickly promoted him to would-be-President. Obama understands very well who's funded his campaign. Obama knows exactly what's going on.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Yeah. I guess I meant, that, he doesnt seem to understand (along withe the entire Dem Party) how to fricking get elected by a solid majority. This duopoly has to stop! No other so-called democracies (soon to become a curse word around the world) have this two-party crap.
It leaves about 30% of hte voters "happy" at any one time.
We need proporational representation, a Parliament (yes, I'm serious--teh UK took control of its major bank yesterday, with no charge to taxpayers), and, we need to stop thinking thaat a presidential election can rescue us.
We need much more profound change than either paerty can give us now.
DC is ignoring the housing crisis, the medcial coverage crisis ( not everybody bought McMansions--hell, even those who did, if its not your primary residence, you can re-finance!!) , and living wage, and free state universities.
During yesterday's appearance on "Democracy Now", Robert Johnson, former chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee, was noticeably rueful regarding Obama's position when asked about the candidates' response to the bailout.
He surmised that Obama's support for the Bush/Paulson bailout was predicated on the premise that once Obama gets into office, he will work to "fix" it. I believe that this was only Johnson's educated guess, but it's certainly a stock rationalization to explain away the unimpressiveness of Obama's positions in many areas.
Gee, he'll have an awful lot of fixin' to do, what with fixin' FISA and fixin' up funding for the Good War in Afghanistan and such!
I guess President Unitard and his roomies have indeed reduced the White House to the status of a delapidated Victorian beachfront home rented by college kids for nearly a decade-- a real promising fixer-upper.
ding!
Turn the billionaires into millionaires.
Fantastic! Catchy AND reasonable.
Do you suggest taxes or direct seizure of property?
Remember that much of these "billionaires'" billions are in pure paper and other abstract assets, they could therefore be seized just as easily as the Bastards want to buy the toxic "assets" in this "bailout".
Here is DeFazio's letter introducing the legislation.
As The Oregonian notes, news of The No Bailouts Act is being given the blackout treatment by the usual culprits. It's just this sort of behavior by the Propaganda System that proves how deep the fix is in. I think most of the Reps who voited against the Bush/Paulson extortion bill will back the No Bailouts Act provided it gets support from constituents; but of course, the constituents must know about this alternative, but that information is deliberately being withheld from them.
A "Free Market" is supposed to enjoy a free flow of information so the best decisions are made. It's quite clear that such a market is a chimera.
RichM--As for enforcement of current SEC rules and laws, there isn't any need to write the laws again. However, political pressure must be exerted on the SEC to get it to investigate and arrest some of those responsible for this mess, starting with Paulson. Unfortunately, as I posted on another thread, we have been beating the SEC for YEARS to get it to do its job. Obviously, it's been told not to do its job on orders from on high--yet another impeachable offense. None of the DLC "leaders" have put pressure on the SEC, so we get the outcome we've seen to this point.
Here is the text of the WHOLE bill:
No BAILOUTS Act
Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security
1) Require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require an economic value standard to measure the capital of financial institutions.
This bill will require SEC to implement a rule to suspend the application of fair value accounting standards to financial institutions, which marks assets to the market value, no matter the conditions of the market. When no meaningful market exists, as is the current market for mortgage backed securities, this standard requires institutions to value assets at fire-sale prices. This creates a capital shortfall on paper. Using the economic value standard as bank examines have traditionally done will immediately correct the capital shortfalls experienced by many institutions.
2) Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restricting naked short sells permanently
This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks naked selling, selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring the shares can be borrowed. Such practices many times harm the companies represented in the sales and hurt their efforts to raise capital. There is no economic value produced by naked short sales, but significant negative effects.
3) Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restore the up-tick rule permanently.
This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks short sales without an up-tick in the market. On September 19, 2008, the SEC approved a temporary pause of short selling in financial companies “to protect the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence.” This rule prevents market crashes brought on by irrational short term market behavior.
4) “Net Worth Certificate Program”
This bill will require FDIC to implement a net worth certificate program. The FDIC would determine banks with short-term capital needs and the ability to financially recover in the foreseeable future. For those entities that qualify, the FDIC should purchase net worth certificates in these institutions. In exchange, these institutions issue promissory notes to repay the FDIC, counting the amount “borrowed” as capital on their balance sheets. This exchange provides short term capital, with not cash outlay. Interest rates on the certificates and the FDIC notes should be identical so no subsidy is necessary.
Participating banks must be subject to strict oversight by the FDIC including oversight of top executive compensation and if necessary the removal of poor management. Financial records and business plans should be subject to scrutiny while participating in the program.
In 1982, Congress approved a program, known as the Net Worth Certificate Program, that allowed banks and thrifts to apply for immediate capital assistance. From 1982 to 1993, banks with total assets of $40 billion participated in the program. The majority of these banks, 75%, required no further assistance beyond the certificate program.
5) Increase the FDIC Insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.
The bill will require the FDIC raise its limit to provide depositors confidence that their money is safe and help eliminate runs on banks which are destabilizing to the industry
FDIC currently has 45 billion as coverage for 4.4 trillion in deposits limited to 100,000. And he wants to raise this to 250,000? This means the banks have to come up with another 60 billion to give FDIC. Those banks most at risk of failing would have to pay more per insured deposits than the too big to fail banks. This increases the risk of small bank failures to insure those who have the most money, usually kept in the big banks. The middle class for the most part does not have 100,000 per account (200,000 per joint account), let alone 250,000 per account (500,000 per joint account). No matter what amount is insured, FDIC will only have 1.15 cents on the dollar.
The only ones who benefit from this are corporations who deposit their money in banks and the well off. It does nothing for main street living from pay check to pay check.
The bill does not even come close to identifying the real issues, which are the unregulated OTC Derivatives Market, foreclosures, the toxic waste held by Fannie and Freddie, the mushrooming public debt (increased 880 billion this past year) and the credit crunch/declining real incomes on main street. It seems more focused on propping up the DOW which is an illusive measure of the economies health.
Ah, predicting the future raydelcamino. Don't we wish.
the "No BAILOUTS Act" (Bringing Accountability, Increased Liquidity, Oversight, and Upholding Taxpayer Security).
In
Creating
Ridiculous
Aconyms
Politicians
Potentially
Earn
Dollars
Misusing
Your
Slowly
Earned
Lifetime
Finances
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Bravo! I think the substance of the "No BAILOUTS Act" is better than the refried crap they're planning to pass tonight, but I wondered myself who the hell took the time to devise that acronym.
It's just a touch too clever, especially considering the necessity of prefacing it with a "No", which gives it an ironic self-negating quality that may prove closer to the truth.
Although I would like to see this debated to flesh it out, it appears to be a step in the right direction (at least on the surface). I especially am hopeful of the intent to require some regulation and instill accountability.
Good post. thanks
Meanwhile, Sen. Reid and the Democratic leadership are going in the other direction. They are making deals with the Republicans to add more business tax breaks and other goodies for corporate America. Sen. Reid's big plan is to pass this bill today, then adjurn the Senate to hold the House hostage to passing their plan.
This is what you got when you elected the Dems the majority party in Congress in 2006.
Throw all the bums out. Don't vote for either Dem or Repub in this election.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
The DeFazio proposal is by far, the best one out there so far. It is missing a vital element though: allowing individual homeowners the right to re-negotiate their mortgage with their lender, or under the aegis of a bankruptcy judge. This was probably left out as this the biggest anathema to the corporate clowns who created this mess, and would therefore fight tooth, nail, and brass knuckle to keep this out. The SA wing of the Repugs (whom are calling for even more deregulation and letting the businesses fail at the price of a depression), and the Country Clubbers (who the Repug Brown Shirt wing royally screwed earlier this week) are "united" on the aforementioned provision not making it into any rescue package as it would aid their mortal enemies.
The FDIC is already underfunded at the $100,000.00 protection level. It makes no sense to raise the level to $250.000.00, this is just more of the same protecting the rich while handing off the responsibility to the taxpayers to bail them out if the plan fails.
The new tax credits in the Senate plan are aimed at the Upper Middle Class, not those in the Middle middle or the Lower middle.
Washington still doesn't get it. They still believe that the Middle class can bail out the economy with consumer spending. It cannot. The Middle class is underfunded and the problem is structural. The Senate and House plans both rely on the belief that the Middle class can spend us out of this recession. Therefore any bail out money to Wall Street is wasted money because the economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Wall Street and Washington are simply in denial and discounting the rising voices of the people. So, nothing will get better, the pain will just be made worse and be put off for a short time longer.
We were demoted from citizen to consumer. Now that we are not consumers what are we?
Wage-Slaves.
A herd waiting to be culled.
What seems really important is that a transaction tax of .1 or .2 of 1% needs to be added to each stock transaction. This discourages the gambling aspect of Wall Street and encourages long term investment. The revenue from this tax then goes into a fund to help pay off whatever bailout might be required. Other European countries have done this, and it works! How can we bring this to the attention of at least a few key people in Washington? Any suggestions?
raydelcamino October 1st, 2008 11:49 am
Obama, the House and Senate Democrats, are setting themselves up for big losses in November by approving a bailout. Perhaps their strategy is to to be the eternal minority party.
I agree wholeheartedly. Why bother with the hassle of actually governing, stating out being liked, giving people "hope", and then end up face down in an unflushed toilet? It's so much easier, and just as profitable, being the perpetual minority party. You want 700 Rolex watches and the biggest mansion on The Mainline? . . . you can steal the money just as easily being the drunk as being the bouncer.
Pelosi must must must be removed from office, she's beyond pathetic. I'm sending Cindy Sheehan more money. How ridiculous is it that Pelosi supports the Paulson and Bush bailout while dissenting republicans say no! BE Gone OH Botox Princess! You're banished from the realm.
Being as I am not economist, I do not quite understand how this plan would truly work to fix the problems at hand. Can anyone explain in layman's terms what each provision of this bill entails?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts."
-- John Keats