I suppose we could regard this bill as a litmus test for our democracy… its passage would pretty much translate as a gigantic “F-you” to everyone who pays taxes in America, letting us all know that these legislators care nothing for us, our homes, or the future of this country. Alternatively, if we WERE able to beat this thing, it might mean there’s hope yet for our democratic process, despite everything that is weighing against it.
I’ll be calling both Senators today, and my congressman if this bill makes it through the Senate… I guess that’s the best we can do in the face of so much hysterical propaganda.
I just want to say, this bill seems to me like we’re giving a known arsonist an unlimited supply of gasoline and matches, and then asking him to help the firefighters put out the fire that HE actually started. Completely ridiculous, right? It seems to me, a better approach would be to provide the arsonist with intense psychotherapy (far, far away from the fire or anything flammable), and arm the people of the town with buckets, garden hoses, and anything else that will help the firefighters keep the town safe.
The media-military-industrial complex has lied to us too many times to be trusted… even the democrats should be regarded as part of the problem (in my eyes). This time, we’re just going to have to let the wolf eat the little boy.
Posted by diciteco on Oct 1, 2008 at 5:50 AM
Those in congress are putting on a show of reluctance in order to keep their cushy jobs. They, like Bush, are saying we need to rework the system to prevent this ever happening again. It is pure BS!
Most of these guys were there when the Glass Stiegall Act was repealed, when commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, savings and loans were all allowed free reign.
They were charged with oversight along with the Fed, SEC, Treasury, rating agencies, insurers
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 2, 2008 at 8:25 AM
I oppose the bailout, the rescue, the whatever we are going to call it today plan that rewards failure both at the corporate and personal levels.
I despise the idea of the .gov dictating what a CEO can earn. Who the hell are they or anyone else to tell me how high I can rise? I equally despise the “we must” mentality to corporate welfare. Finally I don’t want the .gov stepping in an arbitrarily deciding that a valid contract between a CEO and his company is summarily invalidated.
Since all three of those actually conflict with each other the only solution is to let Darwin take its’ course. Those that can survive, will do so. Those that cannot will die. Trust me on this, there will still be someone ready, willing, and able to accept your mortgage check at the end of the month.
Finally, please site the appropriate authority in the US Constitution for this action. Only an imagination capable of envisioning Alice In Wonderland while not stoned will try to stretch the Commerce Clause to fit this. Apparently there are 545 People who possess such an imagination.
http://the—realist.blogspot.com
http://the—realist.blogspot.com/2008/08/545-people.html
Posted by Phillip on Oct 2, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Progressive politicians and movements missed a great chance in responding to the “financial crisis.” Since the banking systems freezing up was due to holding a large number of “subprime” loans to low and moderate income people, many of which were behind in payments or expected to default, the progressive answer should have immediately addressed this root problem. We should have proposed a “rescue” plan for the borrowers, in the form of government-financed mortgage payment vouchers, covering the difference between what a family at a given income level could afford to pay, and the actual payments the borrowers were asking for.
This would have had three effects: (1) The moderate and low-income people who had bought badly needed houses would not be thrown out of them or forced to give up essentials to make their payments; (2) the financial institutions would immediately have their assets restored by the fact that the mortgages were no longer risky or nonperforming but were actually going to be paid off over their term; (3) since the mortgages were no longer “sub-prime” but essentially guaranteed by the government assistance to the borrowers, the lenders could be required to lower the excessive interest charged on them to a normal prime rate, so the taxpayers would not be helping to pay excessive interest rates.The size of the vouchers could be adjusted up in cases of unemployment or serious illness reducing family income, or reduced (but not dollar for dollar) when family income increased.
A “rescue plan for homeowners” would have been be enormously more popular than a “bailout of Wall Street.” Of course money would “trickle up” from them to the financial institutions (at a normal rate of interest), restoring their assets and ability to engage in normal transactions.But it would help large numbers of lower and moderate income people become homeowners, and maintain their ability to buy other goods, helping the overall economy. And the terms of the mortgages could be stretched out to eventually repay the taxpayers for the subsidies advanced.
Furthermore the “bailout” would not be an enormous sum quickly advanced to financial institutions, but much more modest sums paid out in mortgage vouchers annually over the term of the mortgages.
In this crisis everyone - including progressive politicians and social movements - had their attention narrowed to the issue of “whether or not to give huge sums to Wall Street,” and failed to see the alternative of a “bottom-up” solution which helps borrowers while restoring the ability of financial institutions to function. The Democratic Party leaders are particularly at fault for this, as are the chaotically organized progressive organizations, and the professional economists, especially those writing coumns or making public statements.
Once a more progressive government wins power it could offer to extend housing subsidies to all low income people, by offering non-homeowners mortgage vouchers under strictly regulated conditions, and expanding the miserably limited sums available for low-income rental subsidies.This would implement the basic progressive principle that housing is a right which the government should help provide to families who can’t afford it on low incomes. This would be a major redistributive program alongside free public education, college scholarships, social security, and subsidized health services.
Posted by allenbarton on Oct 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Well, the bailout (sellout) has saved us! We can sleep well once again.
Yeah, sure.
At least someone benefitted by the time pondering how to vote for it without appearing to
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Reader Comments
I suppose we could regard this bill as a litmus test for our democracy… its passage would pretty much translate as a gigantic “F-you” to everyone who pays taxes in America, letting us all know that these legislators care nothing for us, our homes, or the future of this country. Alternatively, if we WERE able to beat this thing, it might mean there’s hope yet for our democratic process, despite everything that is weighing against it.
I’ll be calling both Senators today, and my congressman if this bill makes it through the Senate… I guess that’s the best we can do in the face of so much hysterical propaganda.
I just want to say, this bill seems to me like we’re giving a known arsonist an unlimited supply of gasoline and matches, and then asking him to help the firefighters put out the fire that HE actually started. Completely ridiculous, right? It seems to me, a better approach would be to provide the arsonist with intense psychotherapy (far, far away from the fire or anything flammable), and arm the people of the town with buckets, garden hoses, and anything else that will help the firefighters keep the town safe.
The media-military-industrial complex has lied to us too many times to be trusted… even the democrats should be regarded as part of the problem (in my eyes). This time, we’re just going to have to let the wolf eat the little boy.
Posted by diciteco on Oct 1, 2008 at 5:50 AM
Those in congress are putting on a show of reluctance in order to keep their cushy jobs. They, like Bush, are saying we need to rework the system to prevent this ever happening again. It is pure BS!
Most of these guys were there when the Glass Stiegall Act was repealed, when commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, savings and loans were all allowed free reign.
They were charged with oversight along with the Fed, SEC, Treasury, rating agencies, insurers
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 2, 2008 at 8:25 AM
I oppose the bailout, the rescue, the whatever we are going to call it today plan that rewards failure both at the corporate and personal levels.
I despise the idea of the .gov dictating what a CEO can earn. Who the hell are they or anyone else to tell me how high I can rise? I equally despise the “we must” mentality to corporate welfare. Finally I don’t want the .gov stepping in an arbitrarily deciding that a valid contract between a CEO and his company is summarily invalidated.
Since all three of those actually conflict with each other the only solution is to let Darwin take its’ course. Those that can survive, will do so. Those that cannot will die. Trust me on this, there will still be someone ready, willing, and able to accept your mortgage check at the end of the month.
Finally, please site the appropriate authority in the US Constitution for this action. Only an imagination capable of envisioning Alice In Wonderland while not stoned will try to stretch the Commerce Clause to fit this. Apparently there are 545 People who possess such an imagination.
http://the—realist.blogspot.com
http://the—realist.blogspot.com/2008/08/545-people.html
Posted by Phillip on Oct 2, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Progressive politicians and movements missed a great chance in responding to the “financial crisis.” Since the banking systems freezing up was due to holding a large number of “subprime” loans to low and moderate income people, many of which were behind in payments or expected to default, the progressive answer should have immediately addressed this root problem. We should have proposed a “rescue” plan for the borrowers, in the form of government-financed mortgage payment vouchers, covering the difference between what a family at a given income level could afford to pay, and the actual payments the borrowers were asking for.
This would have had three effects: (1) The moderate and low-income people who had bought badly needed houses would not be thrown out of them or forced to give up essentials to make their payments; (2) the financial institutions would immediately have their assets restored by the fact that the mortgages were no longer risky or nonperforming but were actually going to be paid off over their term; (3) since the mortgages were no longer “sub-prime” but essentially guaranteed by the government assistance to the borrowers, the lenders could be required to lower the excessive interest charged on them to a normal prime rate, so the taxpayers would not be helping to pay excessive interest rates.The size of the vouchers could be adjusted up in cases of unemployment or serious illness reducing family income, or reduced (but not dollar for dollar) when family income increased.
A “rescue plan for homeowners” would have been be enormously more popular than a “bailout of Wall Street.” Of course money would “trickle up” from them to the financial institutions (at a normal rate of interest), restoring their assets and ability to engage in normal transactions.But it would help large numbers of lower and moderate income people become homeowners, and maintain their ability to buy other goods, helping the overall economy. And the terms of the mortgages could be stretched out to eventually repay the taxpayers for the subsidies advanced.
Furthermore the “bailout” would not be an enormous sum quickly advanced to financial institutions, but much more modest sums paid out in mortgage vouchers annually over the term of the mortgages.
In this crisis everyone - including progressive politicians and social movements - had their attention narrowed to the issue of “whether or not to give huge sums to Wall Street,” and failed to see the alternative of a “bottom-up” solution which helps borrowers while restoring the ability of financial institutions to function. The Democratic Party leaders are particularly at fault for this, as are the chaotically organized progressive organizations, and the professional economists, especially those writing coumns or making public statements.
Once a more progressive government wins power it could offer to extend housing subsidies to all low income people, by offering non-homeowners mortgage vouchers under strictly regulated conditions, and expanding the miserably limited sums available for low-income rental subsidies.This would implement the basic progressive principle that housing is a right which the government should help provide to families who can’t afford it on low incomes. This would be a major redistributive program alongside free public education, college scholarships, social security, and subsidized health services.
Posted by allenbarton on Oct 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Well, the bailout (sellout) has saved us! We can sleep well once again.
Yeah, sure.
At least someone benefitted by the time pondering how to vote for it without appearing to
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM