Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, September 19, 2008

The Bush administration Friday outlined a program to buy up bad mortgages and other toxic debt, which could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, to confront the worst U.S. financial crisis in decades. "We are all socialists now," Jonathan Martin wrote on Politico in response to the news. "A Republican President just sent out his Treasury Secretary to announce the federal government will spend 'hundreds of billions of dollars' to takeover a not-insignificant chunk of the economy."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Socialize the loss.

Taxpayers take it up the ass again.

A trillion dollar deficit will look good once Lil Bush gets done.

I wonder if Bushco will make the executives pay back their million dollar bonuses they got for making shitty loans. Somehow I doubt it.

Stock market rose 400 points on this news.

I don't know why we don't just back every stock purchase with a full warranty from the American taxpayer.

And it needs a name. How about Union of Banking Socialist Rethuglics?

I hate those lazy stupid people in need relying on government, oops, except when it effects my money investments.


republicans


The only problem is the republicans are in for short term, those people at the bottom of the pay scale also effects them but is slower and long term.

The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was a "screw you" enterprise with insiders milking the cow.

The RTC office for he West Coast, was in Denver. It had an "unlisted" phone number. How's that for accessibility.

We obtained the phone number, and indicated that we wanted to submit a bid on a property that was listed, but not yet published in a particular booklet. We were informed that no bids could be accepted until the booklet was released the following month. We waited, but the property did not appear. Calling th e unlisted number again, we ascertained that the property had been sold, contrary to information we had been given. We were too involved with other matters to pursue the deceit as it would have been a distraction. But these agencies are vehicles for corruption that may not be immediately apparent.

What is happening is that a disequilibrium has been introduced into the market and chaos has ensued. The disappeareance of so much seeming "equity" is illusionary in terms of the value of existing material things and productive capacity. The problem is that because of the disequilibrium use of the capacity of the system has been limited. Until it is rebooted, there will be a reduction of utilization with economic hard times inflicted on us. If the situation deteriorates sufficiently, there will be serious unrest, and further destabilization. And all of this is occurring with burgeoning world populations causing increasing conflict for access to resources.

Uh oh.

And after the continued slanted racial posts of johnson we can continue with more rational posts.

I just want to know which poster is using johnson as their outside voice.

Moneywar, as much as you bitch, are you....

A. Lazy

B. Black

C. Fucked by Parents who didn't set you up upon death

D. A disguntled WalMart employoee

I love the "small government" republiturds that are running this administration.

Socialize the loss.

"Moneywar, as much as you bitch, are you....

A. Lazy

B. Black"


Speaks for itself.

Speaks for itself.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian

And I see you tend to speak for others....

It's been recommended by Jim Cramer and by a bunch of others concerned about the collapse of the credit and mortgage markets. Given the +406 pt rise in the DJIA on hearing the proposal, it must have some credibility with the professionals on Wall St.

Oh Null, I think Moneyshort is a he, so you might as well see if a female needs your services on another thread.

"And I see you tend to speak for others...."

Perhaps, but at least I'm not speaking as a racist.

Perhaps, but at least I'm not speaking as a racist.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian

Is that your best shot? You've bashed Palin without a shread of evidence for 3 weeks. But you speculate I'm a racist based on me posting here? Let me get my needle nose pliers so I can remove that hook now that I've got you in the boat. I promise to release you because AmericanUnity has filled my cooler.

" You've bashed Palin without a shread [sic] of evidence for 3 weeks. "

What are you talking about? I haven't said anything untrue about the bumpkin.

Holy shit. Enough with the bail outs. You can't expect stupid behavior to change if its rewarded.


Republican economic theology, that is, get rid of all regulations, let Wall Street write it's own rules for their creative financial products, make sure that Government ie; see: "the people", is too weak to interfere..... all depend in the end on taxpayer bail-outs once Wall Street has cashed in.

It's The Plan, man.

The news over the last two weeks is proof positive that our government cares more about investment bankers on Wall Street than it does about the average taxpayer. Most in the executive and legislative branches have apparently forgotten who they work for. I can't believe that we haven't seen a single congressman take a firm stance against this bullshit.

While wages have doubled housing costs have gone up tenfold. This has been called wealth creation by the likes of Greenspan and Shrub. But really its debt creation.

The Fed is already printing money like there's no tommorrow and passing it out to the Oligarchy in the hopes that they will worm their way of their losses and opening the door for more scams like jacking up oil prices. Wouldn't you like to be one of those privileged criminals?

It is really surprizing that everything came unglued before the election. Normally this would all be covered up until after. No one yet knows where the bottom of this mess is. But I gotta think Wall Street Scam Artists want Obama because of the timing.

The headline is totaly untrue. It is the citizens of the US who are putting up the money. You and I have bailed out AGI and 3/4 of their losses are in foreign banks with only 1/4 in US banks.

Where did all that money go? AGI didn't burn it. It is in the pockets of a bunch of bandits.

This is getting to be nothing more than theft.

This is getting to be nothing more than theft.

Danni,

I said this about a year or so ago when it first began.

If you are inclined in a little research, look at the financial/banking family money tree, that conclusion will be really enlightening.

-The headline is totaly untrue. It is the citizens of the US

Um, the people of the US ARE the government.... in theory, anyway.

Those who want less government, want less control of the federal bureaucracy by people, and more control by corporate interest.

That Rethugs have been successful in making people believe that they are not the government, and that government is evil, has become their reason for being.

This is an opportunity of a lifetime not just for investing in the stock market, but more importently for buyimg houses at garage sale prices.

"It is really surprizing that everything came unglued before the election. Normally this would all be covered up until after. No one yet knows where the bottom of this mess is. But I gotta think Wall Street Scam Artists want Obama because of the timing."

First of all, I don't think anyone has control over the timing when the mess is this big.

But if I were a CEO of one of the individual companies involved and I had the choice of covering my losses until after the election or fessing up now knowing that Bush has no qualms fucking over the public to help me out, I pick the latter.

I hope I don't see any more posts whining about the higher tax rates for rich folks who are happily sucking on the public teat in bailouts. Fine, they want bailouts, then by God, they can pay for them.

"I hope I don't see any more posts whining about the higher tax rates for rich folks who are happily sucking on the public teat in bailouts. Fine, they want bailouts, then by God, they can pay for them"

The problem with your post is that not every person who falls into a higher tax bracket is connected with the wall street bailouts. Not even close. I agree that Wall Street should pay - so let the firms fall and let investors lose their money. That's what happens. There is no guarantee in life that all investments will be profitable 100% of the time. Unfortunately our government thinks they have to make that guarantee.

"Government May Buy Billions in Junk Mortgages"



Great,now were all Fred Sanford

Seems to me that there is a picture missing here.

There is going to be a lot of corporate buyouts or mergers here which really shouldn't ever be allowed to happen.

Strange how that might be.

Just an observation from the gutter.

knowing that Bush has no qualms fucking over the public to help me out, I pick the latter.

#25 | Posted by Sully

Bush is doing this all by himself? Where is congress? What are they doing? Who wrote the laws that allow the government to spend our money that way?

If the president does have all that power, what do we need congress for?

The problem with your post is that not every person who falls into a higher tax bracket is connected with the wall street bailouts. Not even close. I agree that Wall Street should pay - so let the firms fall and let investors lose their money. That's what happens. There is no guarantee in life that all investments will be profitable 100% of the time. Unfortunately our government thinks they have to make that guarantee.

If you think this hasn't been planned in some form you are deluding yourself.

There is far more political play here than what we are being told, and those they let fall were planned as well as those who will get bailed and merged.

Consolidating brings more power, and it needs to happen before the next election.

You folks don't know the one-hundreth of it. There was trading in derivatives, and in "insurance" that was issued without reserves, sort of reinsurance, to financial institutions. These were empty promises without an ability to fulfill the undertaken obligation should a claim ever arise.


As it grew -- according to the industry's trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 -- all that changed.

An over-the-counter market grew up and some of the most active players became asset managers, including hedge fund managers, who bought and sold the policies like any other investment.

And in those deals, they sold protection as often as they bought it -- although they rarely set aside the reserves they would need if the obligation ever had to be paid.

In one notorious case, a small hedge fund agreed to insure UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the Swiss banking giant, from losses related to defaults on $1.3 billion of subprime mortgages for an annual premium of about $2 million.


What a scam. I issue fire insurance or whatever, collect premiums, and have no reserves for payment of claims should a fire ever occur. This was a flim flam with no reservoir of funds set aside to covern any claims. It was a "game" in which all of the players participated since it just was a matter of pretense. They were collecting money against a risk that was never anticipated to occur.

Those naive souls among you who are gulled by party labels and declarations from pious politicians merit continuing to live in ignorance. Money corrupts. Huge sums of money ...

"If the president does have all that power, what do we need congress for?"

Exactly!
~Richard Bruce "They Don't Call Me 'Dick' for Nothin'" Cheney

Billions? Hah. There are trillions of dollars in potential unfunded liabilities out there. The house of cards is teetering.

Whether or not the markets will stabilize without requiring calls unpon "the insurerers, a misnomer in these cases, is problematical.

By the way, Warren Buffet anticipated this financial catastrophe and pulled his companies out of this market half a decade ago, despite the fact that collecting premiums was like having the ability to print your own money.

Again - I have not met or heard a single American with an idea of what is happening who is not outraged. Why hasn't a single congressman stood up on this issue? Where is Russ Feingold? Where are all the anti-corporate welfare politicians? Why don't they put their money where their mouth is when shit is hitting the fan?

Joe,

Would it help to cast blame???? I kind of think they are trying to figure out a solution.

I see how you would want a negative direction in blame but that still doesn't solve the problem and we all know what that is truely.

"Would it help to cast blame????"

I'm not talking about casting blame. I'm talking about rejecting the notion that the government is a bottomless ATM that can solve all of Wall Street's problems. Bailouts are happening right and left and nobody is saying "this should not be happening."

Hmm, I think I'll go to the track and bet my life savings on Fancy Fiona in the fifth.

I wonder if the Feds will bail me out if I lose.

Johnson,

Interesting you bring up Buffet, particularly when the man is casting his vote to Obama.

Might you be rethinking your case?

Most people who are in for making earned money don't fall into those greedy quick rich schemes, that is done by politicians and financial bankers who don't have to supply over site per say.

"What a scam. I issue fire insurance or whatever, collect premiums, and have no reserves for payment of claims should a fire ever occur. This was a flim flam with no reservoir of funds set aside to covern any claims. It was a "game" in which all of the players participated since it just was a matter of pretense. They were collecting money against a risk that was never anticipated to occur."

Wow Johnson, I think they were White too!!! Where did they pick up those selfish habits?

Joe,

The money/value didn't just vanish, it is going to someone. The question is who is benefitting and how are they benefitting.

Property my boy.

"Bush is doing this all by himself?"

No. But who the fuck do you think he is, an intern? He's in the top spot. He could stop the bailouts if he were agains them. But apparently, he loves bailouts. I was saying that McCain or Obama may be less enamored with them and that would definitely have an effect on how many bailouts we see.

Stop being such an apologist retard all the time. Bush is never going to let you suck his dick.

"Where is Russ Feingold?"

Good question, the silence is deafening.

Funny but where is the world bank?

Oops, they will enter the picture next week.

YOUR PARTY NEEDS YOU don't be cheap or unpatriotic give till it hurts joe went out on a limb and told the truth about Obama's financial plan for our Country together they plan to Tax their way out of it. If that don't fix it we can always just print up a whole bunch of money and be even more patriotic I have to quit blogging now my stomach hurts from laughing so hard. Democrats you have to love them at least they make you laugh, finally before I wet on myself I sure am glad ole joe is on your side he just did more to help McCain than Palin.

The government's going to make a lot of money by the time it's all done. Just like during the RTC, when the government wrote legislation to demolish the holdings of S&L's, waited for them to go down, then swept in, grabbed the real estate collateralizing the loans, and sold it off over the next four years at huge profits.

I've no sympathy for the investment banks and mortgage companies who wrote crummy loans, which have now collapsed in value. The Treasury has now become the buyer of last resort, at about 15 cents on the dollar, on assets that will be worked out at about six times that.

I wonder if the Feds will bail me out if I lose.

#38 | Posted by banjosteve

Bet billions, if you want that. Petty millions don't interest them.

Judging by the comments of "conservatives" here, Bob Barr will win in a landslide, because surely they won't vote for a regulator, assuming McSame remembers he's a big fan of regulation for the next few weeks.

Get a grip, fellows. It's not a Republican or Democrat fiasco. the players in this drama work both sides of the aisle. They are now largely Obama supporters. Most politicians are ignorant concerning the financial markets, where as in other industries, people "count" misleading factors that conceal the true nature of the system and the process.

This obscuration is pervasive. I recall years ago, I was asked to sit on an interviewing board for a government entity. I learned then how an ostensibly transparent process on a local (county) scale, was rigged.

Say there were 100 questions on the "written" portion of a promotional civil service exam, and a passing score of 70 on the written exam was required. Well, the authorities arbitrarily set passing at whatever number of correct answers they pleased. So, for example, they would say that answering 10 questions correctly was "passing," or provided a score of 70. Each of these 10 answers to any question was weighted as 7 points. The remaining 90 questions were each weighted one-third (1/3) of a point each. Thus, 1/3 times 90 provided the remaining 30 points. The written test did not differentiate much among the candidates for promotion.

But wait. There's more. Let's say that the "written portion" of the test provided 70% of the total score with an appraisal of promotability providing 15%, and skewed in favor of the desired candidate, and the interviewing board providing a score weighted at 15%. Then, despite an appearance of "fairness," (I found later through happenstance that candidates were not aware of the skewed grading process, e.g., 10 = 70%), the exams were rigged. We had two public members on the interviewing board and one civil service examining committee member, who assured us who the more viable candidate would be. I felt used, and that we were tools and fools being manipulated to validate a fraudulent process. Yes, I do believe that employers should be able to select their employees, but ...

The foregoing is just to illustrate the lack of transparency in most industries. I'm aware of a plethora of examples.

The underlying problem in the finance sector seems to be the contrivances that are mere insturmentalities to provide a form to enable the businesses to collect money. The waiver of traditional standards (first engineered at the behest of "advocates for the poor"), and providing the esurious mortgage lenders with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac markets to which to package and sell uncreditworthy loans that the banks did not keep in their portfolios, provided an incentive to process as many loans as possible "qualifying" the buyers because when the loan was processed, the loan processor, the institution, made the money. And Fannie and Freddie stood by to purchase any paper without any rigorous scrutiny as they were under a mandate to make money available for additional loans.

It stimulated the economy and from a particular perspective may have been "worth it." There's a much larger inventory of property now than there would have been.

Our system provides for a "recession" of some size every six or seven years, so that the system works out the kinks and again reaches equilibrium.

Don't lament. That's what's great about this country. Be alert, and you too can find one of a huge number of profitable niches to provide yourself with a comfortable life and not expend much energy to do so. Or, you may choose to be a prole.

"YOUR PARTY NEEDS YOU don't be cheap or unpatriotic give till it hurts joe went out on a limb and told the truth about Obama's financial plan for our Country together they plan to Tax their way out of it."

He reminded me of FDR, yes I know conservatives hated him and still do, but he save the country and the rest of America loved him then and still does.
Go Joe Biden, keep telling the unpatriotic scum who supported wars without taxes that they will no longer be able to profit from a nation they are not willing to support with their tax dollars.

Does anyone still read the excessively long and usually racist rants of Johnson???
The man must have way too much time on his hands.

Speaking of racism and heroes. Congrats again to FDR for the incarceration of Japanese AMERICAN citizens. Hip Hip Hooray!

"Congrats again to FDR for the incarceration of Japanese AMERICAN citizens."

Which conservative pundit has recently said how much she agreed with that decision???
I'm sure that after Pearl Harbor RideOn would have been there sticking up for those Japanese folks' rights. Laughable.

The same poster who often brings up that unhappy tid bit of American history thinks incarcerating people at Guantanamo or even renditioning them to other countries without charges, trials, or any evidence whatever....and is unable to see how hypocritical that makes him look.

Government housing?

#40 | Posted by sitdown at 2008-09-19 10:26 AM

Wow Johnson, I think they were White too!!! Where did they pick up those selfish habits?

Well, it does take a bit of intelligence to contrive such schemes, and then operate them successfully.

I never interpolated the idea of morality being a factor, merely referred to the seeming differences in ability to reason abstractly and symbolically based on a measured median intelligence. You seem offended by observations as if their notation is taboo.

But don't worry. There is a "range of intelligence" in all groups with epigenetic as well as genetic bases. And there is a great deal of overlap except at the higher extreme, so that the ability to participate in this bonanza, which is a contrivance and covert to a degree, is not sufficiently complex to be an exclusionary test. The intellect required is not extraordinary.

What is the incongruency you identify between my observation that distribution of a certain level of median intelligence among the population seems necessary to sustain a modern technologically-scientifically based society/culture/economy, and this financial debacle?

Coincidentally, designation of a recent head of Fannie Mae, the clique running it, was an apertif provided to black executives and administrators. So they participated in the bacchanal.

By the way, there seems to be at least a superficial recovery although its permanence or transitory nature is not immediately ascertainable.

Cheers. I'm late for my quotidian trip to the gym. And referring to irrationality, many people come there for an hour or more workout, and yet, they cruise the parking lot in search of a closer parking place as they try to avoid walking 10 or 15 additional parking space widths to the entrance. Yes. I am not exempt. I do the same thing. Later.

Found a thesaurus under your bridge, didja?


The same poster who often brings up that unhappy tid bit of American history thinks incarcerating people at Guantanamo or even renditioning them to other countries without charges, trials, or any evidence whatever....and is unable to see how hypocritical that makes him look.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-19 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

That comment goes to the core of your blind hate of Bush (and other things you are blind to). Personally I don't agree with Guantanamo (and have never said I did). I also don't agree with the incarceration of Japanese AMERICAN citizens. Which in the number of people and the fact that most were AMERICAN CITIZENS makes it worse than and a much bigger precedent than Guantanamo. I supported Ron Paul, who unequivically would have removed our troops from Iraq, who would not support our current approach to Iran, who would never have supported and who railed against the "Patriot" Act. Who wouldn't compromise his wisdom and fairness and wouldn't be bailing out corportations with corportate welfare. While you support and stand up for the mainstream of a particular party and the policies that don't carry a major difference in reality (less a few nuances). The mainstream that the MSM brings your way. You blindly think that the power brokers and the chosen MSM candidate will be a lot different than what you despise. So tell me....who is the most hypocritical one? Hmmmm.

Buying junk securities isn't the issue; how much you PAY for them is. I would hope that the US would pay no more than pennies on the dollar.

ladies and gentlemen

havent seen mention of the market going UP yesterday by 400

and when I left the house it was already up 348.81 for a total of 11367.86

is that because of the bailout? would seem to think so wouldnt most of you?

but again its also maybe because CONGRESS ACTUALLY GOT TOGETHER AND MIGHT DO something
we may not like it but at least ITS SOMETHING from this dem congress

and oh yeah

the group at the podium
didnt see CHRIS DODD OR RANGEL Standing there
wonder why not???????????????????

the s&l bailout was a net loss to the taxpayer.
just like the build-out of the nuclear power industry, which continues to receive billions of taxpayer dollars.

this isnt about mortgages, but the packed investment vehicles tied to mortgages. trillions of dollars in derivitives, and that so many money market funds are shackled to derivitives.

they can only print so much money, and all of it belongs to you.gitmboy

criminals.

The fact that this crisis is coming at a bad time for the republicans should inform the wacky libs that maybe Bush/Cheney are not really in control of everything and begs some questions:

1. Could everything else that libs believe be wrong also?

2. Is liberalism with all it's crazy conspiracy theories, hypocracies and stupity really a MENTAL DISORDER after all?

"Does anyone still read the excessively long and usually racist rants of Johnson???"

No. I have named the scroll wheel on my mouse after him.


"Does anyone still read the excessively long and usually racist rants of Johnson???"


No. I have named the scroll wheel on my mouse after him.

#62 | Posted by Sully at 2008-09-19 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sheesh Sully, you are a good poster. But, my gosh, you play with that scroll wheel a lot? And you named it WHAT?

"Moneywar, as much as you bitch, are you....
A. Lazy
B. Black
C. Fucked by Parents who didn't set you up upon death
D. A disguntled WalMart employoee

#7 | Posted by wisgod "

Tell us again about all the blacks on your street.

"1. Could everything else that libs believe be wrong also?


2. Is liberalism with all it's crazy conspiracy theories, hypocracies and stupity really a MENTAL DISORDER after all?

#61 | Posted by fwthom "

I'm sure Michael Weiner already answered these "questions" for you. Dupe.

"The fact that this crisis is coming at a bad time for the republicans should inform the wacky libs that maybe Bush/Cheney are not really in control of everything and begs some questions:"

Their corruption was not in doubt but now their incompetence is also underscored. They planned this mess as a welcome gift for President Obama but, as usual, they screwed it up and it landed in their own laps. This is just (hopefully) the last disaster of their administration which was caused by their incompetence and corruption.

The same poster who often brings up that unhappy tid bit of American history thinks incarcerating people at Guantanamo or even renditioning them to other countries without charges, trials, or any evidence whatever....and is unable to see how hypocritical that makes him look.


#53 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-19 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:


That comment goes to the core of your blind hate of Bush (and other things you are blind to). Personally I don't agree with Guantanamo (and have never said I did). I also don't agree with the incarceration of Japanese AMERICAN citizens. Which in the number of people and the fact that most were AMERICAN CITIZENS makes it worse than and a much bigger precedent than Guantanamo. I supported Ron Paul, who unequivically would have removed our troops from Iraq, who would not support our current approach to Iran, who would never have supported and who railed against the "Patriot" Act. Who wouldn't compromise his wisdom and fairness and wouldn't be bailing out corportations with corportate welfare. While you support and stand up for the mainstream of a particular party and the policies that don't carry a major difference in reality (less a few nuances). The mainstream that the MSM brings your way. You blindly think that the power brokers and the chosen MSM candidate will be a lot different than what you despise. So tell me....who is the most hypocritical one? Hmmmm.

#57 | Posted by ride_on at 2008-09-19 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

You are so hypocritical you ignore the retort and fail to answer. Can't say I blame you. LOL.

""Does anyone still read the excessively long and usually racist rants of Johnson???"

No. I have named the scroll wheel on my mouse after him."


So you have a spinning Johnson....

Now that's a talent...

"But, my gosh, you play with that scroll wheel a lot?"

Is "scroll wheel" a dirty reference now? I must be getting old because not only didn't I know, but I don't think I want to .....

Unless these accounts were FDIC insured (which they are not) then why should we have to bail out the company and it's investors?

I invest in real estate (apartment complexes all around the country) and I know that what I do has an inherent risk (hence the name investing).

If these people who invested their money with these failed investment houses didn't want risk, they should have stuck the cash in a simple savings acct.

Great,now were all Fred Sanford

#28 | Posted by HanoverFist

Do we at least get funky red pickup trucks?

Anybody else want to go out and accumulate billions in bad debts?

Anybody else want to go out and accumulate billions in bad debts?

Posted by rcade


Don't blame me, I voted Badnarik.

I noticed Bush's little speech this morning said nothing about punishing the CEOs who got us in this mess. Also, Bush's grand scheme wants to bail out and use our tax dollars to pay for ALL bad debt and loans ever made up to this point. ALL of them!

Bush also wants Congress to just pass it with no amendments or adjustments or questions. Is Bush insane? This bailout of his crooked buddies on Wall Street is going to cost ur taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars to bail out his buddies crooked and fraudulent maneuvers of the past few years and Bush wants "no questions asked and "no amendments or changes" to his grand scheme?

I heard Obama address it this morning. His knowledge of our economic mess, and his grasp of the issues, were very impressive. Obama said he would not make his response political or say anything about his opponent as this was too important to play games with. Even FOX news covered the entirety of Obama's economic speech this morning and I could tell the commentators were impressed.

What did McCain say about Bush's plan? McCain was a joke. He didn't discuss anything about it, made some lame attempt to go after Obama, and he was soooooo bad and uninformed about any idea of what he would do himself with regard to this economic mess that FOX news only had him on about 2 minutes. FOX was obviously embarrassed by McCain's pathetic response.

Their corruption was not in doubt but now their incompetence is also underscored. They planned this mess as a welcome gift for President Obama but, as usual, they screwed it up and it landed in their own laps.

- Danni

I hadn't thought about it that way, Danni.
They probably did think this economic disaster wouldn't come to fruition until early next year.
Only problem was our economy situation is so bad it boiled over a few months too early and the Republicans couldn't keep a lid on it until after the elections.

Any bailout should include mandatory relinquishment of any and all golden parachutes by CEOs etc. as a non-negotiable demand before Democrats even begin to discuss the idea.

"They probably did think this economic disaster wouldn't come to fruition until early next year."

They were setting Obama up to be the new Carter and then, as with Carter, blame him for the next thirty years for the mess created by Dumbya.

Anyone who calls this a "bailout" is reading headlines, and nothing else.

The federal government will pay investment banks a dime on the dollar to take out their bad mortgages. Then, they will enact legislation making it easier for homeowners to remain in their homes, and pay off their mortgages at reduced interest rates, or reduced principal. The government stands to make BILLIONS, and almost certainly will.

What's more, the Treasury will get to see a recovering stock market, instead of a collapsing one, and the increased capital gains taxes--rather than staggering capital losses--as a result. The US Treasury is now acting like the world's largest hedge fund, buying distressed paper for pennies on the dollar, then working out a guaranteed profit.


Anyone who calls this a "bailout" is reading headlines, and nothing else.


The federal government will pay investment banks a dime on the dollar to take out their bad mortgages. Then, they will enact legislation making it easier for homeowners to remain in their homes, and pay off their mortgages at reduced interest rates, or reduced principal. The government stands to make BILLIONS, and almost certainly will.


What's more, the Treasury will get to see a recovering stock market, instead of a collapsing one, and the increased capital gains taxes--rather than staggering capital losses--as a result. The US Treasury is now acting like the world's largest hedge fund, buying distressed paper for pennies on the dollar, then working out a guaranteed profit.

#78 | Posted by rightisright


when is a republican a socialist?

buying distressed paper for pennies on the dollar, then working out a guaranteed profit.



if the paper is so profitable, why are the banks in trouble?

Anyone hear Obama's speech with regard to this economic proposal put out by Bush this morning? Excellent. Even FOX news played Obama's response today in its entirety. He really made me feel a lot more confident in his ability to handle serious issues facing our country than anything I had heard from him so far. McCain barely even gave a response and the little bit he did was mostly bashing Obama. McCain was obviously in way over his head when trying to evaluate the bailout proposed today. Waaaay over his head. Even FOX news only gave McCain a couple minutes airtime his answer was so lame.

RightisRight-

If what you say is true, then why aren't these mortgages in higher demand on the private market? Why are they being deemed worthless and available for pennies on the dollar? It seems to me that if any buyer could stand to make BILLIONS buying all of them up that the government wouldn't be the only person trying to buy them. Any insight?

Once again socialism comes to the rescue. Bail out the greedy capitalists just like in the depression years.

IN YOUR FACE RIGHTWINGNUTS!


Mixed economic systems are the best.

oooo yaaaaaaa lets talk about entitlement

REPUBS and DEMS are in this together. They have been for quite sometime now. WE, THE TAXPAYERs get to do the bailouts and also will suffer by the devaluation of our money.

The founding fathers would have applauded the informed and brave ones had we been successful in supporting the ones bucking this trend. Ya' all should have chosen NOT to drink the koolaide of the mainstream parties and the MSM AND HAD THE foresight, guts and intelligence to have grass rooted Ron Paul to the Presidency. My humble and passionate opinion.

Billions for the Banks and CEOs.

None for the people.

It is great that they are bailing out the Banks by "Socializing" them!

As long as they don't "Socialize" our Health Care!

Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that "we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline," is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt.

"The short-term weakness in the capital market is a reflection of long-term problems that we have in our economy," Obama told reporters in Florida. "We have been loading up enormous amounts of debt."

Yet Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have pledged tens of billions in new spending on a U.N. program that promises cash to poor countries. The program is one of eight sweeping "Millennium Development Goals" the U.N. adopted in 2000.

"Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal," the candidates vow in their campaign platform.

Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world's poor.

"The government stands to make BILLIONS, and almost certainly will."

Quite possibly but since they are buying mortgages with monopoly money the billions they make will be virtually worthless paper. This is not reallly any sort of a solution to these problems, it is simply a delaying tactic to get past the elections and into the next presidency. No Democrat should even consider any bailout that does not include increased taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.

"Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that "we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline," is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt."

It was 867 billion the last time someone posted this, got any links????

CalifChris,

I know you saw them, but for those who didn't:

Obama's Speech on the Economy"

Obama's Press Conference

McCain and Bush? 2 minutes statements. No questions, no substance. McCain blamed Obama! You can't make this stuff up...

DONNERBOY:

Billions for the Banks and CEOs.

None for the people.

It is great that they are bailing out the Banks by "Socializing" them!

Obama addresses that in his speech and press conference (linked above)

"REPUBS and DEMS are in this together."

Just a coincidence that these bailouts only become necessary after Republican administrations while Democratic administrations leave behind surpluses.
Republicans and Democrats are not the same no matter how many times you try to say they are.
Dems will tax the rich and pay for things.
Republicans use credit and leave debt for the next generations.

offensively unfunny flag.

Shoot, I thought I denounced my communistic past!

I knew when I was a communist that I'd LOVE Clinton, and I did!

But after I quit communism, and later voted for W, I thought he'd make me love him, but I'm not feeling the love.


ELECTION 2008
Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more
Posted: July 25, 2008
12:30 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
2008 WorldNetDaily


The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.


S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."


He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Another critic, however, has been commentator Glenn Beck, whose YouTube video critique can be seen here:

"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Quite possibly but since they are buying mortgages with monopoly money the billions they make will be virtually worthless paper. This is not reallly any sort of a solution to these problems, it is simply a delaying tactic to get past the elections and into the next presidency. No Democrat should even consider any bailout that does not include increased taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.

#88 | Posted by danni
* * * *

This is the kind of ignorance I'm talking about.

Here's what will happen. The Treasury will create a fund for the loan reserves. Investment banks who wish to offload any paper they can't make a market on will get cash reserves amounting to about 10% of the original mortgage amount. In doing so, the IB will actually MAKE money also, perversely enough, because the original positions were put on using leverage of 28 times, which means their actual capital at risk was about 4 cents.

The Feds will then work out the loans--even if THEY agree with the homeowner to reduce the loan amount by HALF--even MORE--THEY will make money also. There is nothing to "pay for", nothing for the wealthy to pony up cash to cover. And if you're wondering just why in the hell Pelosi and Hoyer would think about going along, it's because THEY know that in the event of another big bank going down, they'll be writing McCain's campaign ads for him. And there wouldn't be a point anyhow--it will cost the government nothing.

wow the world nut daily! now thats reliable

This was all so easily avoidable that I really begin to think there may be more design behind it that some individuals would like us to know.

www.wnd.com

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.


S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.


"I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Just a coincidence that these bailouts only become necessary after Republican administrations while Democratic administrations leave behind surpluses.Republicans and Democrats are not the same no matter how many times you try to say they are.Dems will tax the rich and pay for things.Republicans use credit and leave debt for the next generations.#92 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-19 03:51 PM | Reply

I gotta admit you're RIGHT on that one, Danni.

"IBD repeated falsehood that Obama bill would levy "Global Tax" on U.S. taxpayers
Summary: In an editorial, Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the Global Poverty Act of 2007, sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, "would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends." In fact, the bill would establish no specific funding source and would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending."

"IBD's assertions echoed false claims made by Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid in a February 12 column and by Rush Limbaugh on the February 14 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show. In fact, the bill does not impose a tax on the United States or allow any other body to impose a tax."

mediamatters.org

I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states


and bush has invested 1 trillion in one failing state

S.2433: A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.


The Millennium project is monitored by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist. In 2005 he presented then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with a 3,000-page report based on the research of 265 so-called poverty specialists.

Sachs' document criticized the U.S. for giving only $16.3 billion a year in global anti-poverty aid. He argued that we should spend an additional $30 billion a year in order to reach the 0.7% target that the U.N. set for the U.S. in 2000.

Sachs says that the only way to force the U.S. to commit that much money is by a global tax, such as a tax on fossil fuels.

Empowering the United Nations to impose a direct international tax on Americans has been a U.N. goal ever since the 1995 Copenhagen Summit embraced the so-called Tobin Tax.

By adopting the Millennium goals in 2000, the U.N. escalated its demands to impose international taxes. Specifically, the Millennium called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

It doesn't bother U.N. sycophants that most U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the U.N., and that only 30% of our foreign aid ever reaches the poor. U.N. bureaucrats accuse the U.S. of being "stingy" in its handouts to underdeveloped countries.

There is much more to the Millennium goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance.

50 B would be less than 5 months in Iraq.

And the bill doesn't say we will pay any specific amount anyway. When you see World Net Daily you know it is bull shit before you read it.

ANAMERICAN it was a nice attempt to divert the thread away from the impending melt down of the American economy caused by the Republican Corruption Machine but now it is time to get back to real issues.

www.govtrack.us


there is the bill if you are interested in facts

GovTrack.us
TRACKRESEARCHGet InvolvedAbout GovTrack Bill Search:
click here for information about the paid content on GovTrack

--- Does parliamentary procedure pique your interest? Check out what "ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably" means! ---

Email
Print
Congress > Legislation > 2007-2008 (110th Congress) > S. 2433
Text of S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007
This Version: "Reported in Senate"
[Go to Bill Status Page]
This page is a permanent link to the highlighted paragraph. You can share this page's address to direct others to this paragraph. (Click here to clear your paragraph selection.) Click paragraph text for options. BETA! These new tools are subject to revision!
Paragraph Options
Create Link To This Paragraph
Embed This Paragraph In Your Webpage
Find this paragraph in a different version of this bill:
- Reported in Senate (newest)
- Introduced in Senate (oldest)
You are viewing the text of this bill when its status changed to "Reported in Senate". This is the text of the bill after coming out of committee in the Senate. This is the latest text of the bill currently available on this website. Use the View which version? panel on the right below to view previous versions of this bill as it made its way through the legislative process.

abc Hide Colorized ChangesShow Colorized Changes
Download PDF
Full Text on THOMAS

The bill status page has more information on the status of this legislation.

Click on any paragraph for more text options.

sorry
]


To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 7, 2007
Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. DODD, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
←→April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. BIDEN, with amendments and an amendment to the title
[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

A BILL
To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.
(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.
(3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.
(4) The United Nations Millennium Development
←→[Struck out->]United Nations[]Bush stated[]United Nations[](13)[]worldwide[]
worldwide[]with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.
←→[

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.
(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.
(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.
(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.
(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.
(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction [Struck out->]with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.
←→[

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
←→Amend the title so as to read: `An Act to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.'.
Calendar No. 718
110th CONGRESS
2d Session<