• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Bush Admin Bail outs in a sound economy!

So from what I have read, Bush wants us to give the EX CEO of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (who participated in causing the derivative problem), who is now the US Treasury secretary :eek:, 700 billion with no government or court oversight to do with as he pleases! Seems to me the wolves have been running the HEN house and now they want more 700 billion more hen houses and absolute control of those hen houses. :doh:

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Here's an interesting read written by Radley Balko:

Forget AIG for a moment. Forget Freddie and Fannie, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers. Imagine a company much bigger. Imagine a company that at the end of this year will have spent $400 billion more than it has taken in. Worse, imagine that the company's accounting is so bad, the $400 billion doesn't even begin to cover the whole of this company's liabilities.

In fact, the company deliberately chooses to use what's known as "cash accounting" rather than the more accurate accrual accounting. Cash accounting looks at how much cash the company has on hand, regardless of future liabilities. It's like saying if you have $75 dollars in your checking account right now, you're $75 in the black, never mind that you've deferred your car payment this month, quit your job, and have a rent check due at the end of the month.

The company also practices dirty accounting tricks like "forward funding," "advance funding," and "delayed obligations," deceptive tricks that hide its precipitous finances from auditors and its investors.

This company routinely borrows from its workers' pension plan to pay off its debt. Its accountants then claim that because the company owes the borrowed money to its own pensioners and not to outside creditors, the resulting hole in the pension plan doesn't really count as a liability. Sometimes, the company's executives neglect to pass a budget at all. When that happens, they keep the company running with "emergency expenditures," which its accountants don't consider real expenditures for records-keeping purposes, even though they're paid with real money.

By now, you've probably guessed where I'm headed. I'm not really talking about any private company. I'm talking about your federal government. If any private corporation employed the same accounting tricks Congress and the White House use to hide the government's massive debt and financial liabilities, its board and executive officers would all be in prison. In the government, it's common practice. And that's not even considering the funding of our two ongoing wars, which somehow emanates from outside the normal budget process.

If the government were required to abide by the same accounting standards as private industry, its debt would be in the trillions, not billions. Last May, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said that the government's unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare alone comes to a staggering $99.2 trillion, or $330,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. It's an impossible figure.

So when congressional leaders and presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain call for more government oversight of our struggling financial institutions, go ahead and laugh. You know you want to. The idea that the private sector would be in better shape today if only we demanded more oversight from our politicians is preposterous. Our politicians wouldn't recognize "fiscal responsibility" if it spat in their ears.

Wall Street moguls may be "greedy," as both John McCain and Barack Obama have described them, but at least there are real consequences when their greed becomes excessive. They go out of business.

Except, that is, when the government bails them out. Thus far, in addition to being on the hook for the federal government's own massive debt, taxpayers are also putting up $85 billion to back insurance giant AIG, up to $100 billion each to back Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and we're funding the Bear Stearns backstop. Congress is also expected to approve at least $25 billion in corporate welfare for the big three automakers. You can probably expect more handouts down the road. All of this has some analysts now questioning the U.S. government's bond rating, and worse, wondering whether the government itself may soon collapse under the weight of its own debt.

When you, Joe Citizen, spend frivolously and default on your loans, the bank takes your house. When the government spends your tax dollars frivolously, it simply cooks the books to cover its excesses. When the books are left in ashes, the government just takes more of your money, or it prints more money, leaving the money it hasn't already taken from you devalued. Over the last few weeks, we've learned that you now face the prospect of an additional indignity: When your neighbor's bank spends frivolously and defaults on its loans, the government's going take your money then, too, to keep the bank in business.

Many commenters have blamed all of this on capitalism. This isn't capitalism. It's a peculiar kind of corporatist socialism, where good risks and the resulting profits remain private, but bad risks and the resulting losses are passed on to taxpayers. There's nothing free-market about it.

Neither Barack Obama, nor John McCain, nor either party's leadership in Congress has proposed a reasonable plan to deal with the government's unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities. In fact, all have proposed expensive new government programs that can't possibly be funded over the long term. All seem both oblivious to the federal government's impending financial peril and intent on making it worse.

Perversely, all are then simultaneously demanding that they be given greater control over the private sector — because, they gallingly explain, corporations have shown that they can't be left alone to behave in a manner that's fiscally responsible.

Governments have been screwing over taxpayers for about as long as there have been governments and taxpayers. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a fairly recent development, and has spurred an explosion of wealth and the greatest standard of living in human history. What's happening now isn't capitalism, but capitalism is certainly taking the brunt of the blame.

Unfortunately, the end result may be that our politicians make capitalism more accountable to them — the same people who have shown that when it comes to the government's finances, they're accountable to no one.
 
And more interesting reading (written by John R. Lott, Jr.):

The mortgage crisis has produced a massive case of political amnesia. That happens when one is trying to redirect blame for something that could cost up to $700 billion. Some who now claim that the mortgage crisis is the result of too little regulation saw things more clearly when so much wasn’t at stake.

The New York Times editorialized on Saturday that “This crisis is the result of a willful and systematic failure by the government to regulate and monitor the activities of bankers, lenders, hedge funds, insurers and other market players.” If you believe the Times or the Obama campaign, everything but government regulation is to blame for the crisis.

Yet, it is not just economists who were predicting these problems. For example, a September 30, 1999, article in the New York Times predicted exactly what has happened:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people . . . ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' . . .

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' . . .


Indeed, during the late 1990s, the Clinton administration and Fannie Mae bragged about how they had lowered the standards required to borrow money for homes to increase borrowing by groups that otherwise wouldn’t qualify. Their goal of increasing minority ownership was surely a laudable one, but making others pay for the voters’ altruism has real costs.

As even the New York Times understood in 1999, as long as housing prices kept on going up there was no problem with this system. If someone couldn’t pay their mortgages, they could sell their property. There was no threat of default. However, a lack of down payments meant that people defaulted on their mortgages.

Unfortunately, these insights don’t fit the current political template. With just 43 days to the election, the New York Times and others want to be in sync with the Obama campaign’s attack on the Bush administration not having enough regulation. It particularly doesn’t fit the fact that McCain was criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years along the lines of the New York Times 1999 article. Ironically, in other articles, the New York Times described the Democrats as “important political allies” of these two government-sponsored enterprises.

The New York Times is right that “Taxpayers have every right to be alarmed and angry.” But they should read their old news articles to see whom they should get angry at.

Is the proposed bailout bill the answer?

$700 billion for the bailout is a lot of money. The costs so far of the Iraq war are probably even a couple hundred billion dollars less than that. But if the $700 billion wasn’t bad enough, it is on top of the giant bailout just announced a couple of weeks ago for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The costs are likely to grow further when Democrats add on their demands to subsidize homeowners.

The argument is that something has to be done now. We're in a panic, and mortgages supposedly can’t be sold for what they are really worth. The fear is that with the value of assets so low, financial institutions will try to sell off their mortgage-backed securities, driving down the price of those assets and making financial institutions insolvent that would otherwise be financially viable.

What the government proposes to do is buy these assets when they are low, when people are panicking, and resell them later once confidence has been restored. Supposedly, the government could actually make money.

There are some real problems with this argument. First, even if most people are behaving irrationally and don’t understand the true long-run value of these mortgages, just like the government is proposing to do, others can make money by buying these assets at fire sale prices and reselling themselves once the crisis is past. In fact, if this panic explanation is true, there is a strong reason to believe that this desire to make money, to see the chance to buy low and sell high, would actually keep the price from falling very much.

McCain’s proposal on Friday to provide bridge loans would let the companies themselves decide whether this panic explanation is true.

If the government’s argument is right, one first has to assume that all those smart people in government are a lot smarter than people in the finance industries. Ironically, the government will be hiring private evaluators to determine how much the government should pay for these assets. Given that government regulation -- forcing mortgage companies to make loans that they didn’t want to make -- created this problem, it is not obvious why government officials should be so wise right now.

Increased stock prices after the bailout’s announcement isn’t necessarily evidence that the bailout is needed. Stock prices might also be rising simply because the government is promising to pay a lot for some worthless assets. If so, that is nice for stockholders of affected companies, but not so nice or necessary for the rest of us.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that only the government’s offer to purchase these mortgages can prevent panicked sellers from sending prices down. It still isn’t clear that you want to subsidize these companies. As the 1999 New York Times article noted and McCain has continued to point out, such subsidies create incentives for companies to take unjustified risks in the future. Imagine how your gambling behavior would change if the government promised to cover your losses and let you keep your winnings.

The government may also end up managing or owning these companies. Political considerations, not efficiency, will end up being the goal. A simple demand might be what company managers can be paid. But private shareholders have a lot better incentive deciding the costs and benefits of motivating managers than political constituencies who have little at stake in whether the company makes the right decisions.

Some parts of the proposed legislation released over the weekend are also worrisome. For example, at least in the first draft, the proposed power given to the Secretary of the Treasury would be unlimited and unchecked.

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

It emphasizes the possible problems that can arise from drafting legislation too quickly.

Conclusion

Why do people put so much faith in government correctly solving this problem when the debate can’t even honestly discuss what caused it? With all the pressure to get things done quickly, it seems unlikely that things will be properly sorted out. With $700 billion at stake, let’s make sure that we really have a very good reason for spending the money.
 
I agree with a lot of what he said, but I take some exception to this:

"What's happening now isn't capitalism, but capitalism is certainly taking the brunt of the blame."

The way I see it capitalism, or the free market might be a better term, is just trying to take advantage of the market to sell nearly worthless securities to the US Treasury! :laugh3:

The funny part is they are going to trade nearly worthless mortgage securities for soon to be nearly worthless (or depending on your point of view already worthless) US dollars to fix the problem, LOL! :roll:

Hell, now that I think about it, if they can fix the problem by trading worthless paper for worthless paper, why the hell not? Then we can go on trading worthless paper (or cheap electrons if you look at electronic banking now) for foreign oil! Free market capitalism at its finest!

:laugh3:
 
Right, kinda like trying to stop a New Orleans dike leak with Duct Tape!


OMG...please tell me that you're not suggesting New Orleans getting damn near destroyed (like it should be, IMO) was Bush's fault....
 
OMG...please tell me that you're not suggesting New Orleans getting damn near destroyed (like it should be, IMO) was Bush's fault....

IIRC all I mentioned was using duct tape to plug a dike with as a comparison to your band aid on the financial system anology, neither of which would do much good for the intended purpose....


.
.
.
.
.
You mentioned Bush :D, not me, LOL.
 
You were referencing/quoting someone (NOT me) referring to Bush - given your political views, it wouldn't surprise me if you blamed the Katrina aftermath on Bush, like so many other Bush-haters seemed to do. Plenty of dikes exist in other locations besides N.O.

Personally, THAT spending of billions of dollars pisses me off more than the current idea - although I think both are huge wastes of taxpayer money being spent on the stupidity of large groups of people (which is what most taxpayer money is spent on anyway, but that's for another day/discussion).
 
Last edited:
How about we reduce the capital gains tax to zero and let private companies buy all the debits they want. :looney:
 
How about we start by cancelling welfare, and kicking all the free-loading illegal immigrants out of the country...deporting criminals as well....and deploying the military to gang-infested parts of inner cities to end that bullshit. Personally, I'd like to carpet bomb Compton, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc gang infested populaces....

Yes, I'm having a bad day.....
 
Latest news.

http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/earthlink-net/mw-news.asp?GUID={42146129-E98C-4CF0-B338-3680578DAC61}

http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/earthlink-net/mw-news.asp?GUID={705EEDA5-715C-447F-A688-504EA6F3FB71}

http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/earthlink-net/mw-news.asp?GUID={1DFFC02B-6602-4455-A66E-03480692ACC1}
 
boooo...not hyperlinked....i'm too lazy to cut and paste....LOL

:D
 
LOL, thanks but i was only kidding....

hyperlinks make me happy though...
 
Who ever wrote GWB's speech tonight did a great job, and Bush delivered it well, probably the best speech I have ever heard him make. He seemed quite well composed, not rattled, which is a good sign in my opinion.

Seems he will be having a meeting at the White house tomorrow with McCain, Obama, and several other key Senators and congressional leaders to try and create a bipartisan, unified bail out package.


In other news I heard tonight a huge somewhat nationwide very old, well established, Chevy ( Bill Heard) dealership just went belly up, and layed off 3000 people just here in Houston alone. So far Houston has been pretty immune to the down turns we have heard about the news like Housing, automotive, finance) , and with Ike housing construction and repairs are likely to stay booming here (so to speak) for a while longer. The last down turn here was 9/11 and Enron driven which had Houston hurting until almost 2003.
 
Seems he will be having a meeting at the White house tomorrow with McCain, Obama, and several other key Senators and congressional leaders to try and create a bipartisan, unified bail out package.
I missed the speech...got home too late. Just wanted to clarify something I see much too often, even by the press. It's a little peeve of mine, so no offense is intended. People frequently refer to members of the Senate as Senators and members of the House as Congressmen (and women). While calling them congressmen is technically accurate, the usual intent is to mean Representatives. We distinguish members of Congress as either Senators or Representatives, which is to say they are all congressmen. Or, we just call them a bunch of self-serving career politicians. ;)

Oh, and contrary to popular belief, the Pentagon is NOT in Washington D.C. :doh:
 
Last edited:
Weasels in Washington works for me.

I heard the Bush speech. Good speech, but not convincing that we need to saddle another couple of trillion dollars on the backs of We the People.

They had better listen to the People on this one.....and we all need to be PISSED OFF about this and vocalize your anger with your state's Congressmen/women.

I say keep it really simple for them. If they vote to approved the buyout, they are fired.

What to better understand the problem, with a solid and viable solution, and contact your State Rep? Click here, and let your opinion be heard.

http://www1.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_bailout/economic_cleanup_10887.htmlc
 
I honestly don't know enough about finance/economics to really understand (or care) what happened, and how to properly fix it. Other than a "bail out" - what are the other options?
 
I honestly don't know enough about finance/economics to really understand (or care) what happened, and how to properly fix it. Other than a "bail out" - what are the other options?

You're a voter after McCain's own heart lol.
 
And you're just an asshole.....but hey, everyone else already knows that.

I fail to have read where Obama has a know-it-all solution to this problem - or even an opinion about it other than the Pelosi "this is a Republican bill, let them handle it" solution (even though it's her party that got us in this mess to begin with).

Best I've read is the link that XJEEPER posted.

And I'd rather vote for someone who admits their faults rather than someone who claims to be Allah's gift to Washington DC.
 
I honestly don't know enough about finance/economics to really understand (or care) what happened, and how to properly fix it. Other than a "bail out" - what are the other options?

There is one other option, a world wide massive deflationary depression that may eventually led to WW III as smaller regional wars break out. Not the best of the 2 options in my opinion. Bush tried to make that clear last night with creating a panic today. Not an easy thing to do by any means.

My parents grew up during the Great Depression and told me a lot about it, until I was sick of hearing about it. In the end it took WW II to get the economy really going again.

I know many of you here are fiscally responsible people, but if this turns into a depression like the 1930's it will affect you and your friends and family, in many not so nice ways. UNless yopu want to go back to the middle ages overnight, world wide, we need a wel thought out bail out package. If they do it right, in the long run, the final cost to the US taxpayer may be a profit. Done wrong it won't matter anymore, as we will soon be toast as the last super power.
 
Back
Top