We now have at least one Senator on record with the dumbest spin imaginable regarding the bailout:
U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman said the massive government bailout of failing financial institutions is not only necessary but could make money for the federal government.
“The government could make 10 or 20 times what it pays on this, possibly,” Coleman said during a campaign stop at Christy’s Cafe in North Mankato Saturday morning.
And if I eat nothing but red meat, cheese, and milkshakes and smoke unfiltered pall malls, I could live 10 or 20 years longer than most people, possibly. I hope the Republicans run with that- “This isn’t a bailout, it is a once in a lifetime investment opportunity! And, you get a chance at winning a toaster!”
There is a reason this incumbent Senator is losing to going to lose to… a comedian.
More from Andy Birkey. Norman has, of course, backed off this ridiculous claim, saying he meant historically speaking. I’d love to see some proof — any proof — that this has ever been true.
What is true is that men love Norman more than they do Al. And everyone loves everyone more than they love George W. Bush and his failed policies. [More on Franken's efforts, plus a new ad and a press conference to back it up]
More on the shitpile:
[M]any new arguments [have] been raised by a suddenly de-zombified congress as to whether the proposed grand bail-out might reward recent Wall Street turpitudes and incentivize future mis-deeds and it looks like enough objections may be lodged to gum-up the process before it even goes into effect — which, of course, would tend to revert the whole reeking cargo of trouble to its original train-wreck trajectory. I guess we’ll see what happens now.
In making his push to administer the largest federal bailout of Wall Street in history, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is seeking unfettered authority. McClatchy poses the question today, “can you trust a Wall Street veteran with a Wall Street bailout?,” referring to Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs:
But the conflicts are also visible. Paulson has surrounded himself with former Goldman executives as he tries to navigate the domino-like collapse of several parts of the global financial market. And others have gone off to lead companies that could be among those that receive a bailout.
In late July, Paulson tapped Ken Wilson, one of Goldman’s most senior executives, to join him as an adviser on what to about problems in the U.S. and global banking sector. Paulson’s former assistant secretary, Robert Steel, left in July to become head of Wachovia, the Charlotte-based bank that has hundreds of millions of troubled mortgage loans on its books.
Goldman Sachs cashed in under Paulson, with earnings in 2005 of $5.6 billion; Paulson made more than $38 million that year. A 2005 annual report shows that “Goldman was still a significant player” in issuing mortgage bonds. The conflict of interest is increasingly clear today, as Bloomberg reports that “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries” of Paulson’s bailout plan:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp.
So yeah, the Dodd plan. Good plan. Buying up mortgages for 15% less than the current market value of the house, then reissuing a clean mortgage to homeowners helps the banks while still giving them a slight haircut (but only slight, odds are home prices will drop more than 15% before the slide is over.) It helps homeowners stay in their houses. It sets a market price so that banks know what mortgages are worth and thus what the derivatives based on houses are worth. And giving the mortgages bought to the FDIC, one of the few agencies that Bush didn’t cripple, is genius.
Giving the government stock equal to the value of any bailout for the company is also only fair. If they get bailed out, taxpayers should have a chance to get their money back. If they don’t like that, well, beggars, and they are beggars, shouldn’t be choosers.
Having a review board is a good idea, though having the Treasury Secretary, Fed Chairman and FDIC chief on it is perhaps unwise. Still Congress chooses two of the members. I’d prefer direct oversight through the Congressional Budget Office, which reports directly to Congress, but this isn’t too bad.
Clawing back compensation based on fraudulent financial reporting is a stroke of genius and may be what Dodd put in so that he could eventually trade it for something else, because fact is, almost all of these bastards have used dubious accounting to inflate their earnings and therefore their bonuses and salary. They’re all guilty and they know it. Under a vigorous Department of Justice (say, oh, an Obama one) they could all be prosecuted.
Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages is both humane and reasonable, so many mortgages were sold under false pretenses. Banks really, really hate this provision, as it takes away part of the bankruptcy bill, but when they themselves are asking for all their contracts to be, in effect, modified by government (what’s buying for 15% less than face when you couldn’t get 30 cents on the market but modification?) they don’t have a leg to stand on.
“Lie” is too polite a word for what is going on here.
First of all, even if Fannie and Freddie were the most awful companies in the history of the planet, its books chock-a-block with non-performing loans none of the financial contagion—none of it—would have happened had greedy financial institutions invented the risky securities that used mortgages as their foundation, via procedures that created economic incentives to write non-performing loans. We explained that a long time ago, here. Second of all, as we explained yesterday, loans that fulfilled the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act, performed better than the average mortgage.
Third of all: the part that makes you sick to your stomach. The pattern being drawn across the right—the Big Lie so notorious it’s hard to belief they’d even dare it—is that this financial mess is something black people have done to white people.
Why wouldn’t Obama be mum on the market crisis? It was all about, you know, swarthy people shoveling money and power to other swarthy people. You know how they do every time they get any power.
And you know what makes this whole conservative hustle all the more brazen? They spent the entire 2004 Republican Convention bragging about their supposed triumph in increasing minority homeownership.
The questioning on the Sunday talk shows was all softball. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, shame on your anchors and roundtable regulars all for engaging in lightweight faux journalism. This passivity, superficiality and gullibility was at its worse Monday night on NBC in the banter between anchor Brian Williams and a CNBC correspondent with its utter lack of skepticism.
Bernie Sanders:
[President Bush] has given huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, and now all these terribly conservative folks, who pride themselves on financial responsibility, want to add $700 billion.
My view: It is the fiscally responsible thing to pay for this — and given the fact that the people on top have done well [under Bush] — through a progressive tax. […]
I’ve believed that Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy should be repealed for some time. The middle class has shrunk; the rich have become richer. […] They are paying a lower tax rate than working class people.
Specifically, Sanders is proposing a “five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers,” which he says he would “yield more than $300 billion in revenue.”
News Cuts has a poll. It’s running 84% to 3% against a bailout.
More later.
No Comments Yet
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
