The Bailout

[Bodhi]

.

[Bodhi]

Chris Dodd's proposed bailout includes congressional oversight, a 1 year time limit, and shares of the buisnesses bailed out.  Oh, he's a democrat.  Sorry John, try again somewhere else.

You are giving Dodd too much credit.  While he does inject some good ideas, he does it while injecting Congress.

Read the summary here:

Among the major provisions Dodd is adding:

* Authority for bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure. This was considered a poison pill in a housing bill that passed Congress earlier this summer, but it has gained much more currency now that Washington wants to bail out Wall Street.

* A provision that would require the Treasury to take a 65 percent portion of 20 percent any profits it makes from the newly purchased assets and put it into the federal government's HOPE program, an affordable housing program.

* An oversight board that not only includes the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the SEC, but congressionally appointed, non-governmental officials.

* Limits on executive compensation. This is a major stumbling point for Paulson in his negotiations with Congress, but cracking down on Wall Street executive salaries will be a major selling point for lawmakers. Dodd and Frank have put in place what's known as a "claw back" provision aimed at revoking compensation that executives received based on fraudulent claims.

* An independent inspector general to investigate the Treasury asset program, appointed by the president.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Dodd_bill_much_more_aggressive_than_Treasury_plan.html

The actual legislation is here:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_ayo08b28.html

Point by point:

I don't want bankruptcy judges restructuring defaulted mortgages.  They are not qualified.  That is best left to financial experts (which could be part of the clause).  Judges can barely follow and place judgement based on the law without trying to interpret it or legislate from the bench.  Why would we want them becoming mortgage experts too?

I like the idea of taking profits to pay back the loan to the taxpayers, NOT establish some BS housing authority for those that contributed little to this bail out to begin with.  This is just another form of welfare at the expense of the rest of us that got our mortgages the old fashioned way, by saving up a down payment and not overextending ourselves when we bought.

Anyone appointed by those tulips in Congress will be nothing more than partisan imbeciles that will argue and slow the system until it is unusable and defunct.  Let SEC choose a small panel that can work together.  That's the best way.

As for limits on executive compensation, hey, if they negotiated the salary, then kudos for them.  But, starting the day they receive any tax payer monies, their compensation needs to be tied to performance, and not a set figure.  If they want the big bucks, great, make the company turn around from losses.  Thats not to say a person that moves widget works from a $1 billion quarterly loss to a $100 million loss deserves nothing.  This area is just too ambiguous and will not get through the house or the senate.

[rpm]

Bodhi, you do realise that the banks will get the mortgages paid off AND keep the property. The homeowners will still lose their houses. It's a win/win for the banks. Restructuring would be a much more acceptable solution to me. I'm no fan of welfare, especially corporate welfare. The rich get richer off my taxes with this bill.

[crockett]

Well, crockett, when democrat law makers continue to suggest that American Companies pay more and more taxes, sane CEO's realize that they can not continue to be cash cows for a Congress that has lost it's mind.  But hey, you already knew that... 

Haliburton did this under George Bush.. how can yet another thing such as this, be blamed on the Democrats?

[crockett]

Wasn't it your girl Pelosi and the rest of her leftist scumbags in Congress screaming about the oil companies making huge profits (even though they pay their taxes) and needing to pay more?  Wasn't they (scumbag leftist's like Pelosi) misleading the public into thinking that the oil company's huge profits far out weighed what they paid in taxes and that they (the oil companies) needed to pay more?  Wasn't it your girl Pelosi and the rest of that left controlled scumbag congress that was omitting the fact that oil companies make on average 7 to 9 cents a gallon on gasoline, while the federal government makes 18.4 cents a gallon?

What you fail to realize every time you whine about another company moving offshore is that it's all because some liberal whiney knucklehead in Congress is screaming about taking more money, even after these Company's pay their fair share.

Once again you are short on facts.. The oil companies were given huge tax breaks and govt subsidies while they were making in those huge profits. It's simple, if you make those kinds of profits, well then you don't belong in the lower tax bracket. The only thing the Democrats were saying is we shouldn't be giving them our tax dollars while they are making these windfall profits.

It's your money and my money.. You talk about paying less taxes.. Well tax money that both you and I pay is going to the oil companies in form of govt subsidies. You actually think it's whiny that they were trying to save tax dollars paid by the average American, by not giving them in form of subsidies to companies making the biggest profits in history?

Is that what you are saying? Did you actually think about it or did you just squeak because it was Democrats doing it?

[Hangtime]

Bodhi, you do realise that the banks will get the mortgages paid off AND keep the property. The homeowners will still lose their houses. It's a win/win for the banks. Restructuring would be a much more acceptable solution to me. I'm no fan of welfare, especially corporate welfare. The rich get richer off my taxes with this bill.

[rpm]

Holy cow! Common sense coming from The Hill!

"I understand speed is important, but I'm far more interested in whether or not we get this right," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," he said. "We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."

"Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it."

"This massive bailout is not a solution, It is financial socialism and it's un-American," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well," Sen. Chris Dodd said.

[MORAY37]

So you are all in favor of turning the treasury loose to an appointed official with zero accountability for any action he may take.
Because that's what this bill will do.

Nope.  I told you I find article 8 in that proposal extremely scary.  I feel that Dodd may have a better, more thought out, plan.  The speed with which they want to ram this down our throats is really a signature of the administration, and I hope congress pushes pause here for a bit.

As far as my vote, it has always been for the individual that has stayed cool, calm and collected, throughout the entire 24 month process/ ordeal this has become.  Even though I do not agree with everything he says or does,  I still support the more logical choice.

I'm not supporting the crabby, panicked, extremely vapid deregulator old man, running from position to position just to get a poll bounce.  The shear number of, "what i meant to says" involved in only the past month with him are staggering.  McCain was finished, in my estimation when his spokesman stated, "Senator McCain does not speak for the campaign."  I'm really starting to miss the old McCain, from the first go round, who seemed alot more like what he wishes he was now.  I would have voted for the old McCain.  Now, though, he's having some really bad "senior moments"....which aren't just mistakes, and even if they were, when you're in the big game or presentation and know what you are talking about, you don't make those mistakes.  He's damaged goods, and I'd tell everyone to stay far away from him.

[bongaroo]

I'm glad at least someone in Congress isn't just going along with the plan as written by Paulson and the Fed Reserve.

"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well," Sen. Chris Dodd said.

[john9001]

dodd is just worried about his kick backs, ah i mean campaign contributions.

[lazs2]

It's real ugly.. 

In all fairness I will say that there is plenty of blame to go around and it can be shared equally by both parties...

The democrats for their social meddling and the the repulicans for making the sleazes feel they could cash in on it.

The solution will be ugly and we will all suffer no matter what these boneheads from both parties come up with or even if they do nothing at all at this point.

The only regulation I would like to see come out of this is that no person be given a loan who can't afford to pay for it.    If a loan company does.. then they have to eat it if it goes bad.   

lazs

[Kaw1000]

It has been said that this bail out will cost the tax payer $3000 a person.
thats means women and children. your have 5 people in your family, it will
cost your family $15000...once again the tax payers get the weenie.

[bongaroo]

dodd is just worried about his kick backs, ah i mean campaign contributions.

Ever going to back up your little quips with some evidence or research?

Perhaps appologize for insulting me?



...chirp chirp....




Didn't think so.

Dodd is one of the few saying "whoa now!" about the amazingly unprecendented powers we would be giving the Treasury Dept.  I have no idea what else he votes for, but I'm proud he's fighting the bill as proposed by Paulson and Co.

[MORAY37]

If your an ammo wholesaler, distributor or retailer... yes.

In fact, I'm thinking of expanding into sandbags and MRE's.

And, no; no ammo for you, turtle doc. You can stand in line with the peasants at K-Mart 'n pay retail.

While supplies last.



 

Hang, you assume to know anything about me.  

  I'm well versed in the use of many firearms.  I don't need to flaunt this on a blog, unlike most of you feel is needed.  I learned from an individual who didn't talk a whole lot about the places his government sent him, if you know what I'm saying.  I don't need a rack of guns in my home to feel protected.... just three. One for concealed permit (9mm), one for home defense(12-gauge) and one for "if the sht really ever did hit the fan" (7.62 mm NATO ).

Also, I won't need to stand in line and pay retail for ammo, so, don't worry about me.  Thanks for your concern though.  

[Kaw1000]

It's real ugly.. 

In all fairness I will say that there is plenty of blame to go around and it can be shared equally by both parties...

The democrats for their social meddling and the the repulicans for making the sleazes feel they could cash in on it.

The solution will be ugly and we will all suffer no matter what these boneheads from both parties come up with or even if they do nothing at all at this point.

The only regulation I would like to see come out of this is that no person be given a loan who can't afford to pay for it.    If a loan company does.. then they have to eat it if it goes bad.   

lazs

This all started from Slick Willys years in office..Liberals and their give away programs.The Clinton
admistration pressured Banks and leading instutions to lend more money to the poor and minoritys.
These people accepted the loans, then could not pay them back.
 The Bush adminstration did nothing to stop it either.