Bank Bailout Bill Fails

[Jeff Robinson]

 

[elbows]

Well the markets have been happier today.

And Ive decided that I have no idea where I stand on the bailout. Its easy for me to decide what went wrong and who is to blame, and what I would like to see in future, but I have no idea what actions in the middle of the crisis are the best for the majority in the long-term.

 

[Kanda]

Funny/interesting or whatever Podcast: http://loznbelly.blogspot.com/

 

[Combustible]

Many of the 95 democrats who voted against the bill seem to generally be (relatively) on the left of Congress. The fact is after years of deregulation, the administration wants to rush through a bill to give an unseemingly amount of money to bail out those who have caused the crisis whilst allowing them to keep reaping in the profits on the threat of economic collapse. The figure of 700 billion seems to have been plucked out of the air.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html

The fact that many 'free market' ideologues also voted against the bill just goes to show how quickly the free market dogma is ditched in a crisis.

 

[dilute micro]

Many of the 95 democrats who voted against the bill seem to generally be (relatively) on the left of Congress. The fact is after years of deregulation, the administration wants to rush through a bill to give an unseemingly amount of money to bail out those who have caused the crisis whilst allowing them to keep reaping in the profits on the threat of economic collapse.

Are you trying to spin the vote? What about the republicans that voted against it? Do they lean left? It's not the fault of the lenders. It's congress' fault for getting them to do it in the first place. The banks never would have done it had they not been given incentives to do it.

 

[Combustible]

Are you trying to spin the vote? What about the republicans that voted against it? Do they lean left?

No, different people voted against it for different reasons. That's hardly suprising. But it is clear that those on the relative left of the Democrats in the House voted against it and for good reasons.

 

[scifisam]

You fail for not titling this 'Bank Bailout Bill Bombs,' as the Sun would if it wrote about that sort of thing.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's a tragedy of alliterative fail.

 

[Dr Jon]

 

[IC3D]

 

[Darios]

No, different people voted against it for different reasons. That's hardly suprising. But it is clear that those on the relative left of the Democrats in the House voted against it and for good reasons.

Are you sure about that?

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives today voted against a $700 billion financial system bailout. MAPLight.org has found that, over the past five years, banks and securities firms gave an average of $231,877 in campaign contributions to each Representative voting in favor of the bailout, compared with an average of $150,982 to each Representative voting against the bailout--54 percent more money given to those who voted Yes. 205 Representatives voted Yes and 228 voted No, with 1 Not Voting.

House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting Yes and 95 voting No. Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as much as those voting No, $107,993.

House Republicans also split their votes on this bill, 65 voting Yes and 133 voting No (and 1 not voting). Republicans voting Yes received an average of $273,181 each, 50% more than those voting No, $181,688.

“Profit-driven companies wouldn't be making campaign contributions if it didn't buy them influence or access," said Daniel Newman, MAPLight.org's executive director. “Votes in Congress align with the river of money that flows through our political system.”

Source

 

[dilute micro]

Still I don't think the amount of money they've gotten matters overall. It's really not all that much difference. On top of that there must be a reason why FM/FM gave so much more money to Obama who certainly isn't a moderate.

It's only spin to assume the left voted against it for good reasons and the right for anything other. The left would be having a fit if republicans tried to bleed money to a "non-partisan" () organization that favored the right.

 

[agricola]

Here is the text of the Bill that will be in the Senate later today. One wonders whether the huge raft of pork that accompanies it will cause McCain to vote "no", though he has indicated - but not actually said - that he will vote yes.

 

[david dissadent]

TITLE V—ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF AND OTHER TAX
PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—General Provisions
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child
tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for
use by children.

3 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN
4 ARROW SHAFTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not
5 apply to any shaft consisting of all natural
6 wood with no laminations or artificial means of
7 enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold
8 separately or incorporated as part of a finished
9 or unfinished product) of a type used in the
10 manufacture of any arrow which after its as11
sembly—
12 ‘‘(i) measures 5⁄16 of an inch or less in
13 diameter, and
14 ‘‘(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow
15 described in paragraph (1)(A).’’.
16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
17 this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date
18 of enactment of this Act.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/news/pdf/index.htm

Bottom of page 300!!!!

 

[Jessiedog]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/news/pdf/index.htm

Bottom of page 300!!!!

I suppose that's the sound of the US taxpayer being shafted!




Woof

 

[Darios]

Will Hutton:

Cameron and Brown are united in saying they will do what is needed and not allow political differences to get in the way of financial stability. Good, but do either realise what may be needed in a worst case? The only viable British Paulson plan - bar a £500bn-plus international loan - may require us to join the euro to win the support of the whole of the European economy and European Central Bank as part of a pan-EU initiative to create "good banks" for Europe.

(my emphasis)

 

[dilute micro]

I suppose that's the sound of the US taxpayer being shafted!




Woof

How long till we beat plowshares into swords?

 

[marty21]

i saw an ordinary american bloke being interviewed about this bail out, he objected to all this money going to prop up a banking system which had fucked up, he suggested making payments direct to the people!! genius!!

think if it, every citizen gets a couple of hundred grand, those with toxic mortgages have to use it to pay off their mortgages, others would spend it on, houses, cars, whatever they wanted, a consumer boom results - thereby saving the system (if the system is worth saving that is)

 

[agricola]

Will Hutton:
(my emphasis)

This crisis looks less and less dangerous than the "corrective action" being proposed to fix it with every second that passes.

 

[TomPaine]

This crisis looks less and less dangerous than the "corrective action" being proposed to fix it with every second that passes.

I agree with you here. The injection of what could be trillions of $ into the economy could see the dollar devalue, which will hit the poorest members of society worst as food prices rise.

TomPaine

 

[agricola]

I agree with you here. The injection of what could be trillions of $ into the economy could see the dollar devalue, which will hit the poorest members of society worst as food prices rise.

TomPaine

Indeed.

I would add that should this be allowed to run its course naturally we would probably see house prices return to some sense of normality (if not be undervalued for a while) and large parts of society (at the bottom end, of course) would benefit as a result of lower mortgages (anyone who says the banks would balk at lending less money to people who are far more able to afford it and when prices will probably rise is telling a complete fib) and a corresponding boost to their incomes (not paying rent, actually investing in something that will increase in value). Homes would suddenly be affordable to all manner of people who had been - in certain parts of the country - totally unable to buy them.

Of course we unfortunately live in a society where those with money bleat loudest and so the spectre of negative equity, and the legions of angry middle-class soon-to-vote Tory types who stretched themselves to the limit on credit, will "haunt" the Government, when (as with the price of oil and the boost to the Treasury that brought) the situation could actually help Labour to deliver some of its promises*.

So we will end up throwing billions at a futile and deeply hypocritical attempt to reseal a bubble instead. Hurrah!



* a radical concept I know

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Love em

 

[ViolentPanda]

Will Hutton:



(my emphasis)

Can't say I'm surprised at Hutton's opinion. It would make sense on a purely "mechanical" level (i.e. to proceed form a platform of relative currency stability).

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree with you here. The injection of what could be trillions of $ into the economy could see the dollar devalue, which will hit the poorest members of society worst as food prices rise.

TomPaine

Not to mention how it would fuck off all those nation-states that have invested heavily in US debt, and savers who've invested in T-bills.

 

[TomPaine]

Not to mention how it would fuck off all those nation-states that have invested heavily in US debt, and savers who've invested in T-bills.

Yep the Chinese will be hard hit that is for sure if things go to hell in a hand basket.

TomPaine

 

[Dr Jon]

Did anyone catch the HardTalk programme with economist Prof. Nouriel Roubini yesterday?
He agrees that the bailout is fatally flawed, a plan hastily cobbled together and guaranteed to fail unless banks' toxic assets are isolated first.
See:-

HardTalk US bail-out special

Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor

ETA:

Roubini predicted the current crisis back in 2006

Ha!
I remember posters on Urban75 claiming we were in / heading into recession a good 3-4 years before that...

 

[Dr Jon]

BANKS TO LEND YOU YOUR OWN MONEY


Many a true word...

 

[Barking_Mad]

BANKS TO LEND YOU YOUR OWN MONEY


Many a true word...

It's no different to a large scale magic show. A pseudo-science wrapped up as an unavoidable inevitability. Only when it goes tits up and the mask slips do we get to see the ridiculousness of it.

250,000 years of homo-sapien and this is apparently the peak of our achievements. We've fucked the planet, arrived at a situation of gross economic inequiality based upon power, greed and war. Our achievements have made it impossible for some people to eat one square meal a day and for some to have a roof over their heads. Even stone-age man, despite their rather drab existance didn't have to worry about being able to afford four walls and a roof.

"Make us your slaves, but feed us." They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly?

Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the sake of the great and strong? No, we care for the weak too. They are sinful and rebellious, but in the end they too will become obedient.

They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them- so awful it will seem to them to be free. But we shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. We shall deceive them again, for we will not let Thee come to us again. That deception will be our suffering, for we shall be forced to lie.

...

So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, "Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!" And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same.

 

[Dr Jon]

Some interesting comments from Jim Kunstler:

In the typhoon of commentary that's blown around the world a step behind the financial tsunami that's wrecking everything, two little words have been curiously absent: "fraud" and "swindle."

link

ETA:
Agree totally with your comments re our species' achievements, BM. Greed and stupidity...

 

[Barking_Mad]

the quote i used above but one was from Dostoevsky's 'The Grand Inquisitor' in 'The Brothers Karamazov'. A chapter/book that everyone should read in my humble view.

Third eye opening stuff.