There is literally only one problem with the legislation. It does not allow oversight.
There are other problems in that it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the lack of regulation, but those are tangential to the legislation in question.
No, not really. Naked capitalism has a nice post titled "Why you should hate the treasury bailout proposal". There is nothing here to protect us from being robbed, and it seems pretty explicit that the intent is to pay above market value for the toxic debt. And given that foreigners are the ones who have been footing most of the federal debt as of late, the repercussions could be just as bad.
This isn't a plan, this is a blank check and a transfer of wealth to the least deserving who got us into this mess.
There is no "market value" for this toxic debt. That is the entire problem. The author is entirely wrong about illiquid assets. Assets that you cannot sell are exactly what needs to be written off. And when anyone sells those types of assets, their value plummets. If you have these assets on your books you are not immune to their return even if no one is buying or selling them.
The problem in the market is not a lack of capital, its a fundamental distrust for securities backed by mortgages. We need to buy these so that the market can correct itself.
As the article says. The single problem with the bill is that there is no oversight, just as i said. The naked power to do what they want and the language of the bill in that regard does not allow them any special powers that can be abused so long as there is oversight.
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
You know those stimulus checks we sent out? We're gonna need those back. And then some. kthankxbai
And yeah, we have quite a few military dudes running around. You think that considering joining the Navy in the near future gives you a new perspective on this election? Try being in the Army for the last nine years (well, reserves for most of it) sometime. Nothing against the Navy, mind you (currently applying to go that direction after college). But sailors aren't, in general, pulling 12-month tours in al-Blowyouupah, Iraq.
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
Sorry to continue OT, but if you hadn't been to MEPS yet make damn sure that the detailers don't jerk you around and/or try to push you into a job that you don't want. Do your research, ask questions, and always remember that you can walk out and refuse to sign a contract if you aren't 100% happy with what you are getting. If your test scores aren't good enough to get into a particular rate (navy-speak for job), study up and take the test again. In the navy at least (can't really speak for the other services) the phrase "Choose your rate choose your fate," is absolutely true.
Umm, on topic wise, anyone else been following the TX senate race? I really want Cornyn out but it sure isn't looking good at the moment.
There is literally only one problem with the legislation. It does not allow oversight.
There are other problems in that it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the lack of regulation, but those are tangential to the legislation in question.
No, not really. Naked capitalism has a nice post titled "Why you should hate the treasury bailout proposal". There is nothing here to protect us from being robbed, and it seems pretty explicit that the intent is to pay above market value for the toxic debt. And given that foreigners are the ones who have been footing most of the federal debt as of late, the repercussions could be just as bad.
This isn't a plan, this is a blank check and a transfer of wealth to the least deserving who got us into this mess.
There is no "market value" for this toxic debt. That is the entire problem. The author is entirely wrong about illiquid assets. Assets that you cannot sell are exactly what needs to be written off. And when anyone sells those types of assets, their value plummets. If you have these assets on your books you are not immune to their return even if no one is buying or selling them.
The problem in the market is not a lack of capital, its a fundamental distrust for securities backed by mortgages. We need to buy these so that the market can correct itself.
As the article says. The single problem with the bill is that there is no oversight, just as i said. The naked power to do what they want and the language of the bill in that regard does not allow them any special powers that can be abused so long as there is oversight.
It's more than just "no oversight". It's no explicit guidelines, no protection. No plan. Just money.
How do you know that their value will plummet when you have a magical government fairy buying them up for you? This is by definition not a free market. You can only assume what the Treasury Secretary is going to do with it, as he has almost complete authority over what to do with this money and more.
It's not just oversight that is lacking, it is direction and control. It puts way too much power in the hands of one man, and we don't have any guarantees that he is looking out for our interests or even really knows what the hell he is doing. And the unconditional power and money he gets is not at all contingent on solving any of the underlying problems that led up to this mess. "Oh sure, it'll be in another bill" sure as fuck doesn't cut it, because the $700 billion train will already have left the station and the leverage that congress had will be spent.
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
Done.
narvinye on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
You know those stimulus checks we sent out? We're gonna need those back. And then some. kthankxbai
And yeah, we have quite a few military dudes running around. You think that considering joining the Navy in the near future gives you a new perspective on this election? Try being in the Army for the last nine years (well, reserves for most of it) sometime. Nothing against the Navy, mind you (currently applying to go that direction after college). But sailors aren't, in general, pulling 12-month tours in al-Blowyouupah, Iraq.
Hey, preaching to the choir here dude (<----Army) :P
Also, that's it I'm making a thread. There's obviously enough interest that it's warranted.
And yeah, we have quite a few military dudes running around. You think that considering joining the Navy in the near future gives you a new perspective on this election? Try being in the Army for the last nine years (well, reserves for most of it) sometime. Nothing against the Navy, mind you (currently applying to go that direction after college). But sailors aren't, in general, pulling 12-month tours in al-Blowyouupah, Iraq.
Active duty Marine here, and yeah definately puts things into perspective for you.
My wife and I have had quite a few conversations about re-enlisting if the administration continues republican. Its a scary thought for me.
How do you know that their value will plummet when you have a magical government fairy buying them up for you? This is by definition not a free market. You can only assume what the Treasury Secretary is going to do with it, as he has almost complete authority over what to do with this money and more.
No, their value can plummet when you do not have a magical government fairy. That is a function of their current low volume trading. There is no way that a government fairy, under pretty much any restrictions can reduce prices. The simple fact that the government wants to buy and will be buying at "market rates" will drive higher trading of the market at higher price.
It's not just oversight that is lacking, it is direction and control. It puts way too much power in the hands of one man, and we don't have any guarantees that he is looking out for our interests or even really knows what the hell he is doing. And the unconditional power and money he gets is not at all contingent on solving any of the underlying problems that led up to this mess. "Oh sure, it'll be in another bill" sure as fuck doesn't cut it, because the $700 billion train will already have left the station and the leverage that congress had will be spent.
No, it is that oversight that you are describing. Oversight is the "condition" on "unconditional power".
The question is entirely "is this bailout a good idea" and the answer is yes, it needs to be done. [also note that the power is not unconditional].
Aside from the "no oversight" provision, this is as sound as it can get when dealing buying these mortgages which needs to happen despite how nice it would be to fix the underlying problems first.
And yeah, we have quite a few military dudes running around. You think that considering joining the Navy in the near future gives you a new perspective on this election? Try being in the Army for the last nine years (well, reserves for most of it) sometime. Nothing against the Navy, mind you (currently applying to go that direction after college). But sailors aren't, in general, pulling 12-month tours in al-Blowyouupah, Iraq.
Ahem. There were over four hundred of us at Camp Bucca with several shifts working in a mixed command system with infantry the last few months thank you.The whole tour including training was 16 months.
And it's actually becoming the norm for anyone in a non critical rating in the Navy to go IA at least once and I believe some past admiral said that was his intention. And while occasionally it's somewhere kick ass like Germany or Qatar, the vast majority are Iraq/Afghanistan to fill in wherever the army's short handed. To say nothing of the reestablished Riverines. The rougher part for the army is that they'll still generally get the shittiest (in theory) of jobs since the Navy and Air Force are the ones helping.
Though I certainly appreciate the fact that it's much easier to avoid doing any of that in the Navy than the Army.
Quid on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
This. Yeah. Not sure how to craft a subject that covers the demand, without being too open. Anyone more creative?
How about a thread for
a) advice and support for people joining the military
b) military-related stories i.e. strange and embarassing/ strange and disturbing but military related
c) military-related Q and As
And yeah, we have quite a few military dudes running around. You think that considering joining the Navy in the near future gives you a new perspective on this election? Try being in the Army for the last nine years (well, reserves for most of it) sometime. Nothing against the Navy, mind you (currently applying to go that direction after college). But sailors aren't, in general, pulling 12-month tours in al-Blowyouupah, Iraq.
Active duty Marine here, and yeah definately puts things into perspective for you.
My wife and I have had quite a few conversations about re-enlisting if the administration continues republican. Its a scary thought for me.
Yeah, that's part of why I'm moving towards the Navy after college. Obviously, they are more able to put my degree (electrical engineering) to work than the Army, but a large part of it is just a desire to move out of ground forces. Sure, the Navy and Air Force have to deal with RIF's, but I'd much rather get pushed into early retirement or the civilian sector than bear the burden of 18-on/12-off deployments because Americans are too stupid to realize going to war isn't always a great idea and "olol you volunteered."
Of course, I already re-enlisted on the Army reserve (Guard) side, so they've still got me 'til 2013 regardless. But that was back before the primaries (June last year), when I had no idea what the political landscape would really look like now. It would have been nice to wait a bit and see where things headed, but hey sometimes you've got to make the decision now so I did. If my enlistment were coming up today, I have to say that political polls would probably play at least some part in that decision.
If John McCain were up by a significant margin? I'm pretty sure I'd walk away. Fuck, I'd probably run.
I'm somewhat curious as to why CRA banks were so much more likely to retain loans. It would be somewhat amusing/stupid if firms were simply not as likely to buy from CRA banks by virtue of them having the CRA stigma while snapping up subprime loans from everyone else.
In allowing financial institutions to grow to Godzilla-sized proportions, Gramm-Leach-Bliley helped ensure that we would have financial entities that were "too big to fail." Rather than choosing to enforce rules that kept these institutions apart, the deregulators chose to create monster bankeragasurances whose downfall (and existence) was enough to threaten the whole system.
Well, on the bright side, we now have a new WORD OF THE DAY!
How do you know that their value will plummet when you have a magical government fairy buying them up for you? This is by definition not a free market. You can only assume what the Treasury Secretary is going to do with it, as he has almost complete authority over what to do with this money and more.
No, their value can plummet when you do not have a magical government fairy. That is a function of their current low volume trading. There is no way that a government fairy, under pretty much any restrictions can reduce prices. The simple fact that the government wants to buy and will be buying at "market rates" will drive higher trading of the market at higher price.
It's not just oversight that is lacking, it is direction and control. It puts way too much power in the hands of one man, and we don't have any guarantees that he is looking out for our interests or even really knows what the hell he is doing. And the unconditional power and money he gets is not at all contingent on solving any of the underlying problems that led up to this mess. "Oh sure, it'll be in another bill" sure as fuck doesn't cut it, because the $700 billion train will already have left the station and the leverage that congress had will be spent.
No, it is that oversight that you are describing. Oversight is the "condition" on "unconditional power".
The question is entirely "is this bailout a good idea" and the answer is yes, it needs to be done. [also note that the power is not unconditional].
Aside from the "no oversight" provision, this is as sound as it can get when dealing buying these mortgages which needs to happen despite how nice it would be to fix the underlying problems first.
The "bailout" is not a yes/no question, and you are oversimplifying this to a dangerous degree. There are a wide variety of ways this money could be used, and the proposed text has only the barest of guidelines. Adding oversight would allow congress to maintain some degree of authority, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything resembling a well thought out plan. For example, who is going to decide what the mechanisms for these transactions are, and what the terms of engaging in them are? As it stands, the Treasury Secretary does it on the fly, and oversight doesn't necessarily mean that congress gets to dictate these terms, only rubber stamp them when sufficiently badgered by the administration.
The power of the purse is the ultimate power of congress, and the proposal is asking them to give up the money without so much as a reach around. If they give up the money so easily, how much leverage do you think they would have to move forward with plans that would be hard for the financial sector to swallow? Their key bargaining chip would be almost completely out of their control by then.
Sumbitch. I've thought of FDR and JFK when I hear Obama speak, but damn, I didn't want the allegory to go so far that he'll be telling us there is nothing to fear except fear itself about another depression.
funny how we assign initials to auspicious presidents...except AL or GW
narvinye on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Obama has a statement out, and shows some backbone. Hits the populism drum a little bit harder than the responsibility drum than I would like, but oh well:
The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led to a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.
But regardless of how we got here, the circumstances we face require decisive action because the jobs, savings, and economic security of millions of Americans are now at risk.
We must work quickly in a bipartisan fashion to resolve this crisis and restore our financial sector so capital is flowing again and we can avert an even broader economic catastrophe. We also should recognize that economic recovery requires that we act, not just to address the crisis on Wall Street, but also the crisis on Main Street and around kitchen tables across America.
But thus far, the Administration has only offered a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan.
Even if the Treasury recovers some or most of its investment over time, this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects some basic principles.
* No blank check. If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight. Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.
* Rescue requires mutual responsibility. As taxpayers are asked to take extraordinary steps to protect our financial system, it is only appropriate to expect those institutions that benefit to help protect American homeowners and the American economy. We cannot underwrite continued irresponsibility, where CEOs cash in and our regulators look the other way. We cannot abet and reward the unconscionable practices that triggered this crisis. We have to end them.
* Taxpayers should be protected. This should not be a handout to Wall Street. It should be structured in a way that maximizes the ability of taxpayers to recoup their investment. Going forward, we need to make sure that the institutions that benefit from financial insurance also bear the cost of that insurance.
* Help homeowners stay in their homes. This crisis started with homeowners and they bear the brunt of the nearly unprecedented collapse in housing prices. We cannot have a plan for Wall Street banks that does not help homeowners stay in their homes and help distressed communities.
* A global response. As I said on Friday, this is a global financial crisis and it requires a global solution. The United States must lead, but we must also insist that other nations, who have a huge stake in the outcome, join us in helping to secure the financial markets.
* Main Street, not just Wall Street. The American people need to know that we feel as great a sense of urgency about the emergency on Main Street as we do the emergency on Wall Street. That is why I call on Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families – a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, save one million jobs through rebuilding our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes, and provide retooling assistance to help ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built in America.
* Build a regulatory structure for the 21st Century. While there is not time in a week to remake our regulatory structure to prevent abuses in the future, we should commit ourselves to the kind of reforms I have been advocating for several years. We need new rules of the road for the 21st Century economy, together with the means and willingness to enforce them.
The bottom line is that we must change the economic policies that led us down this dangerous path in the first place. For the last eight years, we’ve had an "on your own-anything goes" philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that lavished tax cuts on the wealthy and big corporations; that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; and that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. Ordinary Americans are now paying the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it is a philosophy I will end as President of the United States," said Senator Barack Obama.
Sumbitch. I've thought of FDR and JFK when I hear Obama speak, but damn, I didn't want the allegory to go so far that he'll be telling us there is nothing to fear except fear itself about another depression.
funny how we assign initials to auspicious presidents...except AL or GW
It's a shame that the fear-mongers have already started using BHO to remind people of Obama's middle name.
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Sumbitch. I've thought of FDR and JFK when I hear Obama speak, but damn, I didn't want the allegory to go so far that he'll be telling us there is nothing to fear except fear itself about another depression.
funny how we assign initials to auspicious presidents...except AL or GW
It's a shame that the fear-mongers have already started using BHO to remind people of Obama's middle name.
This is just unintended prescience. Who remembers RWR, or GHB??
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Man fuck, you seem to have a disfunction where you can't understand that I'm arguing that congress should be the one who should layout some of the structure and/or have a guiding role as this bailout goes forward in addition to having the ability to keep an eye on how it goes forward. In other words, it's not just the Treasury Secretary calling all the shots with only the congress writing off on some subset of those decisions. And really, what's illegal or fraudulent anymore and where would those lines be drawn? The whole damn thing is a gigantic bundle of fraud. It's a goddamn pyramid scheme.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Man fuck, you seem to have a disfunction where you can't understand that I'm arguing that congress should be the one who should layout some of the structure and/or have a guiding role as this bailout goes forward in addition to having the ability to keep an eye on how it goes forward. In other words, it's not just the Treasury Secretary calling all the shots with only the congress writing off on some subset of those decisions. And really, what's illegal or fraudulent anymore and where would those lines be drawn? The whole damn thing is a gigantic bundle of fraud. It's a goddamn pyramid scheme.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
As the deal would stand right now, our pound of flesh for this would be more unlubed assfucking in the future.
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Man fuck
Man fuck, you just don't realize that i am agreeing with you regarding the oversight. Jesus fuck what is wrong with you, there should be oversight, its the fucking problem with the legislation. There doesn't need to be some layout for how they can buy things if there is oversight.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
We get the lack of a fucking world wide depression is what we fucking get.
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Man fuck
Man fuck, you just don't realize that i am agreeing with you regarding the oversight. Jesus fuck what is wrong with you, there should be oversight, its the fucking problem with the legislation. There doesn't need to be some layout for how they can buy things if there is oversight.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
We get the lack of a fucking world wide depression is what we fucking get.
I think something implied in Goumindong's comments, is that the more people have to have a hand in the decisions, the less likely a decision is. That whole committee thing. If we are to avoid a depression/colossal collapse, it may be necessary to give this much fiscal executive power to Paulsen.
While I agree with the sentiment that we should ensure x things happen as well, I don't know the answer to the question of, "Can we get x things hammered out, and get a fix out in time?"
The question really comes down to how much time do we have before we have to start propping up assets with real cash? 24 Hrs, 72 Hrs, a week, a month? Damnedifiknow.
I think there's got to be a way that's not Congress trying to come to a decision on specifics (at which point we'll have each and every rep and senator trotting out pet projects and policies), yet isn't one man with the sole executive authority on 700B. But do we have time to craft that, and are we willing to take the consequence if we don;t act quickly enough?
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Man fuck
Man fuck, you just don't realize that i am agreeing with you regarding the oversight. Jesus fuck what is wrong with you, there should be oversight, its the fucking problem with the legislation. There doesn't need to be some layout for how they can buy things if there is oversight.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
We get the lack of a fucking world wide depression is what we fucking get.
Jeez, I'm not disagreeing with you on the need for oversight, I'm just arguing for more than that. However you haven't sufficiently addressed why only oversight is necessary.
Giving up a $700 billion line of credit does not solve the underlying problems, it just a temporary flood barrier that MIGHT stop or delay immediate disaster. It presents other avenues for disaster too, as a loss of confidence in the dollar as a result may tailspin to destroy us if we essentially go into default when foreign entities stop propping up our debt. And it can strengthen the moral hazard that led up to this mess in the first place.
We need to do more than a short term fix, and since those fuckers need the bailout we have some leverage to give them some bad tasting medicine to go with it.
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
Man fuck
Man fuck, you just don't realize that i am agreeing with you regarding the oversight. Jesus fuck what is wrong with you, there should be oversight, its the fucking problem with the legislation. There doesn't need to be some layout for how they can buy things if there is oversight.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
We get the lack of a fucking world wide depression is what we fucking get.
I think something implied in Goumindong's comments, is that the more people have to have a hand in the decisions, the less likely a decision is. That whole committee thing. If we are to avoid a depression/colossal collapse, it may be necessary to give this much fiscal executive power to Paulsen.
While I agree with the sentiment that we should ensure x things happen as well, I don't know the answer to the question of, "Can we get x things hammered out, and get a fix out in time?"
The question really comes down to how much time do we have before we have to start propping up assets with real cash? 24 Hrs, 72 Hrs, a week, a month? Damnedifiknow.
I think there's got to be a way that's not Congress trying to come to a decision on specifics (at which point we'll have each and every rep and senator trotting out pet projects and policies), yet isn't one man with the sole executive authority on 700B. But do we have time to craft that, and are we willing to take the consequence if we don;t act quickly enough?
If they need $700 billion right now (like this week) then $700 billion won't save us. Why wasn't he asking for $700 billion before if he needs it immediately? We may be in a "no win" scenario.
One of my key problem with giving this much authority to Paulson is that I simply do not trust him with that much authority, and he hasn't given me reason to believe that he is beyond reproach or uniquely capable of solving this. If he needs $700 billion immediately then I seriously doubt his capabilities, as either he didn't see this coming early enough to properly prepare or sat on his hands too long and didn't do enough about it. It is like other things the Bush administration has done, asking for more and more authority because they need it "right fucking now to make us safe." Look how well that's turned out.
This is a move that will undermine our little 'l' liberal economy and system of government. It either needs to be fixed up so it isn't as autocratic, or he needs to explain very well and very clearly why exactly he needs this much authority and why there aren't any good alternatives and why can't there be other provisions, like cutting off the lines to the golden parachutes.
Posts
There is no "market value" for this toxic debt. That is the entire problem. The author is entirely wrong about illiquid assets. Assets that you cannot sell are exactly what needs to be written off. And when anyone sells those types of assets, their value plummets. If you have these assets on your books you are not immune to their return even if no one is buying or selling them.
The problem in the market is not a lack of capital, its a fundamental distrust for securities backed by mortgages. We need to buy these so that the market can correct itself.
As the article says. The single problem with the bill is that there is no oversight, just as i said. The naked power to do what they want and the language of the bill in that regard does not allow them any special powers that can be abused so long as there is oversight.
From: taxman@irs.gov
To: taxpayer@gettingboned.com
You know those stimulus checks we sent out? We're gonna need those back. And then some. kthankxbai
And yeah, we have quite a few military dudes running around. You think that considering joining the Navy in the near future gives you a new perspective on this election? Try being in the Army for the last nine years (well, reserves for most of it) sometime. Nothing against the Navy, mind you (currently applying to go that direction after college). But sailors aren't, in general, pulling 12-month tours in al-Blowyouupah, Iraq.
Sorry to continue OT, but if you hadn't been to MEPS yet make damn sure that the detailers don't jerk you around and/or try to push you into a job that you don't want. Do your research, ask questions, and always remember that you can walk out and refuse to sign a contract if you aren't 100% happy with what you are getting. If your test scores aren't good enough to get into a particular rate (navy-speak for job), study up and take the test again. In the navy at least (can't really speak for the other services) the phrase "Choose your rate choose your fate," is absolutely true.
Umm, on topic wise, anyone else been following the TX senate race? I really want Cornyn out but it sure isn't looking good at the moment.
It's more than just "no oversight". It's no explicit guidelines, no protection. No plan. Just money.
How do you know that their value will plummet when you have a magical government fairy buying them up for you? This is by definition not a free market. You can only assume what the Treasury Secretary is going to do with it, as he has almost complete authority over what to do with this money and more.
It's not just oversight that is lacking, it is direction and control. It puts way too much power in the hands of one man, and we don't have any guarantees that he is looking out for our interests or even really knows what the hell he is doing. And the unconditional power and money he gets is not at all contingent on solving any of the underlying problems that led up to this mess. "Oh sure, it'll be in another bill" sure as fuck doesn't cut it, because the $700 billion train will already have left the station and the leverage that congress had will be spent.
Done.
Also, that's it I'm making a thread. There's obviously enough interest that it's warranted.
No, their value can plummet when you do not have a magical government fairy. That is a function of their current low volume trading. There is no way that a government fairy, under pretty much any restrictions can reduce prices. The simple fact that the government wants to buy and will be buying at "market rates" will drive higher trading of the market at higher price.
No, it is that oversight that you are describing. Oversight is the "condition" on "unconditional power".
The question is entirely "is this bailout a good idea" and the answer is yes, it needs to be done. [also note that the power is not unconditional].
Aside from the "no oversight" provision, this is as sound as it can get when dealing buying these mortgages which needs to happen despite how nice it would be to fix the underlying problems first.
This. Yeah. Not sure how to craft a subject that covers the demand, without being too open. Anyone more creative?
And it's actually becoming the norm for anyone in a non critical rating in the Navy to go IA at least once and I believe some past admiral said that was his intention. And while occasionally it's somewhere kick ass like Germany or Qatar, the vast majority are Iraq/Afghanistan to fill in wherever the army's short handed. To say nothing of the reestablished Riverines. The rougher part for the army is that they'll still generally get the shittiest (in theory) of jobs since the Navy and Air Force are the ones helping.
Though I certainly appreciate the fact that it's much easier to avoid doing any of that in the Navy than the Army.
a) advice and support for people joining the military
b) military-related stories i.e. strange and embarassing/ strange and disturbing but military related
c) military-related Q and As
Yeah, that's part of why I'm moving towards the Navy after college. Obviously, they are more able to put my degree (electrical engineering) to work than the Army, but a large part of it is just a desire to move out of ground forces. Sure, the Navy and Air Force have to deal with RIF's, but I'd much rather get pushed into early retirement or the civilian sector than bear the burden of 18-on/12-off deployments because Americans are too stupid to realize going to war isn't always a great idea and "olol you volunteered."
Of course, I already re-enlisted on the Army reserve (Guard) side, so they've still got me 'til 2013 regardless. But that was back before the primaries (June last year), when I had no idea what the political landscape would really look like now. It would have been nice to wait a bit and see where things headed, but hey sometimes you've got to make the decision now so I did. If my enlistment were coming up today, I have to say that political polls would probably play at least some part in that decision.
If John McCain were up by a significant margin? I'm pretty sure I'd walk away. Fuck, I'd probably run.
I'm somewhat curious as to why CRA banks were so much more likely to retain loans. It would be somewhat amusing/stupid if firms were simply not as likely to buy from CRA banks by virtue of them having the CRA stigma while snapping up subprime loans from everyone else.
Well, on the bright side, we now have a new WORD OF THE DAY!
The "bailout" is not a yes/no question, and you are oversimplifying this to a dangerous degree. There are a wide variety of ways this money could be used, and the proposed text has only the barest of guidelines. Adding oversight would allow congress to maintain some degree of authority, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything resembling a well thought out plan. For example, who is going to decide what the mechanisms for these transactions are, and what the terms of engaging in them are? As it stands, the Treasury Secretary does it on the fly, and oversight doesn't necessarily mean that congress gets to dictate these terms, only rubber stamp them when sufficiently badgered by the administration.
The power of the purse is the ultimate power of congress, and the proposal is asking them to give up the money without so much as a reach around. If they give up the money so easily, how much leverage do you think they would have to move forward with plans that would be hard for the financial sector to swallow? Their key bargaining chip would be almost completely out of their control by then.
None of the legacy media yet, but we can hope.
Fascism.
I admit it's somewhat sensationalistic, but if Congress hands over control over the money, what exactly would they have left?
funny how we assign initials to auspicious presidents...except AL or GW
I approve this message. :^:
It's a shame that the fear-mongers have already started using BHO to remind people of Obama's middle name.
I am not sure what part of "oversight" you misunderstand. But it must be the point where congress and the courts can stop, correct, and punish practices that are illegal or fraudulent.
This is just unintended prescience. Who remembers RWR, or GHB??
Man fuck, you seem to have a disfunction where you can't understand that I'm arguing that congress should be the one who should layout some of the structure and/or have a guiding role as this bailout goes forward in addition to having the ability to keep an eye on how it goes forward. In other words, it's not just the Treasury Secretary calling all the shots with only the congress writing off on some subset of those decisions. And really, what's illegal or fraudulent anymore and where would those lines be drawn? The whole damn thing is a gigantic bundle of fraud. It's a goddamn pyramid scheme.
and And AND what is the pound of flesh that is extracted in return for covering the banks? We're making $700 billion available, what do we get in return for getting fucked in the ass?
As the deal would stand right now, our pound of flesh for this would be more unlubed assfucking in the future.
Man fuck, you just don't realize that i am agreeing with you regarding the oversight. Jesus fuck what is wrong with you, there should be oversight, its the fucking problem with the legislation. There doesn't need to be some layout for how they can buy things if there is oversight.
We get the lack of a fucking world wide depression is what we fucking get.
I think something implied in Goumindong's comments, is that the more people have to have a hand in the decisions, the less likely a decision is. That whole committee thing. If we are to avoid a depression/colossal collapse, it may be necessary to give this much fiscal executive power to Paulsen.
While I agree with the sentiment that we should ensure x things happen as well, I don't know the answer to the question of, "Can we get x things hammered out, and get a fix out in time?"
The question really comes down to how much time do we have before we have to start propping up assets with real cash? 24 Hrs, 72 Hrs, a week, a month? Damnedifiknow.
I think there's got to be a way that's not Congress trying to come to a decision on specifics (at which point we'll have each and every rep and senator trotting out pet projects and policies), yet isn't one man with the sole executive authority on 700B. But do we have time to craft that, and are we willing to take the consequence if we don;t act quickly enough?
Jeez, I'm not disagreeing with you on the need for oversight, I'm just arguing for more than that. However you haven't sufficiently addressed why only oversight is necessary.
Giving up a $700 billion line of credit does not solve the underlying problems, it just a temporary flood barrier that MIGHT stop or delay immediate disaster. It presents other avenues for disaster too, as a loss of confidence in the dollar as a result may tailspin to destroy us if we essentially go into default when foreign entities stop propping up our debt. And it can strengthen the moral hazard that led up to this mess in the first place.
We need to do more than a short term fix, and since those fuckers need the bailout we have some leverage to give them some bad tasting medicine to go with it.
"Good lord you are a noisome child"
If they need $700 billion right now (like this week) then $700 billion won't save us. Why wasn't he asking for $700 billion before if he needs it immediately? We may be in a "no win" scenario.
One of my key problem with giving this much authority to Paulson is that I simply do not trust him with that much authority, and he hasn't given me reason to believe that he is beyond reproach or uniquely capable of solving this. If he needs $700 billion immediately then I seriously doubt his capabilities, as either he didn't see this coming early enough to properly prepare or sat on his hands too long and didn't do enough about it. It is like other things the Bush administration has done, asking for more and more authority because they need it "right fucking now to make us safe." Look how well that's turned out.
This is a move that will undermine our little 'l' liberal economy and system of government. It either needs to be fixed up so it isn't as autocratic, or he needs to explain very well and very clearly why exactly he needs this much authority and why there aren't any good alternatives and why can't there be other provisions, like cutting off the lines to the golden parachutes.