Questions About The Mother of All Bailouts

Posted by: Jane Sasseen on September 20

As Congressional staffers met with Treasury and Fed officials over the weekend to begin working out the details of the proposed plan for the government to ease the strains on the banking system by buying up toxic mortgage-related assets that are behind the credit crunch, a few more details emerged. According to a three page outline of the plan prepared by the Treasury, they would like authorization to buy up $700 billion in assets; that’s on top of the roughly $200 billion that could be spent shoring up Fannie and Freddie and the $85 billion for AIG. All of which raises huge questions about how the facility will be structured, who will benefit, and what the implications are for the incoming Adminstration. The only certainty? Two months ago, in a story examining why neither of the two candidates’ economic plans add up, we wrote about the severe budgetary and political constraints that either McCain or Obama will face come January; now, those constraints will be far worse. With a budget deficit that looks like it could surpass $1 trillion next year, whichever of the two is elected will face an even tougher time funding his spending and tax cut plans. The enormous spending required for the bailouts will force each to confront tough questions about which of his priorities can still be funded, and which will have to fall by the wayside. Big spending on new health care, or big new tax cuts, are likely to go first.

There are plenty of other more short-term questions about the bailout that Congress, the Administration, and the candidates will have to face in the coming week, too. Among the key issues:

1) Just which financial institutions will be included? The Treasury outline says it will apply to US-based financial institutions. That will include commercial banks and investment banks. But what about hedge funds, insurers or others? For now, they don't appear to be in on the game, though they hold plenty of such assets as well.

2) How will US based subsidiaries of such foreign firms as HSBC or Barclays be treated? Can the government get away with bailing out only US institutions and not the many foreign holders of such assets? The Treasury first said that only US headquartered institutions would be included, then later appeared to soften that by saying that such subsidiaries may also be considered. Excluding foreign holders altogether could cause an uproar abroad -- and raise further doubts among foreign investors about the soundness of investing in US assets over the long term.

3) Just what assets will be included? The language is vague now; purposely so, in order to maximize the Treasury's flexibility. The plan speaks of the ability to purchase "mortgage-related assets". Will that be limited to mortgage-backed securities only? What about the complex collateralized debt instruments and other derivatives that have been created on top of those securities? Or the huge and staggering market for credit default swaps?

4) How much will the government pay for the assets? This is a huge, huge question, and will ultimately determine how much the government is on the hook for, and what the potential is to recover some of the losses as the market recovers. Many banks still have these assets valued on their books well over what they are worth; Merrill sold a chunk of mortgage-backed securities around a month ago for about 22 cents on the dollar in an attempt to save itself. So is that a fair price for the government to pay? The less it pays, the lower the cost to taxpayers, and the greater the potential upside as the market recovers. But the less the government pays, the smaller will be the impact in recapitalizing the banks' weakened balance sheets. They obviously will try to get as much as they can for the toxic debt. So there are big questions around how the government will decide how much to pay -- Treasury now is talking about some form of an auction in which it will bid at a given price and see who will sell -- and what price they'll ultimately have to cough up.

5) Will the bailout be limited just to the mortgage-backed assets on the financial institutions' balance sheets? Democrats in Congress, along with presidential contender Barack Obama, have already complained that the moves will help Wall Streeet but do little to help struggling homeowners facing foreclosure directly. They'd like to include measures that will lead to more help in refinancing or reworking homeowners' mortgages, as well as a broader stimulus for the economy. This will be one of the biggest fights this coming week, as Treasury attempts to hold off those broader measures.

6) What else might be thrown into the pot? Again, some Democrats argue that a long-stalled bill that would allow judges in bankruptcy court to readjust the value of a mortgage must be included. Currently, even if a homeowner struggling under a mortgage he or she can't pay files for bankruptcy, the amount of the debt can't be reduced by the court. Democrats think that should be allowed, but the financial services industry has fought it for months. Democrats will try and include the provision in the bill. They may also try to include restrictions on the pay of executives at the institutions that accept the government bailout, an idea being floated by Barney Frank. With Republican contender John McCain taking on an increasingly populist tone and raging against excessive executive payouts on the stump, it's possible the idea could gain currency. But banking lobbyists will fight that tooth and nail too.

7) Just where will the money come from to pay for all of this? And what are the implications for the dollar, and for other spending, of a deficit of $1 trillion? That won't get sorted out next week in the rush to do a deal, but it will be a question on plenty of minds as negotiations over the package move ahead.

Reader Comments

k

September 21, 2008 12:06 PM

One question you forgot--who decides where the money goes? At this point, according to the bill proposed by the White House, Hank Paulson will have total control over the entire $700 billion payout with no oversight, congressional or otherwise, for three months. He can give it to anyone he wants and no one can say a word about it. This is an unprecedented amount of power to hand the Executive Branch, and a shameful example of the Bush administration attempting to consolidate power as a result of a financial catastrophe. You and the other mainstream media have a responsibility to cover this aspect of the bailout to keep American taxpayers from being robbed blind by the Bush administration. Don't let us down.

Henry

September 21, 2008 12:25 PM

$700 billion. That is a lot of money.

Those are global companies with investment all over the world. Why should US taxpayers take all the burden?
Let the market work out the problem on its own. Then we will handle the effect to the US real economy, which will be much smaller in scale. With $700 billion, you can create roughly 16 million jobs. As long as people are having jobs, the economy fundamental is in good shape. So do not throw the money to special interest groups. Keep the money and use it to create real jobs when needed.

Alan MacDonald

September 21, 2008 12:45 PM

Buy Hedge Fund assets?

What are hedge fund assets other than their own modern alchemist created air?

Authority to buy hundreds of TRILLIONS of valueless financial air??

Anil Gidwani

September 21, 2008 01:18 PM

Far better for the US to:

a) allow homeowners to readjust their mortgages and terms of payment

b) cut back on executive pay at financial services firms AND ask them to return a good chunk of the money earned (?) over the last three years

than

c) to cause foreign holders to flee from further purchases of US assets and risk a run on the dollar by not supporting them in any bailout

or

d) to print its way out of the mess and reduce the value of the US dollar drastically to the point of free fall

because while a) and b) will be painful, c) and d) would be disastrous.

CS

September 21, 2008 02:13 PM

"they would like authorization to buy up $700 billion in assets"

$700 Billion is the maximum Balance Sheet amount, it is not a cap on the entire cost to the taxpayer. They could, for instance, buy $700 billion of assets, sell them for $100 billion, and then buy the next $700 billion.

The question to ask is: What is the final cost to bail out the world??!

vito

September 21, 2008 02:26 PM

This package should be analysed and debated. Why should anybody think that the size of the package would only be $700mn and not increase further? Think about it. The size of the subprime market is $1.5 trillion, Alt-A $750m, Helocs and Junior Lien: $1trn, Consumer loans (that include credit cards and auto loans) $2.5trn, Commercial Real Estate: $3.3trn and the HY market at say another $1trn (Incidentally all figures are stated in the recent IMF report). So we are at roughly $10trn and change in terms of the sheer scale of the problem debt that has been either held as loans or repackaged and sold to investors. Over time all will require a level of write-down as delinquencies are increasing in each asset class, leading to continued losses. The 7% level (or $700m) clearly understated the scale, the actual haircut will be closer to 20% on average. If that is the case do you really expect banks to be lending again easily? And what happens if the banks don’t lend, growth stalls. So the scale of the problem will be closer to $2.0trn and NOT $700 million. If it is the former, this clearly has dramatic implications for the dollar, the credit rating of US economy and state of global banks. No easy solutions here. It took many years to get us here, not reason why it should be quicker to get us out of here.

Wayne Becker

September 21, 2008 02:45 PM

The "bail-out" is a disguise for the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the USA and attempts by the Bush administration to consolidate more power over the citizens of the country. Through this program, the the US will be using public money, tax money, to purchase the mortgage assets at below-market rates and hold onto them until the market recovers. Ideally, the loans could then be sold at a gain.

Those companies whose greed put the market in such peril by hard-selling these mortgage instruments would have their balance sheets put in order and the US government turns a tidy profit -- all at the expense of the US taxpayer.

edmund

September 21, 2008 02:57 PM

I would like to see Lehman participate in the bailout like all the other financial companies.

KAR

September 21, 2008 03:25 PM

Taking the Bush "ownership" society to its logical conclusion, once the Fed has sopped up all the bad debt it should issue shares of stock in it in equal number to each and every living person in the US. Then each individual can decide for him or herself what to do with it, sell it all or in part immediately, or hold it, wait and see if the value of the investment rises and reap the reward (if any) later.

john irwin

September 21, 2008 04:03 PM

Is the buyout restricted to GSE backed MBS, or does this include private label MBS as well?

LAO

September 21, 2008 04:19 PM

Wayne Becker, Isn't the Treasury turning a profit exactly what the taxpayer needs in order to limit the government debt that results from this whole thing?

I have little doubt that the action was necessary to stop the plunge in value, but the price to be paid and the ultimate disposition of the purchased instruments is key. My great fear is that the government will move the purchased instruments back into the marketplace in a way that delivers the profit potential to business and leaves the Treasury/taxpayer with the debt. Even if this motive does not prevail, it still will be a challenge to accomplish the ideal that respects the taxpayer.

Bipin Agarwal

September 21, 2008 04:26 PM

Baliout to financial institution should not have any cost to taxpayers. This should not be designed as bailout but a bridge loan. Two safeguard should be in place.
- If the value of the asset bought by goivenment is less then the sale value, FI should pay the difference.
- FI should pay interest on the money until the assets are disposed.

Teh bailout should only create liquidity and not be designed to take the liability from the FI. There should bo none what so ever any bailout for the consumers, this is a loand and not bailout.

Bipin

Diane

September 21, 2008 05:56 PM

There are plenty of traders and people in Washington, including the congress who knew financials were at risk, but looked the other way. Where was our media, or congress in all this? They have failed to do their jobs. CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX all an embarresment to America for sensationalizing and dumbing down content delivered to American's. Our current congress is incompetent and must be flushed out, both Democrats and Republicans. Businesses need to be accountable and pay fair share of taxes and follow basic rules of good money management. They don't deserve to get a bail out. They used money they didn't have to purchase these risky investments, now when its time to pay up they want a bail out. They will recover and reap rewards on our dime, but under a new name. The fed & treasury figures it will cost more to pay in government backed insurance than to bail out criminals. American's will pay for these bailouts and the billions of dollars of assest these companies have will not be returned to the American people.

Dburn

September 21, 2008 06:16 PM

When a business borrows from a bank and runs into trouble and asks the bank tpo change the terms of the loan or increase the amount, the bank alsmot always requires an audit by their own auditors against the managements financial statements. If their is a systemic problem in balance sheet valuations or income mostatetments, the loan is called and the business is shut down.

That leads me to question why the best U.S. auditors aren't doing the same thing to the banks and AIG.

I don't care how friendly Paulson is with AIG management. If he were running Goldman Sachs and a company asked him for a bridge loan, he would have auditors all over it. That's why we have no idea what the price tag is for this fiasco anymore than the "mushroom" cloud fiasco.

paul

September 21, 2008 06:26 PM

government of the people=yes

government by the people =no

government for the people =no

there is your answere

Amanda

September 21, 2008 06:27 PM

Although this bailout is not the perfect fix, it appears to be the only economical alternative at this point. However, it does send the message to corporate America that it is ok to be a capitalist when gains are present, but a socialist when losses occur.
The condition of the financial markets is a combination of:
1) greedy and irresponsible CEOs
2) lack internal control and due diligence by corporations
3) lack of government regulations or wrong regulations (such as encourage fannie and freddie to buy certain loans from banks)
4) common sense consumers (but then sense is not common to all)

As explanation: Early 2005, the average price for a one family home in NY was $500,000 so what would the every day person have to work in order to afford that? Furthermore 90% of those who purchase did not meet the credit standard but was encouraged if not influenced to (re)finance the home anyway. The banks know what they were getting involved with but they were greedy and irresponsible, and consumers want to bite off more than they can chew. Meanwhile financial engineering is and has been prensent for a long time, and the regulators lack the resources to to deal with this changing environemnt.

In the Enron/Anderson debacle examiners did not understand the off balance sheet items, now it appears that they did not understand "securitization" and even when they did it was too late.

Every research paper I read recently lead me to believe that academics (economic professors)knew this was coming while regulators are still busy with the politics involved.

For example:
All Things Considered, June 7, 2005 · Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, says the global economy is headed in the wrong direction. He's the man behind a Web site called Global Economic


Even if the regulators are willing to employ the resources (economists/analysts)necessary to detect and monitor the market insturments the hiring process inefficient(6-9 months and constraint by budgets)that the experts accept positions in the corporate environment.

In this manner the regulators appears to be re-active rather than pro-active.

Rob D

September 21, 2008 06:43 PM

A LESSON FROM THE TOBACCO COMPANIES

Both Wall Street and the Tobacco Companies sold toxic products.

Consumers were eager to buy toxic products on both fronts.

Both Wall Street and the Tobacco executives claimed their products were safe.

Both Wall Street and the Tobacco Companies claimed that they didn't manipulate the content of their products, and both lied.

Both Wall Street and the Tobacco Companies have made a boat load of money from selling these toxic products.

The Tobacco Companies were held accountable for their "misdeeds", Wall Street was bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Tobacco Companies are still in business, Wall Street is not.

Richard

September 21, 2008 06:53 PM

Before taxpayers' funds are used to bail out financial institutions the government should strip the assets from the directors, managers and shareholders of the financial institutions that are causing the problem. This money could be used to repay the debt.

This would mean that the government owns the problem financial institutions. Once the situation stabilises the government could sell the financial institutions and any surplus money received over and above the debt repayment, interest and costs could be returned to the respective shareholders.

This would be, hopefully, revenue neutral for the taxpayers and only punish management.

Joe 2

September 21, 2008 07:12 PM

The $700 billion is an estimate of the bailout. The government is buying all the foreclosures from the banks. This money will be made back when the foreclosures are auctioned off. The auction will pay for most of the debt and the financing for the new owner could make money for the government. This is really a win situation for the government. People are too stupid to understand what the bailout is.

chuck g

September 21, 2008 07:31 PM

Protect Social Security and Medicare as part of this bailout. Otherwise, the huge deficit created will be used as an excuse to gut those essential programs.

Those programs are more important than bailing out Wall Street and should come first. Wall Street is just a bunch of guys buying and selling paper, buying and selling numbers, really — productive of nothing and close to wrecking the lives of millions.

Christopher H

September 21, 2008 07:56 PM

Spend a trillion dollars to buy worthless assets and fund it through bond sales to foreigners who already think you can't manage your economy. Sounds like another currency crisis is looming already. Then what?

All you are doing is running a huge debt to push the problems further into the future, when they will re-emerge again, evantually, at greater costs.

These aren't solutions at all, they address the symptoms and not the disease itself - an economy run on credit, loose money and a depreciating currency that exports the costs to those you expect to fund your debts. Crazy stuff, it can't possibly go on for ever.

Rick

September 21, 2008 07:57 PM

Excuse me, but where is the accountability here?? Why are there no calls for investigations into this house of cards, and holding people responsible. If this were China, they would be lining people up against Wall Street and shooting them. Tens of thousands and companies made incredible amounts of money as a result of smooth talking people into signing mortgages that they should have never been given. They barely had to prove that they were alive. This is absolutely rediculous and nobody has the guts to stand up and hold someone, (Bush would be a great place to start) accountable. I wonder how many republicans or Democrats would vote for this bailout if they had to raise taxes to pay for it, instead of just adding it to the national debt.

LooseKannon

September 21, 2008 08:59 PM

A Plan To Bail Out The Bailout:

Late this past week the SEC listed 799 companies whose stocks can’t be shorted. Additionally, there will be both private and public companies who will be lining up to pass their toxic debt on to the American taxpayer.
The highest paid employees of any company on the SEC list, or other entities who want the taxpayer to hold up the system, have to be willing to pay a price. By doing so they will be saving the capitalist/free market system that has been so good to them, and demonstrating that they’re not just lip service patriots.
A retroactive 15% surtax, covering returns from 2003-2007 inclusively, on any employees whose adjusted gross income was over 1.5 million dollars, should be collected by the IRS and used to fund the bailouts. And going forwards the penalties should increase dramatically should such behavior reoccur. To borrow from the criminal justice system, think 3 strikes, you’re out. And I’m wide open to whatever adjustments need to be made to the above so that the spirit of the idea is executable within the letter of the law.

Read more of LooseKannon's Plan here.

jrb

September 21, 2008 09:04 PM

Responsibility. Anyone in America remember this word? Grow up and pay your own bills! Cant afford your mortgage payment? Walk away....the tax payers will bail you out. Great message for our youth. They should rename short-sale to pathetic-sale.

Freinds with Benefits

September 21, 2008 09:32 PM

Deregulation helped the friends of Bush to make a lot of money. Now, the bailout is more of the handout to the "beggars".

Andre

September 21, 2008 09:36 PM

Wall Street is a joke. Get paid billions to lose trillions. Then get another trillion of our hard earned tax money so that they can blow it all again on yachts and mansions. If you see an i-banker, give him or her a hard kick in the...

sam

September 21, 2008 09:37 PM

If this situation does not result in criminal charges for a lot of people, faith in the system will collapse.

Caitlin

September 21, 2008 09:45 PM

"Just where will the money come from to pay for all of this?"

Where do you think it's going to come from?!?!? From hardworking American taxpayers - the vast majority of whom make whatever sacrifices are necessary to pay the mortgage or the rent.

Would Senators Cornyn and Hutchison care to come to my house and explain to my 12 year old "Sorry, honey, but your college education has died and gone to China?!?"

And now Paulson, the self-appointed blank-check-wielding Monarch of the new American Kleptocracy, is saying that we're expected to bail out foreign investors and banks, too? Under his plan, we'll be debt slave whores to the Chinese, Russians and Saudis for the rest of our lives. Forget retirement - we'll be worked like rented mules to the day we die.

And don't even get me started on the extra-constitutional powers and protections Paulson has claimed for himself. He works for the Executive Branch but plans to make budget decisions appropriate to the Legislative Branch and has declared himself immune from review by the Judicial Branch. This is treason and any legislator voting for this POS needs to understand that they will be brought up on charges.

If I weren't so furious I'd be weeping for my lost country.

john

September 21, 2008 09:50 PM

i love the idea of giving a i-banker on wall street a hard kick in the balls. they deserve it.
u cannot get paid 500000 as a 30 year old and more like 100 million if you are a ceo and expect a bail out by the taxpayer. FU get a life. your a mess up and failure. suffer. dont try to get all of america to suffer.

YOUR kids will pay for this mess. and I will vote DEM. to make sure you pay more in taxes. the class war will expand.

steve

September 21, 2008 10:08 PM

D'you suppose those Wall Street guys can get a refund on those tapes they bought for "Bringing Out Your Financial Genius?"

Lewis Rambo

September 21, 2008 11:03 PM

Nice. I am outta here. Gone back to the civilized world. Back to Europe. USA stinks to hell.

Peter

September 21, 2008 11:58 PM

This is the largest wealth transfer from the public to the bankers ever happened in the US history. It is explicit, invasive, unconstitutional and sad. The sad thing is that the majority of our citizens have no clue what is happening while their last asset is being taken in the daylight.

Paulson and Co. should be charged for criminal act against American tax payers.

Peter

September 21, 2008 11:59 PM

This is the largest wealth transfer from the public to the bankers ever happened in the US history. It is explicit, invasive, unconstitutional and sad. The sad thing is that the majority of our citizens have no clue what is happening while their last asset is being taken in the daylight.

Paulson and Co. should be charged for criminal act against American tax payers.

Alan

September 22, 2008 12:07 AM

It's shameless how your magazine and other so called financial news media , keep quiet and go along with this mortgage on American's future while protecting those that conducted their business for the past 7 years with absolute disregard for any social responsibility.

Maybe1

September 22, 2008 12:37 AM

The vital question is:
Who will pay for the treasury deficit??
U.S. Residents? It's much worse that U.S. residents will be enforced to pay for the treasury deficit through government increase the TAX RATE.

phuffman

September 22, 2008 09:16 AM

Bush wants every teacher to have accountability in education (NCLB) but where is the accountability for the Wall Street businessmen and women?

A disgruntled teacher.

Jim Glover

September 22, 2008 11:51 AM

This is like a global revolution folks... the corrupt system has been laid bear for all to pay for in one way or another.... my Grandfather was right about the stock-market and now it goes for the global financial system.... it is throwing good money after bad and the house Central Bank cleans up!

Raj

September 22, 2008 08:29 PM

what would its implications be on housing market w.r.t the hosuing bottom . will it stop all the foreclosures or only stop some foreclosures ? specially i am looking for in the Orange county in California.

Jerry

September 24, 2008 02:37 PM

Spend the $700 billion on the repair of our interstate highway system....putting people to work would do more for our economy that the bailout of Wall Street.

sam

September 24, 2008 02:43 PM

With all the lies coming out of the White House for the last 8 years....why should the American People believe anything the Bush Administration says about the economy? For the most part I see the bailout as helping the Wall Street rich keep their life style intact.

patriot

September 24, 2008 10:44 PM

how come there isn't a lynch mob heading toward wall street to tar and feather these criminals? why are there no effort to give these idiots a good shake and kick their behinds?

Verla

September 27, 2008 08:21 AM

If "mom and pop store" down the street makes poor business decisions, the government doesn't make the tax payers bail them out so why do we have to help these companies making salaries a hundred times more than your average tax payer makes? We are struggling.

If the government buys all these bad debts, does that mean the little person that owes them gets their debt cancelled? No. So how does that help us? That means we have to still pay the debt with less take home pay because this will mean we will have a tax increase. Ridiculous.

If you want to give away $700B to help someone, lets cancel all federal income tax for three years for persons making less that $75K per year....all that extra money in their pockets will allow debts to be paid.

The big companies need to learn how to only make loans to people who can really afford them.

Kitty Antonik Wakfer

September 27, 2008 09:12 PM

Too few people are asking about why the thousands of individuals who took out mortgages and stopped paying on them are not required to do so. Even with all the financial shenanigans and government regulatory nonsense that has existed for decades in the US - and actually has contributed to the bubble in buying houses and taking out other loans - the acute problem as I see it is the fact that a very large increase in numbers of people stopped paying on their mortgages over the number 5 years ago.

Simply walking away in large numbers from mortgages and leaving the bank (which always includes their account holders and investors - mostly typical people, not the highly wealthy) with houses and other real estate is what started this bubble bursting. If people were required to be responsible for their debts whereby they paid on them, even at a reduced rate, leaving them only enough income to live at a subsistence level, there would not be the tendency to take out loans not affordable nor the numbers of people willing to file bankruptcy (defaulting on those loans).

So don't ignore the most acute cause of this financial mess - the very large number of bad debtors. Don't simply pass the blame off to banks for making loans and politicians for having voted on previous banking regulations that made subprime loans easy.

Megan

September 30, 2008 02:32 PM

How much will each american citizen have to pay if the bailout plan is accepted?

Andrew Abraham

October 3, 2008 09:57 AM

Does it really matter which way the vote goes today...what do as citizens do to protect ourselves.. what about the unspoken credit derivatives floating around ... one of our members on MyinvestorsPlace.com told us there was $62 trillion dollars of unregulated derivatives floating around... Who is going to bailout us the citizens.. who is going to bail out the US Govt... Really...I would like to hear suggestions on a personal level what we can.... Let me know...

Andrew Abraham

October 3, 2008 09:58 AM

Does it really matter which way the vote goes today...what do as citizens do to protect ourselves.. what about the unspoken credit derivatives floating around ... one of our members on MyinvestorsPlace.com told us there was $62 trillion dollars of unregulated derivatives floating around... Who is going to bailout us the citizens.. who is going to bail out the US Govt... Really...I would like to hear suggestions on a personal level what we can.... Let me know...

Patty B

October 3, 2008 02:36 PM

For many years the US economy has been propped up by the housing market. The idea that every LOW INCOME MINORITY IS ENTITLED TO HOME OWNERSHIP IS BS LIBERAL THINKING.. As far as I am concerned people that bought homes that they could not afford are not victims, they are freeloaders. Politicians DEMS AND REPS are EQUALLY TO BLAME.…let’s make a deal we will give you your DREAM HOME FOR YOUR VOTE. I’m sick of all the free hand outs. And ALL THE PORK, I played by all the rules , worked hard ,done the right thing and struggled to pay for what is mine.
Every elected official who supports the Bush/Chris Dodd/Barack Obama/Democrats bailout plans should be impeached. Especially CHRIS DODD AND BARNEY FRANK…THEY WERE IN CHARGE OF FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT. And you want to put PAULSON in charge of our US TREASURY as ZAR…TO HAND OUT LOANS TO WHOMEVER PLEASES HIM AND IM WORRIED COULD IT BE BUYING INTO FOREIGN BANKS THAT ARE IN TROUBLE…LET THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HELP BAIL THEM OUT ALSO! YOU SHOULD ALL BE IMPEACHED!!! AND WE NEED TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS!!!
Oh by the way, my home is certainly not my "dream home", but it's what I could afford....PAID IN FULL
Thank you very much.
Kind Regards

Archangel

October 4, 2008 07:28 PM

Thank Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, etc. for this mess - their socialist legislation loosening up mortgage rules and mandating Fannie Mae to buy all the resulting questionable mortgages from the banks so the "underpriviledged" could buy homes they couldn't afford.

Now they christmas treat a bailout bill that buys the needed votes with "wool research" funding, incentives for children's archery bow makers, and a hundred other pork barrel projects - at a time when they should be worrying about what's best for the country, they're busy shoveling out the other white meat.

And if that crew of buffoons isn't enough - the first term of Karl Marx begins when/if Obama steps into the White House.

Watch out then - it can only get worse!!

Forget impeachment and term limits - break out the guillotines!!!!

robert

October 6, 2008 09:27 PM

this is a mistake, the plan is faulty, the debt is only changing hands, all the wealthy will get their "risk free" money back, the poor will become poorer the middle class is all but extinct, the banks will give bonuses to themselves sucking up the finances gained by the bailout,,,,fortunes are made and lost in this country,,,, it is your right to lose your money not the responsibility of the gov to bailout the companies,,, let the market be it will balance itself out, it usually does

Kimbo

December 7, 2008 10:30 AM

Bailout 2008, a poem by David Jeffrey

Like a bloodied warrior,
laying broken and torn.

Like a dying soldier, hopeless and forlorn.

But the blood, it be green,
the color of money.

And the soldier is an economy,
and it is anything but funny.

Broken are it's people and shattered are their dreams.

Thanks to the ultra rich and their full proof schemes.

It is a tragedy with more pain to come.

Finance will be Hell, and their wills will be done.

Thank you for your interest. This blog is no longer active.

 

Election 2008

Washington Bureau Chief Jane Sasseen and other BusinessWeek writers cover the run-up to the Nov. 4 presidential election, paying close attention to how the candidates will handle issues such as housing, the economy, unemployment, and immigration.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!