[...] events that led to this mess, followed by the possible unintended consequences and then the only existing draft as a starting point for the proposed legislation, I suspect it’s plain I remain a skeptic on this government [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

As you said, Fit… it’s only a few pages long. Since the standard routine of Senators is not to read legislation, but be briefed on the content instead (I hate that practice, BTW… but it’s the way they work), I’m not surprised he didn’t read it. That, however, does not mean he doesn’t know what’s in it.

Also, the only draft we have, which I provided here, was written prior to the 20th of Sept. There are already verbal changes discussed. So until anyone can see a final draft, it’s rather a moot point.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If John McCain is so concerned about getting some sort of legislation passed, why did he admit he hadn’t even read the proposal the day before he suspends his campaign?

They started discussing this last Friday. The bill is only two and a half pages long and he can’t be bothered to read it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

FBI INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL FRAUD BY FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC, LEHMAN, AIG
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426783,00.html

It’s about time the FBI puts his nose in these companies. Just hope these investigations will not be too long. Anxious to see the results.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Draft proposal of Financial Rescue Plan…or how to give one man free rein with $700 bil for two yea…floppingaces.net [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If the government is going to invest $700 billion then they should temporarally own the companies and put in executives that have experience. Damn, I can’t believe I said that government should take over these companies. But to relieve them of their bad debts and alIow them continue as in the past is unacceptable.

BarbaraS… I can’t believe you said that either… LOL

We’re not forgiving debt (like a bankruptcy), but buying notes at fire sale prices … paper backed by over valued property assets. Funny, they don’t want the banks to sell them at fire sale prices, but it’s okay if the government buys them at fire sale prices…. still having fun wrapping my mind around that one.

But back to it… repercussions for that purchase means the government places these participating companies in the status of financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

Not owned by the government, but certainly controlled. A quasi socialism agreement. Like Neo says, brings a whole new meaning to Windfall Profits tax. Under that notion, the Obama government wants to control how much a company can make, with the gov’t taking the overage… but the company stays privately owned.

With this, the company stays privately owned, but is under the control of the government as a “financial agent”. And how long does that last? Afterall, this is a purchase, not a loan. Are they “financial agents” for the rest of their existance?

Like Fit says… they’re slamming this thru when they haven’t figured out the details yet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Rightwing, this is what we have until we get a new draft. I understand they verbally have agreed to change some of the dynamics. But the quintessential rule in real estate applies… in writing, in writing, in writing. We have not had public access to a newer draft because there *isn’t* one. How do we know that having lessened the impact of one point, they haven’t increased the impact of another? So far, all we have is “just words”.

This is the draft premise from which they start. It was put out there so that we didn’t have to depend upon what the media and pol mouthpieces were tell us about the legislation. We could read the proposal for ourselves to see what they are *not* telling us.

I’m a little tired of folks setting themselves up as financial experts on web sites that have, at best, a passing knowledge of the complexity of the credit markets.

Well now, you have an interesting attitude. You see websites and blogs are the 1st Amendment in action, as well as a learning experience. People post… then others bash the ideas around, and oft time the dissenting voices put in solid points… and every one walks away with a better grip on the issue.

This seems to bother you. Okay….. I always thought that debate and the 1st Amendment were a pretty darn good thing.

I suggest you worry less about the blogs and laymen who express their opinions, and worry more about those idiots in Congress who genuinely “have, at best, a passing knowledge of the complexity of the credit markets”. We may annoy you, but it is they who are getting ready to hand beaucoup bucks, belonging to you, to a single entitity in the Treasury… with no legal review, unlimited decision power, and semi-annual accounting of all that cash.

Now who’s more dangerous? Those exercising their 1st Amendment? Or those with the stroke of the legislative pen, giving the Secy of the Treasury that much authority and cash?

~~~

Fit Fit… is it possible you and I find ourselves on the same page here?? Ah.. those rare moments of unity should be savored.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Which of these two actions would you call leadership: Having a House Majority Leader claiming that restoring the ban on offshore drilling is a top priority next year*, or having a Presidential candidate suspend his campaign to return to his job in Washington to help prevent the nations biggest financial crisis since the great depression**?

Yesterday, over strong objections from the Obama camp and the mainstream media, John McCain decided to suspend his campaign to focus all of his energy and leadership qualities on the nations critical financial crisis that could send this country, (and possibly the world), into economic chaos. Once again, the Maverick has proven that “putting his country first” is not just a campaign slogan, but, by his actions, has shown the leadership that can certainly be called Presidential.

* = http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36268

** = Obama’s words

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Does this mean the government will purchase the bad mortgages and leave the infrastructure of the companies intact? No and hell no. This needs to be corrected from the bottom up. Carter and Clinton’s social engineering laws need to be repealed. The government needs to keep its nose out of private industry in the future. By that I mean enacting laws that force the companies to lend to bad creditors. The executives of these companies need to be brought to justice for their criminal accounting practices and replaced. The bonuses and raises in salaries they bilked from the companies needs to be returned and the perpetrators fined and jauled. They did it to Enron so why should these companies be exempt.

If the government is going to invest $700 billion then they should temporarally own the companies and put in executives that have experience. Damn, I can’t believe I said that government should take over these companies. But to relieve them of their bad debts and alIow them continue as in the past is unacceptable. All that means is it will happen again. Also I fail to see why we the taxpayers should subsidize the bad mortgagees. They bought houses they could not afford. There is no sense in rewarding at worst pure thievery or at best stupidity.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What a scam ..

The federal government creates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who procede to produce securities of questionable value (but they are assumed to be backed by the federal government). Then when the securities are determined to be of questionable value, the federal government sets up a program to buy them back, on the cheap, while possibly making up to $1 trillion by reselling them when their value is cleared up.

Brings a whole new meaning to “Windfall Profits Tax” .. LOL

Tom Sawyer couldn’t think this big. Samuel Clemens must be laughing in his grave.

There must be a sucker born everyday.

Like or Dislike: 0  0