It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 Things You Should Know About the Trillion Dollar Bailout

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   

10 Things You Should Know About the Trillion Dollar Bailout


www.alternet.org

The Bush administration's proposal to bail out some of Wall Street's biggest players with an unprecedented transfer of public wealth to the private sector sent shock-waves throughout the nation.

Already deep in deficit, the administration wants to borrow $700 billion dollars -- in addition to the $900 billion already spent this year to prop up troubled lending institutions and deal with the fall-out from the housing crisis -- and entrust it to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, fresh from a long run on Wall Street himself. He'd then buy up worthless paper from struggling banks.

Who would get the money? Nobody knows. Paulson says he wants to hire Wall Street firms to oversee the process.

Under Bush's plan, the taxpayer would get little, if anything, in return. The whole thing would happen without Congressional oversight, save for a semi-annual report on the process, and Paulson's actions would be beyond challenge in the courts.

It is an economic coup d'etat in the making. And people are talking about little else. Here's 10 things that have been on our radars ...

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This is an important read.

I doubt if this scam can be stopped but if enough citizens scream foul perhaps... just perhaps something can be done... oversight anyway.

www.alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Get outraged... get mad... get pissed... make a stink... its our only weapon.

If enough people cry foul we might stop this. Write, call e-mail and cuss at your congress person until you are blue in the face and their ears burn.

Don't hold your breath though... still we must try.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by grover]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Thank you grover,

You are right, that is an important read.

Generally speaking the biggest threat to the corporate scheme is the Constitution. We must protect it with all our might, ironically, from the people who accepted an office and swore an oath to do that job for us.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
In the 18th and early 19th centuries the governments here and in Europe were deeply suspicious of corporations and limited their charters scope and life. They believed that corporations were a way of avoiding responsiblity for their actions and that if allowed to run unchecked could become to large and adversely affect the economy and the nations.

How right they were.

No company, no corporation, no instituition, no investment house, no bank, no insurance company should ever be allowed to get so large that their failure alone would adversely effect the economy.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
It's true. We have to act. Call your congressmen, call your representatives, call anyone and everyone involved in government at your local and state level. Tell them what you think of this flat out. As others have said, I don't think there is anyway to stop this from happening now, but perhaps we can change the way this works somehow.

As I've said in other threads, if nothing else, perhaps we can get Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to resign. Both of my fingers are pointed straight at those two for the majority of this mess. They should have nothing to do with this new bailout.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

No company, no corporation, no instituition, no investment house, no bank, no insurance company should ever be allowed to get so large that their failure alone would adversely effect the economy.


I couldn't agree more with this but, unfortunately, it HAS happened. Thus, we are left in crisis mode and must do something to avoid what seems to be an imminent financial collapse.

So, while this bailout scares the living daylights out of me, what is the alternative? Are those of you who want to stop this bailout willing to accept the consequences of those actions which could very likely include the loss of savings of hard working Americans?

Is that an acceptable result for you?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The Republicans and specifically the anti-tax anti-regulation crowd within the Republican party are the ones most responsible for this mess. They are after all the ones starting back in the 80's with Reagan pushed the whole notion that we were hampering Wall street with regulations.

The thing is those regulations were put into place for good reason... to reign in the excess and corrpution that led to the great depression... and nothing has changed.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
That's my point. This can't be stopped, and in all likelihood must be done. All I want is for Frank and Dodd to disgracefully resign and admit their wrongdoings. They have more of a hand in this than anyone else can claim to, and they should be held accountable.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Not true.

Bush has tried I believe 8 times during his term to alert congress of what was happening here and wanted to make more regulation for these companies and banks. Each time Dodd and the democrats in office voted it down and wouldn't even consider it.

Even McCain tried to warn of what was coming about 3 years ago and was shut down.

This is not a purely partisan issue my friend.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537


As I've said in other threads, if nothing else, perhaps we can get Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to resign. Both of my fingers are pointed straight at those two for the majority of this mess. They should have nothing to do with this new bailout.


Could you explain how Dodd and Frank, neither of whom I care for by the way, deserve the lions Share of the blame here? What about the Bush administration and the Republican controlled congress during the first 6 years of the Bush Administration? What about the Democratic controlled conference over the past two years? How about the financial institutions that willingly violated every tenet of solid lending practices? How about the people who took out mortgages they had to know they couldn't afford to pay for simply because a bank was willing to give them the money?

There is plenty of blame to go around here and it seems that some who are screaming the loudest, and rightfully so, for the Federal Gov't to own up to it's part in this, seem not quite so willing to ask the other parties to also accept personal responsibility.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
The Republicans and specifically the anti-tax anti-regulation crowd within the Republican party are the ones most responsible for this mess. They are after all the ones starting back in the 80's with Reagan pushed the whole notion that we were hampering Wall street with regulations.

The thing is those regulations were put into place for good reason... to reign in the excess and corrpution that led to the great depression... and nothing has changed.


Well someone watches the Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow show, word for word. News flash, they are in Obama's coat pocket. There is a lot more to this crisis than deregulation by Republicans.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
As I've said, Bush tried to stop this in 2003.

Don't believe me?


But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.


Full Article

This is where it all began.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by nyk537]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


I don't watch either... I don't have cable... I just know my history... and I also know that there are plenty of Democratic collaborators to blame as well but the imputus came from the hard right of the republican party and no one else but.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
As I've said, Bush tried to stop this in 2003.

Don't believe me?


But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.


Full Article

This is where it all began.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by nyk537]


www.bloomberg.com...

Alan Greenspan tried to warn them (Congress) as well



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
As I've said, Bush tried to stop this in 2003.

Don't believe me?


But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."


Question, which party was in control of congress in 2003?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by yellowcard
 


I don't watch either... I don't have cable... I just know my history... and I also know that there are plenty of Democratic collaborators to blame as well but the imputus came from the hard right of the republican party and no one else but.


Well if you knew your history you would have read about the housing reform bill that the poster above you and I both (below) have linked to. There were many warnings from the Central Bank and the Executive Branch. It's bipartisan in faults.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
So did McCain in 2003 and 2004 along with President Bush.

Point is, people who want to blame this on Republicans have no idea what they are talking about.

They tried to stop this from happening. It's the democrats in congress who let this happen because they had their hands so deep into these places pockets they didn't know what to do.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I am not saying that there weren't people on both sides of the asile responisble for this... I am saying the original imputus came directly from the anti-tax anti-regulation zealots of the republician party.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Ya know,

My opinion on partisan blame, at this point, is tantamount to a sudden legislation allowing murder.

Simply because there is now legislation in place (in theory) allowing murder, does that mean that YOU would commit it? Certainly not. Or, if there were NOT legislation prohibiting it, would you? Certainly not. Simply because it's not within you to do so unless life/property/family left you without choice.

I think the same has happened here, while (whether democrat or republican) our own representatives were LACKING in knowledge, which is probably EXACTLY what happened...let's face it they're actors who are constantly guided by teleprompters not needing to REALLY know, opened up the doors for those who WOULD commit that "murder" simply because a regulation doesnt exist prohibiting it. You want to lay blame? In my opinion thats where it shouold lie... and those "murderers" are the unscrupulous bankers who COULD have been looking out for our and future generations well-being, but instead, took their instant-gratification and ran with it.

I guess they didn't stop to think for a moment that, by NOT ensuring the longevity of our economy, they were shooting themselves in the foot, and their amassed wealth could well become as worthless as just having had nothing to begin with.


AB1




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join