It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Draft Bailout - From 3 pages to 102 pages Edit: 106 Now

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:24 PM
I think I signed up to three different petitions and wrote twice to my Representative, plus signed on to a couple of mass email schemes.
I have to guess that since people are already being convinced there is a financial emergency, a general state of emergency can be declared. So, if the election is indefinitely postponed, the congressmen do not have to worry about what their constituents feel about what they do.
My other guess is that they have a secret poll that shows that if the candidates endorse this take-over bill, they will both loose to Nader. It would be too hard to pull off a believable vote scam in every district, so short of an assassination, we have to just forget about elections.
I heard Ian Punnit talking about the suspension of elections on Coast to Coast last night. He had Jim Marrs on and asked him what he thought about it. Marrs went as far as saying they may be testing the idea to find out how people will react. (I am listening to the stream-link, as I write, so that is where I am getting these ideas from) Marrs said that if the provision was left in the bill about none of what the Secretary of the Treasury does is reviewable, that would be a red flag and it is nothing but a dictatorship.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by jmdewey60]

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:31 PM
Ah.. .Tevye - so full of good wisdom. I will watch Fiddler again ASAP to try and get myself centered. I think I have to turn off the news.

Anyway folks - keep up the good work tomorrow - I will probably be out of touch (work and then leave early to drive 1.5 hours to a wake - which I have to drive back from when it's over tomorrow night).

Keep the news up-to-date all on GM. There will be cookies and milk (naw - as my favorite 2 year old says GIN N JUICE!) Tuesday.
No clue why she says that and neither does her mom, but it sounds good to me.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Except Bush has no credibility left at all, and I do think it would be revolution if he pulled stunt like that now. He doesn't dare!

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Here is how the Secretary of Treasury is reviewed:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the Financial Stability Oversight Board, which shall be responsible for—
8 (1) reviewing the exercise of authority under a
9 program developed in accordance with this Act, in
11 (A) any action taken by the Secretary and
12 the Office of Financial Stability created under
13 section 101, including the appointment of finan
14cial agents, the designation of asset classes to
15 be purchased, and plans for the structure of ve
16hicles used to purchase troubled assets; and
17 (B) the effect of such actions in assisting
18 American families in preserving home owner
19ship, stabilizing financial markets, and pro
20tecting taxpayers;
21 (2) making recommendations, as appropriate, to
22 the Secretary regarding use of the authority under
23 this Act; and
24 (3) reporting any suspected fraud, misrepresen
25tation, or malfeasance to the Inspector General for
O:\AYO\AYO08B94.xml [Discussion Draft]
1 the Department of the Treasury or the Attorney
2 General of the United States, consistent with section
3 535(b) of title 28, United States Code.

The Oversight board will consist of:

MEMBERSHIP.—The Financial Stability Over
MEMBERSHIP.—The Financial Stability Over
5sight Board shall be comprised of—
6 (1) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of
7 the Federal Reserve System;
8 (2) the Secretary of the Treasury;
9 (3) the Director of the Federal Home Finance
10 Agency;
11 (4) the chairman of the Securities and Ex
12change Commission; and
13 (5) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Devel
15 (c) CHAIRPERSON.—The chairperson of the Financial
16 Stability Oversight Board shall be elected by the members
17 of the Board from among the members.

In other words, the oversight board will consist of all of the crooks that caused the problem. Note that the Secretary of the Treasury is ON the board that reviews his action. In other words, he helps to review himself!
What a scam.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:50 PM

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by Relentless

Actually it's just grandstanding, there are 13(/100) Jewish senators and 29(/435) representatives. I happen to be Jewish but have no sympathy for anyone who attempts to use religion as an excuse for doing poorly at their job. As congressmen they should be expected to perform their duties under any circumstances. I'd say the same if Congress was being held over through Christmas for some reason.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Bob Schulz and We The People Foundation filed 2 lawsuits seeking an immediate injunction against the AIG bailout and this bill. The latest update" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">update was that the court (US District Court) denied the request for injunction, claiming the lawsuit failed to provide "citation to authority or an explanation of this court's jurisdiction, except conclusory statements of the law…".

Back to reading this garbage!

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Relentless
reply to post by jmdewey60

Except Bush has no credibility left at all, and I do think it would be revolution if he pulled stunt like that now. He doesn't dare!

No, Bush would be driven off and he would probably like that, I mean a way to get out of town before schedule. Nice chance to spend some quality time in Paraguay. You would have a popular uprising that would force Obama to be appointed, somehow. So, what you end up with is a Committee of Public Safety under the control of a Robespierre type person. Right out of the Reign of Terror. (sorry for the doom and gloom but I guess it comes from listening to Alex Jones too much)

[edit on 29-9-2008 by jmdewey60]

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:12 PM
A little bit of hope- Congressman Gingrey (R) says he believes that MORE THAN HALF of the Republican House members will VOTE AGAINST the bill.
Let's hope and pray that he is right. Pelosi said if they don't get half of Republicans to vote for it, they won't go forward.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:14 PM
Wow, I think I scooped FoxNews. They are now talking about the OVERSIGHT committee, and how it is nothing but a rubber stamp, since all of the members are part of the political group pushing for this.
They are saying that the Oversight Committee is the WORST part of this bill.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by EtSolveMundi

Thanks for answering my question. Sorry that it turned out kind of like what I would have expected. These people have gotten away too long with getting away with whatever they want, to be afraid of any court action. Ordinary people have no standing and if you did, (meaning you were a bank or something) you would get paid off to go away. So, it sounds like it will never be challenged in the Supreme Court.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by jmdewey60]

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:32 PM
As I said earlier, this whole draft bill reeks of bank and special lobby interests. The "oversight committee" is just one of many.

From Sec. 101 of the B94 Draft Bailout

6 (b) CONSULTATION.—In exercising the authority under this section, the Secretary shall consult with the 8 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

The HUD Sec. is also gaining power here. The banking elite are getting their secret powers codified by the US government.

"Tinhat" becoming reality right before our eyes.

So, it seems Paulson has to consult with the criminals and be overseen by the criminals. Convenient.


posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Lurkerzrule

There is still hope. I called my congressman, and had several friends and neighbors do the same tonight. He had a staffer taking counts of the calls, and one of my friends said he hadn't gotten ONE call in favor the entire evening. Now, on FoxNews, one of the Republican Congressman says that many of them are very afraid to vote for the bill, because, of course, they are all up for election in November, and the calls have virtually been all like mine- namely, vote against this bill, or I will vote against you in November.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:50 PM
I've been at this for over a week. Here in SC, both of our Senators (DeMint and Graham) appear to be against the bailout. Its Graham I really question. He has a history lately of ignoring his constituents. Luckily, I have reminded his campaign and senate office he is facing a tighter race this year against a democrat who has come out against this bailout proposal.

All the offices I have talked to so far has said that they have never had such public interest and outrage against a single piece of proposed legislation.

HOPEFULLY, this thing will die.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by Relentless

John McCain was a member of the Keating, this is nothing new to him.

He did it before and he is doing it again

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by Lurkerzrule

This gets even worse. I just found this:

Treasury Gets Broad Power in Bailout Bill to Hire Contractors

By Rebecca Christie

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will have broad authority to hire financial managers quickly to help manage a $700 billion asset-purchase plan, according to the draft legislation under consideration.

The bill would allow the Treasury chief to waive federal acquisition procedures ``where compelling circumstances make compliance contrary to the public interest,'' according to a summary of the draft law. The Treasury would have to notify Congress of such waivers within seven days, and also ensure procedures are in place to reach out to minorities.

If the plan is enacted, the Treasury likely will need a lot of Wall Street expertise to manage the assets it acquires, said Tim Ryan, head of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Ryan also is former director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversaw the Resolution Trust Corp., the agency that liquidated failed thrifts after the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s.

``What we learned through the RTC process is, if we're going to throw this type of assignment at the government -- any government, state, federal, U.S., anywhere -- they're not staffed to deal with this issue,'' Ryan said in an interview last week.

Treasury's potential hiring of contractors to run the program will help because ``they'll just do a better job and they'll get it done faster, and ultimately it'll be cheaper,'' Ryan said.

Paulson has already recruited from Wall Street to help manage the current financial crisis, the worst since the Great Depression. He hired Morgan Stanley on a $95,000 contract awarded under emergency procedures to help assess options for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that ultimately ended up in government conservatorship.

Goldman Sachs

Paulson also last week hired former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. colleague Edward C. Forst, now executive vice president at Harvard University, on a $5,000 contract to help with the plan.

The draft legislation would allow the Treasury to select the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as an asset manager for residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. If the Treasury looks to Wall Street for other staff, it should find plenty of affordable talent, Ryan said.

``There are people in this business who know this asset class who have recently, in the last six months, lost jobs, and they'll take a lot less pay than they got the last time,'' Ryan said in the interview.

In other words, they are now hiring the people that CAUSED this problem to help MANAGE the new $700 billion!
This gets "curiouser and curiouser" as Alice once said.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:22 AM
I've been reading it. Thus far one good thing I see is quite a bit of congressional oversight, and the removal of the "no review by any court" clause that was so worrying to me in the initial draft. Now they not only leave that out, but also include direct mention of judicial review, so that's a step in the right direction at least. Perhaps congress is, for once, actually providing the check and balance to the executive that they are supposed to (in theory.)

I admit that I lack sufficient understanding of the financial terminology used to make a firm determination, however.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by Relentless

In perusing the document I did come across something I found interesting. It says that the treasury secretary can either deposit funds collected or can be used as "cash on hand". That sounds really weird given the amounts of money we are talking about.

The other item I noticed was that any contractors used for the program the Secretary must use women and minority owned businesses.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:38 AM
I think the Chairperson should be an independent non Government or Federal Reserve member.

(2) BOARD.—The term ‘‘Board’’ means the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

(c) CHAIRPERSON.—The chairperson of the Financial
Stability Oversight Board shall be elected by the members
of the Board from among the members.

And the Treasury Secetary still maintains all the power with the onus on proving that they have "not acted in accordance with the Act"

AUTHORITIES.—Notwithstanding the authority granted to the Secretary under section8 101(a), the executive committee may direct, limit, or
prohibit the activities of the Secretary to carry out
the purposes of this Act, to the extent that the exec11
utive committee determines that such activities are
not in accordance with the purposes of this Act.

And what are the "other purposes "


"protecting taxpayers, and
for other purposes."

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:46 AM
How about a big fat NO!!!

Bill dismissed there will be no bill.

And Government is hereby prohibited from all and any more bailout/rescue actions

make that a bill.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:31 AM
How many on here yelling about how wrong this is PAY ANY TAX AT ALL. I would bet that 98 percent of the people against this get money back every year, and this will cost them nothing. People like me who had to fork over almost 70K last year will have to pay. While the freeloaders and hippies sit back and whine like little girls. Grow up, this has to happen or it is 1929 again. Sorry, but the hippies and free thinkers lost.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in