It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maxmars
Not one of these Senators should be reelected.
Each has knowingly undertaken the circumvention of the Constitution, with full intention of executing an 'end-run' around the law of the land.
They have accepted, by taking the oath of office, the responsibility to defend the sentinel document at the heart of our republic, and tossed it aside because the 'big money' was going to 'go away' and leave them behind if they didn't.
They prostituted themselves to the transnational banking elite.
As far as I'm concerned, they are guilty of treason, failure to perform their duty, and I would not be severely surprised to find they were all bribed or blackmailed - or both.
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the $700 billion bailout package. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue and want you to know that I agree with you.
As you may know, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act would provide authority to the Treasury Secretary to use $700 billion of American taxpayer money to purchase troubled assets. After studying the proposal and talking with many financial experts and constituents, I decided that I can't support it for three main reasons.
First, it is an unprecedented government bailout that will almost certainly pave the way for even more government bailouts at the expense of the American taxpayer - maybe sooner rather than later. Second, it requires people at Treasury to make tens of thousands of judgment calls about what they buy and for how much. The people making these decisions will be people from Wall Street who want to go back, causing great concern for biases and even corruption. Third, there has been no adequate discussion of the major reforms needed. I am afraid this big government first step helps ensure that Congress will not make those strong reforms - like breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and requiring cash down for home purchases. I believe we should work to address the root cause of these problems so we can avoid future widespread economic troubles instead of simply expecting American taxpayers to pay the bill.
You may also be pleased to know that I strongly opposed and voted against the earlier bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored mortgage giants' own mismanagement and poor decision making caused their downfall and were a major factor in causing our current crisis. The plan to bailout these mortgage giants could cost American taxpayers up to $300 billion, making the U.S. taxpayers liable for up to $1 trillion when combined with the Treasury Department's $700 billion proposal.
The American housing market and economy has greatly suffered as a result of irresponsible mortgage lending and borrowing. There have been significant loan defaults and foreclosures, and many financial institutions have lost billions of dollars. However, I believe that taxpayers should not bail irresponsible banks, mortgage lenders, and borrowers out of their bad decisions.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future about any other issue important to you and your family.
Senator David Vitter
United States Senator
Economists Raise Concerns About Bailout Plan
Thursday, October 02, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.
While some politicians were reconsidering their opposition to the bailout this week, there is one group that still expresses a lot of concerns with the legislation: economists.
Interviews conducted with a dozen prominent academic economists, Obama supporters as well as McCain supporters, found little support for the bailout bill. Indeed, even the one economist who supported the proposal passed by the Senate Wednesday night had serious reservations.
Jonathan Berk, an award-winning finance professor at Stanford University and a strong opponent of the bailout plan, expressed the concerns of many: “I have never been so frustrated, I have never wanted to speak out publicly before on these political issues, but politicians don’t know what they are doing, they know nothing about these issues.”
The economists did not all emphasize the same reasons for the current financial crunch and they all did not agree how serious the problem is. But there are a number of similarities that can be seen in all their answers.
There is little agreement on how serious the current problems are. Take the statements from three of the economists. John Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago Business School, worried that the solution was out of all proportion to the problem.
The legislation is like this: some boats are sinking, so rather than bailing those boats out, you blow up the dam and drain the whole lake.
Robert Hansen, senior associate dean and professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, summed up his view this way:
Does this justify some government intervention to jumpstart the market? Yes. Is this the best way to solve the problem? I don’t know. Does this justify this level of intervention? No.
A second rejection of the bill was "unthinkable," according to congressional leaders.
The House will be voting on a bill packed with $100 billion worth of extra incentives than Monday's proposal had.
Some of those additions have been assailed by spending watchdogs as "pork," like the $6 million for the makers of kids' wooden arrows, according to a summary of the bill released by the Senate Finance Committee.
Other goodies intended to attract the votes of individual members of Congress include $192 million for the rum producers of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, $128 million for car racing tracks, $33 million for corporations operating in American Samoa, and $10 million for small film and television productions.
Another key modification is a one-year increase in the limits of personal bank savings the government insures up to $250,000.
Originally posted by fleabit
Seems some folks think that they are getting a 700 billion blank check, but that's not how it's formed. It's going to be around 250 billion up front, and the next two steps if they require more, would require additional permissions to get. Of course, they probably would get it if asked, but it's not just 700 billion up front. At least from my understanding on how this was written. Not that I support it.