Congress Needs to Take Bailout Back, page 1

A T S n e w s . c o m

This topic is in the Global Meltdown discussion forum. (rss)

Congress Needs to Take Bailout Back

Topic started on 20-11-2008 @ 01:13 PM by Keyhole
Congress Needs to Take Bailout Back marketplace.publicradio.org What happened to all the money? About a third has gone into dividends the banks are paying their shareholders. Some of the rest into executive salaries and bonuses. Another portion toward acquisitions designed to raise share values. Another chunk for bailing out giant insurer AIG. That's not what taxpayers bargained for. (visit the link for the full news article)
copyright & usage
Click here for more Global Meltdown topics Hot Topics \| Top Topics \| This Week \| Subscribe \| Home
reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:13 PM by Keyhole
This just disgusts me sooo much! What Paulson is doing, giving away the bailout money just to watch these companies give "higher ups" HUGE bonuses and "mini" vacations at resorts, and buying other companies to try to make there company look better on paper is not what we were told the bailout was going to be used for! You would think the CEO's in these companies would be "smart" enough to put use this money to the best of their ability to try to ensure that their company stays out of anymore financial problems! But *nooooo! They think the best way to use this money (that we were told would be paid back) is to give huge bonuses, vacations, and going on a spending spree buying "acquisitions"! We didn't give this bailout to these companies so that they could give out bonuses* and so they could send all their executives on vacations at resorts! If you ask me, how Paulson is allowing these companies to spend our money is criminal and Paulson should be held responsible! This money was suppose to help the countries economy, it seems like the only thing this bailout is going to help is the size of the bank accounts of the people connected to the company! Trickle down economics at its finest! marketplace.publicradio.org (visit the link for the full news article) [edit on 11/20/2008 by Keyhole]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:19 PM by marg6043
Don't lose your sleep on this my friend, he is right now all arrogant and smiling in front of the cameras talking about nothing but crap as usual on CNBC and he holds no apologies for what he has done. I can only imagine that as Americans are struggling right now he will step down with a big pay off from his masters after getting away with the biggest scam in the history of this nation against the tax payer.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:25 PM by jefwane
What I love about this is how the bailout was pushed through with absolutely no preconditions or real oversight. There was even a threat of veto if too many strings were attached. It makes me want to puke when Frank or Dodd get on TV and feign outrage at the way it's being used (or more appropriately hoarded). Mr. Frank and Sen. Dodd let me ask "WHY IN THE HELL DID YOU NOT ALLOW AMMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN SOME OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILLITY?!"
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:31 PM by nyk537
reply to post by jefwane Because then they couldn't have just given the money to all their corporate friends. Wait…are Republicans supposed to be the ones who funnel money to big business?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 02:09 PM by Keyhole
Looks like Paulson is starting to get a little heat from the House Financial Services Committee at least! Not that he probably even cares, he'll probably be compensated enough later to be happy to bare the brunt of this committee. Are Bailout Funds for Foreclosure Mitigation? Frank Vs. Paulson Paulson: I agree with you on the bill. There is no doubt that--so, don’t misunderstand what I say--that when we came to Congress with the intent to get at the capital program that banks were facing and the system was facing through purchasing large amounts of illiquid assets. And so the bill--and it was to purchase those assets and then resell them--and our whole discussion, because that’s what we were talking about, was how to use these, and use this investment position to make a difference and mitigate foreclosures. My only point is now that we haven’t bought those assets, illiquid assets, that at least the intent as I had seen it, at least all the discussions we had, went to buying assets and reselling them. It didn’t go to a direct subsidy. But . . . Frank: Mr. Secretary, I have to interrupt you. You are talking legitimately about your intent, but we had to get the votes for the bill. Our intent was also relevant. And I read you sections of the bill which says, “Write it down, give them assistance.” So the bill could not have been clearer that one of the purposes--and by the way, we are talking about $24 billion out of $700 billion, you’re talking about 4 percent of the total amount. But the point is that clearly part of this was not just to stabilize but to reduce the number of foreclosures for good macroeconomic reasons. And so, again, the intent couldn’t be clearer from what I’ve read. Paulson: Let me then, Mr. Chairman, say what you’ve heard me say a number of times before, and that going back many, many months before--it was as topical as it is now--we’ve been working very very aggressively in individual, helping individual[s], because as recently as last week . . . Frank: Mr. Secretary, I’m sorry. We don’t have a lot of time, and I don’t usually do this, but the question is: The language in the TARP, we understand that there are other activities going on, I don’t accept them as a substitute for using the authority that we very specifically and carefully wrote into the TARP and that was essential to it getting passed. Paulson: Well, what you’ve heard from me, and what you heard from me last night, and which I will say again, is that I am going to keep working on this and looking for ways to use the taxpayer money as they expect me to here with regards for foreclosure mitigation. We have been, as recently as last week, taking a step, which I think will have . . . Frank: No, I’m sorry, Mr. Secretary, those are not substitutable. Because I will tell you this, and I apologize for taking the time, it is nobody’s view that we have been as successful as we need to be for the sake of the economy in reducing foreclosures. We have a very large pot that was intended to be part of that effort that is going untapped. At least there are some in Congress that are trying to keep this bailout money to be used for what it was intended to be used for! [edit on 11/20/2008 by Keyhole]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 02:26 PM by Keyhole
And now that Paulson has his coffers full of money, other government agencies, seeing all is not going very well with the intent on how this money is being spent, are looking for ways that their agencies could help homeowners from being foreclosed on. FDIC Chief Calls Again for Foreclosure Relief FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said Thursday she is "still hopeful" of using federal bailout money to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. "The issue is whether it's an appropriate use of (Treasury bailout) funds or not, we think it is," Bair said in a breakfast speech hosted by the Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School. "We think it's a good investment and so we are meeting with both Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury on that still." When asked about resistance from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Bair said: "We have a great working relationship and I'm still talking with him. So, still hopeful." ***SKIP* By the end of the year, foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. expects more than a million bank-owned properties to be on the market, representing about one-third of all properties for sale in the U.S. The one thing government is not doing to deal with the economic crisis is foreclosure relief**, Bair said, adding she was afraid of sounding "like a Johnny one-note." Such action would help stabilize home prices in a housing market that Bair fears is starting to overcorrect. "If there's one thing the government has to do it's tackle these unnecessary foreclosures," she said. Falling home values have been a significant drag on the economy and it made sense for her agency to protect the value of homes on which banks are lending money, Bair said. Here's another article on the FDIC trying to get some of the TARP funds to help homeowners . FDIC Head Optimistic on TARP Funds to Modify Loans [edit on 11/20/2008 by Keyhole]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 03:00 PM by Keyhole
Another call to end the bailout! Something I didn't know, some companies bought failing banks just to get their hands on the bailout money! End the Bailout Paulson is now on his third plan for how to spend the cash Congress gave him. Nobody knows what he will do next. ****SKIP** But there is obviously no road map. His actions are inconsistent, and his shifting views are startling. Furthermore, this massive bailout gives Treasury unprecedented power and is therefore dangerous. Nobody in Congress understands what is happening, nobody knows who exactly the recipients of these huge sums are, and Henry Paulson is vested with massive authority, unchecked. Bureaucrats and politicians, once in power, rarely hand back the checkbook and relinquish their control. I am also very skeptical of the efficacy of government meddling. The unintended consequences are mind boggling. For example, companies are motivated to take excessive risks because of the prospect of a government backstop, a problem known as moral hazard. Take Genworth Financial, a troubled insurance and financial services company. It was too weak to survive so it recently decided to buy a weak bank just to be able to tap TARP funding. Many insurance companies are now buying small banks to be able to access government funds. This sort of policy distorts the market and uses capital inefficiently. That capital is needed elsewhere, and should not be allocated by Washington D.C. **SKIP** All this enforced egalitarianism thwarts the meritocracy that America has always been, because the rewards for excellence are turned over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the people upon whose votes they depend**. Winston Churchill called this utopian notion "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed", and all it ever produced was poverty, misery, bread lines and failed states. This bailout plan is making things worse. End it now. [edit on 11/20/2008 by Keyhole]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 03:07 PM by forshow
I hate that these people the "elite" are eating this money up like its some pancake. its so wrong, the only way that they will listen to people like us is if WE take to the streets, i have had a sh^%full of these (Insert W here)ankers. It makes me sick that theres adverts here in the uk asking for money for relief in DR Congo..its like "why dont the banks bail the poor people there out" NO they wont because they are getting to fat, cutting costs and making a massive pigs ear of it all. one more thing: let the motor trade fail....dont buy them out! Arrrgghh makes me angry!!! puts feet up and sips on his co co to relax Rant Over [edit on 20-11-2008 by forshow]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 04:34 PM by marg6043
Yes today he with his usual arrogant self was forced to tell why he change his mind on a life conference. Interesting that the heat in Washington is starting to get to the moron politicians we have, the E-mails has been overwhelming them to the point that they have to show the public that they are doing something. Now Bush wants to appoint a committee to oversea the bail out money. Kind of too late right now.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.