This hasn't been very well reported so far, but the one sentence Section 8 of this proposal has started to cause controversy:

 

Section 8

 

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

 

I hope Congress doesn't pass this with that section still intact.

The more I hear about this "bailout" the less I like it . I am starting to evolve to the point in my thinking that maybe doing nothing might be the best thing for the long term . Either way even with a "bailout" I am not convinced we will avoid a prolonged economic downturn . Our culture in many respects is based in excessive consumerism , until our society learns fiscal discipline we are spending on borrowed time bailout or not.

I don't know how this country can afford to spend close to a trillion dollars more, in addition to tax cuts and two wars. It doesn't seem possible.

I don't know how this country can afford to spend close to a trillion dollars more, in addition to tax cuts and two wars. It doesn't seem possible.

 

It isnt possible . The problem is even if we raise taxes on all Americans , slash our defense budget , end the war in Iraq, we still dont have enough money. From a governmental perspective Social Security , Medicare , Prescription Drug Plan added to Medicare are the 800lb guerilla in the room no one is mentioning. The programs are unsustainable . None of the politicians seem willingly or able to address these issues that need to be reformed. Tthe age requirements and benefits for these programs are going to have be "adjusted". I hate to say it but unless government is shrunk rapidily and the culture of consumerism is changed Rome will be burning soon

The more I hear about this "bailout" the less I like it . I am starting to evolve to the point in my thinking that maybe doing nothing might be the best thing for the long term . Either way even with a "bailout" I am not convinced we will avoid a prolonged economic downturn . Our culture in many respects is based in excessive consumerism , until our society learns fiscal discipline we are spending on borrowed time bailout or not.

 

/thread

Oh yeah I like this plan. Where do we sign?

 

 

Is this for real?? Can't remember the last time I've seen people on both the right as well as the left so infuriated.

 

 

Apparently Chris Dodd is submitting a proposal that includes checks on the power of the Treasury secretary. I mean good lord even if Paulson turns out to be fine, we may have a new one in few months as well to worry about. We'll likely also see some kind of executive salary cap for the bailed out firms, the government may even want a stake in the companies.

 

What else is this going to include? Investment banks, private equity firms, foreign banks, hedge funds?

I don't know how this country can afford to spend close to a trillion dollars more, in addition to tax cuts and two wars. It doesn't seem possible.

 

It isnt possible . The problem is even if we raise taxes on all Americans , slash our defense budget , end the war in Iraq, we still dont have enough money. From a governmental perspective Social Security , Medicare , Prescription Drug Plan added to Medicare are the 800lb guerilla in the room no one is mentioning. The programs are unsustainable . None of the politicians seem willingly or able to address these issues that need to be reformed. Tthe age requirements and benefits for these programs are going to have be "adjusted". I hate to say it but unless government is shrunk rapidily and the culture of consumerism is changed Rome will be burning soon

 

 

Hmm...that sure does sound like someone I recall from the Republican primaries who was being laughed by McCain and his cronies just a few months ago. :thumbup

To top it all off, the Democrats are holding the bill hostage to push their agenda, winners all around.

So I take it you're in favor of allowing the Treasury Secretary to spend $700B as he pleases? F that! I want them to make sure this money is used properly and not as King Henry pleases.

So I take it you're in favor of allowing the Treasury Secretary to spend $700B as he pleases? F that! I want them to make sure this money is used properly and not as King Henry pleases.

 

Were you responding to me? Because my point was additive, basically that not only is there the afformentioned clause that would give Paulson too much power, but the Democrats are trying to put in special interest provisions.

If that does indeed pass, the program won't survive judicial review. It's a seperation of powers issue.

 

That clause is unconstitutional.

That clause is unconstitutional.

It certainly should be, but I think that it would be ignored by politicians who don't want to be blamed for going against this (possibly).

That clause is unconstitutional.

It certainly should be, but I think that it would be ignored by politicians who don't want to be blamed for going against this (possibly).

 

Politicans would certianly ignore it, but the court probably won't. The clause says that the Treaury Secretary's decisions cannot be reviewed. However, if a case gets to the Supreme Court, the whole clause and perhaps even the bill may be struck down as unconstitutional. I'll start getting scared when the Court accepts these types of things.

Whoever is blaming the CRA needs to reconsider. The CRA was enacted in 1977 and has been modified a few times (in the 80s and early 90s). This has been around 30 years. I think a large percentage of the loans originated under the CRA in the early years have probably been paid off and have no effect on the current market.

 

So, if you want to blame the CRA's, you're going to have to show us why it has taken 30 years to take the system down and you also have to make a connection between the failed loans and the CRA's. Until you do that, you're basically talking a lot of sh*t and are not backing it up with any facts.

More has been coming out today about this and Congress' feelings about the proposal. It looks like nobody is satisfied. Leading Republicans and Democrats in the Senate seem to agree that this bailout has no guarantee of working, and neither Paulson nor Bernanke have told anyone that it will definitely work.

 

I have also been reading and hearing today that several of the companies who were into the subprime crash the worst and didn't fail are trying to get a piece of the bailout for themselves.

For those people (I am one of them) who have for awhile been believing that we are gradually moving toward full fascism by delegating power to the banking institutions, this proposal as no surprise.

 

When the dollar finally is destroyed expect a North American currency or perhaps even a world currency.

 

 

I see this as a likely scenario also. Shocking to me that I could use the word 'likely' in describing a world currency coming about sometime in the next dozen years or so. Things are rapidly speeding up to the end cause.

Whoever is blaming the CRA needs to reconsider. The CRA was enacted in 1977 and has been modified a few times (in the 80s and early 90s). This has been around 30 years. I think a large percentage of the loans originated under the CRA in the early years have probably been paid off and have no effect on the current market.

 

So, if you want to blame the CRA's, you're going to have to show us why it has taken 30 years to take the system down and you also have to make a connection between the failed loans and the CRA's. Until you do that, you're basically talking a lot of sh*t and are not backing it up with any facts.

First of all, I don't see anyone here blaming CRA as a primary cause so you are immediately way off base. Secondly, it's an absurd construction.

 

Finally, while I have not even begun to do enough homework on this single issue (frankly, there are much larger fish to fry) the proclaimed worth of the CRA is nearly contradictory. You mean to tell me that these 'greedy' lenders are turning their noses from potential profits just because of ethnic and class differences?

 

Obviously not every instance of bad credit can be traced to the CRA but that hardly salvages their integrity. I'm even willing to buy that there were more occurrences of bad credit coming from sans-CRA banks but that is hardly any form of justification.

 

Maybe you aren't, but Hannity the Clown is.

Whoever is blaming the CRA needs to reconsider. The CRA was enacted in 1977 and has been modified a few times (in the 80s and early 90s). This has been around 30 years. I think a large percentage of the loans originated under the CRA in the early years have probably been paid off and have no effect on the current market.

 

So, if you want to blame the CRA's, you're going to have to show us why it has taken 30 years to take the system down and you also have to make a connection between the failed loans and the CRA's. Until you do that, you're basically talking a lot of sh*t and are not backing it up with any facts.

First of all, I don't see anyone here blaming CRA as a primary cause so you are immediately way off base. Secondly, it's an absurd construction.

 

Finally, while I have not even begun to do enough homework on this single issue (frankly, there are much larger fish to fry) the proclaimed worth of the CRA is nearly contradictory. You mean to tell me that these 'greedy' lenders are turning their noses from potential profits just because of ethnic and class differences?

 

Obviously not every instance of bad credit can be traced to the CRA but that hardly salvages their integrity. I'm even willing to buy that there were more occurrences of bad credit coming from sans-CRA banks but that is hardly any form of justification.

 

Eric Weiner and Poaloa did. Geez. Calm down.

 

I agree with most of everything you said. Chill.

Prim, I admit it. I think the government's policy of forcing mortgage companies to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back was not good policy and was one of the major factors in this mess.

Please substantiate your claim. Subprime loans are not part of the CRA. Also, please explain why it took over 30 years for the CRA to take down the financial system.

 

I do agree that bad loans caused this problem. But, honestly, from the evidence I've seen, this mess was caused more by speculators and the banks giving out bad loans to people. I would have qualified for a top loan (low interest, great overall) because of my income and credit, and all these mortgage brokers were pushing these "only pay 2 percent interest for 5 years and then the principal balloons and you have those big payments, but you can flip the house/apt so you'll be okay" mortgages on me. I said absolutely not and stayed put, mostly because I knew those loans were bad. But if you don't think many of the mortgage brokers tried everything in their power to push these bad loans (not just to people with bad credit) you are sadly naive. People in my own family were doing it, and I called them out on it. As an attorney, I've seen these sharks doing this to people. There are also people who are responsible for their own mess. If you think it is the government pushing these loans on people,you are sadly mistaken.

 

However, if you provide me the evidence, I will agree with you. I just want to resolve this mess, because I am fearful of the future, so I want to make an informed choice. Enlighten me.

Please substantiate your claim. Subprime loans are not part of the CRA. Also, please explain why it took over 30 years for the CRA to take down the financial system.

 

I do agree that bad loans caused this problem. But, honestly, from the evidence I've seen, this mess was caused more by speculators and the banks giving out bad loans to people. I would have qualified for a top loan (low interest, great overall) because of my income and credit, and all these mortgage brokers were pushing these "only pay 2 percent interest for 5 years and then the principal balloons and you have those big payments, but you can flip the house/apt so you'll be okay" mortgages on me. I said absolutely not and stayed put, mostly because I knew those loans were bad. But if you don't think many of the mortgage brokers tried everything in their power to push these bad loans (not just to people with bad credit) you are sadly naive. People in my own family were doing it, and I called them out on it. As an attorney, I've seen these sharks doing this to people. There are also people who are responsible for their own mess. If you think it is the government pushing these loans on people,you are sadly mistaken.

 

However, if you provide me the evidence, I will agree with you. I just want to resolve this mess, because I am fearful of the future, so I want to make an informed choice. Enlighten me.

 

The subprime loan connection to the CRA was already discussed.

 

I think everyone in the loan process from the 3rd party mortgage broker to the bank loan officer to the 3rd party appraiser to the bank executive were pushing these loans to get their commission / bonus and they all deserve some blame but the most blame goes to the borrower who signed for a loan he couldn't afford.

Please provide substantiation. I'm not just going to take your word for it.

For those people (I am one of them) who have for awhile been believing that we are gradually moving toward full fascism by delegating power to the banking institutions, this proposal as no surprise.

 

When the dollar finally is destroyed expect a North American currency or perhaps even a world currency.

 

 

I see this as a likely scenario also. Shocking to me that I could use the word 'likely' in describing a world currency coming about sometime in the next dozen years or so. Things are rapidly speeding up to the end cause.

 

I would extend penguino's thought to merely say that delegation is the problem. When the bureaucracy and private institutions are playing the role of the central government, what is happening is that the central government is effectively becoming this huge monster that cannot be controlled by the means intended in the constitution. What is happening now in this regard is not unconstitutional, but extraconstitutional. The federal government has found a way to bypass constitutional safeguards and to gain size and power. What we're seeing now is the beginning of what happens when you allow a centra lgovernment to run rampant and unchecked.

When the bureaucracy and private institutions are playing the role of the central government, what is happening is that the central government is effectively becoming this huge monster that cannot be controlled by the means intended in the constitution.

 

What do you mean here?

I'm referring to the fed (as a quasi private institution that has government-like power)and to the executive bureaucracy. We have departments and agencies that are exercising quasi legislative and quasi judicial functions, yet are not subject to the same checks that were intended in the constitution to curb the power of the legislature and judiciary. The executive was never supposed to be this large and all encompassing.

 

Nowadays its hard to determine what government is or isnt because delegation of power has run rampant.