Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

its more accountability than disclosure - of course you need the one to have the other

I'm not sure what effect it would have on public reaction. I think that the public at large is going to be very suspicious of any plan that commits so much taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street. So far the message from Paulson and company has been "Trust us, we know what we're doing" and "You don't have time to think it through - just approve it". I don't think it would be that hard to get public opinion on the side of a bit of thoughtful restraint, despite the atmosphere of fear. Disclosure would help to replace these vague fears of total systemic collapse with some specifics. Last week you had Congressional leaders of both parties putting out a statement that after AIG there were not more big shoes left to drop (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4454445.shtml) So why is it suddenly so imperative that we hand over $700B with no questions asked?

xp

I want to know if the Democrats in Congress are really going to challenge the admin. on this w/ their counterproposal with a fight - which would be the v first time - or just cave in 3-4 days at the risk of getting politically attacked when (as one sees today) the market keeps sliding and Reps start blaming them for "stalling" ? I predict the latter, but it seems like something else is going to go on behind closed doors to buy their acquiescence, again

I'm too cynical to have any positive expectations with this entire mess

But it seems like this is just as unpopular on the right as on the left -- the only people pushing it are Bush and Paulsen. What Repub support am I missing?

The Republicans who are steadfastly against this are against any further bail outs, and not likely to partner with Democrats who just want to revise Paulson's Plan to adjust the provisions and vote to reject this. I mean, I'd be surprised if they do.

Meanwhile: (CNN) - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/campaign.wrap/index.html Sen. John McCain on Monday told voters he was "greatly concerned" about the government's proposed rescue plan because it gives Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson too much power.

Sen. John McCain said Monday that he has concerns about the treasury secretary having too much power.
1 of 2

"Never before in the history of our nation has so much power and money been concentrated in the hands of one person," McCain said at a town hall meeting in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

isnt this basically what happens in episode III

"radiant flowering crab" = my favorite ilx name of the week

Oh I don't know.. Jefferson ordering the purchase of like a fifth of the North American landmass was pretty big

I just wonder if, when the effects of this are felt in 6 months to a year's time, if anyone remembers any of this or if the 10% unemployment and negative growth all gets blamed on President Obama

McCain has been saying some reasonable things. Obama should promise to appoint Krugman as Treasury Secretary if elected.

xp

o. nate otm all over

McCain has been saying some reasonable things.

On which day of the week?

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 09/22/08 at 16:29 GMT (EST+5) is
305,225,441

700,000,000,000/$305,225,441=$2293

I say we let the banks fail and give everyone in the country a check for $2293.

Who would cash the checks?

Or checks to all homeowners (esp. if paid just on principal), since if we could paid off our mortgages, this crisis would be better. Or is that too much moral hazard for ordinary folks to handle?

xp, coastguard?

On which day of the week?

I was referring to his criticisms of the Paulson plan. I think Paulson has become way too powerful. It's kind of the Cheney phenomenon all over again. You have an assertive, experienced cabinet member and a hands-off, low-information President - it's a bad combination. Cheney and Rumsfeld gave us the Iraq boondoggle and now Paulson is trying to get one of his own - at a similar price tag - before the curtain finally falls on the Bush tragicomedy

Personally I was pulling for the govt. to sell off AIG's various subsidiaries and retool its staff to administer.... the national health insurance system

But then I remembered the USA can't even introduce dollar coins successfully

What I'd like to hear from Congressional Democrats and Obama in the next few weeks is that this mess, along with the Iraq war and Katrina, is evidence that the choices voters make actually have consequences. That the debates over economic philosophy, the role of the government, and foreign affairs aren't just academic discussions. The Republicans are bad news for America not because of some tribal dislike or blood feud, but because their ideas demonstrably lead to disaster.

dollar coins do suk tho

dollar coins rule
they are especially ideal in a society where tipping happens

genuine out loud lolz

It looks like Paulson is set to pull the same trick with this bailout plan as he did with the Fannie-Freddie takeover. Just by floating the idea of that plan, he pretty much guaranteed it would have to happen. With Fannie-Freddie, he asked for the now notorious "bazooka" - the option to take over the struggling companies - with assurances that he probably wouldn't need to use it. But the mere possibility that the government would step in and take over those firms caused the private markets to freeze them out - no one wanted to inject capital in an institution that might imminently be taken over, thereby wiping them out. So his so-called option made its own implementation inevitable.

A similar effect could be happening now. By talking up the prospect of the government buying up these distressed mortgage assets, Paulson is effectively freezing the private market in these assets. There were private buyers for these assets and transactions were being done, at prices deemed fair by the market. But who would sell now, with the imminent prospect of government stepping in as an eager, cash-happy buyer? So the natural market process once again is being frozen by the icy hand of interventionist government, causing further destabilization and requiring more government intervention, and we only have Paulson to thank.

I say we let the banks fail and give everyone in the country a check for $2293.

― Adam Bruneau, Monday, September 22, 2008 12:32 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark

That's based on a 2008 census number. The number of actual taxpayers in 2007, according to the IRS, was less than half that. So make those checks out for $4500...

So people can pay for four months worth of health insurance.. awesome

In the early 20th century, New York City had a plan to build a superhighway through the heart of downtown, cutting right through the Cast-Iron District, now known as Soho. It kept getting postponed, but it always seemed on the verge of being resurrected. So property owners kept putting off their plans. So what happened in most of the rest of New York - that historic buildings got demolished to make way for new - didn't happen in Soho, because landlords didn't want to make gigantic investments just to see their property taken by imimenent domain. Perhaps one day the investment banking system will be like Soho: beautiful, old structures that house short-lived graphic design firms.

lol

over the weekend the general view of the bailout amongst journalists economists politicians and regular folks alike seems to have shifted from OMG WE MUST DO SOMETHING to HEY WAHT U TRYIN A DO

so i think theres a good shot at changing this thing - remains to be seen whether thatll be meaningful or cosmetic

From an anonymous Democratic member of Congress:

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family.

I can totally get behind petty shit like this.

Just by floating the idea of that plan, he pretty much guaranteed it would have to happen.

eh, I think he was getting a lot of panicked phone calls from people who know what the stakes are on our economy and our various creditors around the world.

Something was going to happen, there was and will have to be a government intervention or the economic shock wave will be global and massive. Nobody wants that kind of instability.

The only question is what the government will do, not will it do anything.

I think it might be a decent argument to make that a problem of this level probably isn't going to ever get momentum or get solved by committee. Somebody was going to have to take a bold first step. It's just a little, well, unfortunate that it's a Goldman guy salvaging Goldman.

Something was going to happen, there was and will have to be a government intervention or the economic shock wave will be global and massive. Nobody wants that kind of instability.

There has been tons of government intervention already, and there have been huge economic shock waves. There remains lots of instability. The question is, is the idea of giving Paulson a $700B+ check to use as he sees fit a good idea?

is it a good idea to give *anybody* that sort of rolling credit limit and say "use it as you see fit; we won't ask any questions"?

Exactly. No one person should be given that sort of authority.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2wodl6p.jpg

OMG WARE TO PUT $$$!!! OIL???

http://i33.tinypic.com/w7ea9l.jpg

Henry Paulson on Face The Nation yesterday:

"Is this going to fix the situation or is this a band-aid?"
"Well Bob... what we're doing now is not going to make the turbulence disappear overnight, this is going to take a while to work through this situation, but this is a very strong step... this is about doing what's right...."

Given Paulson's record, I propose we make arrangements to change our name to the United States of China.

Given Paulson's record, I propose we hang him.

I know I know threatening etc etc. I'm just APPALLED by the NERVE of these PEOPLE

Are you asking other foreign governments to help as well?
"We are urging others to do so. A number have expressed the willingness to do so. This is a global financial system."
Can you tell us which ones?
"Not at this time. But what we are doing, again, we're taking care of our situation. And I'm not saying anyone has committed to do this yet, but we have started that dialogue. And again, in terms of the United States of America, it is a distinction without a difference in terms of what's best for our citizens as to whether it happens to be owned by a foreign ownership or a U.S. ownership."

So actually you're going to bail out our shitty banks for us. Thanks, btw.

he's gotta bail out the foreign banks because he and his family are about to become persona non grata on these shores

hey our banks funded incredibly stupid investments in po duck clap board houses in las vegas too, give us your hard earned paper.

i am now sending u $5

FINALLY A RATIONAL VIEWPOINT

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809190021

wtf? seriously wtf?

what i cant believe is dems who dont refuse to answer the question on those terms. they should be like "wtf stfu u dum racist hick"

from 2006

NEW YORK — Record earnings on Wall Street are yielding windfall bonuses for its top executives.

Compensation experts predict a lucrative bonus season this year, as surging merger and underwriting activity, growing fixed income markets and a rebound in stock trading activity fuel unprecedented profit and pay.

This week traders, bankers and other executives at Goldman, Lehman and Morgan Stanley were told the size of their bonuses for the fiscal year ended Nov. 25. Bonuses make up the bulk of Wall Street compensation, and can be more than 10 times the base salary for top producers.

CEOs also saw big pay hikes amid strong growth in profit and share-price gains that outperformed the broader U.S stock market.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), which posted its second straight year of record profit Thursday, paid Chief Executive Henry "Hank" Paulson about $38 million in salary, restricted stock and options. The third-largest investment bank by market value saw its shares rise 22 percent this year.
Related

According to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Goldman on Tuesday gave Paulson 224,777 restricted stock shares worth about $30 million when priced last month. Of these shares, 89,910 vested immediately and were withheld by the firm to cover Paulson's tax obligations while the remaining 134,867 shares vest in November 2008.

Paulson, who is 59, was also granted stock options on 220,392 shares valued by the firm at about $7.3 million, with 40 percent vesting immediately. Paulson, who received a salary of $600,000 and no cash bonus this year, now holds 3.89 million shares.

Overall, Paulson's compensation rose more than 21 percent from last year.

"The compensation considers the outstanding financial performance of the firm and Hank's leadership, the share price performance and the competitive environment," spokesman Lucas van Praag said.

Earlier this week Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) whose stock soared 48 percent this year, said it paid chairman and chief executive officer Richard Fuld $14.9 million of restricted stock and options on 350,000 shares. Lehman, which didn't disclose the other portions of Fuld's pay package, received $10.4 million in restricted stock last year.

Morgan Stanley the largest securities firm by market value, said it paid chairman and CEO John Mack a bonus of $11.5 million for five months on the job. Acting President Zoe Cruz, a key lieutenant to both Mack and former CEO Philip Purcell, got a stock bonus of almost $14 million.

Directors at Morgan Stanley had offered Mack a $28 million bonus, citing his leadership, but said Mack requested a pro rata share of the bonus. The remainder of the bonus would be returned to the bonus pool for other executives.

The banking, brokerage and credit card company also this week raised the stock portion of bonuses for management committee members to 65 percent of total pay from 55 percent.

Shares of Morgan Stanley have risen just 3 percent this year amid a tumultuous management shake-up that led to dozens of executive departures. The firm next Tuesday is expected to report 1 percent earnings growth, as credit card losses and soaring compensation costs offset a 23 percent rise in revenue.

Last Year's Big Five Wall Street Bonuses
September 22, 2008 7:12 AM

As the Bush Administration asks for close to a trillion dollars to prevent a worldwide financial cataclysm, here are some numbers you might find interesting -- courtesy of the ABC News Research Center and ABC News' Barbara Paulson.

In 2007, Wall Street's five biggest firms-- Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley - paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves.

That's $10 billion more than the $29 billion loan taxpayers are making to J.P. Morgan to save Bear Stearns.

Those 2007 bonuses were paid even though the shareholders in those firms last year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock declines --their worst year since 2002.

If split equally among the approximately 186,000 workers at the former Big Five Houses, that bonus money means an average of $201,500 per person -- more than four times the $48,201 median household income in the U.S. last year.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/last-years-big.html