home

Why The Deal Makes Sense

Jeralyn does not like the deal, I think it is the right thing to do. The NYTimes reporting, as opposed to the wire service report Jeralyn read, explains why.

First and foremost, on helping distressed HOMEOWNERS:

[The proposal] requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures.

In my view, this will be HOLC in the next Administration should Obama win. Barack Obama needs to run on this issue from now until the election. The bill will be vague on how the government will be "required" to prevent home foreclosures. Obama, and Hillary Clinton., and every good Democrat should say HOLC will be how it is done.

MORE . . .

Another reason why the deal is good:

Among the last sticking points was an unexpected and bitter fight over how to pay for any losses that taxpayers may experience after distressed debt has been purchased and resold. Democrats had pushed for a fee on securities transactions, essentially a tax on financial firms, saying it was fitting that they contribute to the cost.

In the end, lawmakers and the administration opted to leave the decision to the next president, who must present a proposal to Congress to pay for any losses.

Barack Obama and all Democrats should support the proposed fee and promise the American People that Wall Street will pay for its mistakes, not the American People. This should ALSO become a centerpiece of the Obama economic campaign.

Another reason to support this proposal:

[T[he government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid, allowing taxpayers to profit should the rescue plan work and the private firms flourish in the months and years ahead.

No free rides for Wall Street. If this bailout saves their bacon, then the American People get thier money back and then some.

Another reason to support this proposal:

The White House also agreed to strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program.

This was of course mandatory and there would have been no deal without it but it makes the proposal doable.

Here is the part that hurts, and yet, the structure makes it acceptable:

The centerpiece of the rescue effort remains the plan for the government to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets from financial firms as a way to free their balance sheets of bad debts and to help restore a healthy flow of credit through the economy.

The money will disbursed in parts, with an initial $250 billion to get the rescue effort under way, followed by another $100 billion upon a report by Mr. Bush to Congress.

The president could then request the balance of $350 billion at any time. If Congress disapproved, it would have to act within 15 days to deny the Treasury the money.

This is a $350 billion plan right now. It will not become a $700 billion plan for the next President, who should be Obama and who should enact HOLC.

Finally, the chance to make Republicans foolish is always a plus in any proposal, and this part will do that:

Officials said they had also agreed to include a proposal by House Republicans that gives the Treasury secretary an additional option of issuing government insurance for troubled financial instruments as a way of reducing the amount of taxpayer money spent up front on the rescue effort.

First, Paulson said the idea was ludicrous. Second, it is ludicrous unless the government gives the insurance away for free, which is the original bailout. Third, this was McCain's baby, and we can make fun of him for it.

In the end, if Democrats FIGHT for what they believe in, starting with Barack Obama, the groundwork is laid for a decent plan for getting out of this mess.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Pelosi Announces Bailout Deal Reached | Talk About A Hail Mary . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What I like the best about the plan (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by barryluda on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:19:21 AM EST
    is that it makes clear that the next administration will have a significant impact on wether the cost of this going forward will be on wealthy wall street or on the middle class.  This could help further highlight the contrast between Obama and McCain that is also seen in the two tax proposals where Obama would provide relief to the middle class while McCain will help corporations and the most wealthy.

    Bingo Barryluda! (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:02 AM EST
    Make this election a referendum on who will pay for this - Wall Street or Main Street.

    Parent
    The candidates will likely (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:18:23 PM EST
    be asked about this in one of the remaining debates.  They'd better be ready with an answer, as they were not Thursday night.

    Parent
    Just out of curiosity (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:19:21 AM EST
    What makes you think Obama is interested in Hillary's proposal?

    We can make him interested if we yell about it (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:29:16 AM EST
    Pols are pols and do what they do.

    You will NEVER get McCain interested.

    Parent

    As if ,,,, (none / 0) (#86)
    by bridget on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    he cared about the yelling of the liberal voters

    That would be the first.

    Parent

    Obama is about to be on Face the Nation (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:15:06 AM EST
    Maybe Shieffer will ask him about how he would implement this plan.  I know that is a lot to ask of a reporter, but it could happen.

    Parent
    What time? (none / 0) (#33)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:35:30 AM EST
    Around here (NYC), it looks like Face the Nation won't be on until 2:30 pm, maybe because of the Tunnel to Towers Run and NFL Football.

    Is it being broadcast at the regular time elsewhere?  Able to be seen on the Internet anywhere?

    Parent

    Here in Orland it started at 10:30 EST (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    As usual.

    Obama is doing very well.  Reiterating a lot of what he said in the debate on foreign policy.  Also taking down McCain for his "Obama doesn't understand..." debate gambit.  Says what he does not understand is how McCain could have supported Bush policies.

    Parent

    Sad he'd have to read the final bailout bill (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM EST
    before committing to supporting it, but if it supports his '4 principles' he will support it.  One dicey section - he pretty much claims credit for getting the oversight, etc into the bill.  I know he helped, but I believe Dodd would have done that anyway.  Minor point though.

    Parent
    Ooops - 'Said', not 'sad' (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    WSWS: A travesty of democracy (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Andreas on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:54:48 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    If America were a democracy in any meaningful sense of the term, it would be considered obligatory to have a full discussion and debate in the course of an election campaign over plans to raid the federal treasury and mortgage future generations to guarantee the riches of the financial elite.

    But if the bailout were on the ballot November 4, the voters would repudiate it overwhelmingly. It is precisely because of this opposition that the conspirators of both parties are seeking to reach an agreement this weekend, preempting the issue and depriving the American public of any say in a decision that will profoundly affect the future course of the country.

    Neither party wants to go before the American people with its real program.

    The Democratic Party, as the past week's events have clearly demonstrated, is the servant of Wall Street. Long gone are the days when liberal Democrats postured as opponents of the moneyed interests.

    There is virtual unanimity among the Democrats on the need to bail out Wall Street and grant the treasury secretary full authority to deal with the crisis in the credit markets. The Democrats privately welcome the opportunity to implement the plan before the elections, in order to provide an all-purpose excuse for an Obama administration to abandon its campaign promises and implement austerity policies.

    A travesty of democracy
    Democrats, Republicans conspire to remove Wall Street bailout from election campaign

    By Patrick Martin, 27 September 2008

    BTD, bail-out needed? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:11:44 AM EST
    I think you said a few days ago that you weren't sure the bail-out was necessary.  Is that correct?  If so, what specifically has convinced you that the bail-out is indeed necessary?  Or are you basically still trusting Paulson on this?

    I think a homeowner bailout is critical (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:17:10 AM EST
    and I want Dems to turn this into a homeowner bailout as soon as possible. This deal makes that possible.

    Parent
    how? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    Even Obama said the two need to be considered separately. I see the bill helps homeowners who face foreclosure in the coming year but nothing to help the millions who have undergone foreclosure to date. Where's the help for them? And there's no freeze on foreclosures just help through modifying the terms of the loans.

    Will everyone with a mortgage automatically qualify for a modified loan or will there be other credit eligibility requirements?

    Do you think Congress will come back with a second bill to help consumers or is this it?

    Parent

    NO (none / 0) (#81)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM EST
    Jeralyn says:  "And there's no freeze on foreclosures just help through modifying the terms of the loans."

    I don't think even that is in there.  That was part of the deal with the House Republicans, i.e. judges can't re-negotiate the terms of first mortgages.

    Parent

    Is the bail-out necessary? (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    I posted this in another thread yesterday.

    Couple things to read.

    First is Steven Pearlstein, Pulitzer-Prize winning business reporter-turned-columnist in the Washington Post, who's been the most knowldgeable and sane voice in this whole discussion, IMHO.  His latest is titled "Gut Check."

    Key sentences: "The financial situation is now downright scary. Don't look at the stock market -- that's not where the problem is."  And "Banks and big corporations and even money-market funds are hoarding cash, refusing to lend it out for a day or a week or a month. Even the best companies are having trouble floating bonds at reasonable rates."

    Seriously, read the whole thing.  It's the best summary of what's going on and why action is needed urgently, not somewhere down the road.

    Brad Delong in a Salon article titled "Why Ben and Hank Are Right, Mostly" goes at it from a different angle.

    Key sentence: "In large part because the market thinks banks and other financial institutions are way risky, they are. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy element here. No bank or other financial institution can survive for more than a month or two when market risk is at current levels."


    Parent

    Thanks, gryfalcon (none / 0) (#30)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:27:44 AM EST
    I'm aware of the credit freeze situation and how this has been left out of many people's approach to this from traditional Dow-centric "analysis" but I really appreciate the referred articles for a more in depth discussion.

    Parent
    You're welcome (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:34:46 AM EST
    I've been saying elsewhere that "Wall Street bail-out" is a terrible and inaccurate term for this and is responsible for many people totally misunderstanding what this is about.

    It's also really important to remember there's a short-term urgent problem that needs to be solved to keep the whole house of cards from collapsing, and there's a larger, longer-term problem that needs broader measures, like HOLC.

    We can't get to HOLC, or any other measure to "fix" the broader economy, if the short-term crisis isn't averted.

    BTD's threads here are one of the few places on the Net where it's been possible to discuss this whole thing with some measure of rationality.

    And BTW, Kevin Drum points out today (or last night I guess) that this is only the first in a long series of ugly and expensive and difficult measures that are going to be necessary in the coming years to fix what Republican ideology has so totally and thoroughly broken, and we'd better just get used to it.

    Parent

    Well... many things would make sense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:20:06 AM EST
    if every good Democrat had been saying things they "should say", and doing things they "should" do, too.

    We probably wouldn't be talking about bailing out Fraud Street, for one. Or still in Iraq, for another.

    Never too late (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:27:42 AM EST
    Help the middle class.

    End the war.

    health care for all.

    Three things an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress can do in the first 6 months of 2009.

    Parent

    They 'could'.............. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    ...............

    They could have done those things over the past two years, too.

    Parent

    But they are working hard (2.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    Three things the Democrats will not do (4.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Andreas on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    At best this is naive and wishful thinking. These are three things an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress did not do in the past and will not do in the first 6 months of 2009.

    Parent
    Obama will do none of these three (2.00 / 0) (#88)
    by bridget on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    and it doesn't surprise me at all - it doesn't disappoint me at all ... because it was obvious from the start that Obama is not a true liberal or "progressive" as the netfolks prefer to say these days.

    There will be no UHC under Obama - NO WAY!!! Dream On. That ship has sailed.

    There will be only more WARWARWARs under Obama - just listen to his words he is not even hiding his warlike intentions re Afghanistan and Pakistan and some more as well

    AGAIN there will be no peace betw. Palestine and Isreal - which should be the number one most important goal any admin should have on the top of the list - but Obama won't do it because it's not in his own political interest. He rather fights the war on terror some more.

    For heavens sake, Obama even wants to fool around in Georgia and heat up the cold war instead of get with the program and face reality. What he should do is turn mighty Russia in the kind of ally they were ready to be before the US surrounded them with nuclear bases and humilitated them in the international arena. That is over now,too. Russia is back!

    And the middle class and the poor have to muddle thru under obama

    It's really time to wake up here re the Dem candidate we have right now.

    Parent

    Paul Rosenberg at OpenLeft (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    writes today about a combination of two plans, one from Brad Delong and one from Chuck Collins and Dedrick Muhammad:

    Blackhole Bailout Defense: Covering Potential Losses, Ensuring Real Gains:

    ...this version doesn't necessarily require any taxpayer money.  But there is that $500 billion of bonds that would be nice to cover some other way.  The Collins/Muhammad plan, OTOH, assumes the outlay of $700 billion, ala Paulson, so combining the two would actually generate a $200 billion surplus.  Not bad!

    [snip...]

    So in contrast to maybe taxing Wall Street, if we don't get our money back five years from now, they're saying Wall Street should start paying now.  And they're talking serious money.  



    Parent
    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#82)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    but frankly, Obama, for whom I'm voting, has said precious little about these three things.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    Jon Tester was on Hardball the other day whining about how nobody in the Bush admin. had told the Banking Committees in Congress that this credit crisis was developing so they could do something about it sooner.

    Give. Me. A. Break.  The data wasn't a secret.  If the Banking Committee folks had been doing their jobs, they would have been watching the same data and wouldn't have been taken by surprise.

    We've been let down by both sides, IMHO.


    Parent

    For pity's sake, I knew it was coming (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    just from reading my local paper and paying attention.  That excuse is beyond pathetic, and I'm just weary of such nonsense from pols.

    I blame them all for being ignorant, gutless, whichever.  So I look now for a single one of 'em who will exhibit even a modicum of intelligence and courage -- and seriousness.  They keep telling us to take this seriously, so I do.  And then they pull this pathos and politicking and blame-gaming and more that is just business as usual on their part.  Pathetic.  

    Parent

    Pelosi: Summary of Draft Proposal (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by dutchfox on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:40:51 AM EST
    Text from Calculated Risk

    has to stop.  I hard that loser Huckabee say it again this morning...I thought he was supposed to be an economic populist.  

    This is the worst of the big lie technique including claims that ACORN was to get money.

    Too bad the financial press is unwilling to question the underlying premise of the "crisis" and
    to repeat every Republican piece of crap lie without any critical analysis.  It is a flat out lie.

    How can you (none / 0) (#52)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:21:56 AM EST
    possibly deny the role that the CRA played in this? Banks were pressured to lend money to people without adequately considering their ability to pay.

    Parent
    Insanity --get help for yours (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 in response to longstanding patterns of racial discrimination by the mortgage industry. Before passage of the act, it was common for bankers to maintain maps that often used actual red lines to demarcate neighborhoods -- invariably predominately African-American -- where they would not make loans, regardless of the credit-worthiness of the applicant. The lack of investment invariably locked these neighborhoods in a financial death-spiral; the less willing banks were to make loans in these neighborhoods, the more they decayed and became more of a credit risk.

    What the CRA did was mandate that financial institutions demonstrate that they were working to "meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." It did not mandate lower credit standards for historically underserved neighborhoods, but it did rate financial institutions on the basis of how well they served those communities. These ratings were taken into account when banks sought permission to expand or merge.

    People who know better have chosen to present a wildly exaggerated, and fundamentally racist, interpretation of what the CRA does. One of the most blatant examples appeared recently in an Investors Business Daily editorial: "The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas. Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race."

    A milder version of the canard is being peddled this week by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer: The CRA, he writes, "led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads."

    But earlier this year a Federal Reserve Board report did not point to the CRA as a significant player in the mortgage crisis. In fact, the report said, "overall mortgage loans to borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods by CRA covered institutions in their CRA assessment areas has increased from 13.4 percent of their assessment area mortgage loans in 1994 to 16.2 percent in 2006 ... Further, Federal Reserve research suggests that CRA covered institutions have been able to extend such loans profitably and that the performance of such loans is about the same as that of other mortgage loans."
    http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/27/conservative-clarion-call-lending-to-minorities-is-a-disaster/

    From my experience (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    in Habitat for Humanity, low-income borrowers are actually MORE reliable than their high-income counterparts.  HFH's foreclosure rate is under 1%.

    HOLC? (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    Do you think that Obama will let Hillary explain it to him? Doubt it unless she'll allow him to say that he wrote the editorial she wrote for the Wall Street Journal last week.

    Misleading editing on equity interests (none / 0) (#1)
    by Munibond on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:06:10 AM EST
    The NYT article that you quote says "In some cases, the government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid".  The phrase "In some cases" totally changes the import of the sentence, at least until we find out the limits on the government's right to take equity interests.

    By the Times you mean (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:07:43 AM EST
    There is nothing that limits the cases in which the government will get an equity stake.

    Parent
    Your source? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Munibond on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    Where is it stated definitively that the government may take equity interests in all instances of purchasing debt instruments?

    Parent
    Bad Times writing, I think (none / 0) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:28:13 AM EST
    Be patient.  We should find out the specific language later today.

    My understandign, FWIW, is the same as BTD's.  Paulson is given the option of doing this where he and his team feel it would be useful to do it.  I could be wrong, but I don't believe they were intending to spell out conditions under which he could or should do this, only to give him the option to use as he sees fit.

    Parent

    Not comforting to me (none / 0) (#14)
    by Munibond on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    That would mean that Paulson could decide not to take equity interests if the holder of the bad loans would not agree to it.  As I recall the objection to the equity provision has been that it would discourage participation - a view premised on the assumption that the holders of bad loans have options other than the bailout.

    Parent
    I think that is wrong (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    Paulson has to take equity interests where he can.

    The issue, I believe, is there may be a certain type of instrument where equity is not a possibility - those would be rare imo.

    The important point is Paulson is gone in 3 months.

    What Obama or McCain do is the issue.

    The best feature of this plan is that the next Administration will really decide how this is done.

    Parent

    Paulson opposes the equity provision (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Munibond on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    If the bill gives him discretion on this point, this is a sellout by the Dems, at least for the initial $250B-350B.  With the amount of campaign money provided to all candidates by the financial services industry, there is no reason to be optimistic about a new congress or administration.

    Parent
    Paulson is subject to oversight (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:31:05 AM EST
    and his deals can be nixed.

    He will have to suck it up. for 3 months anyway.

    then he is gone.

    Parent

    Paulson was the one who ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by SomewhatChunky on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    Let the Bear Stearns shareholders essentially be wiped out at $2/share.  It was Dimon at JP Morgan who raised the price which even then was very low at $10/share.  Remember, this deal needed shareholder approval.

    Stuck a good deal for the Government at AIG.  Double digit interest loan and an 80% equity stake.....

    Let Lehman go under.  No Bailout.

    I think he's done a great job playing a very bad hand.  It's hard to make the case he's looking out for Wall Street.  With Goldman and Morgan becoming regulated banks, the entire investment banking industry vanished in a few weeks!

    Parent

    Because the opposite makes no sense (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    Tell me how you can tell which ones can have equity stakes and which ones can not.

    The Times phrase "some" makes no sense.

    It is possible the government will NOT want equity stakes in some.

    Parent

    The Fed already has the authority.

    The FDIC froze all the foreclosures from Indymac

    If the fed is in control of the institution they can order something done --

    Shelby and Dodd a year ago tried the bully pulpit with the big banks to try to get them to renegotiate loans etc.  JPMorgan Chase was part of their discussions.  Attorneys can't even find the person at Chase who has the authority to change the loans.  

    Pete Stark, a former banker says he is voting no.
    I think we will be promoting his courage and judgement in just a few months.

    The government isn't buying mortgages, it is buying mortgage backed securities.

    PRESIDENT Obama (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:15:44 AM EST
    and a Democratic Congress can pass laws and enforce plaws - read HOLC - that make it happen.

    Parent
    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#8)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:20:35 AM EST
    I want you to be right

    Parent
    Now work to make it right (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:23 AM EST
    I'll be fighting for this (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:42:12 AM EST
    "..I've proposed a new Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The original HOLC, launched in 1933, bought mortgages from failed banks and modified the terms so families could make affordable payments while keeping their homes. The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. We should also put in place a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and freeze rate hikes in adjustable-rate mortgages. We've got to stem the tide of failing mortgages and give the markets time to recover."  Senator Clinton

    I hope they don't have to wait until Jan 20 to start.  The November landslide should give them enough of a bully pulpit to freeze foreclosures.

    Parent

    Why should (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    some idiot who bought a house he could not afford get a freeze on the low adjustable rate that he signed up for? I was responsible enough to take out a fixed rate mortgage on a house that I could afford, why should I now subsidize that idiot's house?

    Parent
    you're making a blanket statement (none / 0) (#85)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 05:44:32 PM EST
    what about people who were duped into buying a house by the mortgage firms that were making a ton of money on these interest only mortgages or adjustable rate mortgages that go up to rather IMMORAL rates (but hey, the mortgage brokers told these people, many who probably aren't as educated on financials as they should be, that they could just REFINANCE in 6 months because HOUSE PRICES ALWAYS GO UP)...

    I'm a buyer beware believer, but I also believe in the honesty of humanity (stupid, naive me who thinks we should all help eachother out, instead of F'ing our neighbors at each turn--the American way)

    or what about the people who bought a house and then LOST THEIR JOBS because of the horrible economy right now...people in the house-building sector and those in the manufacturing sector...
    F them, that's what you say, b/c you're so responsible....

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:36:10 AM EST
    was consulted throughout the process according to the NYT article you cited so we can expect his support.
    From the same NYT story:
    The Treasury would be required to create the insurance program, officials said, but not necessarily to use it.
    Emphasis added. Once the details on the costs of the republican insurance program from McCain and Blount emerge the Obama campaign should tear into it with a thirty second spot or two. "McCain plan adds bailout costs for Taxpayers" comes to mind.

    Yep (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:41:39 AM EST
    I bet you under any next administration (none / 0) (#22)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:03:19 AM EST
    that "insurance option" will disappear faster than the WMDs.  It's an incredibly stupid concept, and is probably only in there as an "option" to give the House Republicans a face-saving way of saying they got their idea in the package.

    Parent
    And who is going (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lahdee on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    to pay for the creation of the entity that is required to administer it? That would be the taxpayer.

    Parent
    Who pays for the administration of the FDIC? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    A similarly funded institution?  I'd say that is money well spent.

    Parent
    How does this insurance entity (none / 0) (#62)
    by Lahdee on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    make sense? The cost is indeterminate, the risks undefined and the rewards murky at best. Just another attempt by house republicans to appear relevant, a boondoggle waiting to happen.  

    Parent
    The way it makes sense to me is that the (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    insurance itself is funded by the financial houses, not the taxpayers.

    Parent
    Deal has been reached? (none / 0) (#19)
    by wasabi on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:49:11 AM EST
    Supposedly the House will vote on the proposal on Monday.  I didn't see one House member in the photo op where the leadership team announced the agreement.  Not sure what that means...

    Blount was there. n/t (none / 0) (#46)
    by santarita on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    There should be . . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    . . . an end to the process if elements in Congress block legislation to enable recoupment--that should void the process wherever it may have reached!

    "BAILOUT" (none / 0) (#37)
    by Gabe Ray on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM EST
    EVERYONE should stop calling the Government's decision to RESCUE the GREED of FREE CAPITALIST a "BAILOUT" and call it by it's RIGHTFUL name: The assistance, especially money, food, and other necessities, given to the needy or dispossessed = WELFARE, a word, that until they were THE dispossessed, REPUBLICANS vehemently opposed.

    BTD vs. Jeralyn (none / 0) (#41)
    by Coral on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    That's the wonderful aspect of this site - reasoned argument and civil disagreement. Refreshing break from the TV news.

    The key details of this still mystery (none / 0) (#44)
    by ricosuave on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    It seems like the crux of this program is the question of at what price the government will buy securities from the troubled companies.  Are they going to buy the securities at market value, which is the reduced price that recognizes the default risk in the mortgages?  Or are they buying them at a higher price that assumes home prices will rebound?  If so, where to the home prices have to reach, and when do we expect this to happen?

    Default is the only way that these loans become worthless.  If the holder of the note does not want to lose money on a mortgage on a massively devalued home, then it is in their interests not to foreclose.  There is a strong financial incentive for them to renegotiate the mortgage so that the borrower can continue paying, and a strong incentive NOT to foreclose.  The problem for the financial companies is that this situation would give the borrowers the kind of negotiating power that lenders have typically had to set terms and conditions.

    So does anything in this deal force the note-holders to renegotiate, whether that is the government or the financial institution?  Is there some provision to punish defaulters or keep lenders trapped in upside-down loans if it is better for them to walk away?

    From all descriptions, it sounds like the whole basis for this plan is to pour money into the financial industries and hope that the home prices re-skyrocket back to their recent unsustainable levels so that the government gets its money back.  Or, barring that, hope that people continue paying their mortgages no matter what the cost.  So is the next step anti-default legislation similar to anti-bankruptcy measures?

    But wall street is happy with this deal, so I guess the crisis is solved now and we can go back to talking about important election stuff like Sarah Palin's family situation and whether McCain looked at Obama or not?

    Insanity (none / 0) (#48)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    In the end, if Democrats FIGHT for what they believe in, starting with Barack Obama, the groundwork is laid for a decent plan for getting out of this mess

    Democrats fighting for what they believe in is what got us into this mess. The racial bean counting and pressure to issue mortgages to people who could not pay them back created the problem.

    Who could have imagined that someone (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:22:20 AM EST
    names CRAsucks could think that?

    You're really, really wrong. Really.

    Parent

    Troll alert (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    Look at his very first post earlier today.  Nonsense IMHO.

    Parent
    Danger Will Robinson (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    There is a poster who is failing to toe the liberal line! Delete at once!

    Parent
    Misrepresentation (none / 0) (#69)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:51:55 AM EST
    My only objection is misrepresentation.  I enjoy discussions with honest conservatives.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#74)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    #1 why the "Troll alert"?

    #2 what did I misrepresent?

    Parent

    As I said above, in your very post here (none / 0) (#76)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    Not a good start.

    Parent
    Correction: "very first post here" (none / 0) (#80)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    If the crisis (none / 0) (#61)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    is not based upon people borrowing money that they could not afford to pay back, then what is it based upon?

    How can you possible believe that the CRA did not lower the lending standards and that lowered standards led to defaults?

    What is so incredibly appaling about this mess is that you liberals have absolutely no interest in correcting the problems that led to it.

    Parent

    CRA and mcmansions? (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by ricosuave on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    Loans for low income houses are not the problem here.  A thirty year old law did not suddenly balloon into an enormous fiscal crisis.  I am pulling this entirely out of the wazoo (as is CraSucks, by the way), but I would bet dollars for donuts that the CRA-type loans are the safest ones in the lending portfolio right now.  

    Parent
    Right. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    Check out the status of second and even third vacation homes in default...

    Parent
    how about these factors (none / 0) (#87)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:02:30 PM EST
    (1) middle-class white Americans buying huge, badly built suburban McMansions for a lot of money because they believed in the fallacy that the housing market would continue to rise at the rate it had in the previous years of the Flippers...

    those darn middle-class white people, when will they learn that being an American is not about driving a hugely inefficient, wasteful SUV and having a crappy built 5000sqft home with a 3-4 car garage...

    (2) The Fed lowering the interest rate way below what it needed to be, feeding into the banks who were throwing out enormous loans at a high rate, b/c of the low risk factor of the extremely low interest rate...
    .....thus, house prices INFLATED to even higher levels as banks were more willing to throw money at anyone and everyone...

    (3) new regulations that allowed banks to sell off and trade mortgage and credit debt as securities, to take in as much foreign money as possible and to artificially inflate the numbers from financial institutions on WS and thus we had a huge inflation of the Dow, even though the numbers didn't reflect the rise (it was all mental, all that black-magic confidence BS)

    (4) the slowdown of the economy, resulting in less wages, less benefits, higher medical benefit costs, and most notably LESS JOBS (where's the Trickle-down economics from those slimy-elite white people when you REALLY need it)

    it wasn't just one factor, as you can see...the biggest factor was this inflated perception that everyone had that the economy was great for the past few years before the decline, when in reality it was just fake numbers based upon credit debt....people had their huge Suv's getting 8 MPG because they thought they could, even though it was all on credit, and they were probably just making money in some way based upon inflated buying from 0%/0 down credit or as a real-estate agent, mortgage broker or someway related to the financial sector that was fudging numbers like there was no tomorrow

    Parent

    Yep.... (none / 0) (#90)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:19:27 PM EST
    and debt, debt, debt.  The interest alone.....

    Parent
    put up or shut up (none / 0) (#49)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    Let's see some facts to back up that statement

    All of the evidence points the conclusion that CRA did not have anything to do with the problems

    Parent

    What's the difference? (none / 0) (#56)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    It did not mandate lower credit standards for historically underserved neighborhoods, but it did rate financial institutions on the basis of how well they served those communities. These ratings were taken into account when banks sought permission to expand or merge.

    You don't have to lower your standards, but we'll rate you lower if you don't.

    And no where does it say lower standards

    what is it like to live life in an evidence free zone?

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#63)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    they had to lower their standards. ACORN and NACA were given the ability to interject themselves in the process and affect their CRA ratings.

    While most CRA-supported borrowers would doubtless find loans in today's competitive mortgage industry, a small percentage would not, and NACA welcomes such buyers with open arms. "Our job," says Marks, "is to push the envelope." Accordingly, he gladly lends to people with less than $3,000 in savings, or with checkered credit histories or significant debt. Many of his borrowers are single-parent heads of household. Such borrowers are, Marks believes, fundamentally oppressed and at permanent disadvantage, and therefore society must adjust its rules for them. Hence, NACA's most crucial policy decision: it requires no down payments whatsoever from its borrowers. A down-payment requirement, based on concern as to whether a borrower can make payments, is--when applied to low-income minority buyers--"patronizing and almost racist," Marks says.


    Parent
    from article written in 2000? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:49:13 AM EST
    written by s guy who thinks BruceSpringsteen is a communist.  I'm done.

    It is a quote- (none / 0) (#72)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    not an opinion. Bruce Springsteen has nothing to do with this.

    Address the quote- not what you think of the person that printed it.

    Parent

    To CRA Sucks (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    New posters are limited to 10 comments in 24 hours. You are at 9.

    Please review our comment rules. Your name is objectionable, and you seem to be a chatterer which will limit you to four comments a day.

    Please return another day.

    It does NOT make sense. It stinks. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Romberry on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    As I posted in the earlier thread, this STINKS! Once again Bush says "Jump!" and Dems response is "How high?"

    This "bailout" is nothing of the sort and just like every other "last emergency measure to end this crisis" which has been taken over the course of the last year, it will not work.

    The "deal" calls for taxpayers to be on the hook not just for mortgages but for "mortgage related assets". (Hmmm...."weapons of mass destruction related programs" sounds sort of familiar, yes?) What is a "mortgage related asset"? Well...that's a good question, isn't it?

    As has been pointed out time and again, the only way this plan can "help" at all is through recapitalizing the banks. And the ONLY way this plan can recapitalize the banks is to OVERPAY for mortgages and "mortgage related assets" far beyond what these "assets" are worth on the open market.

    We have just been screwed. And Dems went along with it. Again.

    What next? Well, we'll get a month (or three or six) of "relief" before the very fundamental nature of the problem takes over and the crisis comes back bigger and stronger than before. And now that the precedent has been set for taxpayers to frickin bail out Wall Street...well...they'll be back.

    Wall St, Dems and Republicans are using taxpayers as a lifeboat. Everyone in the water! There are rich people we need to keep dry!