Rescue plan seeks $700B to buy bad mortgages

[CMF Newsman]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is asking Congress to let the government buy $700 billion in toxic mortgages in the largest financial bailout since the Great Depression, according to a draft of the plan obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.

The plan would give the government broad power to buy the bad debt of any U.S. financial institution for the next two years. It would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue. The proposal does not specify what the government would get in return from financial companies for the federal assistance.

"We're going to work with Congress to get a bill done quickly," President Bush said at the White House. Without discussing details of the plan, he said, "This is a big package because it was a big problem."

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080920/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown;_ylt=AmlXzjW80o0sa9Vp09xahiwDW7oF

[tncoaster37]

This is pure bullshit. If those who bought these mortages can't pay for them then let themsuffer alone not on the back of American taxpayers. It's not our fault that you can't pay your bills.

[legaltender]

This is about the 'personal responsibility' of Wall Street and the foundation of free market economics. Very few individual homeowners get their properties back with this bailout.

[Justin Thyme]

Sept 20, 2008 10:13:57 GMT -5 tncoaster37 said:

This is pure bullshit. If those who bought these mortages can't pay for them then let themsuffer alone not on the back of American taxpayers. It's not our fault that you can't pay your bills.

It isn't about the ones who can't pay their bills, it's about the ones who put their money into an investment account that was invested heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If those bills aren't paid a bunch of retired people who have their retirement funds invested in those accounts who are not going to have retirement funds to finish out their retirement on. They were sold these investments as being safe, federally backed investments. Do you want to let them suffer too?

[Felix]

Justin responded to Legal Tender regarding Federal aid to Fannie Mae etal.

...a bunch of retired people who have their retirement funds invested in those accounts who are not going to have retirement funds to finish out their retirement on.

::Waiting for first "Ticket:Ride" comment::

Over on Flutterby Dan Lyke mused:

Wow. So not only is the Federal Reserve indirectly buying equities owned by failing firms, the U.S. federal government is purchasing outright large portions of failing insurers. This is how socialism happens, not through creeping social programs, but through Republicans bailing out their failed buddies with public funds, spreading tentacles from the public to the private sector in a way that makes Hugo Chavez look like Hugh Akston.₁

[Deleted]

I wonder what it's like to live in Canada these days.




Ticket:Ride. What do I win?

[Justin Thyme]

Justin responded to Legal Tender regarding Federal aid to Fannie Mae etal.

Actually, I was responding to Coaster.

Don't get me wrong, I'm troubled by the bailout but I also understand that people were lead to invest in what they were assured were safe investments. I don't think that they understood that safe is a relative term and nothing is completely safe. I'm also troubled about the fact that regulations weren't in place or weren't enforced to prevent this from happening in the first place but complaining about that is just like complaining about spilled milk.

But people need to understand that this bail out isn't about saving the homeowners or the mortgage companies. It's about protecting the retirement funds of a whole lot of Americans that did everything right in preparing for retirement and put their funds into a government guaranteed home mortgage program that then made a bunch of risky loans at the behest of Alan Greenspan who was the supposed financial genius of the 90s and early 00s.

Yeah, "Ticket::Ride" is applicable here but some of those tickets were sold with government guarantees attached.

[legaltender]

Sept 20, 2008 19:55:11 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

It's about protecting the retirement funds of a whole lot of Americans that did everything right in preparing for retirement

Ideally, yes.

If this is done right, the assets taken over by the federal agency will turn out to be worth far more than the mark-to-market values they have at present.

But, it's still the socialization of $700 billion in junk debt.

Whilst the engineers of the debt walked away with billions.

[frayne]

Is this nothing more than an entitlement program for the financial sector, to bolster our (f)ailing financial system. And I thought Republicans were for less government, silly me.

Seriously though, big band-aide for a big problem, hope it works and restores confidence or we may be in for some tough times ahead, don't care who you are, what kind of job you have or how much money you have.

www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

[BlackFox]

I can haz Banana Republic?

[daworm]

And I thought Republicans were for less government, silly me.

So, the Republicans catch hell for calling for a bailout. But, had they done nothing, they'd catch hell for letting these institutions fail. Apparently, no matter what it is, even saving a drowning baby, if a Republican does it it must be wrong, period.

[legaltender]

I've not heard anyone "catching hell" for calling it a bailout. It assuredly IS a bailout, as we effectively just nationalized the mortgage industry.

So, is complete regulation, or even outright socialization preferable to partial or small amounts of government regulation? Freddy and Fannie were born out of government tinkering with market principles in a half-assed manner. The government was faced with a stark choice. Free market reflexive talking points can't cut it this time.

With this scheme, the value of assets must be distributed fairly. We cannot have a situation where the feds get all the dogs and the companies keep the good assets.

[frayne]

Sept 21, 2008 13:41:53 GMT -5 daworm said:

And I thought Republicans were for less government, silly me.

So, the Republicans catch hell for calling for a bailout. But, had they done nothing, they'd catch hell for letting these institutions fail. Apparently, no matter what it is, even saving a drowning baby, if a Republican does it it must be wrong, period.

Seems to me like it wasn't too long ago when Bush was making some cute comments out on the west coast about Wall Street getting drunk. Too bad his administration didn't have the fortitude to act prior to this almost catastrophic meltdown of the financial system. Still seems like profits were privatized while debt is now being socialized and passed on to the poor taxpayers. Just my two cents.

[daworm]

I thought the portion of frayne's message I quoted was an attempt to give hell to Republicans. I guess it was just tough love instead.

However, you read more into what I said than what I actually said. I was commenting strictly on the "damned if you do..." nature of the governments reaction to the crisis. Personally, I'd let the investment banks fail. Yes, Justin, retirement funds and all. It would be an object lesson for people not to put all of their eggs into one basket. Having the government artificially take away the pain of poor investment choices into entities that made poor business choices prevents anyone from learning from their mistakes. That includes the governments own poor choices, but what do they care: if they run short on funds they can just authorize more loans or raise taxes, they don't have to live within their means like you and me.

[Felix]

Briefly commenting on the Republican responsibility for this mess, at most the Republicans share equally with Democrats for the debacle.

Nobody in government or in Wall Street seems to have learned anything from, for instance, the 1929 stock market crash or the 1980's S & L collapse; remember the "Keating Five?" A bipartisan group.

Everybody's hand was in the cookie jar, one way or the other.

I am in sympathy with Justin's comments about preserving retirement funds. I figured "personal responsibility" and "ticket:ride" would figure somewhere in this discussion; I wish such considerations could prompt action against the financial wizards who walked away counting their separation payouts. The only consolation there is that, as I understand it, most such payouts involve stock options in the companies the perps left in ruins.

Cold comfort for the small fry who suffered.

[blindsolitude]

I have a problem bailing out places that let their CEOs or CFOs go with a $24 million paycheck or something along those lines. I also have a problem with bailing out places that, instead of actually seeing if people could pay for the loans, they just went ahead and gave it to them. Sorry, but that is your fault not mine. I know what I can pay for and as a business, they should have looked at that as well. I know no one could have foreseen all of this crisis or whatever, but everyone knew this "bubble" would burst. Its time for the greedy to be held accountable.