Mayors seek bailout funds
Posted By: sjk on 2008-11-14
In Reply to:
The first of many?
LINK/URL: Three big city mayors seek share of bailout
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
And I as well. especially those on the front line...the mayors...the governors...
and at the federal level as well...it will take all of them. This is somewhere where party lines need to disappear. This is where we all need to pull together.
Will Bush tap the TARP funds............ sm
to bail out the car companies? Initially he had refused to do that, but he has been lobbying heavily for Congress to pass the auto bailout. Will be interesting to watch and see what he does. Would you consider it waffling on his previous stance or just following "plan B?"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98174992&ft=1&f=1001
O would never vote no on Katrina funds unless
Just for good measure, I am going to post the reasons I know that to be fact.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/when-the-cameras-are-off-barack-obamas-hurricane-katrina-record/
1. Here is O's record on rebuilding after Hurriane Katrina
2. Sept. 2, 2005: Obama holds press conference urging Illinoisans to contribute to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
3. Sept. 5, 2005: Obama goes to Houston to visit evacuees with Presidents Clinton and Bush.
4. Sept. 7, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a national emergency family locator system
5. Sept. 8, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a National Emergency Volunteers Corps. Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Harry Reid
6. Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold
7. Sept. 12, 2005: Obama introduces legislation requiring states to create an emergency evacuation plan for society’s most vulnerable
8. Sept. 15, 2005: Obama issues public response to President Bush’s speech about Gulf Coast rebuilding.
9. Sept. 21, 2005: Obama co-sponsors bill to establish a Katrina commission to investigate response to the disaster introduced by Hillary Clinton
10. Sept. 21, 2005: Obama appears on NPR to discuss the role of poverty in Hurricane Katrina.
11. Sept. 22, 2005: Obama and Coburn’s Hurricane Katrina financial oversight bill unanimously passes Senate committee.
12. Sept. 22, 2005: Obama’s amendment requiring evacuation plans unanimously passes Senate committee.
13. Sept. 28, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement about the need for a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the financial mismanagement and suspicious contracts occurring in the reconstruction process
14. Sept. 29, 2005: Obama and Coburn investigate possible FEMA refusal of free cruise ship offer
15. Oct. 6, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement on FEMA Decision to re-bid Katrina contracts
16. Oct. 6, 2005: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005.
17. Oct. 21, 2005: Obama releases statement decrying the extension of FEMA director, Michael “Brownie” Brown’s contract. Obama calls Brown’s contract extension, “unconscionable.”
18. Nov. 17, 2005: Obama and Coburn introduce legislation asking FEMA to immediately re-bid all Katrina reconstruction contracts.
19. Feb. 1, 2006: Obama gives Senate floor speech on his legislation to help children affected by Hurricane Katrina
20. Feb. 2, 2006: Obama introduces legislation to help low-income children affected by Hurricane Katrina
21. Feb. 23, 2006: Obama issues statement responding to a White House report on Hurricane Katrina. Obama noted that the top two recommendations that the report had for the federal government were initiatives he had been working on since immediately after the storm hit. Obama called the administration’s response “delinquent.”
22. May 2, 2006: Obama gives speech about no-bid contracts in Hurricane Katrina reconstruction
23. May 4, 2006: Obama’s legislation to end no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction passed the Senate.
24. June 15, 2006: Obama and Coburn announce legislation to require amendment to create competitive bidding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction for federal contracts over $500,000. Although it passed previously, the language was stripped in conference.
25. June 15, 2006: Obama releases podcast about his pending Katrina reconstruction legislation in the Senate.
26. June 16, 2006: Obama and Coburn get no-bid Hurricane Katrina reconstruction amendment into Department of Defense authorization bill.
27. July 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn’s legislation to end abuse of no-bid contracts passes senate as amendment to Department of Defense authorization bill.
28. August 11, 2006: Obama visits Xavier University in New Orleans to give Commencement address
29. August 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn ask FEMA to address ballooning no-bid contracts for Gulf Coast reconstruction
30. Sept. 29, 2006: Obama and Coburn legislation to prevent abuse of no-bid contracts in the wake of disaster passes Senate to be sent to President’s desk to become law.
31. Feb. 2007-Present: As Obama begins his Presidential campaign he references Katrina as a part of his stump speech as he travels around the country in his familiar line, “That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city. That is not who we are.”
32. June 20, 2007: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 introduced by Senator Chris Dodd.
33. July 27, 2007: Obama and colleagues get a measure in the Homeland Security bill that will investigate FEMA trailers that may contain the toxic chemical, formaldehyde.
34. Aug. 26, 2007: Obama outlines a detailed Hurricane Katrina recovery plan.
35. December 18, 2007: Obama calls on President Bush to protect affordable housing in New Orleans
36. February 16, 2008: Obama releases statement on toxic Gulf Coast trailers
Please explain, forego what funds? And
*become self-supportive by their own congregation members?*
well ending a useless war would give funds to other
maybe that's how he plans on funding it...doh!!!
NYT ad alone cost $200,000 in taxpayer funds. Not a big deal?nm
z
How do you know how I seek my opinions?
Just because I don't listen to far left, excuse the phrase, wackos, that have been discredited right and left does not mean I don't seek out diverse opinions. I read and watch a lot of opposing views. I will say that I have core beliefs in which I have made my mind up about and my opinion does not sway with the direction of the wind on any given day. I don't see anything wrong with that, and that philosophy has served me well over nearly a half a century of life, so I will stick with the tried and proven.
I certainly don't think Barack has what you seek.
The truth is out there for those who seek it out.
how many different ways the economy tanked before January 2007. Don't make me go dig up the dozens of posts I have already put up here in the past month or so. Obama is not a socialist, the economy is already a castrophe and you are not dealing with a full deck if you claim the economy was just fine until dems showed up in Congress. Buy hey, don't take my word for it. Voters will be letting you know exactly who they hold responsible in one short week.
McCain diverted money from campaign funds
Go play your own games. Would rather seek
------
No, I think the point is you don't seek out diverse opinions..sm
I watch Fox, listen to Hannity, O'Reilly, and many other conservatives (the ones that can be civil and are not self centered). I read and watch opposing views as often as I do amen columns/shows.
Condi Rice said at a graduation ceremony, (as I remember reading the article) *If you feel strongly about something (politically) that's fine, just seek out someone who feels the exact opposite and talk to them about it.*
Trailblazing refusal of public funds, record-breaking fundraising
That guy sure knows how to raise mountains of money. Small donors, big votes. Innovative and successful. Now that's what I'm talkin' about. T-minus 18 and counting.
No, I watch the same thing, only I seek out diverse opinions.sm
In the past, I did not.
Here's a quiz for you: Name the best-known and most influential conservative commentators in America? Rush Limbaugh? George F. Will? Bill O'Reilly? Now, quick, who are their liberal counterparts?
Six Democratic War Vets Seek House Seats ...see article
By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 4, 3:45 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.
This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.
On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.
Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country, said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. We need to have an exit strategy now.
While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely.
That wasn't the time to question our government, Murphy recalled.
Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.
Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.
In 1974, public outrage over the Watergate scandal and Republican President Richard M. Nixon's administration swept a class of reform-minded Democrats into office. It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House is an early indicator.
The Democratic veterans walk a fine line as they reach out to voters who may question Bush's handling of the conflict. The task is to challenge the administration while still being seen as patriotic.
David Ashe, who spent most of 2003 working as a Marine judge advocate general in Iraq, chooses his words carefully when asked whether the United States should have invaded.
There's no reason to Monday morning quarterback the decision, said Ashe, 36, who is trying to unseat first-term Republican Rep. Thelma Drake in Virginia's 2nd District. I would say we're in the right position to succeed. Whether or not we're going to get that success remains to be seen.
Although they often talk tough about the Bush administration, some of the candidates don't fit the typical anti-war image, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.
They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level, Sheehan-Miles said.
Historically, war experience has added to a candidate's credibility. As many as 70 percent of lawmakers in the 1950s were war veterans, but only about 40 percent of the members of Congress today have military experience.
During the Vietnam War, there was such a collective funk that veterans felt free to criticize, said John Johannes, a political science professor at Villanova University. A few, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., got their political start as anti-war activists.
Veterans today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about soldiers, said John Allen Williams, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.
Unlike Vietnam, people who do not like the war are not blaming the veterans, Williams said.
But that will not guarantee success, contends Ed Patru, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Democratic war veterans who are seen as liberal on other issues aren't going to be popular with voters, he said.
I think a lot of Democrats are looking at what happened in Ohio and trying to duplicate that around the country, Patru said.
Taylor, 33, a Republican businessman from West Texas, supports Bush's policies. He is a major in the Marines reserves, and, like the Democrats, cites his war experience.
The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time and Congress is going to grapple with the war on terror, Taylor said. We need policy-makers who know what it means to make war.
Bryan Lentz, 41, an attorney from Swarthmore, Pa., volunteered to go to Iraq at age 39 with a civil affairs unit. The Army reserves major was so disillusioned by the lack of a plan in Iraq that he decided while he was in Iraq to run for Congress.
He is trying to unseat 10-term GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure, Lentz said. We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course.
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm
Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.
Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.
Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.
In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.
Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.
U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/
Bailout
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our money, frist by inflation and then by deflation; the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks) will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered"
-President Thomas Jefferson
here's your bailout
I think that all the CEOs of the big three along with all their members of the board and whatnot, all the big wigs, that have made millions screwing people over for years and years should dip into their OWN pockets and sell a few houses, cancel a few vacations, cash in a few money markets and get their own companies out of debt. Then, when the books are balanced, the people who have been making 80,000 a year to push a button should take a pay cut and NOT go on strike and live like the rest of real America. Then they should be fine.
Bailout
if they fail, do you realize it would affect everyone. Millions of jobs in the auto industry alone. If people don't have jobs, they can't spend money anywhere. Stores will start to close, etc. It will affect everyone.
Bailout
I totally agree 1000% with your analysis - the only time these greedy CEO's give a hoot about us is when they see their profits increase. You can bet your last five cents that if one of us went to them asking for money - they would call the police!! It would be interesting to see the salaries of CEO's in Europe as opposed to what these guys continually fleece us for... 
About That First Bailout
Do you remember who told us "we had to act now or we might face dooms day (sic)" with all that bailout money? It was Hank Paulsen and George Bush. We may as well have flushed that first TARP payment down the toilet. There was no accountability, and no one knows where all that money went.
At least the present stimulus package has accountability built into it and some limits as to what can and can't be done with the money.
the bailout IS making
the US a socialist country - compliments of your beloved GWB and McPalin. congratulations you got your wish.
No Bailout for the rich
Say no to the bailout. The FBI is investigating all of these companies for criminal mortgage fraud.
Why the rush for the bailout
There Is No Crisis--Summary by: Chris BowersTue Sep 23, 2008 at 16:22
Things are getting a little suspicious about this crisis.
1) Why did the Bush administration suddenly declare a crisis during the final two weeks when Congress would be in session during his presidency? Is it maybe because, after the election, Congress would know it wasn't dealing with Bush anymore?
2) If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?
3) Why is it that Congress is supposed to bail out many banks and firms that are actually quite successful and profitable right now, and not just those that are failing?
4) Why is Paulson blatantly lying to Congress about oversight?
5) Where did the $700 billion figure come from?
6) Why is Paulson urging that debate on the matter be held after the legislation is passed?The burden of proof should always be placed on those who are demanding a huge government bailout, not upon those who are skeptical that one is needed. And yet the questions keep mounting, with no answers in sight.
I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all. Chris Bowers :: There Is No Crisis--Summary
I don't agree with the bailout
We have some savings, but we still live paycheck-to-paycheck, not wanting to touch the savings. I really don't agree that we taxpayers should have to fund this. I think that the higher ups that walked away with 100s of thousands or even millions should have to pay for this. Charge them with fraud and make them give it back. I certainly don't feel I've put anyone in this situation and therefore don't feel I should have to pay for it.
only 24% of us support the bailout
Yesterday it was reported only 24% of Americans support the bailout, 56% are opposed so 20% have no opinion. Senators' and reps' offices were flooded with calls and emails all day asking that the bailout be opposed. And I was one of those. Everyone should be contacting their own reps to express their opinions. That's they only way they will know what the people want.
Yes, and how about the bailout, ACORN, and
nm
Well.....look at it this way....if they don't push this bailout...
there are folks who know "where the bodies are buried." There is probably so much we DON'T know about all this...and yes, it is disgusting. Dodd and Frank, if they had an ounce of integrity, would apologize to the American people and resign. Pelosi, if SHE had an ounce of integrity, would demand it. So far John McCain is the ONLY one who has said someone should resign, and that was Christopher Cox, the Republican head of the SEC. He SHOULD resign. So should the treasury secretary, Paulson. Every member of that committee that voted back in 2006 to kill the bill McCain co-sponsored should resign. They should all be investigated criminally as well as far as I am concerned. I know the FBI is looking at Fannie/Freddie but talk about a day late and dollar short after Raines, Johnson, Howard, and Gorelick raped the American public for millions.
You're right. They should ALL have to go and start over.
SNL skit on the bailout. sm
Funny but sad because it is true.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/37758/saturday-night-live-c-span-bailout#s-p1-st-i1
TheSmokingGun/bailout
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1007083aig1.html
AIG spa trip, right after gov. bailout approved. This is disgusting.
Not a bailout, entirely voluntary (nm
x
I think we MT's need a bonus and a bailout!
nm
Again, I don't think the problem is the bailout itself, (sm)
but rather the way it's used, which right now leaves a lot to be desired. As far as the rest of the country being screwed, well that's coming either way. We have 2 choices--we can either do nothing, lose millions of jobs and go into a full-blown depression; or we can take a chance with bailing them out (preferably with stipulations) and owe a lot of money. I think my preference would be to pay more taxes if need be, but still have a job so I could feed my family instead of not being able to do either of the above.
But, the first bailout passed because
the dems had the majority of votes. Am I right or did I lose my mind? DON"T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE. LOL
Bailout dies in Senate.........sm
It's over, at least for this year. I don't know, and the article did not state, whether there will be more talks after the first of the year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B50CL20081212?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
I have some ideas about auto bailout
Let the oil companies bail them out since they directly benefited from some of the bad management decisions.
Don't bail out the companies. Give the money to the workers for re-education, etc., while the auto companies restructure.
My first suggestion was a little cynical, but I'm not sure why the second hasn't occurred to anyone. ...
A little satire about the bailout scam. sm
A sense of humor can help in stressful times.
From The Nation to the nation:
"Dear Lucky American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson"
Bailout as a Nigerian Request for Help
Ron Paul's comments on the bailout. sm
Dr. No is still working for us in Congress.
Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.
We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.
Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."
Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?
Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.
F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
Letter to Congress re the bailout. sm
The bailout has stalled. Please contact your reps and tell them NO to the bailout. Phone calls, emails, and letters are having an impact. People have already lost their homes and jobs. According to experts in economics, this is going to cause inflation to soar and a depression.
Letter below is from someone who is on the verge of losing their home, and gave permission to copy it.
Almost 300 years ago the founders of this country believed in freedom and liberty so much that they risked everything—their property, prosperity, comfort, honor, and even their very lives—on the near impossible gamble of taking on the world’s greatest superpower, at that time, to win the liberty that we enjoy today. That example has inspired Americans through the ages until the present day to reach for greatness despite the presence of risk and uncertainty. Against these dangers the intrepid push forward, knowing the price of failure, yet never succumbing to fear because our system is so robust in its scope that failure can be overcome and the rewards of hard work eventually achieved. In these troubled financial times, we are tempted by fear to shy away from the responsibility that liberty requires and instead hearken to the safety net of socialism. George Washington and his men had no safety net. The price of failure for them was certain death.
More money can always be made, but once we give up our freedom for socialism we can only buy it back with blood and death. CongressPerson, that is too high a price for the rescue of a few banks that should have known better. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. Let the markets buy up their assets and redistribute them as only a free market can. Bring back sound money and the value backed currency the Constitution requires. Stop the central bankers at the Federal Reserve from ruining our country. There will be some pain, just like there was in the winter at Valley Forge, but in the spring, the economy will thrive again just as did the army that won our freedom.
I call on you now CongressPerson to fight for our freedom. Fight with all your might and strength the way our troopers did at Cowpens. Do not surrender. Do not sell us out. Fight for us and our liberty CongressPerson, as if we were about to lose it…because we are.
RJH
Norman, OK
PS I am a homeowner in distress. I stand to avoid the specter of foreclosure if you pass the bailout…but PLEASE DON’T PASS IT! I would rather lose my house than see America lose her freedom. In time I can buy another house.
The Roundtable is chatting about the bailout.
Newt Gingrich, George Will, Steven Pearlstein, and Robert Reich are "debating".
The terms of the bailout will be posted on line around noon today. I think we all should read it to see what it's all about.
Because the bailout is a corrupt piece of
Most people do not even realize that HALF that money they are stealing from us is going DIRECTLY to foreign investors, i.e., the China
2-step......read up on it. Better yet, I'll send a link... sickens me to no end!!!!!
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=234
The O also voted for the bailout package. (nm)
x
Where is it documented that the man in charge of the bailout...
is Muslim? He's Indian-American by all I can find out. Would not matter if he was Muslim; however, I can't find anything credible saying that he is.
For those who support the auto bailout........ sm
please answer me this.
If the Big 3 are truly in the dire financial straites they claim to be, surely this did not come on overnight. Surely they did not wake up one morning a couple of weeks ago and say "wow, we have a problem. Let's go get help from Washington." GM has already received help from the government before and it didn't seem to keep them solvent. With that line of thinking, what makes those of you who support the bailout think that they will manage whatever funds (it's up to $34K and possibly growing) they receive wisely and will not allow this to happen again?
Yes, Bush proposed a bailout....
the majority democratic congress rejected HIS and made one of their own...you don't remember all the haggling back and forth? Bush by himself couldn't have done squat. Actually more republicans were against it than democrats and got castigated for stalling the bill that was going to save us all. Then the dems had to add a little pork into it (money for wooden arrows and some such) before it finally passed. However, if Chris Dodd (D) chair of banking and finance committees and Barney Frank (D) in the House had not blocked EVERY attempt by Bush and yes, John McCain, to regulate Fannie and Freddie it would be a moot point, because we would NOT BE in this mess. Whatever else Bush has done, he had NOTHING to do with this economic crisis. That was all Dems, all the time, to make sure every american whether you could afford one or not got into a house.
The bailout isn't going to help-Diana Olick
"The TARP money isn’t going directly to bail out the housing market, and let’s just say a lot of folks are PO’d.
The argument is that a lot of folks don’t qualify, there’s a 3% upfront fee on the FHA insurance, a 1.5 percent fee for the duration of the loan, and a lot of lenders still don’t want to write down principal, as is required by the program.
So then we get to the Hill this morning, and what I can only describe as a skewering of Neel Kashkari, the Treasury’s Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability. Congressman Dennis Kucinich of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform took Mr. Kashkari to task for changing the rules to the game of Monopoly, TARP edition. In fact, here’s a little montage with Kashkari, Kucinich, Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), and Cong. Darrell Issa (R-CA), just the best bits from the testimony:
Kashkari: The secretary is very passionate about this as well-
Kucinich: Passionate about what?
Kashkari: Helping homeowners, congressman -
Kucinich: wwww- he is? in what country??
Cummings: You're on TV. You’re the man. I don't know how much we're paying you, but you're our employee...
Issa: Y'know, we could go ring around the rosie here, but you are here because Congress feels you played a bait and switch game...
Kashkari: I don’t think it's a good use of taxpayer money to put taxpayer capital into an institution that's going to fail-
Kucinich: Boy y'know, that statement you just made, you will hear about for the rest of your career.
Cummings: Is Kashkari a chump? "
Auto Bailout is on C-Span. If you
want to watch it tonight, it will be on at 8 p.m. In the meantime, the plans of GM and Ford are online.
I feel sorry for the Chryler guy. He seems to be the most honest and wants the least amount of money. Sen. Corker - TN told him right out he doubts Chrysler is going to make it even with the money and they should just be bought out by someone and leave the company go.
He was also tough on the UAW Gettlefinger (or whatever his name is). I don't blame him there. The guy was squirming but he kept talking about all the concessions hurting the workers; i.e., not willing to make concessions.
Hope the link works.
I don't agree with not giving them the bailout.
I think part of the problem is that now the foreign car makers who have plants here want a piece of the pie if the big 3 get it. I think that's what is turning them off.
They should never have started this bailout crap. I was against it from the start. But do our lawmakers listen to us? Nope. They should have held a special election and let the people vote on it.
I think we need to start throwing out the guys who are not listening to their constiuents. A good wake up call might just straighten these jerks up.
Auto industry bailout...(sm)
I happen to think that the auto industry does need a bailout. No, I don't agree with keeping the current management, and I do believe in making stipulations for how that money is spent. I know most of you will disagree with that, but here's what I'm seeing in TN.
Congressman Zach Wamp (R) from TN was on the tube last night talkiing about how he does not want to do the bailout. If that's his opinion that fine ----- However, lets look at his reason. TN has been bidding for a new Volkswagon plant which has recently come to fruition---right here in my home town by the way. He has been pushing for this for years. This is obviously a good thing for people in TN because of the jobs it would create. What I find ironic though is that he would let American companies go down the tubes and yet support a foreign auto maker. My honest opinion about guys like this, is that they want the job creation, regardless of where the real money is going (overseas) and they would like to do this in such a manner so as to cut out unions.
ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!! 
CITI group bailout
Okay, MSN just said the new administration will go into significant deficit spending to fund programs and bailout. They are talking a 700 Billion package here. Can anyone tell me how they will do that and where does deficit money come from? Seriously. I don't get it. Are we losing more and more of our future personal security here? Does this get borrowed from other sources (as in the spending they did instead of funding our social security?) Without that Social Security income in my future (not too far off, I might add) on top of what I have lost in my 401K and IRA, I am doomed.
|
