Anyone else notice that, in the link, which is a Senate site, the name of the bill is given as “Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007”
(If you click through their hyperlink to the content of the bill it gives a less fun name)
People sometimes make honest errors in judgment, but no person could have confidently and flatly stated, in 2002, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don’t face any danger, unless they are (1) a complete idiot; or (2) a complete liar.
Anyway, at a minimum, Barney Frank should publicly acknowledge that he helped contribute to the problem and apologize to the American people.
That IS the name of the bill. All the economic bailout is listed as an amendment to the bill. That way they didn’t have to place it on the schedule, go through committees, or any of the usual procedures.
He’s not an idiot and you know it. It was just a snarky reply to a stupid OP.
Oh sure they did…they paid themselves off to get it done:
New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Just fucking WOW! These fucking pricks are using this disaster to STILL get earmarks for their pet projects. Fucking Rum, Wooden Arrows for kids(???), Race Tracks and WOOL FUCKING REASEARCH??? (Well ok on the Rum I guess…we’re gonna need it to get smashed out of our minds).
Fuck them all and the horse they rode in on.
Where is McCain with his Maverick bit about outing bullshit earmarks? He may not be president yet but he certainly is not putting his money where his mouth is. Obama voted for it too and deserves derision as well but he didn’t pound a podium about the earmark thing either.
I really hate our government sometimes.
Am I the only one who honestly thinks that we as a nation could use a depression - which we’re really not in threat of anyway - as a slap in the face? Newsflash: investments are by definition risky. If you take out or make bad loans, you are taking a risk. If you’re playing the stock market, you are taking a risk. Sometimes things backfire. You do not have some god-given right to own a house, to be an investment banker, to have a nice comfy retirement fund waiting for you, or any of that. Great if you can get it. Tough shit if you can’t.
I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s not for the government to come running to the rescue and completely absolving everyone involved of personal responsibility. The people involved - from the firm CEOs to the bankers who actually made the loans and sold them, to the idiot consumers who took out loans they couldn’t pay back - should be held responsible. And you can leave those of us who weren’t assholes and/or idiots the hell out of it, thank you.
Also, shame on the House for having the audacity to actually listen to their constituents. Anyone who has a problem with that is a fuckwit of monstrous proportions.
Those earmarks are ridiculous, but I can cut McCain some slack for not making a big deal of it before the vote. Part of being a good politician is choosing your battles wisely. This was not the time to put ideological consistency above pragmatism.
Now, if he or anyone else wants to call attention to the jerks who loaded the bill with pork once it’s been signed into law, I’m all for it.
I think the lesson here is that if we’re going to decide that some financial institutions are too big to fail, then we need regulation to keep them from getting that big in the first place. Because failure has to be an option for the free market to work properly.
The question is whether Congress will have the stones to actually implement some real reform once the crisis has passed. (Answer: no.)
Since Congress didn’t have the stones to act to prevent this meltdown happening in the first place, despite all the warnings, I’m afraid your answer is the correct one.
I disagree.
If ever there was a time he could stand on principle this is it. How could any Senator possibly face the nation and say his/her “Yes” vote is contingent on getting Wooden Arrows for their home state? McCain would be a hero of the people and those Senators would be embarrassed into giving their vote anyway. (Of course McCain should first pull them aside privately and tell them to tank their pork or he would embarrass them publicly).
If ever there was a time for our Congresscritters to quit with the politics as usual this is it as would a vote on, say, going to war. This Bill is unprecedented. Some things should rise past the normal crap they pull. For once in their miserable lives they should do what is right (whatever they think that is).
Note I am equally disappointed in Obama. He has said he thinks the fix for the economy overall is to work from the bottom-up and has repudiated the trickle down policies of the current administration. Well, here we are with the most massive trickle-down notion ever and he’s signed on. Further, if any candidate could ever tell the lobbyists to go stuff themselves it is Obama who has made far more off grassroots donations then big business. Presumably he could thumb his nose at big business and continue merrily along without their money in his war chest.
As I said…they all suck.
How is this specific bill comparable to trickle-down economics?
Pumping money back into the cats at the top of the food chain. The investment banks and their ilk…essentially giving them the money back they lost on this mess.
Bottom-up would be to try and fix mortgages that the people themselves hold so they do not walk away from their properties. That of course would reduce the value of the mortgages held by Wall Street but they should not expect to get $1-$1 as they seem to want with the bailout.
I agree completely Either we have government regulation, including bail-outs if needed, or we don’t. This pick-and-choose bullshit is ridiculous - and the lesson we should be learning isn’t going to stick.
The way I understand how this thing will work is that the Government will but the assets (the outstanding loans) for a reasonable price. This will get capital back into the banks, which will allow them to go back to extending each other and businesses credit. Businesses must have credit to pay their workers and to purchase inventory. That’s what the danger is right now. If businesses cannot get credit, then people will not get paid. I don’t know about the rest of you all, but I like receiving a paycheck. It lets me do such frivolous things as feeding my family and paying my mortgage.
Back to the assets: If the plan works correctly, the asset holder (the Government) will work with the debtors to work out repayment options. After these mortgages are back on track, and people can make their payments, the government will be able to sell them back to the banks for a profit. Of course, this makes the assumption that competent people will running things.
A “bottom up” approach is certainly sensible, and supportable. The problem is, if I understand, is that it woud take too long. The credit crunch ultimately rests on the valuation of the securities and therefore, on the mortgages that underwrite them. But the credit crisis is too immediate an emergency to wait for the surety to filter up.
For instance, the bailout of auto makers will be futile if there is no credit market for people to buy the autos with, and they would be defunct and defucked long before those securities could be evaluated.
The more crucial question remains unanswered, and that is the mechanism of their purchase. I favor a system much like a reverse auction, that is, the Gov buys those securities at the lowest possible price, which entails loss but not destruction for those companies who are involved, but not neck deep - they will survive, and provide a basis for business in the immediate future.
I definitely do not favor a “face value” approach, which would make them all whole and healthy without considering whether they deserve to survive their own stupidity. Not in a Christmas mood. They have to take a hit along with the rest of us.
Can we make them buy them back, or are we compelled to make them so profitable and attractive that they simply can’t resist?
Yes 
It is in the asset holder’s best interest to make them valuable, however, it requires deep pockets to do so with a lot of these sinkers. The government has the deepest pockets around. Ideally, the banks will want to buy them back when the assets will be returning dividends consistently.
As to whether we can make the [del]deadbeats[/del] banks buy the assets back: I’m not sure that we can, but one of the provisions the Republicans insisted on was to hold the banks financially responsible for any loss the government experiences after five years. I actually like that one. (Mark the date - I agreed with the house republicans.)
NinjaChick - one of the safest bets you could make right now is whether regulation is coming back. If the house members want to keep their jobs, they’ll be re-regulating the banks.
Here’s the thing…
The current credit crunch is not as bad as it is made out to be.
Yes it exists but that is because the banks are hanging on to all their bad debt rather than trying to move it because they are waiting for the government to give them a FAR better deal than they would get on the market. Why sell your asset for $0.30 on the dollar if the government will give you $1 on the dollar?
Further, the Treasury is essentially given complete latitude to throw money around as they see fit. The supposed oversight is not much oversight at all and there is no compulsion for the government to buy the bad debt at market rates or some discount.
If the banks know they are not getting a government handout they will turn back to the market and the wheels will turn. Yes, they will lose money and some may go out of business. A house cleaning is in order and this is the price these guys are supposed to pay for engaging in these risky trades that got us here.
This also offers money making opportunities in the market. It is not going to the government…someone out there can say, “Hey, I’ll buy that debt for $0.30 on the dollar!” and make money doing it and it will also cause a much needed market correction in the pricing of these things. That cannot happen if the government it paying top dollar.
Free markets and all that.
EDIT: Double Post (hamsters are having issues it seems)
I should add though that I thought the Fed pumped in several hundred billion dollars in liquidity already. The brakes are on because as I mentioned above the banks are waiting for their handout.
Whoops…forgot to address this part.
Handing the banks their lost money fixes nothing for the mortgage holder. If a person holds a mortgage for a $500,000 house that is now valued at $200,000 he won’t see a drop of equity in his home for decades. There is a real incentive there for the person to walk away. Unless that house is revalued and a mortgage given for its actual value rather than its over-inflated, bubble value the home owner can see their way clear to continuing their payments.
I am not saying absolve all mortgage holders either. Some were flipping houses, some financing their new boat and Porsche being idiots and so on. Not sure they can all be separated out if at all. And perhaps every mortgage holder takes a lump on this…just not a sledgehammer to the head.
It’s a big shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite.