Posted on 09/28/2008 10:22:50 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
Republican leadership is also sending this around:
Following is myth/fact document regarding the current draft of the economic rescue legislation.
Myth: Windfall for ACORN.
Fact: The Frank-Dodd proposal created an affordable housing slush fund and directed 20 percent of net benefits from the program to be directed to ACORN-type organizations. The proposed compromise does not include any affordable housing slush fund and directs all net benefits back to the Treasury to pay down the national debt.
Myth: Tax increase on financial industry.
Fact: The proposed compromise imposes NO tax on the financial services industry. The proposed compromise simply requires a proposal from the Administration to recoup any losses after five years.
Fact: The proposed compromise includes tax cuts for struggling community banks.
Myth: Blank check for $700 billion with little accountability.
Fact: In general, the Treasury Secretary is limited to purchasing up to $250 billion outstanding at any one time. If the Treasury needs to use another $100 billion, the President must certify this action and report to Congress. Further spending requires Congressional action.
Myth: Treasury plan is the only option available.
Fact: Treasury is given multiple options to deal with the current economic crisis, including insurance, public/private auctions, loan guarantees, and direct support to financial institutions.
Fact: Further, Treasury is MANDATED to create an insurance program (Section 102) that protects the taxpayers and requires companies that wish to participate in this program to have some skin in the game by paying risk-based premiums.
Myth: The taxpayer is not adequately protected.
Fact: The proposed compromise includes strong taxpayer protections. Treasury’s proposal had minimal oversight to protect taxpayer dollars. The proposed compromise enhanced the oversight structure by creating a Financial Stability Oversight Board, a Special Inspector General, and a Congressional Oversight Panel.
All AIG-type deals require mandatory equity interest in order to provide taxpayers with potential future benefits. All auctions require a percentage of equity interest based on participation in the program.
Requires the Secretary to develop regulations/guidelines necessary to prohibit or, in specific cases, manage any conflicts of interest with respect to contractors, advisors, and asset managers.
Myth: The taxpayer does not benefit from Treasury bailouts.
Fact: The proposed compromise (Section 113) requires mandatory equity interest in scenarios like AIG. The proposed compromise also allows Treasury to take an equity interest in the program generally.
Myth: Treasury will never use the insurance option.
Fact: Treasury is mandated (Section 102) to establish an insurance program and set risk-based premiums. This will protect taxpayers by requiring the beneficiaries of the insurance program to pay risk-based premiums. Treasury further shall collect premiums
mandatory equity interest in scenarios like AIG. The proposed compromise also allows Treasury to take an equity interest in the program generally.
Myth: Windfall for ACORN.
Fact: The Frank-Dodd proposal created an affordable housing slush fund and directed 20 percent of net benefits from the program to be directed to ACORN-type organizations. The proposed compromise does not include any affordable housing slush fund and directs all net benefits back to the Treasury for debt reduction.
Myth: Tax increase on financial industry.
Fact: The proposed compromise imposes no tax on the financial services industry. Republicans forced Democrats agreed to requiring a proposal from the Administration to recoup any losses after five years.
Myth: Blank check for $700 billion with little accountability.
Fact: In general, the Treasury Secretary is limited to purchasing up to $250 billion outstanding at any one time. If the Treasury needs to use another $100 billion, the President must certify this action and report to Congress. Further action requires Congressional approval.
Myth: Treasury plan to purchase troubled assets is the only option.
Fact: Treasury is mandated to create an insurance program (Section 102) that protects the taxpayers and requires companies that wish to participate in this program to have some skin in the game by paying risk-based premiums.
Myth: The taxpayer is not adequately protected.
Fact: The proposed compromise includes strong taxpayer protections. Treasury’s proposal had minimal oversight to protect taxpayer dollars. The proposed compromise enhanced the oversight structure by creating a Financial Stability Oversight Board, a Special Inspector General, and a Congressional Oversight Panel. [CONFLICTS OF INTEREST]
Myth: The taxpayer does not benefit from Treasury bailouts.
Fact: The proposed compromise (Section 113) requires mandatory equity interest in scenarios like AIG. The proposed compromise also allows Treasury to take an equity interest in the program generally.
09/28 12:49 PM
Why are you on a conservative website ?
The S&L bailout was a walk in the park compared to this - 250 billion.
We are now talking in the trillions of dollars. Do NOT make the mistake of this being the S&L all over again. It’s much bigger and it involves many more players.
I'll bet you $100 that they lose seats in both houses if this thing goes through.
The number is meaningless. Once this gets started, it will never end.
Plus the “at any one time” clause actually permits an infinite total expenditure. If you sell the security for pennies, the purchase price will be deducted what is deducted from the total outstanding.
Riiiight...that’s just the first installment.
But OK, just move that chair a bit more on the deck. Disregard the water sloshing at your ankles.
Riri, I understand that profit will be made by someone. I guess what I’m asking is that there seems to be no oversite on Paulson as to whom he gives the bailout to, or not. It seems that with the volitility of the banking and mortgage giants, that a certain favoritism one way or the other could mean big buck for someone. My big bucks are paying for this. So I don’t want ANYONE to profit off MY investment.
I listen to one expert (Kramer for instance) who is pleading for this to happen. I listen to the next who says it can not be allowed to happen.
All I know is I don't want to pay for the mistakes of a bunch of nit wits who bought McMansions. My anger toward them dwarfs my anger towards these twenty guys on Wall Street making millions. Sorry.
You just refuse to think.
The looting will commence as soon as the bill is signed. They won’t wait for Obambi or McInsane to get into office - why do you think they’re pushing this now ?
That 700 billion plus more will be long gone before the next President is sworn in. By then it really won’t matter much.
By the way, banks have a lower tax rate than most other businesses.
Who do you think gave them those loans ? Your anger is misplaced.
The idiots who bought the mcmansions will lose them, while the few favored banks will get the money AND the foreclosed homes.
So those who had the bad judgment to give them those loans and HELOCS etc etc are going to get the tax dollars of you, your children, your grandchildren and more.
And you are still madder at the minor thief while the criminal masterminds laugh their way out the door ?
Kinda has aspects of both. From Wikipedia:
All socialists share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They thought private property was to be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." They also introduced price controls and other types of economic planning measures.
And they got the insurance provision.
PLUS tax cuts for small banks.
House Republicans got significantly more than I thought they would.
the twenty guys? WTF! Are you not paying attention?
‘I’ll bet you $100 that they lose seats in both houses if this thing goes through.’
I agree, still no deal, and no real reform, though Wall Street gets some bailout.
And I think posting in all caps or bold is tacky and appears to be a diversion from discussing a point and going to yelling.
With this proposed bill, I think the markets will tank, and the Republicans will be blamed.
House Representatives under “Martial Law” as of 09/27/08 C-SPAN Video
US House session 09/28/2008
Rep. Michael Burgess (R Texas) 26th District
Lewisville, Ft Worth
20:53 mark
“Mr. Speaker I understand we are under Martial Law as declared by the speaker last night.”
[link to www.c-spanarchives.org]
What is “Martial Law”?
The House leadership is using a parliamentary gambit to evade a longstanding House rule that is supposed to ensure that this kind of obfuscation does not occur. That House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) provides that a resolution (called a rule) reported by the Rules Committee cannot be considered by the House on the same legislative day that the rule is reported (except by a two-thirds vote of the House). This is supposed to ensure that Members of the House and the public have at least one day to examine and analyze what is in legislation before they have to debate and vote on it.
To maneuver around this House rule and rush the three proposals discussed above to a vote before they have been fully examined, the Rules Committee reported a rule late Thursday afternoon (H.Res. 958) that would waive the application of Rule XIII(6)(a). Instead, it would allow the Rules Committee to wait until the last minute and not to report the rules governing the consideration of these bills or to release the text of the bills themselves until immediately before debate and votes on the bills, and on the rules governing their consideration, commences.
This extraordinary procedure is known as a “martial law” rule because it suspends the normal procedures and safeguards and allows the House Leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion. It enables the Leadership to seek to ram a bill or conference report through before the Members have the opportunity to fully understand what they are voting on.
Legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Americans deserves to be considered under a more democratic process. Waiting until the last minute to reveal what is in these bills, and then “spinning” or potentially mischaracterizing changes in the bills without Members of the House or the public having an opportunity to obtain a more objective review of what the legislation does, is unfair to Members of the House. It also is unfair to the millions of Americans whose lives could be affected by this legislation. It represents a further step in reducing the degree of transparency and democracy in how this country is governed and how decisions are made. At a time when our leaders preach the goal of promoting democracy abroad, they should not be reducing it at home
http://www.cbpp.org/7-28-06bud-stmt.htm
This thing as "Newt" said needs to be NOT DONE..
let Freddie and Franny and AIG and Sterns DIE a dishonorable death..
PULL THE PLUG..
It is not yelling it is highlighting what and to whom I was replying to! :-)
That has been my view as well. But the rats still show an edge. The situation is so fluid it is becoming almost impossible to get a handle on it and all projections are, in my opinion, fairly worthless because the whole landscape can change drastically in just a matter of a few days. Witness this economic mess. No one knows how this will play out polically.
But my main worry is that so much of the electorate is now so degraded, so ignorant and so dependant that every election is now a crap shoot. A single event can tip the scales and principles, records and history count for very little with too many. This is why “October surprises” are so much to be worried about.
I know who these people are. I live among them. They deserve to lose their homes. 90 percent of them.
There is plenty of GREED to go around. The GREED on wall street couldn't have been perpetuated without the GREED on Main Street. Because someone is bought out for 900 million doesn't make the guy who was bought out for 100k any more noble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.