Nod to Fascism in Dem's bailout bill

[ajmccarrell]

The highlighted section is truly frightening. The rest of it sounds okay. But, this gives the government discretion to intervene in ANY financial transaction the government deems bad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/...ncial_meltdown

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and MARTIN CRUTSINGER
31 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Judges could rewrite mortgages to lower bankrupt homeowners' monthly payments as part of changes congressional Democrats are seeking in the Bush administration's propoed $700 billion financial system bailout.

ADVERTISEMENT

Also, companies that unloaded their bad assets on the government in the massive rescue would have to limit their executives' pay packages and agree to revoke any bonuses awarded based on bogus claims, according to a draft of the plan obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

The proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, gives the government broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset — including credit card debt or car loans — from any financial institution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets.

But it would end the program at the end of next year, instead of creating the two-year-long initiative that the Bush administration has sought. And it would add layers of oversight, including an emergency board to keep an eye on the program with two congressional appointees, and a special inspector general appointed by the president.

The plan also requires that the government get shares in the troubled companies helped by the rescue.

Congressional aides said the House could act on a bailout bill as early as Wednesday. President Bush earlier Monday issued a statement saying "the whole world is watching" how the U.S. government moves on the legislation that has come in response to business turmoil that has roiled markets at home and abroad.

"Obviously, there will be differences over some details, and we will have to work through them. That is an understandable part of the policy making process," Bush said.

But he also said "it would not be understandable if members of Congress sought to use this emergency legislation to pass unrelated provisions, or to insist on provisions that would undermine the effectiveness of the plan."

The proposal that Dodd has sent to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would let judges modify the mortgages of homeowners in bankruptcy to allow them to keep their homes.

It also would require that the government come up with "a systematic approach for preventing foreclosure" on the mortgages it acquires as part of the bailout. That would include the home loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giants now under the control of a government regulator.

Asked about Democrats' demands, Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said, "There are lots of issues but the discussions we are having are good."

Asked if the negotiations could slow down passage of the measure, she said, "We are confident that we can get a bill done this week."

Dodd, interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" on Monday, said taxpayers should be "first in line" to get money back once conditions in the industry stabilize and recover.

"We want oversight," he said, adding, "It's important that we act quickly, but it's more important that we act responsibly."

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services panel, said that Paulson "is being entirely unreasonable" to expect that Congress will pass a bill right away without examining the proposal thoroughly and adding provisions Democrats want, such as the curbs on executive pay.

"We want to limit those as a condition for giving them aid," Frank, D-Mass., told ABC's "Good Morning America."

"If Secretary Paulson would agree to that," he said, "we could move quickly."

Meanwhile, the Group of Seven, an organization of the world's leading economic powers, pledged Monday to do all it could to help ease the crisis. The group said in a conference call that it welcomed the extraordinary steps the United States has taken so far.

The fast-moving negotiations between the administration and Congress unfolded a day after the government approved a request by investment houses Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to change their status to bank holding companies.

That change will allow the two venerable institutions to set up commercial banks that will be able to take deposits, significantly bolstering the resources of both institutions. It will also grant them permanent access to emergency loans supplied by the Fed rather than the temporary loan status they have had since last March when the Fed moved to prop up investment banks following the forced sale of Bear Stearns.

Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke kept up their outreach with Congress, holding meetings over the weekend aimed at convincing lawmakers to move quickly to approve the relief package.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who also serves on Frank's committee, said members "need enough time to debate this" and echoed Frank's concerns about executive pay. "We don't have these great golden parachutes and so on. In the end we're doing it for the taxpayers."

Frank said that lawmakers "are building strong oversight" into the measure.

"The private sector got us into this mess," Frank said, "The government has to get us out of it. We do want to do it carefully."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, speaking Monday morning on NBC's "Today" show, said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."

He also said that despite the ballooning national debt, he would not raise taxes if elected.

Congressional leaders have endorsed the main thrust of the administration plan, but say it must be expanded to include help for people on Main Street as well as the big Wall Street financial firms who have lost billions of dollars through their bad investment decisions.

[ashton]

LOL, anything for attention.

Specifically, what tenants of fascism are you "seeing" here?

[ajmccarrell]

Specifically government interference and absolute authority to control private transactions for the benefit of the "masses". That is the definition of fascism. This idea presents ideas of fascist nationalism, totalitarianism by an oligarchy (the federal government), statism and socialist intervention by granting government authority to sieze private transactions. This is unprecedented except in dictatorships. There is no mention of s sunset provision here. In other words, if you have a mortgage or a car loan, credit card, etc and the government sees fit to take over your loan, you end up indebted to the government without your consent. You don't find this disturbing?!

[ashton]

I was more interested in how a person could rationally and seriously get all of that from one sentence in an article.

As to the sunset provision, perhaps you should read the entire article.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by ashton

I was more interested in how a person could rationally and seriously get all of that from one sentence in an article.

As to the sunset provision, perhaps you should read the entire article.

I think that one sentence said a lot with very little.
The problem with that particular end date is that assumes that this problem will be over by then, which I have serious doubts that it will. I mean, habeus corpus was suspended supposedly until the end of the war on terror and that's been 7 years now. All that particular end date does is give congress opportunity to renew, which they would have to. I just don't see it ending. As Ronaldus Magnus said back in '64, the closest thing to eternal life we see on this planet is a government program.

[ashton]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;775522]I think that one sentence said a lot with very little.
The problem with that particular end date is that assumes that this problem will be over by then, which I have serious doubts that it will. QUOTE]

Ok, so it is the sentence that says little, but a lot. Then we go from there being no end date to there being a problem with the end date, which you previously claimed it lacked.

Gotcha.

[vermicious knid]

The area you highlighted in bold does not represent a change made by Democrats. It was the president and his secretary of the treasury who proposed bailing out these reckless financial institutions for $700,000,000,000 of our money. You really stuck your foot in the mud with this one, ajmmcarrell, because you are basically calling George W. Bush a fascist. This was his idea. He wanted it done immediately, but some Democrats are resisting rushing. The changes that this article mentions include revoking the huge bonuses given to irresposible executives.

I am not saying that I disagree that this is a bad thing. In the other thread on this topic, I linked to an article saying this bailout should " send people into the streets in mass outrage". It's just that your attempt to blame this on the Democrats is a big blubbery flop.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

The area you highlighted in bold does not represent a change made by Democrats. It was the president and his secretary of the treasury who proposed bailing out these reckless financial institutions for $700,000,000,000 of our money. You really stuck your foot in the mud with this one, ajmmcarrell, because you are basically calling George W. Bush a fascist. This was his idea. He wanted it done immediately, but some Democrats are resisting rushing. The changes that this article mentions include revoking the huge bonuses given to irresposible executives.

I am not saying that I disagree that this is a bad thing. In the other thread on this topic, I linked to an article saying this bailout should " send people into the streets in mass outrage". It's just that your attempt to blame this on the Democrats is a big blubbery flop.

You didn't read what I said, I do have a problem with the bailout, but it was Dodd's amendment that I had called fascist. Read my post again, I highlighted it bold, italic and underlined just so this confusion wouldn't happen. Apparently, it did anyway. I don't think the bailout in and of itself is fascist, but Dodd's idea of giving power to the government to assume any loan they deem a bad loan, whether credit card, car loan, etc. Please read all of what I said before commenting, it prevents a lot of embarrassment. You apparently didn't read my post under the "more Palin lies" thread where I explained the crisis in detail and it had nothing to do with party, but was caused entirely by irresponsible people.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ashton;775528]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I think that one sentence said a lot with very little.
The problem with that particular end date is that assumes that this problem will be over by then, which I have serious doubts that it will. QUOTE]

Ok, so it is the sentence that says little, but a lot. Then we go from there being no end date to there being a problem with the end date, which you previously claimed it lacked.

Gotcha.

You're right. I should have elaborated. I just don't believe congress when they say that something will expire, unless it is a tax cut. My understanding is that the sunset is not built into the bill, which is what I heard on the radio this morning.

[vermicious knid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I do have a problem with the bailout, but it was Dodd's amendment that I had called fascist.

You are confused about what his amendment calls for. You weren't criticizing any of his amendments. You were criticizing the very bill itself.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I don't think the bailout in and of itself is fascist, but Dodd's idea of giving power to the government to assume any loan they deem a bad loan, whether credit card, car loan, etc.

Classic. What do you think this "bailout" is that people are talking about if it isn't the government assuming bad loans? What you call "Dodd's idea" was proposed by George W. Bush's treasury secretary.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

You are confused about what his amendment calls for. You weren't criticizing any of his amendments. You were criticizing the very bill itself.


Classic. What do you think this "bailout" is that people are talking about if it isn't the government assuming bad loans? What you call "Dodd's idea" was proposed by George W. Bush's treasury secretary.

The article itself says that Dodd wanted the government to assume private loans such as credit cards and auto loans too. Paulson called for a bailout, but not for ALL loans in the US to be under congressional perview. Again, I highlighted it in every way imaginable so that you would know what I was criticising specifically as fascist. Both Paulsen and congress have both presented alternative plans and are negotiating. It's called the legislative process. Everyone else here gets it but you. I guess if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you don't understand it.

I have a basic problem with the tax payers paying for the bailout itself, but I wouldn't call it fascist, since most of these are already overseen by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. I would call expanding governmental oversight over credit cards and auto loans without the consumer's consent fascist by any measure. Go reread the article and there is another one that was just posted on Yahoo's front page that also calls the provision "Dodd's addition", so take up your argument with the people that wrote the article if you don't believe them, but that is what they are reporting that Dodd wants to do that is different from Paulsen's proposal.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The article itself says that Dodd wanted the government to assume private loans such as credit cards and auto loans too. Paulson called for a bailout, but not for ALL loans in the US to be under congressional perview. Again, I highlighted it in every way imaginable so that you would know what I was criticising specifically as fascist. Both Paulsen and congress have both presented alternative plans and are negotiating. It's called the legislative process. Everyone else here gets it but you. I guess if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you don't understand it.

I have to correct you on this. It's the U.S. treasury that is asking for two years. It's the Treasury that amended the proposal to allow buyout of any and all 'troubled assets'. Not the Democrats. The Dems are asking for a one year limit.

You have your facts a little backwards.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news...rss_topstories

The Treasury has amended its original request to give it authority to buy up not just troubled mortgage assets, but troubled assets period.

"Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth," according to a statement on the Treasury Web site.

Lastly, the Dodd proposal would terminate Treasury's special authority to buy up troubled assets by Dec. 31, 2009. By contrast, the Treasury's proposal calls for termination two years from the date of enactment.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I have to correct you on this. It's the U.S. treasury that is asking for two years. It's the Treasury that amended the proposal to allow buyout of any and all 'troubled assets'. Not the Democrats. The Dems are asking for a one year limit.

You have your facts a little backwards.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news...rss_topstories

You're referring to something different. Although what you are saying is correct, it's a different, but related subject. What I am referring to is Dodd's position that Auto Loans and Credit Cards are under government review, which according to the articles I've read, are not part of what Paulsen is asking for.

What this article says is, "The proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, would give the government broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset — including credit card debt or car loans — from any financial institution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets." This is not the same thing that Paulsen wants. There doesn't seem to be a sunset on this provision.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/...ncial_meltdown

[vermicious knid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Everyone else here gets it but you. I guess if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you don't understand it.

Everyone here gets it but me? What imaginary group of people do you see here misinterpreting things the same way you are?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I have a basic problem with the tax payers paying for the bailout itself, but I wouldn't call it fascist, since most of these are already overseen by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. I would call expanding governmental oversight over credit cards and auto loans without the consumer's consent fascist by any measure.

Once again, and it probably won't penetrate your skull, but what you call fascist came from George W. Bush's treasury secretary. I don't see how this $700 billion giveaway is more egregious to you for including car loans and credit cards, but it was not because of a Democrat's amendment that they were included. Take a look at this article.
Bailout plan could include bad credit card or car loans

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

Everyone here gets it but me? What imaginary group of people do you see here misinterpreting things the same way you are?


Once again, and it probably won't penetrate your skull, but what you call fascist came from George W. Bush's treasury secretary. I don't see how this $700 billion giveaway is more egregious to you for including car loans and credit cards, but it was not because of a Democrat's amendment that they were included. Take a look at this article.
Bailout plan could include bad credit card or car loans

How many times do I have to say that Dodd's amendment giving authority to the government to buy credit card and auto loans without the taxpayers consent?! I just posted TWO articles that say this provision came from Dodd and not Paulsen. The article you posted doesn't say Paulsen or Dodd, it just says "officials". Last I checked Dodd was an official. Both of the AP stories I posted say Dodd and yours didn't give ANY names at all. Good Lord!