Gingrich: Kill the Paulson bailout plan; Update: Reid to GOP: Vote with us or we won’t pass it; Update: 57% support bailout, says Pew
posted at 3:30 pm on September 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Like Ross Douthat, I’m wholly unqualified to comment intelligently on this subject so I humbly offer a few links to those of you who are. Here’s the report of Newt’s presser this morning stressing that the sky is not, in fact, falling and that Paulson’s plan will be seen as such a loser in six weeks that McCain should come out hard against it now and pin it to Obama. There’s some logic in that — the public is notably cool to it — but needless to say, if the plan doesn’t pass and the market crashes, that’ll put Maverick (among others) in a bit of a spot. Any reason to believe that a crash is really possible? Yes indeed if you believe Paulson and Bernanke, who spent last week putting the fear of God into congressional Democrats and this morning doing the same to House Republicans. Newt offered his own plan over the weekend at the Corner, but I’d recommend reading these two posts by Megan McArdle before jumping boots first into the ideologically pure “let ‘em fail” position. In a strange way, this reminds me of the Iraq debate in reverse: We’re faced with what may or may not be a looming threat of mass destruction, except this time conservatives are willing to chance it rather than take costly, aggressive preemptive action. Maybe they’re right; as I say, my ignorance on this leaves me unable to judge. But here’s your exit quotation from McArdle, emphasizing that we’re looking at a nuclear scenario if they’re wrong: “There is no benefit from a ‘tough love’ strategy for anyone that even begins to approach the catastrophic consequences, for everyone, of a massive and rapid contraction.”
Update: Democrats worry that McCain will take Newt’s advice:
Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain will “demagogue” the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration’s deeply unpopular proposal.
A Democratic congressional leadership source says that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain “won’t be a problem” — in other words that McCain will vote for the proposal.
Update: Further to the last update, Reid’s not going to let the left take the rap the Bush administration’s foray into socialism:
“This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”
Reid is essentially calling the Republican bluff on a political gambit. There’s a growing chorus of Republicans in both chambers _ especially House conservatives _ who would love to yell about the bailout and vote against it knowing it will pass. In this strategy, Republicans will be able to hit the campaign trail and boast about how they’ve voted against the Bush administration and Democratic Congress while protecting Main Street.
But Democrats aren’t going to let that strategy fly.
House Minority Whip James Clyburn says his leaders are not going to push through a bill that only passes with Democratic votes either…
“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.”
Update: The Democrats are refining their position further to protect Obama from being outflanked: McCain has to vote with them or else the bill’s dead.
Update: Good luck squaring this with the Rasmussen poll I linked above, but Pew has no less than 57 percent of the public onboard with the Paulson plan. And guess which party’s membership is most gung ho.

If McCain and House Republicans needed an extra little prod to sign on with Paulson and Reid, there it is. Although from what Richard Shelby and Jim Bunning — and Sherrod Brown — told Paulson and Bernanke today, I wouldn’t expect passage by an overwhelming majority.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Let AIG die. It’s called culling the herd. It happens. It keeps the rest of the livestock healthy.
It opens room for market share.
natesnake on September 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM
First things first.
Get them to agree to hearings to investigate Dodd’s role. Then we’ll look at a PORKLESS bailout proposal. Dodd first.
marklmail on September 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I agree. They might go down but they’re not willing to go down alone. It’s all political to them and they’re trying to save Obama.
It’s going to get ugly. Uglier.
Oink on September 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM
1. Slam on the brakes on interest rates.
2. Let bad banks fail.
3. Cut capital gains taxes.
4. Get out of Americans’ way.
GulfCoastBamaFan on September 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM
McCain wants oversight and transparency, and no earmarks.
Enoxo on September 23, 2008 at 4:36 PM
McCain’s waffling.
genso on September 23, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I understand that there will be turmoil, hardship, and lots of major shock waves if we let them fail,,,,BUT,,,, the idea that we now have certain private companies that are so big that they cannot be allowed to fail is just anti-american. We used to have such groups back in the ole country called nobles.
Letting failed institutions even massive ones in the long run will be good for the market and the nation. Those ill ran companies will be replaced and their shoes will in time be filled by the 2nd tier who have better business models and therefor are stronger.
It is natural in capitalism every once in awhile for the power to shift. In America we are not supposed to have an oligarchy that because they are “so big” we cannot allow them to fail even thou their failure is self inflicted from bad business models.
C-Low on September 23, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Yes. And every time a prominent politician, regardless of party, says no to a bailout, or whines about not knowing what to do, the more likely the markets will slide toward collapse.
Obama was silent for nearly a week. Reid didn’t know what to do. Democrats now look like they are trying to turn the bailout into a giveaway for their lobbyists, or kill it if they can’t get more graft built into it. And, too many conservatives are just saying “no” to any bailout, making us all look like do-nothing Hoover.
I want McCain to keep making very strong and clear messages for a bailout to ease market fears. Then push for the best deal we can get.
I want the bailout to target only the cause of the problem, put a stop to the lending practices that started it, and have strong oversight under a single authority.
Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 4:36 PM
McCain just slammed the Dems, saying that their vote shouldn’t rely on his vote, but on what will be best for the American taxpayer.
LickyLicky on September 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Shirotayama:
It is also important to remember that Newt Gingrich was in Washington when the Clinton administration pushed through some of the changes that people are so critical of today. I do not remember him doing anything to stop them.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM
and now the liberal media is attacking McCain.
They wonder why they’re being treated badly by the campaign?
Enoxo on September 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Kill it. Listen to Newt. do it! DO IT!
spacekicker on September 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Senator McCain – Harry Reid is calling for you to come and fix this mess.
This is THE moment that you can win the election, handed to you by Harry Reid.
Call Mitt and Newt and whoever else your best advisors are, and you and Palin ride into DC like the white knights on your white horses and fix that legislation so that it either fixes this or gets as close as possible and holds those accountable if they fail to follow the plan.
This could be THE show of leadership the electorate needs to decide.
Obama is hiding like a mouse in the corner. Reid is calling for you.
McCain – Palin – Romney – Newt: go to work. Now. And make sure the cameras are rolling.
JustTruth101 on September 23, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Loxodonta:
I absolutely agree.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:38 PM
It would be better off for the other top 10 insurance carries to purchase AIG’s insurance portfolio at $.80 on the dollar. I’d feel better as a tax payer taking a 20% hit.
That keeps the presently insured covered and a reasonable profit margin for the new ten owners.
Spread the love.
natesnake on September 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM
JustTruth, don’t you think there’s a reason that Reid is trying to hang this one McCain? I believe he thinks it won’t work, and when it doesn’t, he can point at McCain and talk about how Mac voted for it.
LickyLicky on September 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I fully understand what you are saying. However, the public correctly doesn’t understand who they are bailing out, who is responsible, why no one is taking any responsibility, why there’s no accountability, and why they are being asked to come to the rescue without answers. This financial failure is a political failure, a loss of confidence in the US government.
What should we get back in return for the blank check we are being asked to write? 435 resignations might sweeten the deal.
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Well all you have now made me decide on buying about half a pallat of water… a bunch of top roman and a little stove with a bunch of propane bottles.
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I think people would be more willing to accept some sort of rescue or bailout or whatever, if they felt the source of the problems were being dealt with and if they felt that the people who were responsible were held accountable in some way. I think they hear the word bailout and think free ride.
But if this problem is as serious as people like Bernacke and Paulson claim it is, it would be irresponsible to do nothing.
I don’t feel like I know enough to be sure what to do, but I know that I do not want to see a collapse. That would be bad for everyone.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:42 PM
That’s because he doesn’t know what to do. Neither does Obama. Bet the
mortgage moneypolitical future on Red or on Black?MB4 on September 23, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Natesnake you’re assuming there will be a herd left to re-propagate itself in the insurance industry.
And where on EARTH are you getting your 80 cents on the dollar and 20% numbers? How do you know this is actually how it’d shake out?
Shirotayama on September 23, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I would change the ‘politically correct’ language and premises here:
1. The federal government has nationalized Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG
2. The federal government is proposing to nationalize, what regulators consider now, many, many banks with ‘bad’ loans and resulting low capital.
3. The premise is the banks, even with the fed window will fail and put pressure on FDIC and Treasury.
The fallacy: Given that the banks got most all of their money back from selling the loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, their capital on ‘bad’ mortgages was replenished and foisted off on Mac and Mae. So the ‘bad’ is not relevant to this discussion of capital. They got it back.
The dirty secret: The banks, out of greed, at least in this area, turned around and loaned all their capital to real estate developers and construction loans, that have all gone bad, and they continue to hold. There is no secondary market for these ‘bad’ loans.
Let them fail. Paulson has been wrong every time. He thinks that if you relieve the banks of the bad loans, they will loan. Won’t happen. Why should bankers inject their own money, or raise money for capital requirements when the Fed will ‘ease the pain’.This is a Bank Preservation Bill for very poor decisions. Now, despite the Fed window, they won’t loan to anybody; homeowners, etc. How nice. You can nationalize all you want for a narrow segment such as banks, but you cannot force them to loan. They’ll just hoard the money like they do now. If some fail, they will loan big time, out of greed again, because they think it is a steal!!
Starlink on September 23, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Why are we buying viable mortgages in this deal? Mortgages that haven’t been defaulted on, even if they are subprime?
LickyLicky on September 23, 2008 at 4:43 PM
If you don’t mind an odd question.
With the callapes about to happen and with you (or anyone in this blog right now) whom have stocks on the market. Are you going to
1. pull your money?
2. leave it there?
3. other.
I am curious… since I am going to go out and get some items today… and I would like a realistic view.
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 4:43 PM
OMG!
Yup, the world is definitely coming to an end. A lipstick wearing pig just flew by my window before buzzing a group of cats and dogs playing together. Up is down, down is up. Left and right are now interchangeable.
Why? Because the Daily Kos has actually strongly backed Gingrich and opposed the Democrats.
Damiano on September 23, 2008 at 4:44 PM
http://www.alumni.hbs.edu/bulletin/2004/june/update_pbs.html
when public television’s Charlie Rose asked Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO Henry M. (“Hank”) Paulson Jr. (MBA ’70) whether his firm, a pure investment bank, could survive in a world dominated by consolidations, Paulson didn’t miss a beat: “You bet we can.”
ronsfi on September 23, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Right. What a choice. Although, taking a stand shows leadership. I guess we don’t really have one in this race.
genso on September 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Jiang:
There is a lot of misinformation in all this as well, the internet is full of it.
But a lot of those people who are responsible are already gone. Many of those mortgage brokers are bankrupt themselves and out of business. It is like the crash in ‘29 in that so many people were involved and so many people lost money that it was hard to know who to punish and how.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
What is the best deal? Push for what exactly. You think McCain knows?
Sorry, no time for what you want. Who’s gonna stop it? Who do you trust with oversight?
It’s nice to want these things. Think we’ll have them by tomorrow or the next day? Did you see how the stock market reacted to the testimony today? Down 161.
Conundrum: The right thing to do is to let the government correct the problem, but only if the government is not the cause of the problem.
Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 4:36 PM
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
A couple of things the dems are demanding:
1. They want government be able to purchase equity in faltering companies, so “taxpayers can benefit from future profits.”
2. Allowing judges to rewrite bankrupt homeowners’ mortgages so they could avoid foreclosure.
RushBaby on September 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Buy booze.
MB4 on September 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I’m guessing that, with every hour and day that passes, the institutions in question are developing contingency plans in case the bailout doesn’t pass.
The only people I hear yelling “fire” are Bush and Paulson.
What am I missing??
BigD on September 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
No matter which way you turn, a tsunami is coming. We can fall a short 2 stories, but if we keep pushing the bar that could end up being a 40 story skyscraper. Newt’s right, this is bad and it’s only going to cause more problems down the road. We can’t continue to borrow from Peter to pay Paul and Robin Hood is a fairy tale.
Sultry Beauty on September 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Best advice yet.
phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Agreed. This is a major crisis. We desperately need leadership.
Our economic boat has sprung a major leak.
We need a man.
With a plan.
For a bailout we can trust.
Please call a press conference, Senator McCain.
Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Stay in on the margins, raise cash and wait for the bottom.
genso on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
As I understand Newt’s approach, you can’t just kill it, you have to propose something different to offset the damage from not having a bailout. He gives his proposal of cutting capital gains tax to zero, repealing Sarbanes-Oxley and passing a comprehensive domestic energy production plan. Those all sound great to me, but the problem is that I can’t see anyway in hell those three things will get done. Therefore if the R’s defeat the bailout measure, there is going to be a major problem because we won’t give be able to pass measures that will compensate for the damage it causes to the market.
Dudley Smith on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
This isn’t a bail out, it’s a Sell out!
American tax payers are being SOLD OUT!
This can not stand!
Obama is doing it again!
Obama sold out his people in Chicago to Rezko for campaign cash, and NOW Obama sold out the America people to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for campaign Cash! Now he wants US to foot the Bill!
Stop the Sell out!
Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Starlink:
You do not understand, they have already failed, it is the rest of the market they are trying to save.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Was going to anyway. Vodka and rum.
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
JXD,
Good to talk w/you again. I agree, the job of spelling out for the public WHY this bailout’s necessary even when it flies in the face of all we conservatives hold dear, has not been good. Then again, for a very short period of time, serious developments were happening so fast that for Paulson and Bernanke to coordinate with each other on the plan, then start working with Congress to sell it to them, in hopes of avoiding the market collapse…that I can see how in the interest of time, selling the plan’s points in to the general public got back-burnered.
Now would actually be a VERY good time for Treasury and the Fed to start ’splainin’ WHY this is needed and exactly WHAT would likely happen if it don’t get passed.
Shirotayama on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
McCain can take ownership of this entire fiasco by proposing two things:
1. establish an independent entity along the lines of the original RTC, including clear threshold requirements for asset purchases, not granting power to the Treas Sec nor relying on his “judgment” as to what constitutes distressed;
2. establish an oversight board that regulates private-party financial insurance contracts ie derivatives
If he achieves these two things and we get a chance to unwind this bubble, then everyone wins.
kuhio on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Always ask yourself how much you can comfortably lose. Also, ask yourself how long you can hold onto an investment before you need the money again. There are some non-financial companies out there that are historically cheap, but it could take a while before things turn around.
dedalus on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Exactly. We’re in uncharted waters here, and neither McCain nor Obama have any background that would prepare them for a situation like this.
Not comforting.
BadgerHawk on September 23, 2008 at 4:48 PM
I thought you were pregnant.
BigD on September 23, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Read the links to Megan McCardle posted by Allahpundit above. If this doesn’t pass, we enter a recession on Saturday.
indythinker on September 23, 2008 at 4:48 PM
America needs a Leader NOT a Sell out!
Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM
By “this” I mean the Paulson plan.
indythinker on September 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Well when you have this thing called a cycle that starts… you aren’t prego.
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Chakra:
I disagree. This is not a sell out. If the government auctions off these assets it will make some if not all of the money back. If they do not, the rest of the economy could suffer the same fate, like being drawn into a whirlpool. Could I be wrong? Sure, but is easier to recover from a market rescue than a market crash.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM
W’s luck has been a little thin. First he had to deal with 9/11, and the ensuing war on terror (ongoing). Second he gets blamed for everything that went wrong in the aftermath of Katrina. Now, the market meltdown.
Has he made the right decisions at every step along the way? Certainly not, although this bailout could be his worst offense, but, generally, I agree with Krauthammer that history will, and should, be much kinder to him than current braintrusts now are.
By way of contrast, what crisis did Clinton have to deal with during his eight year Pennsylvania Ave. vacation? Some guys have all the luck.
pugwriter on September 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM
See Beck get “pwned” here for his Chicken little MO over all “Debt” related stuff. Talk about someone who goes too far to the ledge.
Glenn Beck falls for the Fiscal Doomsday message
jp on September 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Bear was sold to JPM.
dedalus on September 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM
*scoff*
How is that socialism?
/sarc
*sigh*
MadisonConservative on September 23, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Do they 700 Billion in assets? I doubt it.
700 Billion number is to high to begin with.. it needs to be WAY lower then that.. maybe at most $200 billion.
Chakra Hammer on September 23, 2008 at 4:52 PM
With government guarantees…pretty much the same thing.
genso on September 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I wonder if Obama will vote “Present”?
RobG on September 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM
As for why we are not getting more information, it should be remembered that every word these men say, effects the market. And all of this is happening very quickly. I think their main concern has been to calm the markets and try to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM
There do not seem to be a lot of finance people posting on this thread, but I will add my voice to those who have.
Having a background in finance, I will just offer my two cents worth that you do not want to invite the type of meltdown that will occur if this package (or something very like it) does not pass. A liquidity crisis can cause otherwise solvent corporations to be unable to meet payroll, let alone invest in their businesses. New business development will grind to a halt, because banks will be unable to lend money at any price. In fact, banks may be unable even to cover their depositors who want to make withdrawals. Unemployment won’t just go up by a point or two…it will head up towards 20% or higher. Anyone invested in the stock market and/or mutual funds will see their portfolio take a hit that it will take years, if not decades, to recover from. People with homes will see their equity wiped out; even people who bought before the current housing bubble. People with prudent investment strategies and savings plans will find themselves just as badly off as people on the edge who had no assets to begin with.
It was already starting to happen when Paulson and Bernanke put this plan out there. The markets have recovered somewhat, but are fully prepared to resume their lockup/collapse if it doesn’t pass.
And what happens then? Well, the government will still be out the 700 billion dollars (probably more, in fact), only it will be in the form of pure deficit spending as revenues collapse and banks fail and the FDIC insurance kicks in.
This bailout will allow the Treasury to buy instruments that are now completely illiquid because of the financial crisis. It should be noted, however, that the long term value of these assets is NOT zero or anything like it. Eventually, when the crisis is past, they will be sold for something close to face value, and the short term outlays will be recouped for the government. Much less than if the liquidity crisis goes unaddressed and becomes a very real economic one.
It may not be the perfect solution, and there should certainly be a lively debate about how we got here and how we can prevent it from happening again
Letting the meltdown occur just before the general election will, however, prevent that discussion from every taking place, because the Democrats will sweep to such large majorities that they will be able to stifle debate. Remember, they totally screwed up the recovery from the Great Depression, too, but it still took decades to win anything other than temporary control of Congress away from them.
So count me as a vote in favor of the “bailout”. Not because I’m a socialist, but because worse things will happen if it doesn’t pass.
HTL on September 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I have diversified much more than ever before. I now own more foreign stocks than ever (40%, and denominated in foreign currencies), own gold, and foreign currencies (Swiss francs), and have kept much more in “cash” than usual. Recently I moved almost all my cash from MM’s to gov’t bonds for safety (as did others, causing the run on MM funds). None of these moves have helped much in stemming losses, but I feel my $ is as far removed from the epicenter of the problem as possible.
For the first time in many years I sold long-term holdings in US stocks this morning after watching the testimony, and that preposterous buffoon Dodd. I guess I’m having my own private crisis of confidence. Comes with getting old and crotchety.
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Have to agree with you. I’m astonished at some of the comments.
Spirit of 1776 on September 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM
It’s the first sign of the apocalypse.
Oink on September 23, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Made a run a few days ago but I’m making another run tomorrow just to be safe.
Old Hippie Vet on September 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Sultry Beauty,
Or in this case we can’t keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paulson.
Mike Honcho on September 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM
A recession would be a very very minor outcome. The possibilities are much worse.
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Chakra:
That is the whole point. The government gets the assets at a discount rate. The problem is that the market does not know how much to value them, not that they are completely worthless. They will be analyzed, and made transparent so that they can be given a value and then they can be sold.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Just say, “No.”
Make them explain this darn thing in language we understand.
If this affects “global markets” so be it. That’s why America is #1.
Political liberty trumps economic liberty in this pluralistic democracy.
You can’t have one without the other.
Randy
williars on September 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Just because Reid is such a pencil necked geek I say BE A MAVERICK MAC! Don’t let that twit back you into a corner!
ctmom on September 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I saw a post over at Instapundit linking to site ANSWER has up to stop the bail out. Newt Gingrich and international ANSWER on the same page. Strange times.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM
AIG should not be in business. They screwed up and don’t deserve a do-over. The problem that most people are not addressing the effect on existing AIG insurance holders. They need that insurance intact to operate.
AIG is the ugliest girl at the prom and no one wants to dance with her. No single entity wants to buy her. If congress kicks in a decent cash profit to a group other carriers (who are in fact operating successfuly) then four things happen:
1. Existing insured stay insured.
2. Another successful business now owns your policy.
3. Current AIG stock holders recieve some money back for their investment (this is the big ticket)
4. Tax payers are more comfortable paying for a safer product.
There are no guarantees that AIG if bailed out will weather the storm. This could be a very costly band-aid that falls off within a short period of time.
natesnake on September 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM
“buy booze”, eh? This is why most of us know MB4 to be a stupid, ignorant, juvenile moron-troll who lacks the knowledge and the intelligence to actually keep up in any debate of serious issues.
McCain needs to run against the Democratic Congress in order to win. If he doesn’t run against them, he gets tarred with every real and imagined Sin of the Bush admin and of Congress–and of “Big Business”.
The ‘populist’ rhetoric may be annoying, but without it McCain’s words and ads will be meat-grindered by the media into “Four more years of Bush” and a defense of “corporate greed”
Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2008 at 5:00 PM
DO IT JOHN.
Sir Andrew on September 23, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Then put them on the open market in a private offering. I’d buy the risk on marketed down mortgage packages.
genso on September 23, 2008 at 5:01 PM
You see the testimony to Congress was pro-forma. Congress can do nothing. Only the Am. people can bail out the gov’t now. Paulson and Bernacke and the administration need to address the people.
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Bailout or Balloon gas?
I’ve got news for some of you. The home equity is already gone. The store shelves are stocked to the brim with impulse merchandise. All those momNpops that got smothered by the strip malls are about to be raised from the dead. All it will take to pop this bailout balloon is one missile in the Strait of Hormuz and don’t think our enemies don’t know it.
Pessimist? You betcha!
Limerick on September 23, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Terrye:
Let me help you. Read the post. I am not talking about mortgage brokers, but about all the banks with bad loans.
These loans are not mortgages. Those were sold off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Very few banks hold onto any mortgages……they want their money back.
The banks loaned their capital to developers and real estate construction loans. These are huge and nearly all either ‘bad’ or under stress. The banks have to ‘hold’ these loans, and previously with rampant rising home prices, they were very profitable. Many are with very little collateral in their exuberance, or devalued collateral with land and lot prices plummeting.
These are the loans that Paulson, Bernake, and the Regulators are worried about. Banks with no capital. But they don’t want to sell them for cheap so they want the Treasury to buy them…….what a crock.
Let them either sell for a song to replenish capital or go under. Not my tax dollar. The banks cannot be forced to loan money anyway, even if bailed out. Then we will have a bunch of happy bankers hoarding money and still no loans taking place.
Starlink on September 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Agree this is much worse than a recession. I think Friday is an important day. If the congress looks like it can’t pass something the markets will sell off heavily going into the weekend. If the Asian markets open on Sunday without word of a US plan, then credit spreads will likely widen leading into a week where the global markets stop functioning properly and the credit crunch starts hitting non-financial companies.
dedalus on September 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM
JXD,
I agree with you. This would be FAR, FAR worse than the run of the mill recession.
Given the rising doubt that this thing’s gonna pass, and the lack of understanding of the details of the situation and deep the hole is we’re about to fall into…I’ve concluded that we’re collectively screwed.
I hope all the people opposing this thing have a LOT of cash…uh, sorry, CRUDE OIL…stuffed under their beds.
We’re about to see unemployment like nobody born after 1925 has ever seen.
Shirotayama on September 23, 2008 at 5:03 PM
a workable solution?
First, let me note that I had hoped, not knowing anything about Sarah Palin at the time, that McCain would pick Newt as his VP. Now, of course, I know better, but still.
I think Newt is right: people who take risks should be prepared for the consequences when the coin toss goes against them. Period. Full Stop.
However, it’s not clear who took the risks here. Carter, when the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) first passed? Clinton, when he expanded its application to create the sub prime mess? Dodd et al when they fiddled away their opportunities to head off disaster?
Notice that I haven’t named anyone from Wall Street here – it appears as if they responded to the moral hazard the democrats created in exactly the way you’d expect them to: jumping in after the money on the assumption that they would themselves be exempted from legal consequences and their companies spared through government intervention.
Now push has come to shove. So now what? here’s my suggestion:
1 – value the assets (for the purposes of public financial reporting only) using mark to market as of some date in the past and freeze them there for a 90 day cooling off period while appropriate regulatory change is initiated.
Remember a company with a billion dollar asset that writes it down to half that overnight because rates have changed may now look insolvent when, in reality, nothing about that asset has actually changed yet.
April 1st, 2008 comes to mind (grin) as valuation day, but the point is that much of today’s uncertainty arises because multiple financial instruments ultimately based on the value of loans made to sub-prime credit risks have consistently been misvalued, and mark to market makes things worse by introducing enormous volatility.
2 – repeal or just set aside Sarbanes-Oxley pending development of a more thought through regulatory framework for public company reporting.
3 – recognize that fannie and freddie are instruments of government policy thinly disguised as private companies. As such congress made the rules, and the members of congress most responsible for that process should wear the horns.
4 – The right business answer there isn’t a bailout – it’s to combine fannie and fredie into one business whose role it is to approve and under write residential mortgages. Use the 90 day cooling off period to align regulation with the public interest, get the data to properly value many different mortgage portfolios, and restructure the organization to improve clarity and reporting.
4 – drill here, drill now -> or, at the least, do whatever it takes to stop the don’t drill bill, and make it absolutely clear to wall street that the democrat reign on energy is over, that sane people will be in charge after the election, and that getting on board is the only sensible way to go.
Paul Murphy on September 23, 2008 at 5:03 PM
willars:
It will not stop at global markets. If we do not do this and the market collapses, Republicans will get the blame {right or wrong} and the Democrats will not only win this election, they will elections for a long time to come. So we better be sure this is all just some scam before we say screw it.
Because the Democrats will do whatever they want once they are in there in control of all branches of government.
Newt can say what he likes, he is not in government anymore and I doubt if he has the kind of information at his disposal that the president and the Fed Chief and the Secretary of the Treasury do.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I know.
Only Congress can stop killer runs on the markets & banks by ensuring their liquidity with a bailout. Of course, it would also be nice if politicians & individual investors put our country’s long-term interests first, instead of their own personal immediate interests.
Obama? No. Independent board appointed by Congress? never. The markets themselves? Don’t make me vomit. McCain appointed board? Maybe, sort of, hopefully, at least better than all other alternatives, then monitor them like hawks.
We were given the worst of both governmental ideologies: regulations encouraging/requiring ridiculous federally insured mortgages to low & middle income people who could not afford them, AND limited oversight that even allowed “investors” to make money by betting the loans would fail.
The whole thing stinks. So, that’s why I am looking for the best bailout we can get at the moment.
(Sorry for the delayed response. Old feeble fingers at work.)
Loxodonta on September 23, 2008 at 5:04 PM
As a Child, I remember the recission here in Alaska… unlike how the Lower 48 was hit. Alaska had much of it’s oil people and other businesses leave. i can’t tell you how odd it was to go to a place one day for groceries and the next it closed yet still food inside. Alaska I would have said had a mini depression during that time. I also remember my Mom and Dad both had bought the house we had lived in and seeing my Mom cry over the fact that the house they had purchased for 80K (which is now going for 210K) was worth no more then 18K then. My Parents worked their butts off and it worked out to their advantage, but I remember a few times going to bed hungry that year. It wasn’t their fault that the bottom dropped out.
I am seeing it again but in worse fashion now. I just bought a house, I am taking care of my Mother who has serious heart problems and helping out my BF who is a retired vet with medical problems associated with the military (I won’t get into those either) who will be occationally living with me and my mother.
I am scared to death that I may lose this house, even though I have a stable bank who I have the mortgage with. Because of all the issues with people driving up the prices. Alaska isn’t cheap by any means… but I have a good solid job. What worries me is if my Mom loses her job and health bennies… adn the BF loses his medical with the VA if BHO gets elected. I will always have a job with oil… but I have no clue if I can support both my Mom and BF… so call me a dork, a joke or even a little irrational. But this is scaring the hell out of me. I am glad I am have no stocks and have a little fall back.
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I’ve usually found MB’s comments to be informative, funny or both. In this case, if things go as badly as they could, being self-medicated may help some investors handle the losses they’ve sustained.
dedalus on September 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Natesnake you’re talking about ugly girls at dances.
I’m talking about the degree of interconnectedness and cross-investment throughout the finanancial industry.
It’s not a matter of “culling the herd”. It’s a matter of the big one taking down all the little ones along with it.
You’ve convinced me that if in fact you were a student of Econ and Finance, you weren’t paying much close attention.
I’m done with this discussion. I’m convinced my country and its economy are screwed within a couple of weeks.
No point talking anymore. Just no point.
Logging off.
Shirotayama on September 23, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Oil will plunge too, though it will be too late to help the economy. I think we’ve seen enough evidence to discount the decoupling thesis, as more and more economies around the globe fall into recession. It doesn’t look like anything will escape the deflationary spiral if it comes to that.
phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Do it, John. How many times have they told us, after the previous bailouts, that each one was necessary to calm the markets? And did they? NO!
The Dems CONTROL CONGRESS. IT IS IN THEIR HANDS. Bush has staked out his position, now its time for the Dems to put up or shut up. Surely they don’t believe that McCain’s lone vote in the Senate will derail the whole thing, SINCE THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY?
This is a real opportunity, John. Defend the taxpayers from this asinine plan and show you’re on the side OF THE PEOPLE, not Paulson and Wall Street.
changer1701 on September 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Run on the banks? Pulling cash out? What should you buy?
Fertile land with vacuum packed seeds…
…and a John Deere tractor.
natesnake on September 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM
57% support bailout according to PEW? That means people are nervous. Scared.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM
How DOES that Pew poll square with the other one? Well, looks like that will have made the decision for McCain. Sigh…
changer1701 on September 23, 2008 at 5:10 PM
natesnake:
No, the tractor takes fuel. Buy horse and mules. They are hay burners, but you can grow the hay.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 5:11 PM
“informative”, eh? Good one, dedalaus.
Read what he’s written on this thread: show me any information. ANY….
Janos Hunyadi on September 23, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Oil in the Depression… went so low there was a time that you couldn’t even sell it in a 3 month period. It only slowly began to rise when those whom the depression didn’t kill were making special items out of the oil, such as paint, the start of plastics and items they could manufacture and solidify. Oil was at the time the cheapest item. Coal was more expesive.
When WWII began oil just starting to creep up and then sky rocketed due to the Germans taking over barges with oil. They were also being very “friendly” to the Saudi’s whom had a wealth.. which the Saudi’s were not so fond of the germans and stuck with their American Mormon friends.
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Really. That makes me a little less pessimistic. Maybe we can get it through without all the poison pills the Dems plan to insert into it.
phronesis on September 23, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I too think this week is crucial. Today I did some things based upon the assumption this plan won’t pass. Each day I will weigh where we are, and take other steps only if necessary. I have some responsibilities in this area for some other people, and have to make some decisions. I am trying to insulate them as much as possible and preserve their capital.
JiangxiDad on September 23, 2008 at 5:12 PM
What if Pew is skewing or even faking results? Its Pew remember.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on September 23, 2008 at 5:13 PM
charger:
There has never been a situation like this. This is not like any previous bailout. This is not the airlines or chrysler, this is the credit sector..as in the banks.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 5:13 PM
That would be great… if corn grew in Alaska! LOL… corn grows at night, it won’t grow in sunlight. Which I have a lot of here in the summer!
upinak on September 23, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Um…is that 57% of population or taxpayers? Do the taxpayers include the 40% of “taxpayers” who pay no taxes? My quick math says 40/57 = 70.02% of those in favor have no dogs in this hunt anyway.
TubbyHubby on September 23, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Nyog:
I think the results are probably real. I have never seen this many people this scared about something like this and I am not a kid. At first I thought it would be like the 87 crash, that was not so bad. But this is turning into something else and people know it. They need to feel like government is dealing with the problem.
Terrye on September 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »