What on earth is wrong with the brains of our esteemed Senators? What perversity of mind gives them the idea that after the people of America successfully browbeat their terrified colleagues in the House into rejecting the $700 billion bailout out of fear for their jobs, we would suddenly embrace what is essentially the same damned bill with huge load of pork added to it?
If we hated the original bailout plan, why would we like the same plan with ridiculous pork added to it? To be given a clear message of the public's displeasure in the form of the bill's defeat in the House and respond to it this way is insulting. It's a slap in the face of every voter.
The Senate was supposed to start over again and provide some sort of bill which would be more acceptable than the original bailout proposal, not one which combined all the flaws of the original with the addition of exactly the kind of earmarks which have made the public increasingly dissatisfied with the corruption of our legislative process.
Here's a brief catalog of the flaws of this bill:
• We asked for oversight. We get a commission made up of no one but the same appointed poohbahs who caused this mess in the first place, representing the SEC, the Fed, HUD, and various government departments.
• We wanted the root problems addressed. There's none of that here. No repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act which was the source of the whole problem. No accountability for those who milked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years.
• We wanted some hint of fiscal responsibility. Yet the $700 billion price tag remains. No effort to break it down or find ways to reduce the expense through better controls or greater reliance on the private sector. Not even a token effort to hide the expense or break it down by years to at least make it sound smaller.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan(Miller)
Dave,
I agree. However, I think you are ridiculously optimistic. I have absolutely no confidence that the House will reject the "bipartisan" bailout, or that anything useful will be done, by either house of the Congress.
I would like to construct a cave here on our farm, similar to the one you must have there in the Republic of Dave. Can you let me know how to get a copy of the plans?
Dan(Miller)
2 - Joanne Huspek
I also agree. But until the people rise up and get cranky, those brave House Republicans (and Democrats) will fall by the wayside. Most people don't know who their elected officials are, much less how to get in touch with them. And the rest? Well, I think the rest don't care.
3 - Baronius
Another nod of agreement.
My fear is that congressmen who voted nay the first time think they could get away with an aye vote this time. "I held out as long as I could." "The second bill addresses some of my concerns." "This bill has more bipartisan support." Never mind that those are lousy reasons; they sound like they could be true.
This whole thing has been a reminder that conservatives don't need Republican congressmen who say conservative things every two years. They'll mostly do what I mostly want, but when the chips are down, they make huge mistakes because they're not driven by conservative principles.
4 - Deano
Arrow manufacturers?
A bailout for the rum industry I can get behind any day of the week but unless they are intent on re-fighting Agincourt - WTF?
5 - DaveNalle
Dan, you were dead on. The house passed the wretched thing earlier today.
And Deano, that's actually just a subsidy for wooden practice arrows for kids. The draw length and strength are limited to below adult limits. Makes it even weirder, really.
Dave
6 - Matthew
The CRA was the source of the whole problem????
I have to disagree with you on that. The CRA only applies to FDIC institutions. 80% of subprime loans were offered by financial institutions not subjected to CRA requirements. Countrywide for example was not subject to the CRA.
Here are some things to consider:
How exactly did the CRA force Moodys, S&P, etc to rate junk paper as Triple AAA???
Did the CRA force banks to make "Interest Only" loans???
Did the CRA, or any other law, require banks to not verify income or credit history???
What about "No Money Down" mortgages? Were these required by the CRA????
Even Business Week and the Wall Street Journal have shot down the idea that CRA is to blame.
7 - Dave Nalle
You're missing an important aspect of the influence of the CRA. It is what caused lenders to first look at ways that they could offset the higher risk of these mortgages by changing terms to make them more profitable. Without the CRA lenders would never have felt the need to develop practices as predatory as they did and regulators would not have turned a blind eye to some of those practices which let lenders offset some of those risks.
Plus, despite the limited scope of the CRA itself, it is just one of a number of similar acts which did apply the same principles of giving loans to unqualified borrowers to other parts of the industry.
And I didn't say the CRA was the entire problem, just that it was the starting point.
Dave
8 - Matthew
Dave,
Please go back and read what you wrote.(page 1)
You said it was "the source of the whole problem".
And thats exactly what I accused you of saying.
As for my post. I stand behind the questions posed, whether you chose to answer them or not. They are very fair questions.
9 - Matthew
Here is a BusinessWeek article stating that to blame the CRA for the financial crisis is ludicrous.
10 - Dan(Miller)
Dave,
And how did the Dow Jones Average react? Down 137 points a few minutes ago.
Dan(Miller)
11 - Cannonshop
Well... per C-span, I obviously got up too late today, the House passed the 450 page turd.
12 - Dan(Miller)
Here is a link to an historical perspective on why and how we got here. Of course, it's from Fox News, and so was doubtless "photoshopped" or perhaps actors were used. Oh well.
Dan(Miller)
13 - Cannonshop
well, not from fox, but Here's one reason it passed.
14 - Dan(Miller)
Cannonshop,
Please, please tell me it is all lies. How could even one of our "honorable members" be influenced by
bribescampaign contributions? It just doesn't make sense. If I read/see any more of this stuff, I may become disillusioned.Dan(Miller)
15 - Baronius
Disillusioned? I'm starting to know what 9/11 Truthers must feel like, waking up every day to see what the Federal Reserve did to ruin the country.
16 - Cannonshop
Heh...wish I could. Obviously 1994 wasn't enough of a lesson. These bozos need to be driven out of office in November. They won't be, but...
17 - Dan(Miller)
Here, in the interest of putting some of this stuff further (see my Comment #12) into historical perspective, is some musical entertainment. Fewer liberties were taken with the libretto than is often the case with G & S.
Dan(Miller)
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
My favorite provision.
FINALLY, KIDS WILL HAVE WOODEN ARROWS!
19 - Clavos
Oh, is that what the wooden arrow thing is about?
I was all for that; I thought they were exempting the tax on wooden arrows for shooting children.
Damn!
20 - Irene Wagner
Our reps and senators voted for "Welfare for the Elite", moonravurn. That's what communism is, too, ultimately, even when it's billed as a boon to the working class. I suppose, in the end, that's what all political systems end up being.
Maybe America really will have another revolution, a bloodless one, let's hope, so as to start fresh. Or, there might be a few less stars on Old Glory, as people in states like Vermont think about setting out on their own.
21 - Baronius
In the words of Secretary Paulson, "The strength and stability of our financial markets is important to every American, to their household budget, to their ability to find affordable financing for a home, a car, a college tuition, children's arrows, and to finance small business expansion."
22 - Cannonshop
Not to mention Wool uniforms for the army of the Potomac, windmills, and Carbon-Trading Schemes.
23 - Cindy D
Sounds like the thug who comes around to collect his protection money Baronius.
24 - DaveNalle
Now Cannon, let's be fair, the current wool subsidy only dates to the 1870s. It's for uniforms for the cavalry fighting against the wild savages in the great plains.
Dave
25 - handyguy
I can't believe Dave actually has the nerve to blame lenders' predatory practices on a law designed to help people get legitimate loans. In a long line of disingenuous distortions of fact, this is one of his worst.
"But, officer...we just had to sell thousands and thousands of no-down-payment loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them. Did we warn them of the risks? What, are you nuts?"