by architek, Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:47:02 AM EDT
Update [2008-9-25 21:44:16 by architek]:Latest news: Senator McCain NOW seems to be holding the debates HOSTAGE to "the agreement":
Im hopeful, Mr. McCain told Charlie Gibson in an interview on ABC News Thursday evening. Im very hopeful that we can. I believe its very possible that we could get an agreement in time for me to fly to Mississippi.
Lets not allow the GOP to hold the debates HOSTAGE to this terrible "bailout". When someone says "buy or die" its always the best thing to walk.. Trickle down economics has been proven not to work and that is what this is. Its wrong.
by architek, Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:52:57 AM EDT
Watching the GOP in the last few days, I think that McCain's MANY stumbles on the campaign trail, Palin, and the bailout fiasco is perhaps leading the GOP power elite to consider using a "national emergency" theme to well, ugh, call off the election, postpone the election, etc. "due to a national emergency" (hopefully not!)
But, I think that this is not only their wet dream, its also part of their contingency planning. Being able to call off the election would be a fringe benefit for them.
Anyway, please use this thread to discuss, criticize, support OR disprove this theory.
Feel free to laugh at me, I'm used to it.
by architek, Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EDT
This was just on CNN
McCain camp to propose postponing VP debate
"McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis."
Wonder when or if they will let the primadonna Palin have some quality time with the American people before the election at all?
by architek, Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:14:16 AM EDT
There is a part of this story that is NOT getting told and that is the REASON WHY SO MANY PEOPLE BOUGHT HOMES THEY OFTEN COULD NOT AFFORD..
I am not talking so much about the people who refinanced or the people who bought homes to resell them or rent them out, I am talking about families that tried to become homeowners but who were TAKEN by these hustlers.
And also about the huge numbers of working people who have historically only been able to rent who are NOW being forced out of rentals by the millions, in cities all across the nation, because of massive, rapid gentrification. The rising cost of gas- is one of the reasons for the displacements, but there are others, such as the loss of huge amounts of middle class housing built in the postwar period. The displaced are not the poor, they are middle class workers and retirees who make up the cores of their communities. The huge amounts of housing - the removal of long-term rental housing from the market to convert it to condominiums (that they rarely can afford) is forcing people from their communities and often from their jobs, which often means that they will not receive pensions they were counting on. Why? Because their jobs are in cities and urbanized areas and they are being priced out of the cities that they work in.
BLUNTLY, There is a HUGE unmet demand for affordable homes that is NOT being met. This 'bailout' is an OBSCENITY if it does not make addressing that NEED ITS PRIMARY GOAL.
Hello, is anybody listening?
Many TRIED to buy and they were EXPLOITED by these BANKS. CERTAINLY, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A WAY TO GET THOSE PEOPLE INTO HOMES, STRUCTURE LOANS THAT THEY COULD AFFORD, AS ALMOST ALL OF THE BUYERS DID HAVE JOBS-
The reasons what is happening happened is partially because of the terms of the loans they did get were deliberately structured to make them fail and steal their equity.
Why can't some politicians recognize this and structure any "bailouts" with the EXPLICIT AIM OF CREATING STABLE COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH RATES OF HOMEOWNERSHIP THAT DO NOT HAVE SUBPRIME LOANS OUTSTANDING.. in other words, good mortgages, not bad ones.. good ones that have some 'give' built into them so people are not DESPERATE like they are now.
by architek, Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 05:57:30 AM EDT
It would seem that the answer to all those pressing economic questions to me is something OTHER than "more easy credit" for the banks and speculators that got us into this mess.
AND FOR US.. ESPECIALLY FOR US AS A NATION..
The Bush administration is pusing this bailout because easy credit DISTRACTS US FROM FALLING WAGES AND VANISHING GOOD JOBS..
The real issue is FALLING WAGES AND VANISHING JOBS..
That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
Bluntly, I have always avoided credit, and lived within my means. (I have a credit card, but ALWAYS pay my balance before it comes due, the banks hate me)
BTW, thats the way Europeans live.. we should do it too. Yes, it will mean sacrifices.
If people can't afford their extravagant lifestyles, THEY NEED TO CUT BACK OR GET PAID MORE..
That is the REAL ISSUE, falling wages.
Don't fall into the trap!
The real issue is MONEY.
by architek, Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:43:47 AM EDT
In a New York Times article today, Bush Urges Democrats to Act Quickly on Bailout Plan it appears that the likelihood of the Democrats going along with Bush is much higher than one would think from the blogosphere. Many economists seem to be coming out against the cash for trash deal, but what about our leadership? What is the real story?
Honestly, the idea of the Treasury Department, part of the executive branch, being able to dole out money to their friends from a rolling fund of 700 billion dollars, is obscenely wrong. For a party that claims to be aganst the redistribution of wealth, this is a blatant descent into corporate welfare of the WORST POSSIBLE kind. (What is the amount? First it was $500B, now its $700B - which seems to be the amount taken from the taxpayers at any one time ?- to give to the rich.
I read elsewhere where it was stated that the plan is not to have a fixed limit of money? The limit seems to be 700 billion at any one time - is that correct?)
But, anyway, what worries me is that our leadership has gone along with the Bush administration on these nightmare power grabs before, and without knowing what the people who oppose it want, they may well do it again.
Could we please call or fax our Senators and Congressmen/women asking them to strongly oppose any cash for trash deals?!
by architek, Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EDT
"The loser in a Ponzi scheme is the last one through the door"
"the scam keep working as long as you can lure in new players, leverage without income keeps functioning as long as you can tap new credit"
"As long as you were in early and got your money out.....everything was fine....but if you are one of the many at the end......the entire pyramid collapses upon you.
Yahoo has an AP article enumerating a long list of economists who are critical of the taxpayer toxic debt buy.
Many economists skeptical of bailout
I think that ultimately, we are going to have to decide, what is more important to us, protecting Wall Street or Americans who work for a living.
I think that given that the various financial magazines were writing - for the last three or four years, that this situation was a disaster waiting to happen, it is safe to say that these banks and bankers WERE AWARE OF THE RISKS THAT THEY WERE TAKING and were doing it to make high profits. Being aware of the risks, they have no excuse for claiming that they were caught by some calamity. Its their fault. They did this TO THEMSELVES.
So, how can the American taxpayer be suddenly on the hook for the money?
They NEED to be allowed to fail and the debt that they incurred needs to be dealt with in the same way they dealt with borrowers themselves. That is to say - we have to be fair and say NO, or we have to bail out the real victims, which is to say the millions of Americans who were victimized by their pyramid scheme..
Pyramid or Ponzi scheme is actually the appropriate way to visualize this huge hustle.
This (below) is from an
article in the LA Times
on European reaction to the mortgage speculation collapse. "Europeans on left and right ridicule U.S. money meltdown"
by architek, Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:54:39 AM EDT
The Problem of Hypersized Business Entities and The Need for Slack:
The current right-wing financial crisis is based on the right-wing's position that "more efficiency is always good", and that even if it results in the permanent loss of millions of jobs, those increased profits will eventually "trickle down" somewhere to someone, theoretically creating more jobs servicing the win(n)ers.
That is a failed premise because it discounts the contributions made by technology, which often is able to replace entire classes of workers with a new technology that may not create even a fraction of the number of jobs it made unnecessary.
Profits go up but jobs go down.
This process of merging entities results in layoffs each time, and obviously, our economy - which is the envy of the world, efficiency-wise is being left with companies that are, as we have heard again and again "Too Big To Fail". (as if there is a gun being held to our heads by the smiling BMW-driving benificiaries of fat government corporate welfare checks)
Big may sometimes not be in the jobs sense, big is often simply big in the servces sense.. we depend on them too much.. (eventually, many of these companies, since they are able to afford the technoloy, will be VERY heavily automated)
In his brilliant alternative bailout proposal, "Bush-Lite", Senator Bernie Sanders proposes that these companies are not "Too Big To Fail" they are instead "Too Big To Exist" because of the drag that the loss of competition and loss of so many jobs puts on the economy when they catastrophically implode.
by architek, Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EDT
The New York Times has an article today that explains what the real cost of the September 19th bank bailout will be in real terms - $2000 for each man, woman and child in America, whether they have investments or not. (Is it at all clear that this will be the last or even the only bailout we are asked to fund this year? Something doesn't pass the smell test.)
the quote goes "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
"But even allowing for inflation and in the context of federal spending standards, $700 billion is an enormous sum. It represents more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States."
by architek, Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:30:21 AM EDT
The Bush Bailout Giveaway outlined today isn't just a huge redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. Its also illustrates a depressing double standard between irresponsible lenders and the CEOS who profit from their crimes, and the hapless borrowers who are often being asked to pay back loans for the rest of their lives to make up the difference between their mortgage loans and what the houses they are selling are worth.
We have all haerd about how refugees from natural disasters still have to pay back loans for houses that are now gone. Well, similar things are happening to mortgagees as shown in a
NYT article today.
It makes me very angry that the American taxpayer is being asked to cough up money to make CORPORATIONS whole, many of whom get away with paying NO taxes, when the government cannot do the same for TAXPAYERS who were hit by the result of the wholesale manipulation and then deflating of the housing market by the banks pushing easy credit at usurious rates on people.
In an NYT article today, "
The Pain of Selling a Home for Less Than the Loan" this double standard between the standards of gentility and generous treatment used with the rich, and the brutal greed applied to the poor and middle class becomes painfully clear.
The URL is