Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Banks To U.S.: Drop Dead
The first part of that $700 billion bailout to the banks went -- where?
The banks essentially say, "Why the hell should we have to tell you?":
What a beautiful quote from the guy from JPMorganChase (in fairness, the most financially secure banking institution)! "We're declining to [disclose how we're spending our $25 billion]."
And the administration (Bush, Paulson and Co., who, yes, are still around) wants Congress to release the second $350 billion? Yeah, right.
As poorly as Congress rushed to approve the $700 billion, perhaps it did get one key element right --turning it into an installment plan. Given this intransigence from banks who have already gotten billions, how can Congress, in good conscience just open up the spiggot once again -- with no strings attached?
Will Bush use the Iraq war-funding gambit ("Release the money NOW or everything will fall apart!!")? Will it work? Better yet, what signal will Obama send Congress?
|
The banks essentially say, "Why the hell should we have to tell you?":
It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going? But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.
"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
What a beautiful quote from the guy from JPMorganChase (in fairness, the most financially secure banking institution)! "We're declining to [disclose how we're spending our $25 billion]."
And the administration (Bush, Paulson and Co., who, yes, are still around) wants Congress to release the second $350 billion? Yeah, right.
As poorly as Congress rushed to approve the $700 billion, perhaps it did get one key element right --turning it into an installment plan. Given this intransigence from banks who have already gotten billions, how can Congress, in good conscience just open up the spiggot once again -- with no strings attached?
Will Bush use the Iraq war-funding gambit ("Release the money NOW or everything will fall apart!!")? Will it work? Better yet, what signal will Obama send Congress?
Labels: bank bailout, financial meltdown
Friday, December 12, 2008
Keep Bailing?
So, with the collapse of the congressional bailout Thursday evening, the Bush White House now says that it will move to tap some of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (i.e. bank bailout) money to help keep the Big Three floating for another few months.
Amazing. For those keeping track, this is now the third use of the TARP money since Congress voted the $700 billion three months ago. First, it was going to be used to purchase so-called "toxic" assets; then it was going to be used for direct investment into banks to help thaw the credit markets. Now, it's going to be used as a de facto bridge loan to troubled U.S. car companies. Two weeks from now, boys and girls, it will be used to buy Christmas presents for everybody!!! Yaaayyyy!!!!
The abuse of this amount of money -- in hindsight, pretty predictable, of course -- forces those of us who were nominally supportive of the bank bailout to want to offer up some major mea culpas. Yes, it makes us feel just like we did with the whole Iraq invasion situation: There's a crisis; we need near unlimited support to deal with this crisis -- and then after the congressional authority has been given, various follow-up reasons are and strategies are adopted to "win the war." Can't wait for the financial "surge" that will manage to reduce the economic "violence" that continues to rage. Fool me twice -- shame on me.
But, I digress.
The big irony here is that a case can be made that the $15 billion to shore up the auto industry may not be the worst idea in the world. After all, the government has already spent more than half the $350 billion of the financial bailout -- and it's far from clear whether it has actually done anything to help the economy. Given the 1.2 million in job losses over the last three months, I'm not sure letting the Big 3 (or two of them anyway) go bankrupt over the next few weeks is the best thing for the US economy. Even stipulating that UAW contracts get the autoworkers into this mess, just letting the companies die now -- when the country is facing one of its most severe economic crises in decades -- is not a good option.
Yet, there is something really bad about an administration requesting funds for Purpose A -- and then turning around and using them for Purpose B. Talk about misappropriation of funds. And oversight? What oversight?
And so, once again Congress and the Bush administration (and yes, incoming Obama administration, I'm looking at you, too) have put the country into a position where there are no ideal options.
|
Amazing. For those keeping track, this is now the third use of the TARP money since Congress voted the $700 billion three months ago. First, it was going to be used to purchase so-called "toxic" assets; then it was going to be used for direct investment into banks to help thaw the credit markets. Now, it's going to be used as a de facto bridge loan to troubled U.S. car companies. Two weeks from now, boys and girls, it will be used to buy Christmas presents for everybody!!! Yaaayyyy!!!!
The abuse of this amount of money -- in hindsight, pretty predictable, of course -- forces those of us who were nominally supportive of the bank bailout to want to offer up some major mea culpas. Yes, it makes us feel just like we did with the whole Iraq invasion situation: There's a crisis; we need near unlimited support to deal with this crisis -- and then after the congressional authority has been given, various follow-up reasons are and strategies are adopted to "win the war." Can't wait for the financial "surge" that will manage to reduce the economic "violence" that continues to rage. Fool me twice -- shame on me.
But, I digress.
The big irony here is that a case can be made that the $15 billion to shore up the auto industry may not be the worst idea in the world. After all, the government has already spent more than half the $350 billion of the financial bailout -- and it's far from clear whether it has actually done anything to help the economy. Given the 1.2 million in job losses over the last three months, I'm not sure letting the Big 3 (or two of them anyway) go bankrupt over the next few weeks is the best thing for the US economy. Even stipulating that UAW contracts get the autoworkers into this mess, just letting the companies die now -- when the country is facing one of its most severe economic crises in decades -- is not a good option.
Yet, there is something really bad about an administration requesting funds for Purpose A -- and then turning around and using them for Purpose B. Talk about misappropriation of funds. And oversight? What oversight?
And so, once again Congress and the Bush administration (and yes, incoming Obama administration, I'm looking at you, too) have put the country into a position where there are no ideal options.
Labels: automakers, Congress, financial meltdown
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Brown-Out Beats Blackout
Kinda funny what crises can do for politicians -- and parties.
In the UK, the Labour Party -- in power for the last 11 years -- has been in almost as dire shape as the GOP here in the states. And, as we've all seen, the financial tsunami has thrown John McCain for a complete loop -- plunging him to as much as 10 points behind Barack Obama nationally and Republican candidates with him. Linked to that is that George W. Bush remains at historically low levels of popularity.
If you're in the Labour Party and there is a worldwide financial crisis, guess it helps when your prime minister is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer (the UK version of Secretary of the Treasury) -- and knows what he's doing. In contrast to the Bush-Paulson team that first suffered a humiliating loss in the House of Representatives before finally getting the $700 billion "rescue" package approved, and then engaged in some dithering over whether the money should go toward collecting so-called "toxic assets" or in a different way, Gordon Brown immediately stepped up and made equity purchases in several UK banks.
That is now the model that Paulson is adopting. And with the world following the UK, Brown is not the dead man walking he was just a few weeks ago.
The contrast with what is happening in the US couldn't be stronger. The "experience" line isn't working for John McCain, because the nature of the crisis isn't in his skill set -- in the way it is for Brown. Thus, Obama has been able to appear mature and calm, while McCain as bounced from one tactic to another in trying to deal with the economic and political whirlwind recently unleashed.
Another aspect of this is that, unfortunately, the U.S. is no longer looking like the lead dog in financial affairs. As we noted last week, Iceland is turning to Russia to help bail it out. And now, it's the UK coming up with the main idea to rescue the world financial system.
|
In the UK, the Labour Party -- in power for the last 11 years -- has been in almost as dire shape as the GOP here in the states. And, as we've all seen, the financial tsunami has thrown John McCain for a complete loop -- plunging him to as much as 10 points behind Barack Obama nationally and Republican candidates with him. Linked to that is that George W. Bush remains at historically low levels of popularity.
If you're in the Labour Party and there is a worldwide financial crisis, guess it helps when your prime minister is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer (the UK version of Secretary of the Treasury) -- and knows what he's doing. In contrast to the Bush-Paulson team that first suffered a humiliating loss in the House of Representatives before finally getting the $700 billion "rescue" package approved, and then engaged in some dithering over whether the money should go toward collecting so-called "toxic assets" or in a different way, Gordon Brown immediately stepped up and made equity purchases in several UK banks.
That is now the model that Paulson is adopting. And with the world following the UK, Brown is not the dead man walking he was just a few weeks ago.
But the financial crisis has been a gift for the sombre Scotsman, who grabbed the opportunity with a set of financial initiatives that have been followed by governments around the world.Of course, Brown is able to take advantage of the parliamentary system that grants flexibility for the calling of elections. Thus, he has time to build back his popularity by coming across as the smart leader in a crisis. Not only does he know the issue, he manages to draw a contrast as the sober "experienced" adult in dealing with an international crisis -- as opposed to his younger charismatic Conservative Party opponent, David Cameron. And, he's going beyond just dealing with the "problem of the day." Instead, he's raising ideas like a new Bretton-Woods pact for the world's leading financial players to craft.
While the Bush administration dithered and the European Union's major players were divided, the British leader quickly proposed that governments needed to go beyond simply providing extra liquidity and had to buy directly into banks to restore their balance sheets and their public credibility.
"I am very pleased that a large number of countries across the world, from Australia and New Zealand to Sweden, to the euro area, have moved towards the proposals that seem to me to now be common ground for the way forward," he said last night.
"I see that there are 'similar' announcements in America as well, so that is the basis -- it is really a conclusion that simply the flow of liquidity could not actually deal with the problem unless we got to the root of the fundamental failings in the system."
The contrast with what is happening in the US couldn't be stronger. The "experience" line isn't working for John McCain, because the nature of the crisis isn't in his skill set -- in the way it is for Brown. Thus, Obama has been able to appear mature and calm, while McCain as bounced from one tactic to another in trying to deal with the economic and political whirlwind recently unleashed.
Another aspect of this is that, unfortunately, the U.S. is no longer looking like the lead dog in financial affairs. As we noted last week, Iceland is turning to Russia to help bail it out. And now, it's the UK coming up with the main idea to rescue the world financial system.
Labels: financial meltdown, Gordon Brown
Friday, October 10, 2008
Ragged Depressing/-ion Thoughts
Yeah, it's difficult to have the usual happy-go-lucky attitude when one wakes up to yet another day of Wall Street in meltdown, the outgoing President Clueless having no idea what to do to reassure either the markets or the public and the aspirants for his job don't exactly sound like they have magic bullets with which to fix the situation. And the stock market goes on its daily roller-coaster ride (a 1000 point swing today, from minus-700 to plus-300 before settling down "only" 128 points).
1) Iceland is bankrupt. In light of everything else, perhaps that's not a major issue (Pakistan's problems are far greater in the big picture). However, the fact that the United States is clearly not in any position to try to help -- but Russia (despite sliding oil prices) is -- really underscores the US's suddenly weakened poisition as an economic player.
Gotta love that great refrain, "Anger is an energy, anger is an energy, anger is an energy..."
|
Though this is usally a politics-obsessed blog, I'm not going to just aimlessly talk about whether McCain is whipping up his crowds into an Obama-hating frenzy or whether Obama should have distanced himself from Bill Ayers 15 years ago.
Instead, even though (or perhaps, because) I'm not an economics or financial expert, I thought I would just post some items that have caught my eye in recent days touching upon the enormity of the problems facing the country (and world).
1) Iceland is bankrupt. In light of everything else, perhaps that's not a major issue (Pakistan's problems are far greater in the big picture). However, the fact that the United States is clearly not in any position to try to help -- but Russia (despite sliding oil prices) is -- really underscores the US's suddenly weakened poisition as an economic player.
2) Italy's Berlusconi says that the world leaders are considering briefly closing down the financial markets. I do believe that the Depression equivalent of this was a "bank holiday." Not good (as a sign, I mean).
3) My friend and former Newt-world colleague Rich Galen says all that needs to be said about A.I.G. and their spa-going junket partiers. In words of one phrase, f**k 'em. Here's a sad thought: Paulson made the wrong gamble -- the US arguably should have bailed out Lehman Bros. and let A.I.G. sink, instead of the other way around. Had that happened, the current crunch might have been averted (given that Lehman's demise had a greater ripple effect on the credit markets than A.I.G.'s would have).
Finally, in honor of the GOP's collective heads exploding over the boost that the bad economy is giving to Barack Obama's presidency, let's head into the weekend with this classic from Public Image Ltd:
Gotta love that great refrain, "Anger is an energy, anger is an energy, anger is an energy..."
Labels: financial meltdown, U.S. economy, Wall Street
Friday, October 03, 2008
Musings from Bickerstaff
Posted by Isaac Bickerstaff
I am in Washington, DC today. It is a city pulsating with politically anxious members of Congress, polemical lobbyists, peripatetical bureaucrats, and the chattering class. No good deli, but I do enjoy being here.
|
I am in Washington, DC today. It is a city pulsating with politically anxious members of Congress, polemical lobbyists, peripatetical bureaucrats, and the chattering class. No good deli, but I do enjoy being here.
Before commencing my musings, allow a comment on the debates. The biggest loser of last night's debate was Mitt Romney. His over- funded star was eclipsed by Sarah Palin. Expectations were very low and although she appealed mainly to the base; I thought she did a great job. " Nice to meet you. Can I call you Joe?" was a great start. The folksy intonations may not impress we East Coasters, but calls made to Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan confirmed my suspicions of who she was really talking to in America. Job well done, Governor. You prep well. Mission accomplished.
And let me give a shout out to Joe Biden. You are right about Iran. And I am a parent too. I understand your emotion when you choke up about losing your wife and daughter.
Now to Bickerstaff's thought on our times. The Congress shall pass an $850 Billion bailout today. It is rife with incentives to alienate all and push our National debt to another trillion. Many culprits are being pointed to and I would like to add to that heap. Sen. Graham, Rep Leach, and Rep Bliley ( the three blind mice)....... Thank you for the legislation deregulation that really caused all of this mess. Thank you Republican Majorities who said this would be a good idea. For those unaware of this masterpiece, here is the short version " To enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities forms, insurance companies, and other financial service providers and for other purposes"
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 allowed commercial and investment banks to merge and also buy insurance companies. Does Bickerstaff need to show why this is a bad idea? In a point of I told you so, I wrote it was a bad idea then but everyone was so giddy over the high tech boom, that why shouldn't business' all get together? The good times will last forever.
Thank you, President Clinton, for signing it into law. Your fundamental understanding of the protections of Glass-Steagal blow a flat saxophone note. And to all the Wall street lawyers, lobbyists, cap managers, fund and bank heads... A big Bronx cheer to you also.
One final piece of harrowing thought. Sen Phil Gramm, author of Gramm-Leach -Bliley, is the same guy advising John McCain on economics. Sleep well friends.
.
.
Labels: financial meltdown, Joe Biden, Phil Gramm, sarah palin
Monday, September 29, 2008
In Recovery
No, not the financial system -- your humble blogger. After a bit of throat surgery this morning, I am at home now convalescing. It seems that the market, um, crashed while I was under.
Sorry about that, chief.
Anyway, my friend Jim Pinkerton is happy about the defeat. Meanwhile, the usual stuff happens: Republicans blame Pelosi for the bill going down. Democrats blame Republicans.
This sets up a situation that the best option for anything to pass now will be for a more Democrat-leaning regulatory-heavy package. Policywise, it will be far worse than what went down today. Jim Geraghty sees that as creating a potential "Republican tsunami" for those who voted "no." I don't know. That depends a whole lot on how the economy performs in the five weeks before the election.
If things calm down, Democrats can claim that they stepped up and did what was necessa at a time when the economy was in mortal peril -- while Republicans stood aside. Even though the bailout is unpopular, I'm not sure how the GOP effectively campaigns against the a package -- if McCain supports it.
Anyway, tomorrow will be interesting to see if Pelosi and Co. try to bring the bill back up for another vote.
|
Sorry about that, chief.
Anyway, my friend Jim Pinkerton is happy about the defeat. Meanwhile, the usual stuff happens: Republicans blame Pelosi for the bill going down. Democrats blame Republicans.
This sets up a situation that the best option for anything to pass now will be for a more Democrat-leaning regulatory-heavy package. Policywise, it will be far worse than what went down today. Jim Geraghty sees that as creating a potential "Republican tsunami" for those who voted "no." I don't know. That depends a whole lot on how the economy performs in the five weeks before the election.
If things calm down, Democrats can claim that they stepped up and did what was necessa at a time when the economy was in mortal peril -- while Republicans stood aside. Even though the bailout is unpopular, I'm not sure how the GOP effectively campaigns against the a package -- if McCain supports it.
Anyway, tomorrow will be interesting to see if Pelosi and Co. try to bring the bill back up for another vote.
Labels: financial meltdown, Wall Street
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Come Bail Away With Me, Love
I appreciate Bickerstaff's assessment of the bailout -- straight and to the point. I readily admit to not being a finance person -- or any sort of expert on the economy. I know where I stand on it philosophically -- with my libertarian friends who are aghast at the idea of a $700 billion taxpayer-financed credit transfer.
Furthermore, Paulson and Co. were incredibly arrogant to go to Congress with a three-page paper that essentially said, "Give us $700 billion; trust us to spend it wisely" -- and then put the onus on Congress to "pass it quickly." Just from a political strategy standpoint, that's pretty dumb. It's even stupider when, according to a White House spokesman, the plan had been in the works for some time:
In any event, one of the better substantive pieces I've found that outlines the need for skepticism over the bailout is by David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times tax policy writer. Johnston's questions are very straightforward, raising doubts that those on both the left and the right can find agreement:
But what if? What if the ideologically (from both the far right and far left perspective) and politically correct position happens to be the wrong one? The Bush I tax hike didn't wreck the economy.
If Congress gets the bailout wrong -- i.e. doesn't authorize it -- the consequences could be trulyhat requires immediate action.
catastrophic. I was leaning toward being against it until I read two pieces by right/libertarian leaning peole whom I respect. Jim Manzi, who's written for National Review, the American Spectator and other outlets, makes a strong case for why this is an emergency t
Finally, Steve Pearlstein in The Washington Post has had a series of columns that make the case earlier bailouts and this one in particular, can actually make money for the taxpayer over time.
I remain a skeptic -- particularly given that hardly anything has gone as "planned" in this administration (when it bothers to "plan" at all).
Alas, however, I think the current situation is too precarious to be playing political games. It's enough that George W. Bush has destroyed any real sense that Republicanism or conservatism means small government (though, ironically, in taking over the finacial industry, the Bushies may prevent Barack Obama from taking over the health care industry). Even though the roots of this crisis predate this president, the complete collapse of the U.S. economy would be a mark on his legacy that would have tragic results for all of us.
|
Furthermore, Paulson and Co. were incredibly arrogant to go to Congress with a three-page paper that essentially said, "Give us $700 billion; trust us to spend it wisely" -- and then put the onus on Congress to "pass it quickly." Just from a political strategy standpoint, that's pretty dumb. It's even stupider when, according to a White House spokesman, the plan had been in the works for some time:
So, after being worked on as a contingency for months and weeks, a three page outline is the best the administration can do for a $700 billion bill? No wonder folks compare this to the PATRIOT Act which was a cobbling together of long-standing various intel agencies' wish-list items, but 9/11 produced the catalytic energy to get through measures that otherwise wouldn't have passed ideological muster from either the right or the left. Similarities such as this caused even Dick Cheney to get his hat handed to him by House Republicans on Tuesday.“It shouldn’t take much analysis to remember what happened last week, which was a very serious freeze-up in our credit markets,” Fratto said. “Our financial markets right now do not need uncertainty, they need increased certainty as to how this rescue plan is going to go forward — and that they can be sure that there is a plan to go forward — and that will begin the correction in our financial markets.”
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
In any event, one of the better substantive pieces I've found that outlines the need for skepticism over the bailout is by David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times tax policy writer. Johnston's questions are very straightforward, raising doubts that those on both the left and the right can find agreement:
Of course, there is the political component to take into account. Thomas Edsall notes Patrick Ruffini's call for a conservative revolt against what will be a Bush-congressional Democrats deal. Edsall likens it to Bill Kristol's torpedoing of the Clinton health-care plan in 1993. Actually, he's three years off. If anything, Ruffini's suggestion more resembles Newt Gingrich's breaking with George H.W. Bush in 1990 when "41"'s lips moved to agree to a deficit-reduction fueled by a tax hike. It' s not surprising that Gingrich is urging Republicans to reject the bailout now. Fresh from a clear victory over the Democrats on the issue of off-shore drillng -- led by Gingrich's online petition -- the congressional GOP may be more than willing to go along with the Ruffini-Gingrich strategy.
The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.)
Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?
If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.
If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why or why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? Every day bankers work out loans with customers -- so why are taxpayers being asked to act when banks are largely on strike, refusing to negotiate revised deals with many loan customers?
But what if? What if the ideologically (from both the far right and far left perspective) and politically correct position happens to be the wrong one? The Bush I tax hike didn't wreck the economy.
If Congress gets the bailout wrong -- i.e. doesn't authorize it -- the consequences could be trulyhat requires immediate action.
catastrophic. I was leaning toward being against it until I read two pieces by right/libertarian leaning peole whom I respect. Jim Manzi, who's written for National Review, the American Spectator and other outlets, makes a strong case for why this is an emergency t
Over at The Atlantic, Megan McArdle discusses how close the markets came to a catclysm last week -- which may have only been averted by Paulson stepping forward to present his bailout plan.Now consider the current situation on Monday morning. If “we” (i.e., the political leadership of the U.S.) go back on this commitment, then the loss of confidence will be even worse than it was last week. We are already trying to work around some of the inevitable inconsistencies that will be present in such an emergency action. As one example, consider that a federal guarantee for money market fund accounts means that they are suddenly much, much safer. Hence, Treasury has had to modify this guarantee over the weekend to apply only to pre-existing money market fund balances to prevent a massive flow of funds that could destabilize traditional commercial banks.
This is pure ad hoc economic management by government officials. It is a Hayekian nightmare on several levels, and as I said previously, its ideological consequences are likely to be substantial, long-lasting and negative. I can make the arguments as loudly as anyone, and I believe them, that the causes of this problem that can be laid at the feet of government are ill-advised market interventions and poor regulation, rather than insufficient controls on the market. The best long-term solutions, in my view, all involve less government intervention. It will be important to make these arguments. But the patient has been hit by a car, and is lying on the ground bleeding. It’s all well and good to discuss how irresponsible he was to wander drunk into the street, how we should better design our traffic control systems, and so on. But first we need to stabilize the patient and stop the blood loss.
Finally, Steve Pearlstein in The Washington Post has had a series of columns that make the case earlier bailouts and this one in particular, can actually make money for the taxpayer over time.
I remain a skeptic -- particularly given that hardly anything has gone as "planned" in this administration (when it bothers to "plan" at all).
Alas, however, I think the current situation is too precarious to be playing political games. It's enough that George W. Bush has destroyed any real sense that Republicanism or conservatism means small government (though, ironically, in taking over the finacial industry, the Bushies may prevent Barack Obama from taking over the health care industry). Even though the roots of this crisis predate this president, the complete collapse of the U.S. economy would be a mark on his legacy that would have tragic results for all of us.
Labels: financial meltdown, George W. Bush, Henry Paulson, Wall Street
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Why The Bail Out Is Dubious
By Isaac Bickerstaff
|
Frankly, I could expound upon the holes of what Treasury has proposed, but it really is summed up from Treasury's spokesperson cited below. When asked how Treasury arrived at the $700 billion number:
"It's not based upon any data point," a Treasury Spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. " We just wanted to choose a really large number."
Ah, life on the Potomac at its best. At least Social Security accounts weren't privatized to invest in these troubling markets.
Labels: financial meltdown, Wall Street
Obama-Biden Debate Scheduled...
Following Biden's chastising Obama campaign for its ad attacking McCain's lack of computer skills. Oh, and Biden and Obama disagreed on the AIG bailout too.
In fairness, McCain also disagreed about the AIG bailout -- with himself.
One of these presidential tickets will actually win folks.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
|
In fairness, McCain also disagreed about the AIG bailout -- with himself.
One of these presidential tickets will actually win folks.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Labels: Barack Obama, financial meltdown, Joe Biden, John McCain, markets
