[politics] The bailout - Lakeshore — LiveJournal
? ?
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2008-09-21 13:43
Subject: [politics] The bailout
Security: Public

From the proposed bailout measure:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

I don’t care what your politics are. Do you think any administration should have completely secret, uncontrolled authority over $700 billion?

There are about three million personal bankruptcies a year in this country. Do you think the government would hand you unrestricted, unaccountable funds if you were in that kind of financial trouble?

And the fucking Democrats seem to be lining up on this madness.

Special bonus link: Key Lehman employees to receive $2.5 billion in bonuses as part of bankruptcy.

Will some kindly conservative please explain to this dumb old liberal-progressive how this triumph of free market economics is supposed to be of benefit to this country and its citizens.

Originally published at You can comment here or there.

Post A Comment | 15 Comments | | Flag | Link

Ann: VP at work
User: ann1962
Date: 2008-09-21 20:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:VP at work
I am boggled they are getting bonuses. That should be illegal.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: chessdev
Date: 2008-09-21 21:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You ask good questions... exactly WHY do they want to ask for the *largest* bailout in history AND not have to say what they're doing with the money at the same time??

Furthermore, they're trying to paint Democrats as the bad guys in this because they're holding out that CEOs involved in collapses like this shouldn't get golden parachutes.... which the GOP then says is "stalling the solution"

Remember the Patriot Act? Remember how when people asked for some time to review it -- they were "holding up progress" and giving the "bad guys more time"?
Reply | Thread | Link

User: n5red
Date: 2008-09-21 21:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I really want a job where they will pay me millions of dollars to leave.
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-09-21 21:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Not just pay you to leave, but pay you to leave after you'd failed miserably!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2008-09-21 21:36 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Reading through my f-list and nobody else is talking about this, so you win the prize for being awake, Jake. I agree with you, of course. We are being robbed.
Reply | Thread | Link

Danny Adams
User: madwriter
Date: 2008-09-21 22:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
>>And the fucking Democrats seem to be lining up on this madness.<<

Yeah, I just read an article where even grumpy Charlie Rangel said that if we don't take drastic action soon, we could wind up with another Depression.

You know, I've been trying to write more political LJ entries lately, but every time it occurs to me that we're taking massive steps into socialism under a party that praises the free market and talks about how much they hate government intervention in business, my mouth just sort of makes choking noises instead of speech.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: mevennen
Date: 2008-09-22 07:51 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
>but every time it occurs to me that we're taking massive steps into socialism under a party that praises the free market and talks about how much they hate government intervention in business, my mouth just sort of makes choking noises instead of speech

You and me both. But you should read some of the comments on right wing newspaper sites here (I'm in the UK) that remark on how 'a socialist government [Labour] has got us into this mess' , basically with their pinko commie policies. Er.....

Our government is appalling. But the above betrays a level of incomprehension that verges on lunacy.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: the_bus
Date: 2008-09-21 23:28 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Actually, are the decisions actually secret? The "non-reviewable" part appears to be related to the following prohibitions on court and executive branch review.

The linked proposal does require a report to Congress every three months, where I'm sure the Congress will grill the administration. Although not spelled out, I will be surprised if the Congress does not have the Secretary of the Treasury testify before at least one committee.

While the size of the bailout is troubling, I wonder how similar it is to the whole savings and loan bailout and resulting Resolution Trust Corporation. We seem to have survived that just fine.

By the way, while not a fan of the Republicans, I do believe that without this bailout, the full faith and credit backing the dollar would likely collapse. However, golden parachutes for the idiots who got us in to this mess is unconscionable.
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-09-21 23:34 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Unfortunately those golden parachutes are embedded in the employment contracts of the various players, so they're probably not going away barring some kind of wholesale Federal action, which will be tied up in years of litigation by rich people's lawyers should it take place.

As for the RTC, it managed and disposed of the assets of already failed S&Ls. This bailout is to keep major banks from failing, quite a different kettle of fish, as it lets the managers and investors offload their risk to the taxpayers. At least with the RTC, the S&L managers and investors had already absorbed whatever penalties and losses which were coming to them.

This one's a get-out-of-jail free card -- more of the socialization of risk/privatization of profit trend so beloved of the GOP -- not a clean up on aisle 7.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: ext_56672
Date: 2008-09-22 00:51 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
One of the things that really, and I mean REALLY, bothers me about this bailout stuff is when the experts start talking about the "bad paper" that AIG and the rest need to dispose. That "bad paper" when you distill it down to its base components are foreclosures, closed home equity lines of credit and other real life disasters that have already impacted real life people. To me a better bailout would have been to float those government loans to the homeowners, thus turning the "bad paper" into "good paper" and shoring up the mess from the bottom up.

Where is my neighbor's get-out-of-jail-free card Mr. Secretary?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Chris McKitterick: Bush dollar
User: mckitterick
Date: 2008-09-22 10:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Bush dollar
Hear, hear. Why wasn't this even an option? Too socialist for these Neo-Socialists who call themselves champions of the free market? WTF?

I mean, seriously, what would have happened if Dems called for a bailout of consumers so that they could have kept their homes by simply having the gov't alter those bad loans from crazy interest to reasonable rates? But no, that would have been beyond the pale.

I really, really hate this administration. I mean, really.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: anton_p_nym
Date: 2008-09-21 23:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Is there any chance that the shareholders can sue these guys with the golden parachutes for restitution?

-- Steve's appalled that the captains who rammed the iceberg in this case are the first ones to the lifeboat.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

España Sheriff
User: cmdrsuzdal
Date: 2008-09-22 02:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Best reaction I've seen thus far is on Sadly, No;

"If there was ever a time to stand athwart history and yell “EAT ME!!!” it’s now."
Reply | Thread | Link

User: jetse
Date: 2008-09-22 15:04 (UTC)
Subject: You have become part of the European Union...
...that is, in spirit, if not in fact.

How we became the United States of France
Reply | Thread | Link

User: farmgirl1146
Date: 2008-09-22 22:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
For further reading, I suggest, E pluribus hokum or, The gamblers bail out the casino
Reply | Thread | Link

my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances