| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front Economy | |
| The Paulson Plan Will Make Money for Taxpayers | |
| 2008-09-25 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #18 Lindsay Graham (R-SC), a handout supporter, on Hannity and Colmes: We're Trying to Make Sure the American Taxpayer Doesn't Get Screwed Any More Than Possible. Gee, thanks for nothing. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-25 20:56 |
| #17 If the MOAB passes, knowing that Uncle Sam is about to pick up the tab, where is the incentive for anyone to pay for anything....? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-25 19:53 |
| #16 I just listened to Obama saying he wanted to include a program to allow people to keep their homes even though they are not paying their mortgage payments. I don't yet own the place I live in and he wants me to pay someone elses' payments? Blow a dead bear, Obama. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-09-25 19:30 |
| #15 "Money is the meth of our Congress. What's to keep them from coming back again and again for more money?" --I think it maybe getting near time to refresh the tree of liberty... |
| Posted by: Flitch the Imposter aka Broadhead6 2008-09-25 19:26 |
| #14 a guy I used to think of as a rock-ribbed conservative. George W. Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative" in the 2000 campaign to distinguish himself from the rock-ribbed Conservatives. Functionally, a Republican Third Way-er. He has never pretended to be anything else, which is why centrist Republicans, centrist Democrats, and Independents enough voted for him in 2000 to put him over the top. In 2004 he got the centrist and Independent votes, plus those of us who are warmongers. ;-) The reason John McCain won the Republican primary is that -- sorry, guys -- there are more centrist Republicans than there are conservatives. And even amongst the conservatives, there are many like Governor Palin, whose conservatism is lived personally rather than something she attempted to impose on the state whose executive she was. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-25 19:01 |
| #13 Just not feeling a lot of love. Well, there's the detox program. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-09-25 17:36 |
| #12 The bailout might be the "Bridge to Nowhere." Money is the meth of our Congress. What's to keep them from coming back again and again for more money? There is always the detox program and tough love for Congress. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-09-25 17:35 |
| #11 a guy I used to think of as a rock-ribbed conservative. Huh? He's never been a card carrying conservative. He and his daddy were middle of the roaders for a long time. After the debacle in '96, he was 'picked' to run in '00 because the Trunks had no other viable candidate that they saw could get the White House. It was more of a denial operation, that is to take the office whether than to let the Donks get it. As it was, they did, but just barely. The conservatives haven't found a decent runner since the '80s [until maybe now in the form of the governor of Alaska]. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-09-25 16:06 |
| #10 More fatuity from Larry Kudlow: My latest information on executive pay-caps and government ownership warrants — which are now being called “equity protection” — is that they would apply to bond sellers, not buyers. (My original warning is here.) I guess that makes it only half as bad. But I must say, it still is bad. Why should a successful bank — whether large, medium, or small — give up ownership and allow pay-caps for executives? Even the big guys like BofA and JPMorgan Chase are still solid banks. So is Goldman and Morgan Stanley. And Wells Fargo. And many others. Why should they agree to this? It just makes the plan unworkable. Sources tell me the Treasury is opposed. Stay tuned for more. If they're successful banks, why do they need this handout? Why would we want to give handouts to successful banks? It is sparkling clear why Wall Street wants this handout package - it's an all-expense paid package to Easy Street - courtesy of the taxpayer - for them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-25 15:56 |
| #9 That $50T figure referred only to the debt markets. There are substantial sums of cash in the equity markets. Lots of funds have holdings in both debt and equity, and would likely be buying distressed debt with both hands if they were confident of being paid back, given the high yields on this debt (Citibank debt with months to go has a double-digit yield). But the reality is that they are not confident of being paid back on a lot of these debt assets. Like I said, we are taking Paulson's word about the value of these assets over the word of millions of private investors, who - unlike Paulson - actually have skin in the game. Why would I take Paulson's judgment over the judgment of the market? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-25 15:26 |
| #8 I've read that the Japanese are very happily, and quietly, buying up American investment firms. It's just that who except the American government has that much money to spend all at once? We're not spending it all at once. And the global markets are worth about $50T. A lot of investors currently have money parked in Treasuries, while waiting for the debt crisis to shake out the weaker players (i.e. the ones that can't pay their debts - companies like Washington Mutual, for instance). The fact is that Paulson is committing taxpayer cash to purchases of junk assets way before the bottom. I, too, have junk around the house I'd like to get rid of. Too bad Paulson wants to pay inflated prices for valueless junk only if they're sold by large corporations that bet too much money on the wrong horse. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-25 15:19 |
| #7 why aren't private and foreign investors stepping up to the plate I've read that the Japanese are very happily, and quietly, buying up American investment firms. It's just that who except the American government has that much money to spend all at once? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-25 15:04 |
| #6 ZF, on the domestic front re: Bush, I am in total agreement with you. On the foriegn policy front, Bush is the anti-Carter and we've been lucky to have him (for the most part...there are exceptions). |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-09-25 14:04 |
| #5 What really stinks about this is that, like the illegal alien amnesty bill, this Wall Street handout program is being backed by Bush, a guy I used to think of as a rock-ribbed conservative. The guy should be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. I'm starting to think that the second coming of Carter won't start with Obama - it may have started with Bush. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-25 13:42 |
| #4 If this is such a sure thing, why aren't private and foreign investors stepping up to the plate, given that current prices are way below the inflated prices that Treasury proposes to pay? Let's face it - neither Kessler nor Paulson know what they're talking about. It's not that they lack technical expertise - any more than the CEO's of Lehman or Bear Stearns lacked technical expertise - it's that they are saying nice things about these assets even though they cannot know how things will turn out. The fact is that every sunny prediction Kessler and Paulson have made over the past year has failed to come to fruition. These people are basically putting out fact-free propaganda much like the stock analysts of the Internet era - they are, in effect, saying once again that "this time, it's different". |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-25 13:36 |
| #3 Or at least give us a reach-around right? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-09-25 13:31 |
| #2 I don't know what to think anymore. They're going to do whatever they want anyway. Hope they don't screw us. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-09-25 13:07 |
| #1 Where's my dividend check for the S&L bailout? |
| Posted by: ed 2008-09-25 12:34 |