Democrats got many concessions in bailout

People like you scare me...I hope that there's not too many of you out there...You're a nut case!!!

Eugene, if you cleared up your language, I think you'll find that your thinking becomes a lot clearer.  I think it's the fuzzy language that's blocking your thought processes. 

Breathe deeply, honey.

Who care who got what done. Do you think there is anything in it for the folks on Main Street other than continuing to get screwed. Now, if you are a fat pig from wall street then I guess you are in luck.

I seem to remember that the Democrats were pushing to help the troubled home owners. Seems that was squashed, but then again why would the Republicans care about the little guy? Naturally though the big wigs in the mortgage companies keep getting their huge, unearned paychecks - I wonder why that is???

I'm just so sick and tired of getting screwed by our "elected" government. I have been working steadily, had to take out huge student loans to get my degree, that oh yeah, I have to repay. Why, because I'm an American Citizen, born and raised, but those who come into our country, either legally or illegally, get a free ride for their education. Boy what a great place to live!

So much for being able to buy groceries for my family - the old paychecks going to shrink again so the rich can get richer!

Have a great day all.

NAHHHH, The first day the DEMs asked for the four items later claimed by Repubs.. the "Core Principles" was an Obama idea, that the House Dems got put in waaaayyyyy before the house repubs revolted AND their revolt was to stop the whole thing unless they got the De-regulations they requested, the insurance deal, a decrease in the Tax Burden on the failed banks... Do Those items sound like they were fighting for main street or just free-market ideology for the base of the party? duh,

The Dems fought the good fight this time, for once they did not cower and whine

Do you remember Bernanke on his knees in front of Pelosi begging her not to undo the deal and she said it wasn't her that was going to stop this bailout, it was the Republicans. Does anybody remember that?

Correction - it was Paulson on his knees.

This mess started in 1995 with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act. That act allowed for banks to start making bad loans. Clinton made it even easier during his tenure by allowing sibprime loans. In 2003, President Bush tried to pass a bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The Republic congress stopped it. In 2005 McCain tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie, that bill (S-190) died in Sen Dodds Committee.

Please do the responsible voter thing and research before you vote. DO NOT use Obama or McCain's website for research. Use sites live www.senate.gov or a nonpartisan website like wkww.cagw.org to see what these two candidates are really doing in the Senate. I think you are being blinded by lack of information - or by only listening to one side of the story, Remember, the gentlemen campaigning have their own interests at stake more so than yours.

I never really understood the term "corporate welfare" like I do now. When Wall-street needs a bail-out they're characterized as "greedy". When regular people need it, they're called "lazy", "good-for-nothin"... well, you get my point.

I also love how, once again, Bill Clinton is getting the sole blame. Conservatives must get their equal share. Clinton may have unlocked the door, but Republicans turned the knob, then pushed it open.

What started as a way for "less advantaged" people to get a piece of the "American Dream" in the 90's, was turned into a money making "scam" by de-regulation and lack of government oversight. A strategy pushed by conservatives for decades. How many thousands of times have you heard Republican politician say "Keep government out of business. The market will take care of itself."

Once again, conservatives refuse to admit their role in a failed economic strategy and resort to their favorite past-time...blame Bill Clinton.

The community reinvestment act was passed in to law in 1977 CRA was passed to force big banks that were in poor neighborhoods and then lending the money to only wealthier neighborhoods to keep a portion to help develop the neighborhoods they were getting their money in.

The one you are talking about is the Gramm/Leach/Bilaley act.

Clinton did agree to it and actually supported it but he also had no choice because it was "Veto proof". However, 54 voted yay for this act and 44 voted Nay, the 44 that voted nay were all democrats and independents.

There is more back story to your claims about the Republicans trying to get more regulation, it was a "paper tiger" effort.

You probably should have used your own advice regarding research.

Incorrect DataDink. The Community Reinvestment Act is not the problem - the problem is the utopian idea that "free markets" without regulation will work. Unfortunately, we do't live in utopia and man's greed and corruption will always prevail without regulation and consequences. The rest of us have rules, so must the so called "free market."

In Bernanke's own words in March 2007:

"Has the CRA achieved its objectives? Research on the CRA has tended to find positive net effects, but the results are not uniform. A paper by Board staff members compared census tracts just above and below the low- and moderate-income threshold, finding that the tracts below the threshold had higher homeownership rates, higher growth in owner-occupied units, and lower vacancy rates than would have otherwise been predicted (Avery, Calem, and Canner, 2003). An analysis by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies concluded that the CRA has expanded access to residential mortgages for lower-income borrowers, but that research also finds that the CRA's effect is diminishing as mortgage lending by nonbank institutions expands (Apgar and Duda, 2003). Yet another review concludes that the CRA has been effective in helping to overcome market failures and reduce discrimination at a relatively low cost, precisely because the CRA sets forth a flexible standard rather than a rule (Barr, 2005). However, some critical studies have argued that the CRA has been ineffective in addressing discrimination and market failures and that its social costs outweigh its benefits (see, for example, Hylton, 2006, and Barr, 2005).

The CRA is clearly far from perfect. Although its objectives are broad and ambitious, its net effects on lower-income neighborhoods are difficult to measure with precision.10 Addressing CRA responsibilities also imposes costs on financial institutions. It appears that, at least in some instances, the CRA has served as a catalyst, inducing banks to enter underserved markets that they might otherwise have ignored. At its most successful, the CRA may have had a multiplier effect, supplementing its direct impact by stimulating new market-based, profit-driven economic activity in lower-income neighborhoods."

I suggest you might want to blame the "non-banks" who are not part of the CRA legislation.

Here's what BILL CLINTON thinks:

Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Paul - I agree with you 100%. Pelosi and Dodd wanted this pushed through as quickly as possible with as little resistance as possible.

Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Barney Frank, ALL NEED TO GO TO JAIL....It was Frank & Dodd who head up the banking and mortgage committees who failed to deal with these issues (since they took over) who are responsible for pushing loans on people that couldn't afford them, coupled with the greedy sub-prime lenders who didn't require the normal qualifications to take out loans. These people pushed for these loans, these DEMOCRATS ARE THE CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM, THEY NEED TO STOP LYING AND ADMIT THEIR WRONG-DOING, QUIT BLAMMING EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES AND RESIGN. They are criminals. No doubt all this bad paper has been bought up by foreigners and now, they own the U.S! People should be outraged! I AM!

The dems were ready to just grab a pen and start signing away. If a bit of common sense had not prevailed there's no telling what the package would have contained....talk about slanting facts.

Wow.Paul - I agree with you 100%. Pelosi and Dodd wanted this pushed through as quickly as possible with as little resistance as possible.

It was Bush and Paulson who pushed to have this thing signed immediately. Last time I checked, they were Republicans.

They tried the fear propoganda again and it didn't work.

Obama laid out the core principles and the Dems added them into the bail out discussions and McCain blinked.

The Repubs held out for more deregulation and political show.
I'm sick of their stupid stunts.

Enlighten me....why would ACORN receive any of the money? (I'm not being sarcastic..just want to know)

Upscheidt Creek,

I believe Mr. Bassett Breath is referring to the issue regarding one of the Presidential nominees. It seems that one of them has a long history with this less than above board group.

ACORN is a "Community Organizer" organization that helps low income people that can't afford their own homes get loans to do so. While it is a noble endeaver in theory, unfortunately, if you can't afford to pay a mortgage you will default. ACORN is also known for voter fraud and has also been investigated on several occasions for mishandling moneys they have received from the government, funneled by (you guessed it), unscrupulous DEMOCRATS who think nobody is watching. But guess what? You and I, Dem & Repub, have only begun to see the unraveling of the corruption in our Congress....it is all about to unfold. We've only seen the tip of the ice burg.

SEC frowns on insider trading…except when it comes to those in poli-tics (many leeches).

I am curious as to why no one is questioning the timing of the OTS pulling the plug on WAMU. All they needed to do is hold off - as it turned out - two banking days!! Now WAMU and it's shareholders have zip. Chase has been pursuing WAMU for awhile, and suddenly they receive WAMU's 300 billion in assets for 19 billion. And now they can unload the toxic assets for fresh capital from Paulsen. Sweet deal for Chase!!

Here is some conspiracy theory for you: Perhaps Bush and Co. needed WAMU, which is conveniently headquartered in a blue state, as a sacrificial lamb to encourage congress to expedite the bailout plan? Perhaps JP Morgan Chase has some good friends in high places?? Smells fishy to me.

The market DOES take care of itself.

That's what greedy people do...they take care of themselves!

Yes, but there is no guarantee this so called bailout will ever work, As far as any so called profits from it, Don't hold your breath. It will never happen.

Gov controlled banks and business=Socialism

The bail-out IS profit given directly to the markets. The taxpayer isn't buying things, its buying debt that mortgage companies know is not going to be payed back. Wall Street created a new pyramid game. The top guys got millions upon millions, but taxpayers got stuck with dept.

Without putting back strong regulation and oversight, what do you think Wall Street will do next?

Well, lets look at the proposed bail-out.

No protection for taxpayers to be paid back, or a way for foreclosed people to get their homes back.

That's stupid. Restructure the loan so they get their homes back, and that pays the taxpayers back. The main problem wasn't people loosing their jobs. It was choosing the wrong kind of loan. Fix the mortgages and a BIG chunk of this problem goes away. But then taxpayers would get their money (rather the Chinese would get payed back).

So why would Republicans fight against judges restructuring loans? Look at whats already happening. Some companies are already buying those bad papers at even worse prices in order to sell them to the government (us really) for a huge profit. 700 billion to be handed out and Paulson doesn't want any court review or government agency oversight.

Hmmmm. I wonder why.

Wall Street creates phony wealth by selling bad debt, and pockets the cash. Now that the markets are failing they're going to be payed again to sell the worthless paper at expensive prices, but the homeowner (or rather ex-homeowner) gets dick!)

Hey George, mission accomplished!

I agree Rachelc and Eugene. All the "armchair economists" in this thread are stuck on the media-hyped sensations of "bailing out Wall Street" and the fear that some already-rich CEO is going to be paid millions with taxpayer dollars. And the conspiracy theorists are having a field day!

The bail out makes me nervous, too. I don't like it, and I think there IS ample opportunity for misuse...BUT...what everyone needs to understand is that our entire economy is on the line and, without this plan, we could very well go swipe our credit cards tomorrow and have it come back "denied". And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Some posts have already said it better with effect on farmers, crops, and ultimately food availability.

Sad, but this was necessary.

Don't you mean the "institutionalized greed" sewn during the Regan era? And you're wrong about the amount needed to retire due to Regan-Bush-Bush trickle-down economics....it's at least $10 mil.

Yes I was able to arrive at the $10 millions dollar number but it required an average life expectancy of 92 and three >million dollar mansions, one each for a summer reteat, a winter retreat, and a home triangulated around the kids.

Now you're talkin.

At least not in this country. Might be a good idea to plan for retirement somewhere else, I know I am.

Do you know how rich people get rich? Easy, they don't give money away!

If there are starving people in Kentucky, do you give food to Tennessee and hope they give some to them? When your kids get sick, do you take medicine and hope they get well?

Money is power, power makes greed, greed gets more money. Its a vicious cycle.

You want to know who's to blame? Follow the money!

My thoughts are that if we were not an interconnected globalized economy, I agree that it would be great to let it all collapse, but guess what, we will not again enjoy such freedoms until we become energy independent.

All of the banks that have fallen are FDIC insured banks.

You're right. The Dems don't really get this and neither do the Republican hacks who promoted the whole concept of unregulated markets. The GOP is a merely well-paid puppet of Wall Street. The fact that a few Repubs realized the hypocrisy of the Bush request is no redemption for their having sold all of us down the river in favor of their lunatic beliefs.

Well paid puppets? Try wolves in sheep's clothing. Notice how many of them "retire" to become lobbyists? (Phil Graham, Trent Lott just to name two)

Republicans don't bear SOLE responsibility, but they'll never admit they have ANY.

The people at the core of the debacle are PELOSI, REID, FRANK AND DODD. Did you know that Dodd has received more campaign money than anyone from the Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac organizations?...and that Obama was the second highest recipient? I hope the FBI is investigating not only Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman and AIG but also their relationships to the leadership of the Democratic Congress...I think we are about to witness a lot more revelations in the near future. Did you know that the Dems were trying hard to have profits from future sales of bad mortgages go to organizations like ACORN?...and organization the Obama used to be an attorney for? Check it out...

We can all drink wine!

Hey Jalee - give me a Bud!

"It's Bill Clinton's fault"

The Republican slogan for the mentally challenged.

Wow Martin...you should throw in- "If you're against us you're a liberal and a Democrat"...no intelligent response just the standard go to answer-"It's Slick Willy's Fault", "You're a Liberal", etc...nice...