Sunday, September 28, 2008

Reverse Robin Hood Pt 1 of 3

Yes, pointed straight at you. Here are the "details" such as they are with a little clarify language and snarky commentary by yours truly. Without further ado:

From Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- Sept. 28, 2008



Significant bipartisan work (necessary for political cover) has built consensus (found enough votes) around dramatic improvements (hopefully Constitutional now) to the original Bush-Paulson (tied to the outgoing adminstration) plan to stabilize American financial markets -- including cutting in half the Administration's initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers' funds (Lie. This still authorizes up to $700b just in phases that require no votes to disburse.). If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections

  • Reinvest in the troubled financial markets … to stabilize our economy the troubled financial markets and insulate share the pain with Main Street from Wall Street

  • Reimburse the taxpayer … through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets

  • Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street … strong Congressional oversight and no some restrictions to golden parachutes


    End the first chunk. When being force fed a sh¡t sandwich start with small bites and work up an appetite.
    Bill Marsh of the NYT provides an excellent graphic of how large.

    Steve said...

    Musrting Firsting Bailout kind of post!

    No said...

    We are truly screwed.

    Bill in NC said...

    It is truly going to s*ck to be the next president, whomever wins that one term position.

    Steve said...

    Yep, lots of toxic waste generated by America's first MBA president, and I'm a Republican saying that.

    Heck of a job Bushie!

    Rob Dawg said...

    Paulson to taxpayers:

    "It puts the $700 billion in the basket and it rubs the lotion on its skin."

    Santa Flipper Clause said...

    Ho Ho Ho - It's Santa Flipper Clause

    Paulson to taxpayers:
    Let me fist you before I leave

    Santa F. Clause

    w said...

    Steve, sometimes I get frustrated and want to blame Bush for all of the problems in the last 8 years but let's face it he is the figure head for a totally disfunctional entity. Wasn't Bush behind reforming Freddie and Fannie for at least several years? Democrats in Congress presided over the lowering of lending standards and regulation but they are not being investigated by the media for it. Most of the country is more concerned with what actors on SNL think about our politicians than any deep thought on the subject.

    Steve said...


    Let's face facts here shall we.

    When you have "The decider", the Imperial George W. Bush, the man who cannot admit he's made mistakes, you sort of have to wear the bad with the good. Unfortunately the bad, and this last bad with the economy is symptomatic of a failed MBA sort of leadership by El Jeffie Bush. One that values leadership to the throne over competency and a staff that will tell the boss when he's about to put his foot in it.

    We've all worked for a El Jeffie sort of manager before, and the best thing that ever happens is that this sort of boss ether retires, or gets promoted to a level where he/she can't do any more harm.

    I'll be glad to see El Jeffie Bush sail off to Crawford, not so glad to probably see "The One" sitting in front of a fire place crying about "malaise", "stagflation" and all the rest. Sadly, I think we are about to enter into at least a 4 year long winter of our discontent.

    Lou Minatti said...

    Buried in the news is this:

    Big Three to Get Check From Government
    Just Don't Call It a 'Bailout,' Detroit Says of $25 Billion Loan

    w said...

    Steve, what does "MBA" sort of leadership mean? It is a catch phrase. Is an "MBA" sort of leadership inferior to a "juris doctorate" type of leadership?

    The truth is that both parties are running things in conjunction and share the blame. The best we can hope for is that one party may be slightly more prone to voting for smaller government and lower taxes. I judge Bush on that alone and am very disappointed. When it comes to the war, failed intelligence, deregulation and bailouts there is equal blame for both parties and plenty more for the government beauracracies.

    w said...

    And to clarify, lowering taxes by running deficits is not really lowering taxes, just deferring them.

    Rob Dawg said...


    I can think of nothing but the recent GSE broohaha over implicit v. explicit government guarantees. F&F went to great pains to make clear that they were not government guaranteed yet the market acted as if they were. When it became an issue the market changed the reality to suit its assumptions.

    Now we have accumulated years of mark-to-model despite reams of regulations that imposed mark to market accounting. Now when it becomes and issue the market changes the rules to reflect their reality.

    Used to be those with the gold make the rules. Now those who make the rules get the gold.

    segfault said...

    @rob dawg:

    It rubs the lotion on its skin.

    AuAgPb said...


    Any knowledge of how the bailout benefits ACORN? I have seen a few postings stating that ACORN stands to get a lot of money from this bailout. Oh, I hope that's not true.

    Rob Dawg said...

    Segment Overflow Fault,
    Effin' Awesome. Kudos.

    Supposedly 20% of the profits from each disposition transaction are earmarked for affordable housing outreach organizations. That means ACORN. Very bad news and worthy of a no vote on that alone. Understand that 20% of the profitable dispositions will mean something like half to two thirds of all gross profits because of the peculiar wording. Doublepluscrewed.

    robyn said...

    The Acorn stuff and the like was out of the most recent draft of the legislation. There were also some good things - like pension funds and state funds being eligible for the bailout program. I am not saying this is a wonderful bill - only that the most recent draft of the legislation looks a heck of a lot better than the original.

    Rob Dawg - Regarding what I said on CR regarding the reporting requirements - I agree that the language is ambiguous - but when Speaker Pelosi gave her talk on TV tonight - she mentioned the provision - and what she said agreed with my interpretation. Congresional intent - etc. Robyn

    robyn said...

    Congresional = Congressional. Crummy typing on my part. Robyn

    robyn said...

    And regarding mark to market. I own some Lehman Brothers CDs. The Lehman Brothers banks are fine - but - in at least one brokerage account I have - they are valued at zero (which is nonsense - because they're FDIC insured). Mark to market has always been kind of stupid when it comes to many fixed income securities which are traded infrequently. Robyn

    Rob Dawg said...

    Welcome. This is a more relaxed place to explore some of the Calculated Risk topics along with some of my own. Snarkier and we never take off for spelling.

    Rob Dawg - Regarding what I said on CR regarding the reporting requirements - I agree that the language is ambiguous - but when Speaker Pelosi gave her talk on TV tonight - she mentioned the provision - and what she said agreed with my interpretation. Congresional intent - etc. Robyn

    Okay. Yes I saw your remark but by the time i started typing it was some 20 posts up. CR was better when people made detailed arguments. I've pretty much resorted to only commenting with one point and/or a appropriate but obscure cultural reference. Check out my Pirates and Python comment a few minutes ago.

    I'm absolutely positive that Paulson's idea of reporting will resemble 10Qs and not daily cash register receipts.

    wagga said...

    CNN HEadline:

    "House GOP leaders back bailout bill, urge passage"

    Word order is wrong.

    Think wide stance.

    Lou Minatti said...

    I am going to vote for Pat Paulson.

    Oh, wait. He's dead.

    Rob Dawg said...

    Such a great opportunity. So great it must be shared. I propose that all past and present Congressional benefits be tied to the outcome.

    w said...

    So what happens when the REO swells up next year? Another crisis? Or is that accounted for in this bailout.

    Peripheral Visionary said...

    Well, the markets are clearly convinced that this is not the answer to all of their problems. Hey, if the markets don't care for it, can it really be that bad of a bill?

    (For what it's worth, I'm still piecing through the details trying to figure out how many of the controls in place are real and how many imaginary. For the sake of the small banks if no one else, I'd like to see something get through, but if the bill is bad enough, no bill may be a better alternative.)

    Rob Dawg said...

    The markets are clearly setting up a message. Vote down and loses run to 500. Vote big yes and plus 300. A narrow yes and plus 100.

    The best thing that could happen is no bill in the House. We need to prove that market whipsaws and bullying are not relevant.