Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Dianne Feinstein’s Response to the Bailout
- This topic has 125 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM #277229September 28, 2008 at 11:09 PM #276918
underdose
Participant[quote=waiting for bottom]She and the rest of them still have not addressed the premise: Are we really in a crisis?[/quote]
Somehow, this never got answered.
Yes. A thousand times yes. Unfortunately, we’ve been in a crisis for years. Are they overstating things now? No, just the opposite, they’ve been understating it until just a few days ago. So if it isn’t a potential pending crisis, but a fully realized crisis well underway, can this bailout provide any material benefit? No, it’s too little, too late. Most likely it will make things worse with the ol’ unintended consequences. The time to act was years ago, when the housing and credit bubbles were still growing and hadn’t reached catastrophic proportions. But during that time, when Rich and Peter Schiff and Robert Schiller and many others were all sounding the alarm, the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson all said, “Risks? Don’t be silly! It’s a party!!!” Either they were all grossly incompetent in failing to realize the growing crisis, or they knew damn well and covered it up to lay the ground work for this aggressive power grab.
September 28, 2008 at 11:09 PM #277175Participant[quote=waiting for bottom]She and the rest of them still have not addressed the premise: Are we really in a crisis?[/quote]
Somehow, this never got answered.
Yes. A thousand times yes. Unfortunately, we’ve been in a crisis for years. Are they overstating things now? No, just the opposite, they’ve been understating it until just a few days ago. So if it isn’t a potential pending crisis, but a fully realized crisis well underway, can this bailout provide any material benefit? No, it’s too little, too late. Most likely it will make things worse with the ol’ unintended consequences. The time to act was years ago, when the housing and credit bubbles were still growing and hadn’t reached catastrophic proportions. But during that time, when Rich and Peter Schiff and Robert Schiller and many others were all sounding the alarm, the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson all said, “Risks? Don’t be silly! It’s a party!!!” Either they were all grossly incompetent in failing to realize the growing crisis, or they knew damn well and covered it up to lay the ground work for this aggressive power grab.
September 28, 2008 at 11:09 PM #277193Participant[quote=waiting for bottom]She and the rest of them still have not addressed the premise: Are we really in a crisis?[/quote]
Somehow, this never got answered.
Yes. A thousand times yes. Unfortunately, we’ve been in a crisis for years. Are they overstating things now? No, just the opposite, they’ve been understating it until just a few days ago. So if it isn’t a potential pending crisis, but a fully realized crisis well underway, can this bailout provide any material benefit? No, it’s too little, too late. Most likely it will make things worse with the ol’ unintended consequences. The time to act was years ago, when the housing and credit bubbles were still growing and hadn’t reached catastrophic proportions. But during that time, when Rich and Peter Schiff and Robert Schiller and many others were all sounding the alarm, the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson all said, “Risks? Don’t be silly! It’s a party!!!” Either they were all grossly incompetent in failing to realize the growing crisis, or they knew damn well and covered it up to lay the ground work for this aggressive power grab.
September 28, 2008 at 11:09 PM #277225Participant[quote=waiting for bottom]She and the rest of them still have not addressed the premise: Are we really in a crisis?[/quote]
Somehow, this never got answered.
Yes. A thousand times yes. Unfortunately, we’ve been in a crisis for years. Are they overstating things now? No, just the opposite, they’ve been understating it until just a few days ago. So if it isn’t a potential pending crisis, but a fully realized crisis well underway, can this bailout provide any material benefit? No, it’s too little, too late. Most likely it will make things worse with the ol’ unintended consequences. The time to act was years ago, when the housing and credit bubbles were still growing and hadn’t reached catastrophic proportions. But during that time, when Rich and Peter Schiff and Robert Schiller and many others were all sounding the alarm, the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson all said, “Risks? Don’t be silly! It’s a party!!!” Either they were all grossly incompetent in failing to realize the growing crisis, or they knew damn well and covered it up to lay the ground work for this aggressive power grab.
September 28, 2008 at 11:09 PM #277239Participant[quote=waiting for bottom]She and the rest of them still have not addressed the premise: Are we really in a crisis?[/quote]
Somehow, this never got answered.
Yes. A thousand times yes. Unfortunately, we’ve been in a crisis for years. Are they overstating things now? No, just the opposite, they’ve been understating it until just a few days ago. So if it isn’t a potential pending crisis, but a fully realized crisis well underway, can this bailout provide any material benefit? No, it’s too little, too late. Most likely it will make things worse with the ol’ unintended consequences. The time to act was years ago, when the housing and credit bubbles were still growing and hadn’t reached catastrophic proportions. But during that time, when Rich and Peter Schiff and Robert Schiller and many others were all sounding the alarm, the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson all said, “Risks? Don’t be silly! It’s a party!!!” Either they were all grossly incompetent in failing to realize the growing crisis, or they knew damn well and covered it up to lay the ground work for this aggressive power grab.
September 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM #276933peterb
ParticipantFollow the money and consider the source. If you look at Wall Street, it’s given a little more to Obama than McCain, but not too much. They’re not sure who’s gonna win either. Kinda like a hedge fund, only for politics. And it’s the same every election.
DiFi and her hubby are stupid rich. $500M or more last time I heard. Like she cares about us..hahhahahaha
September 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM #277190ParticipantFollow the money and consider the source. If you look at Wall Street, it’s given a little more to Obama than McCain, but not too much. They’re not sure who’s gonna win either. Kinda like a hedge fund, only for politics. And it’s the same every election.
DiFi and her hubby are stupid rich. $500M or more last time I heard. Like she cares about us..hahhahahaha
September 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM #277208ParticipantFollow the money and consider the source. If you look at Wall Street, it’s given a little more to Obama than McCain, but not too much. They’re not sure who’s gonna win either. Kinda like a hedge fund, only for politics. And it’s the same every election.
DiFi and her hubby are stupid rich. $500M or more last time I heard. Like she cares about us..hahhahahaha
September 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM #277242ParticipantFollow the money and consider the source. If you look at Wall Street, it’s given a little more to Obama than McCain, but not too much. They’re not sure who’s gonna win either. Kinda like a hedge fund, only for politics. And it’s the same every election.
DiFi and her hubby are stupid rich. $500M or more last time I heard. Like she cares about us..hahhahahaha
September 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM #277254ParticipantFollow the money and consider the source. If you look at Wall Street, it’s given a little more to Obama than McCain, but not too much. They’re not sure who’s gonna win either. Kinda like a hedge fund, only for politics. And it’s the same every election.
DiFi and her hubby are stupid rich. $500M or more last time I heard. Like she cares about us..hahhahahaha
September 29, 2008 at 1:19 AM #276943CA renter
ParticipantThey just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.
———————WASHINGTON — The $700 billion bailout is uncharted territory not just for Washington lawmakers, but also for lobbyists.
And the window to possibly influence the outcome is short, meaning there is little time to develop coalitions to shape the plan before it is completed.
“This is not following any normal process,” said Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association.
By noon, he and his staff had sent a detailed letter to the Treasury and Federal Reserve outlining eight points of objection. “We told them that they’ve got a real problem,” he said.
Mr. Yingling, in his meetings with federal officials, also conjured up images of runs on banks if Treasury did not change course by the time banks opened their doors on Monday morning. [CA renter’s note: interesting to note that he managed to arrange last-minute meetings with federal officials while the legislators’ constituents were talking to low-level clerks]
He made his case. Treasury did scale back its proposal so that only investors who had already suffered losses in money market mutual funds would be covered, not those who might lose money in the future.
Most financial trade groups are banding together to urge passage of the bill this weekend. But, with so much money on the line, there is also intense jockeying on specific provisions.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is pressing Congress to oppose limitations on executive pay and some mortgage modification provisions, while the A.F.L.-C.I.O. called on its members to lobby for them. Trade groups for home builders, credit unions, auto dealers and even agricultural equipment all had extensive campaigns.
Mr. Yingling directs his campaign with a small army of lobbyists, and also calls on hundreds of community bankers to make the association’s case to their local members of Congress. Lately, he’s been working from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Yingling does seem to be born for the job. His father was a bank lobbyist and chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee in the 1950s. As a child, Mr. Yingling remembers visiting his father in the same banking committee room where he now meets with lawmakers. Today, Mr. Yingling lobbies Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, just as his father once lobbied Senator Thomas Dodd, father of the current senator. [CA renter’s note: nothing like “keeping it in the family” and also note the cozy relationship as dad was a bank lobbyist AND then chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee…no conflict of interest there, nosiree!]
While the association had no hard stand on the merits of the bailout, it did join with other financial institutions on Friday urging its passage. But, for the association, the real lobbying was over a series of issues that it wanted to make sure were included in the final package.
[I suggest reading the entire article.]
——————–I could go on, but you get the idea…
Taxpayers have EVERY RIGHT to be PISSED AS HELL about this bailout. I’m usually not an angry person, but this entire bailout fiasco has probably taken 20 years off my life. 🙁
September 29, 2008 at 1:19 AM #277200ParticipantThey just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.
———————WASHINGTON — The $700 billion bailout is uncharted territory not just for Washington lawmakers, but also for lobbyists.
And the window to possibly influence the outcome is short, meaning there is little time to develop coalitions to shape the plan before it is completed.
“This is not following any normal process,” said Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association.
By noon, he and his staff had sent a detailed letter to the Treasury and Federal Reserve outlining eight points of objection. “We told them that they’ve got a real problem,” he said.
Mr. Yingling, in his meetings with federal officials, also conjured up images of runs on banks if Treasury did not change course by the time banks opened their doors on Monday morning. [CA renter’s note: interesting to note that he managed to arrange last-minute meetings with federal officials while the legislators’ constituents were talking to low-level clerks]
He made his case. Treasury did scale back its proposal so that only investors who had already suffered losses in money market mutual funds would be covered, not those who might lose money in the future.
Most financial trade groups are banding together to urge passage of the bill this weekend. But, with so much money on the line, there is also intense jockeying on specific provisions.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is pressing Congress to oppose limitations on executive pay and some mortgage modification provisions, while the A.F.L.-C.I.O. called on its members to lobby for them. Trade groups for home builders, credit unions, auto dealers and even agricultural equipment all had extensive campaigns.
Mr. Yingling directs his campaign with a small army of lobbyists, and also calls on hundreds of community bankers to make the association’s case to their local members of Congress. Lately, he’s been working from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Yingling does seem to be born for the job. His father was a bank lobbyist and chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee in the 1950s. As a child, Mr. Yingling remembers visiting his father in the same banking committee room where he now meets with lawmakers. Today, Mr. Yingling lobbies Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, just as his father once lobbied Senator Thomas Dodd, father of the current senator. [CA renter’s note: nothing like “keeping it in the family” and also note the cozy relationship as dad was a bank lobbyist AND then chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee…no conflict of interest there, nosiree!]
While the association had no hard stand on the merits of the bailout, it did join with other financial institutions on Friday urging its passage. But, for the association, the real lobbying was over a series of issues that it wanted to make sure were included in the final package.
[I suggest reading the entire article.]
——————–I could go on, but you get the idea…
Taxpayers have EVERY RIGHT to be PISSED AS HELL about this bailout. I’m usually not an angry person, but this entire bailout fiasco has probably taken 20 years off my life. 🙁
September 29, 2008 at 1:19 AM #277218ParticipantThey just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.
———————WASHINGTON — The $700 billion bailout is uncharted territory not just for Washington lawmakers, but also for lobbyists.
And the window to possibly influence the outcome is short, meaning there is little time to develop coalitions to shape the plan before it is completed.
“This is not following any normal process,” said Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association.
By noon, he and his staff had sent a detailed letter to the Treasury and Federal Reserve outlining eight points of objection. “We told them that they’ve got a real problem,” he said.
Mr. Yingling, in his meetings with federal officials, also conjured up images of runs on banks if Treasury did not change course by the time banks opened their doors on Monday morning. [CA renter’s note: interesting to note that he managed to arrange last-minute meetings with federal officials while the legislators’ constituents were talking to low-level clerks]
He made his case. Treasury did scale back its proposal so that only investors who had already suffered losses in money market mutual funds would be covered, not those who might lose money in the future.
Most financial trade groups are banding together to urge passage of the bill this weekend. But, with so much money on the line, there is also intense jockeying on specific provisions.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is pressing Congress to oppose limitations on executive pay and some mortgage modification provisions, while the A.F.L.-C.I.O. called on its members to lobby for them. Trade groups for home builders, credit unions, auto dealers and even agricultural equipment all had extensive campaigns.
Mr. Yingling directs his campaign with a small army of lobbyists, and also calls on hundreds of community bankers to make the association’s case to their local members of Congress. Lately, he’s been working from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Yingling does seem to be born for the job. His father was a bank lobbyist and chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee in the 1950s. As a child, Mr. Yingling remembers visiting his father in the same banking committee room where he now meets with lawmakers. Today, Mr. Yingling lobbies Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, just as his father once lobbied Senator Thomas Dodd, father of the current senator. [CA renter’s note: nothing like “keeping it in the family” and also note the cozy relationship as dad was a bank lobbyist AND then chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee…no conflict of interest there, nosiree!]
While the association had no hard stand on the merits of the bailout, it did join with other financial institutions on Friday urging its passage. But, for the association, the real lobbying was over a series of issues that it wanted to make sure were included in the final package.
[I suggest reading the entire article.]
——————–I could go on, but you get the idea…
Taxpayers have EVERY RIGHT to be PISSED AS HELL about this bailout. I’m usually not an angry person, but this entire bailout fiasco has probably taken 20 years off my life. 🙁
September 29, 2008 at 1:19 AM #277252ParticipantThey just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.
———————WASHINGTON — The $700 billion bailout is uncharted territory not just for Washington lawmakers, but also for lobbyists.
And the window to possibly influence the outcome is short, meaning there is little time to develop coalitions to shape the plan before it is completed.
“This is not following any normal process,” said Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association.
By noon, he and his staff had sent a detailed letter to the Treasury and Federal Reserve outlining eight points of objection. “We told them that they’ve got a real problem,” he said.
Mr. Yingling, in his meetings with federal officials, also conjured up images of runs on banks if Treasury did not change course by the time banks opened their doors on Monday morning. [CA renter’s note: interesting to note that he managed to arrange last-minute meetings with federal officials while the legislators’ constituents were talking to low-level clerks]
He made his case. Treasury did scale back its proposal so that only investors who had already suffered losses in money market mutual funds would be covered, not those who might lose money in the future.
Most financial trade groups are banding together to urge passage of the bill this weekend. But, with so much money on the line, there is also intense jockeying on specific provisions.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is pressing Congress to oppose limitations on executive pay and some mortgage modification provisions, while the A.F.L.-C.I.O. called on its members to lobby for them. Trade groups for home builders, credit unions, auto dealers and even agricultural equipment all had extensive campaigns.
Mr. Yingling directs his campaign with a small army of lobbyists, and also calls on hundreds of community bankers to make the association’s case to their local members of Congress. Lately, he’s been working from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Yingling does seem to be born for the job. His father was a bank lobbyist and chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee in the 1950s. As a child, Mr. Yingling remembers visiting his father in the same banking committee room where he now meets with lawmakers. Today, Mr. Yingling lobbies Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, just as his father once lobbied Senator Thomas Dodd, father of the current senator. [CA renter’s note: nothing like “keeping it in the family” and also note the cozy relationship as dad was a bank lobbyist AND then chief of staff of the Senate Banking Committee…no conflict of interest there, nosiree!]
While the association had no hard stand on the merits of the bailout, it did join with other financial institutions on Friday urging its passage. But, for the association, the real lobbying was over a series of issues that it wanted to make sure were included in the final package.
[I suggest reading the entire article.]
——————–I could go on, but you get the idea…
Taxpayers have EVERY RIGHT to be PISSED AS HELL about this bailout. I’m usually not an angry person, but this entire bailout fiasco has probably taken 20 years off my life. 🙁
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.