What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- BuddyOne, on 11/17/2008, -6/+271Oh my, you mean that our politicians have been lying to us? Will wonders never cease.
- inboxnews, on 11/17/2008, -0/+41They lied again. This is really getting old.
- KJeffV, on 11/17/2008, -12/+35Just imagine how well they'll do w/"Socialized med" . . . ! Has the gov't NOT f'd up any biz they've ever touched?
- kelmaster1, on 11/18/2008, -2/+8The government really has little to do with it, they're mere little puppets for the aristocratic government.
- Ajajadude, on 11/18/2008, -5/+5@KJeffV
Yeah, since the corporate insurance companies have been doing a splendid job and have nothing but our own best interests at heart. - ChristNewsWatch, on 11/18/2008, -1/+5As long as most Americans are spoon fed lies on network media and keep gobbling it up.... they will keep lying.
WE have to stop just talking these topics on here and on the web, WE need to get word out to those who don't use sites like this.... flyers door to door.... I pass out business cards to sites like: http://sites.google.com/site/christiannewswatch/la ... every week in order to try to get the word out...
If we just talk on here this cycle will continue!!! - Magnolit, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3@Ajajadude
You know that the government has granted and created the monopoly for the insurance companies, right? If you think there is free entry into the medical business you'd be surprised.
Please people, don't equate health care in the US with the free market.
- bnasley, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9say it isn't so!!!
- rz8472, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11Jim Inhofe is the most far-right member of the Senate... and for once I agree with him.
- nextekcarl, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8Then something must be wrong in the world, right? Is this one of the 66 seals that Lilith is trying to break?
- kelmaster1, on 11/18/2008, -1/+10ya, when it comes to economic policies the far right usually is better... Moderate Republicans and Democrats love the Fed.
- gerrylazlo, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4I don't understand. In the headline it say he May have lied, but the text says that he definitely didn't tell the truth. Which is it?
- addiktion, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6For real. Especially where he used to be a CEO of a bank. Isn't this obvious? Politicians make me feel f*cking smart!
- bruffellz, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2You fake ass dudes, unless your from louisiana you have no right to say your accustomed to corrupt politicians.
- inboxnews, on 11/17/2008, -0/+41They lied again. This is really getting old.
- RomeroWasRight, on 11/17/2008, -2/+200Did anyone think that the government was going to get this right? Did anyone think they had the best interest of the American people at the core of their motivation?
We need to stop these people, by whatever means necessary.- elleigh2, on 11/17/2008, -1/+13Hell no!
- DifferentAngle, on 11/17/2008, -2/+15Are you just going to talk? Or are you going to use the 2nd amendment as its original intent?
- theOster, on 11/17/2008, -13/+3sorry, but the hell with the second amendment. i say we go straight to plan B: Violence.
it's the only thing these people will understand. - martalli, on 11/17/2008, -0/+15It's time for traditional action: tar and feather them and ride them out on a rail!
- seventoes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+15"sorry, but the hell with the second amendment. i say we go straight to plan B: Violence. "
To hell with shooting them, let's use violence! - iamghost, on 11/18/2008, -0/+13***** Guns
Use Violence! - tgc1, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6I think these pricks need to be dragged out by their collars and kicked out of office. Permanently.
- raisputin3, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1@seventoes & iamghost
I LOL'ed
- theOster, on 11/17/2008, -13/+3sorry, but the hell with the second amendment. i say we go straight to plan B: Violence.
- LenBaird, on 11/18/2008, -1/+9They got it exactly right. It is going exactly according to the plan. It's just that it was never about doing anything for anyone except the banks.
- mirunit, on 11/18/2008, -9/+2"It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.''
That is what you all are upset about?
Regardless, injecting liquidity to banks allows the dispersion of credit which is what the US economy is based on. Who exactly would you trust to hand out the 700bln? Someone has to do it as a committee is far too slow.- AngelaQ, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3At least in theory that might have happened, but in fact it did not. The money accounted for has been paid as bonuses and perks to executives or used to buy other banks. They are not lending.
- mirunit, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1"At least in theory that might have happened, but in fact it did not. The money accounted for has been paid as bonuses and perks to executives or used to buy other banks. They are not lending."
Small amounts of the money have, but some banks DO use it because they NEED it. To try and paint everybody as AIG is wrong. 300bln has not been spent on bonuses, okay? Also, this entire bailout is not even over. Many banks facing liquidity problems have been propped up with this money, you need to also remember that not every bank is Citi or Chase.
"They are not lending."
Well that is news to me, someone needs to get them to stop raising the limits on my cards.
- mcsenget, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6Some people actually did.
Lots of people did.
(They were all idiots.) - PatNolan, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4$494 hammers. $700 toilet seat. $1.5 trillion bailout.
Looks like business as usual to me.- lamiaconfitor, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Dude, don't judge until you have sit on a 700$ toilet seat, you can never go back. And pressure sensitive computerized hammers? Dont get me started!
- lamiaconfitor, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Nope, not since they were demanding they get to allocate the funds however they wish and not be held accountable.
- AngelaQ, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Sure, that's why they gave Paulson the money to disburse, because they believed him. They didn't listen to me. I was blogging that it was a setup, the sole purpose of which was to empty the Treasury into the pockets of cronies of this administration until either Congress made them stop or the Treasury ran dry.
- RomeroWasRight, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Get off the "cronies of this administration" meme Angela.
The Democrats in congress are neck deep in this doo-doo pile, and if you're unaware of it, then crawl out from under your rock and take a peek.
- RomeroWasRight, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Get off the "cronies of this administration" meme Angela.
- dremango, on 11/17/2008, -4/+106Press Release U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.):
November 15, 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), in a letter to his Senate colleagues, laid out his plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress. In the letter, Senator Inhofe writes that the lame duck session provides Congress a tremendous opportunity to change course. Below is the text of the letter.
Dear Colleague,
I write to inform you of the actions I will be taking during the lame duck session of Congress regarding the funding status of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Given the recent news about Secretary Paulson's execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. I plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress.
In my statement opposing the Paulson Plan last month, I laid out two primary reasons why I voted ‘no.' The first is that I wasn't convinced that asset-purchase program was the right way to do this, and the second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble.
I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan - not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms' balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government.... I'm not confident in its success."
The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted that "critics...say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face, as summarized by November 13th Investor's Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer. "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn't work."
I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.
During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions. First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment. I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.
Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th that "the financial markets have been stabilized." If that is the case, it is Congress's duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of a catastrophic financial crisis, which was the justification for the grant of such sweeping authority, has subsided. Perhaps the additional $350 billion should not be added to the deficit. Congress should have a debate.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to working with you in the coming week.
Sincerely,
Senator Jim Inhofe
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi ...- allowners, on 11/17/2008, -0/+15Wow, change course at the end, what a concept. I guess they're all a great bunch after all, just misunderstood. Ass holes.
- erasedgod, on 11/17/2008, -3/+14To which his colleagues responded:
tl;dr - AndrewMoyer, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6Any time I see the "TARP" acronym in this context, I just picture the country laying down a plastic sheet so it doesn't make too big of a mess when it finally blows its brains out (figuratively and economically.)
- techmaster, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6Do you like Huey Lewis and the news?
- AndrewMoyer, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12This bailout was basically the patriot act for Wall St.
- Adamlite, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4[Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th that "the financial markets have been stabilized."]
Reading that reminds me of something... http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Mission- ... - dagnome1984, on 11/18/2008, -1/+6The real total is 4.3 trillion.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=31615 - ingodwerefucked, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1@AndrewMoyer- and the financial collapse was the 9/11!
watch this, it's comic genius
http://digg.com/business_finance/Financial_Control ...
- EMFK, on 11/17/2008, -2/+80We're shocked...absolutely shocked. /sarcasm
- these3remain, on 11/17/2008, -4/+91Kudos to Jim Inhofe. Now write your senators and tell them to support his proposal - and NO MORE BAILOUTS!
- Troy64, on 11/17/2008, -0/+10He is my senator.
- PleaseJustDie, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13Write him twice then.
- steger, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7or three times.
- bitweever, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5Same here.
- dieboldcracy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5Yeah, like that worked the 1st time around
- hooah212002, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3I was thinking the same thing. I actually recieved some ***** response about how basically I'm nothing more than a stupid citizen and he knows more about the government than me but he is glad to represent me.....
- Zap2, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Thats the attitude that got us through the civil rights movements
"Well they didn't let blacks vote the first time, lets go home!"
- Troy64, on 11/17/2008, -0/+10He is my senator.
- NoLibertarians, on 11/17/2008, -46/+6ROFL.... Any Senator that makes a statement like that without being able to prove it should forfeit his seat in the Senate
- thecoolestguy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+36NoLibertarian wants absolutely no oversight over how the people's money is spent. Remarkable.
- NoLibertarians, on 11/17/2008, -32/+4Do any damn thing you want if you can prove it..But don't go around making unfounded accusations ! That happens in politics far too much
- 2bsbc, on 11/17/2008, -1/+25NoLib, you are the #1 troll on digg. I've never witnessed anything like it! You should start a class at your local community college. It could be a no credit course, "How to troll Digg like a pro."
Maybe an infomercial. I'm telling you you could be the next Billy Mays. - thecoolestguy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+15The point of oversight is to be able to catch corruption. Without oversight corruption will go undetected. Remarkable how little you care.
- KMye, on 11/17/2008, -1/+16The fact that there is no oversight, and that those involved have been actively opposing all attempts at transparency is not in dispute. This doesn't make you worried at all? Inhofe didn't say that Paulson had given it to his friends, he said he could have and we'd have no way to know at present....
- dagnome1984, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7The Secretary of the Treasury being granted unconstitutional powers is nothing to be concerned about. Realistically you would need an amendment to the constitution to do what congress did. But hey no one needs to worry that the executive now has a direct connection to the congressional purse. /s
- lostarchitect, on 11/17/2008, -6/+4Actually-- He didn't even say that. The digg title is very misleading.
- arkboysooner, on 11/17/2008, -17/+3Nolibertarians is right, especially coming from Jim Inhoffe who is a complete loon.
- thecoolestguy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+36NoLibertarian wants absolutely no oversight over how the people's money is spent. Remarkable.
- stuckinneutral, on 11/17/2008, -0/+46Wow. I didn't vote for this guy because he was saying McCain would win. But I am glad he is representing what is right.
- Striker101, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3not exactly. the only "right" would be cancellation of whatever's left in that kitty.
- bitweever, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3I voted for him, because his opponent, Skippy McGee, mostly had a platform of being a pretty boy and acting sincere. Not a lot of substance to him.
- TonyLocNE, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2So was he re-elected or not? He seems like a good guy to have around.
- bitweever, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Yes, yes he was. I've been pretty impressed with both Inhofe and Coburn when it comes to calling the government on its spending.
- shnizep, on 11/17/2008, -0/+46The sad thing is we should be shocked by something like this.
- cohortq, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7No that sad thing is that some of us AREN'T SHOCKED at all.
- brad3378, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4The sad thing is that many of us don't expect this to be the end of the bailout corruption controversy.
- Tbyrd073, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4Obama wants another bailout passed when he enters office. Same ***** different President.
- kelmaster1, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5ya, but that's the middle class; unimaginative, unmotivated and not self-disciplined. Oh well, I guess I'll smoke another bowl....
- cohortq, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7No that sad thing is that some of us AREN'T SHOCKED at all.
- DD2CC2U, on 11/17/2008, -12/+20The Bush administrations last Ha! Ha! Ha!
The Fools! The Fools!- Striker101, on 11/17/2008, -1/+30don't forget that both fool parties pushed it through
- centerblack, on 11/17/2008, -2/+5Their friends are richer than ever on military contracts in Iraq and I don't think they're going to be prosecuted for war crimes since we couldn't even get the man impeached and therefore investigated.
Looks to me like the Americans who voted for him in 2000 and 2004 are fools and we're all paying for it regardless.. - martalli, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11Once again they pulled a "disaster looms if you don't vote this minute" ploy. Looking back, they have brought up imminent disaster only when thoughtful reflection was needed, and then failed to act on real disasters. It is not an ideological problem, but an issue of pure incompetence.
- plarp, on 11/18/2008, -1/+13i seem to think a certain obama wanted this plan too...
i also think the largest opposition to this bail out was from the republicans.. and the opposition written of in this letter is from a republican..
just sayin..
- joinforfree, on 11/17/2008, -8/+80There are sleezy people and even some criminals on both sides of the isle. Citizens must be diligent.
1. Dump Paulson or at least put him on a shorter leash.
2. Let's talk about charges against BARNEY FRANK and CHRISTOPHER DODD. They we key players in the FANNIE AND FREDDIE mess. They need to be drummed out of Washington and perhaps to a nice country club Federal Prison.
3. It's about time we talk about TERM LIMITS one of these days... Career politicians in the House and Senate must become a thing of the past.- thoughtsonthis, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10You are so right!
- engelb15, on 11/17/2008, -2/+17I completely agree with that, especially #2...but don't forget about Rick Davis, Alan Greenspan, Phil Graham, Chris Cox and Bill Donaldson. The financial problems we are currently facing are NOT due to partisan politics, they are about greed and the guilty should be prosecuted.
- Troy64, on 11/17/2008, -3/+18I couldn't agree more about term limits, but it will never happen.
If it did, I would like to see three terms in congress and two in the Senate and no working as a lobbyist afterwords.
Let them stay in long enough to get something accomplished, but not long enough to forget who they represent. - martalli, on 11/17/2008, -5/+2They already moved up the Inauguration from April to January. I think it is time to move it to December, right after the Electoral college votes.
- AngelaQ, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2What country do you think we are talking about?
- dagnome1984, on 11/18/2008, -1/+6"It's about time we talk about TERM LIMITS one of these days... Career politicians in the House and Senate must become a thing of the past."
The chance of that happening is comparable to the chances that the sun will one day go super nova. The sun will never go super nova given that it lacks the appropriate amount of mass. Do you think that congress would vote against their future employment opportunities? - Grok22, on 11/18/2008, -1/+33. It's about time we talk about TERM LIMITS one of these days... Career politicians in the House and Senate must become a thing of the past.
If people didn't want them they would be voted out of office- Troy64, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6There are advantages to having a Senator or Congressman with a lot of seniority. Namely earmarks for you state. It puts your state at a disadvantage if you change Senators and Congressmen often. If there are term limits it makes for an equal playing field and eliminates a lot of earmarks.
- DAVENP0RT, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5"Do you think that congress would vote against their future employment opportunities?"
Only a constitutional amendment could shorten the term limits of Congress. And it's totally possible to amend the constitution and completely bypass Congress in the process.
So...let's do that.
"If people didn't want them they would be voted out of office"
Congressmen and Senators stay in office by pork barreling to their constituents. If they're given term limits and more oversight, then maybe pork barreling would become a thing of the past. - darkened, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2I stand for execute Paulson and Bearnake.
- mfc5200, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1Agreed.
I say give the President one 6 year term
congressmen one 6 year term
and senators one 6 year term.
And set it up such that there is a new election every two years for these positions. For example
Presidential race in 2008, House 2010, Senate 2012, Executive 2014, Housr 2016, etc.
Career politicians are absolutely terrible. The process is made even worse when they feel they have the ability to be re-elected.
- InRussetShadows, on 11/17/2008, -1/+20There are a few beacons of light in the mire of Congress. Inhofe is one.
- eastwood24, on 11/17/2008, -2/+8Yah, Im still having trouble getting over his Global Warming is the biggest hoax of all mankind statement. I guess I will chalk it up to pandering to his large christian right base, which might be the case with his bailout stance. It is not exactly a popular move around here. (why help east-coast elitist type stuff - is the popular perception).
- scootinger, on 11/17/2008, -1/+9Actually Inhofe is usually a dumbass...as an Oklahoman I've always been ashamed that he represents my state. But apparently he's doing something right for once.
- Midtowner, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Yep. I voted against the guy, but I'm behind him here. I'm more of a fan of Coburn's approach, where I perceive that he's trying to fight the good fight by playing by the rules. I think Inhofe has been around long enough to know that when you're in the minority, that's the time to be as loud and obnoxious as possible in persuading the electorate to pressure their Democratic congressional delegation.
He may be wrong most o fthe time, but right now, he's 100% correct.
- Midtowner, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Yep. I voted against the guy, but I'm behind him here. I'm more of a fan of Coburn's approach, where I perceive that he's trying to fight the good fight by playing by the rules. I think Inhofe has been around long enough to know that when you're in the minority, that's the time to be as loud and obnoxious as possible in persuading the electorate to pressure their Democratic congressional delegation.
- jodimcmullen, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4Inhofe is a rich oilman. He doesn't represent the people here in Oklahoma, just oil/gas/coal interests. I don't trust anything he says. He introduced a bill last year to declare that Carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas.
- Midtowner, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Actually, he's an insurance guy. He ran Quaker Life Insurance Company into the ground and then ran for Senate.
- Midtowner, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Actually, he's an insurance guy. He ran Quaker Life Insurance Company into the ground and then ran for Senate.
- kimsun, on 11/17/2008, -4/+5well you can't blame him, can you?
- lanesharon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+22I am all for those TERM LIMITS, but as citizens, we have a job to hold them accountable for doing THEIR jobs. We need to start getting involved by watching legislation, pork that is added, and how it is enabled and utilized. Since the media will not be our watch-dogs, we need to do this job ourselves.
- sgiffy, on 11/17/2008, -8/+8Term limits: firing people as soon as they figure out how to do their jobs.
- jasdf, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Even though you are getting dugg down, there is a lot truth to this statement.
- MaynardJK, on 11/18/2008, -1/+4If "figuring out your job" means learning the best ways to steal billions of dollars for your friends, then I agree.
- bnasley, on 11/17/2008, -1/+11we get the government we deserve
- Striker101, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3we have been "watching", you know. And hollering. Didn't you notice how they don't have to listen to citizens anymore?
- centerblack, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4When did they ever?
U.S. Senate Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
All they're supposed to do is defend the constitution. They have no specific obligations to their constituents. Keeping them happy is a good idea for re-election, but they don't have to listen to you.
If you don't like what they're doing, tell them, tell them why, and then don't vote for them unless they change. - martalli, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Doesn't wiretapping your phone count?
- centerblack, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4When did they ever?
- roho76, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3The only way your going to get these people out of office is by shooting them in the face.
- Striker101, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3fire MSM
- sgiffy, on 11/17/2008, -8/+8Term limits: firing people as soon as they figure out how to do their jobs.
- sgiffy, on 11/17/2008, -15/+5Buying up distressed mortgages was a great idea. Take the rot out of the system and then the government can handle the unpleasant task of renegotiation and foreclose. Not beholden to shareholders or their own lenders they can do this much better then the current holders who are facing margin calls. This benefits distressed home owners and lenders as well as pretty much everyone else who would suffer in debt deflation.
The current capital injection plan is not as great an idea, but it does, so far, seem to be working (check out LIBOR various spreads, and CDS). However, the problems assets are still in the system. If they turn out to be not so troubled as people think then we all win., but if not then the injected capital will disappear pretty quickly. Not to mention that we won't have addressed the problem of declining home values, which coupled with the bursting commodity bubble brings the real fear of debt deflation spiraling into the entire economy.
We need to take the uncertainly out, most of which stems form no one having any idea what these mortgage securities are worth. If we take care of that we can go through the inevitable downturn, which will probably be as bad as 1981 or 1991 and get back to normal much quicker.- locojones, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Irrespective of the LIBOR spreads, banks still aren't lending money. They are hoarding it and using it for everything but loans, such as acquisitions of other banks so they can take advantage of the extremely lucrative tax write offs that the treasury gave them without a vote from Congress.
What the government should have done is provide emergency assistance directly to homeowners. I'm not saying it would be easy to implement, but giving the money to homeowners so they could continue paying their mortgages would solve two problems: (1) prevent the collapse of the housing market through defaults; and (2) recapitalize banks with the cash while minimizing any mounting damage from toxic mortgages or the ripple effect of the extremely toxic derivative mortgage market that only becomes worse with the more houses that fail. Of course this would all have to come in the context of banks having to renegotiate their mortgages to reflect current prices and to eliminate the ARM, but it seems like a much better idea than just letting the banks line up at the proverbial government soup kitchen with no strings whatsoever.
Now, I don't like the idea of interfereing in the market at all by providing assitance to homeowners who made piss-poor decisions and didn't bother to read their contracts. But if the government insists on mucking about, it appears less unseemly than giving a carte blanche to the robber barrons who ran their businesses into the ground because of unfettered greed.- sgiffy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2The end result however is the same. If you bail out the homeowners directly and encourage renegotiation you still provide a substantial benefit to the holders of these securities. By buying them up though you can do it in a more orderly fashion and better protect the investment of tax/bond dollars.
Part of why banks are not lending is that things are pretty shaky right now and they are already facing margin calls to bring their debt to capital ratios back up. Taking the bad debt out of the system would give more certainty to their balance sheets and let everyone know where they stand.
- sgiffy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2The end result however is the same. If you bail out the homeowners directly and encourage renegotiation you still provide a substantial benefit to the holders of these securities. By buying them up though you can do it in a more orderly fashion and better protect the investment of tax/bond dollars.
- JoeVet, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7Buying up distressed mortgages was NOT a great idea. That's my money that was to be used to buy worthless assets. If my money is to used then I want it used to buy equity in the lending institution. Thank God Britain came up with the bank stock idea because Bush didn't consider how a mortgage bailout would work.
- sgiffy, on 11/18/2008, -2/+3So you would rather own an equity stake in an entity with more liabilities then capital? Ask the shareholders of Lehman Bro's how that worked out for them and if they would have rather had some assets instead.
These securities are just of indefinable value. Given that they are secured by real property the one thing they are not is worthless. The hands they are of the most value in however is the government given that the government is best able to salvage the people who are not paying.
- sgiffy, on 11/18/2008, -2/+3So you would rather own an equity stake in an entity with more liabilities then capital? Ask the shareholders of Lehman Bro's how that worked out for them and if they would have rather had some assets instead.
- locojones, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Irrespective of the LIBOR spreads, banks still aren't lending money. They are hoarding it and using it for everything but loans, such as acquisitions of other banks so they can take advantage of the extremely lucrative tax write offs that the treasury gave them without a vote from Congress.
- moulin1, on 11/17/2008, -15/+16You might also want to take a careful inventory of the white house silverware and valuables before January 20.
- JohnFromChicago, on 11/17/2008, -2/+13Considering the Bush family has been a shareholder in the Federal Reserve since the beginning, I doubt he needs the silver.
- zizzybaloobah, on 11/17/2008, -6/+26These are the kinds of things that happen when an electorate 'votes for change' in the Presidency yet keeps returning the same old scoundrels to Capitol Hill again and again.
- groverblue, on 11/17/2008, -7/+5huh?
- muckemuck, on 11/17/2008, -0/+14over 90% were reelected.. stupid people voted for the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the bailout. Ugh.
- Arcueid01, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7People didn't want change dude. If they wanted change they would have elected Ron Paul. Remember the people just don't get it right and won't until the country is broken completely!
- Elranzer, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2People didn't want change. They just wanted non-Republicans. Democrats are non-change and non-Republicans, hence they won.
Ron Paul was a Republican and was change. That's why he lost by a landslide.
- groverblue, on 11/17/2008, -7/+5huh?
- halftank, on 11/17/2008, -1/+10Uh, isn't it a little late now to take the $700B back?
- rexblade, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13Well technically no since we didn't have it anyway all this ***** is just throwing around deficit money. Really who do these bailout abusers think they are? The audacity that they would even pull a fast one with this should result in fraud charges, prison time and everything they have should be sold off. Then they can see what it's like on this side.
- yoyoadrian, on 11/17/2008, -2/+25possible titles for the 2008 American History Class in the next updated edition...
When Banks are Robbed by Bankers
The Great American Bank Robbery By Bankers
Do You Wanna Taste of My Ice Scream!? - bnasley, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7Gee... ya' think?
- dystra, on 11/17/2008, -4/+5meh
- wynja, on 11/17/2008, -1/+21Wow, who could have ever thought that Paulson would give all this money to his buddies. I mean he seems like such a stand up guy having overseen Lehman Brothers through the worst of the subprime loan purchasing.
- jasoninoakland, on 11/17/2008, -4/+15The GOP seems to care about fiscal responsibility only when it's not running things.
If there were a better case for a GOP minority in government, I haven't seen it.- Striker101, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11good comment, except you forgot the DEM are deep in the same muckity-muck.
- northwatuppa, on 11/17/2008, -2/+3a "permanent minority" to paraphrase a famous, disgraced Republican.
- mikeyellenlee, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12Aw shucks, I sure as heck didn't see that one comin'!
- lpferris, on 11/17/2008, -0/+23Never before have the words "No *****, Sherlock" been more appropriate.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 11/17/2008, -1/+9Hmm, a sane statement from one of the truly insane (Inhofe). I'm not sure if this is a sign of progress or a sign of things about to get much worse.
- InnerRayg, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Get ready for the cliche, but a broken clock is right twice a day.
- ricker2005, on 11/17/2008, -2/+26That title is a blatant lie. Inhofe didn't suggest in any way that Paulson gave the money to his friends. Inhofe was saying that the distribution of the money from the bailout wasn't transparent.
This story is important. Don't coat it with crap. - IllestGodzira, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5expected it to happen..eventually
no surprise there - sobenofear, on 11/17/2008, -13/+8........Of which a DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress passed, with repuke-licon help. AND, of which, there were no controls, or balances put into place to make sure that this didn't get abused. Let's not forget that BOTH political candidates for president endorsed this plan. AND OBAMA won.
So, you're political party (dumbocrat or repuke-licon) is just as responsible as the other. Fire the bastards! Over throw THEM. Not the constitution. Why couldnt' we ljust let the capitalistic markets correct themselves. So what some white collar losers toss themselves off of a roof or out a window. We, the m-ASS-es are the ones who have to endure THEIR crimes.
So, much for SOX. Ah, TIME FOR A SHAY'S REBELLION, in the form of throwing these lousy bums out of office, institute term limits, and rule strictly by the constitution and give more power back to the states, as it should be.
Oh, but, we all are good little sheeple. We bend over and take it from our "hillbilly" masters (gooberment). Our complacency is our down fall. Something worse than a 2nd great depression
might be what it takes to get us all in gear. (YES, THERE WAS A "GREAT DEPRESSION" IN THE 1870'S. THEY CALLED IT THE GREAT DEPRESSION TILL THE ONE WE KNOW FROM 1929 CAME TO BEING) Check your history.- diggdiggerid, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5you were doing well until "gooberment," that's too obvious, work on your trolling skills some more. you have to be more subtle.
- bergysmalls, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2I personally liked the "Check your history" statement, implying that someone had made a remark about history incorrectly. Though I'm not sure where...
- Beatmiser, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7Dugg down even though you have valid points... but you presented them like a mental patient.
- Kershek, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6I didn't realize Michael Savage was on digg.
- AngelaQ, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1Nope. It all started with Reaganomics, and it ended with credit swaps.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/16/1002/ ...
There's no party that has a corner on the blame. But without the utterly unregulated credit swaps, there'd just be too many mortgages defaulting, not our entire economy collapsing.
- diggdiggerid, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5you were doing well until "gooberment," that's too obvious, work on your trolling skills some more. you have to be more subtle.
- pintomp3, on 11/17/2008, -5/+10inhofe talking about corruption? that's hilarious.
- muckemuck, on 11/17/2008, -1/+16HAHA! You voted for one of the crooks who voted that bailout into being. Have you learned your lesson? The Republicans and Democrats just ripped you off. Will you vote for them again in 2010?
- meekerunger, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7Yes, they will. Because the American memory is so short.
- richmomz, on 11/17/2008, -1/+22Why do you think he insisted on there being NO OVERSIGHT? No question; this bailout nonsense is the biggest heist in history.
- heiroglyph, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1If WE knew that little tidbit of information prior to them passing it, why the hell are these douche bags surprised and shocked?
I don't care what they say, they are all either crooked or criminally incompetent.- richmomz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"...they are all either crooked or criminally incompetent."
That pretty well describes about 99% of our government representatives.
- richmomz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"...they are all either crooked or criminally incompetent."
- heiroglyph, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1If WE knew that little tidbit of information prior to them passing it, why the hell are these douche bags surprised and shocked?
- Autodidaddict, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11How come congress can ***** things up bipartisanly but never fix things by working together?
Just sayin....- Arcueid01, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1The problem is that these days there isn't much of a different between Republican and Democrat.
- richmomz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1You can put a hundred apes in a china shop and they will have no problem making a huge mess, but getting them to clean it up is a bit more difficult.
- mshtml, on 11/17/2008, -0/+19They will scare the ***** out of the population over and over taking more and more every time. 9/11, the Patriot Act, $700 billion. Its just getting started. You'll beg them to stick you in a cage for your own safety by the time they get done with you.
- tgc1, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1They'll be the ones begging to be stuck in cages, for their own protection, when the public finally riots. You thought LA 1992 was bad? Just wait.
- richmomz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Not to worry, FEMA is building us some nice, comfy communal living camps with REALLY great security to keep us safe from terrorists, hunger riots and pandemic disease. I for one welcome our new NWO overlords!
- Khast, on 11/17/2008, -4/+10GOP and Accountability do not mix....er I mean oil and water....come to think of it....DNC has it's flaws too...damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Hell with it, Government and Accountability don't mix....
people need to stand up, and utilize our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and put the government back in it's place...as employees of "We the People" - IpsoPhatso87, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10Big surprise here... There is a reason 90% of the country was against the bailout. The bastards still passed it because us "simpletons" didn't understand the consequences of the failure of these pathetic companies. Revolution. **** these criminals.
- HappyScrappy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9Of course he did. He has lots of friends in Wall Street.
The question is did he give out money improperly?
Stupid-ass bailout. - beesaretasty, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13It's not often that I'll say this, but that republican senator is right on. It's horrifying to think that even our senators have no idea how much money is left of the initial 350 Billiion dollars, but to see Paulson changing his strategy from bad to worse with the rest of it is sickening. This plan is in no way a plan to make things better for the average American and it never was.
When companies fail, it's bad, but if they were providing a worthwhile product or service, you can be sure that somebody will step in to pick up the slack. If some people have to be laid off because their business wasn't providing a valuable product or because it was doing it inefficiently, so be it. - arkboysooner, on 11/17/2008, -5/+7Jim Inhoffe is a lunatic, the worst senator in the country and his comments get dugg to the front page? LOL. The man is a complete moron. Not saying he's wrong, but if you knew this guy you would have a hard time believing anything that comes out of his mouth.
- lalalalamppost, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7More SHOCKERED than SHOCKED.
I accidentally $700 billion.- Tbyrd073, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1So did the government! They accidentally $700 billion too!
- superkendall, on 11/17/2008, -3/+21Gave "The Bush Administration"???
Hey, Obama and the Democrats were ALL IN on that bill! They have control, if they didn't like it don't you think they could stop it?- meekerunger, on 11/17/2008, -3/+7Thank you. On digg anytime you blame things on bush you get dugg up, whether it was his fault or not.
- SGB1903, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3
- TonyLocNE, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1How many times are you going to spam this video in these comments?
Buried and reported for spamming..
He has spammed this video 35 times across Digg.
- TonyLocNE, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1How many times are you going to spam this video in these comments?
- klui, on 11/17/2008, -1/+12Is it any surprise that Congress has a lower approval rate than Bush? They were voted for it but didn't realize Paulson would be dumb enough to make their plans so well known to the general public. I'm disappointed Barack voted for it. And don't tell the people "I'll vote for it now but once I'm president, I'll do whatever I can to unlegislate it."
- theOster, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8well no ***** *****. can we start the beatings yet?
- richmomz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1You bring the feathers and I'll find some tar.
- tobb555, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9In other news the sky is blue, film at eleven.
- charm803, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7Right after our special report:
Water is wet. - martalli, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6The sky will be dark by eleven.
- Dymaxionpz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Psst, that's why they filmed it!
;-)
- Dymaxionpz, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Psst, that's why they filmed it!
- charm803, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7Right after our special report:
- HystErica79, on 11/17/2008, -0/+11Gee, you'd think people would have expected to be screwed when there was a "no oversight/punishment from any law enforcement body" clause written right into the bailout bill (gotta love pre-emptive immunity!)...
...and then a former Goldman Sachs exec (Paulson) appoints another former Sachs alum (Kashkari) to oversee the giveaway.
No conflict of interest there, right? - lcaz319, on 11/17/2008, -8/+25Ron Paul 2012.
- JoeVet, on 11/17/2008, -21/+3Give it up, already. Nobody wants a religious extremists with a social agenda and a misguided belief that he knows something about economics.
- Tbyrd073, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Religious extremist? Really?!? Wow you've obviously never listened to any Ron Paul videos. His views on economics are correct and he would never force the fact that he is christian on the people he represents.
- jcroweall7, on 11/17/2008, -5/+6Correction: Ron Paul's brain-in-a-jar 2012
- AllyOfReason, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2state's right != social agenda
- JoeVet, on 11/17/2008, -21/+3Give it up, already. Nobody wants a religious extremists with a social agenda and a misguided belief that he knows something about economics.
- canvashinder, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1No Really you think.
Eye Roll! - thatsmyaibo, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9This guy should be arrested.
- Me002, on 11/17/2008, -13/+10
- lordving, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5`google couldve saved you the embarassment, hes a republican dumbass
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 