The bailout and supposed costs (Congress, cost, national debt, financial)

[Marodi]

I was against the deal without a plan for taxpayers to be payed back in full or in excess. There were 3 provisions that would have done that:

1) Sale of Mortgage assets.
2) The treasury would have warrants to buy stock in any quantity and at any price they wanted in banks that sold their mortgage assets to the treasury, giving another avenue of payback.
3) After 5 years, there would be an evaluation of the plan. Any shortfall would then be payed for in some means by financial corporations.

Originally Posted by Senate version of bailout bill

15 SEC. 134. RECOUPMENT.
16 Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning
17 upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director
18 of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation
19 with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall
20 submit a report to the Congress on the net amount within
21 the Troubled Asset Relief Program under this Act. In any
22 case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit
23 a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial in-
24dustry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure
1 that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to
2 the deficit or national debt.

Thus, there would be no long term cost to the taxpayers. Only the chance of profit.

But those that were against it completely without reservations are those that want to "stick it to the man". Unfortunately, by doing so, they will be forfeiting tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of jobs.

[xS☺B☺s]

Originally Posted by Marodi

I was against the deal without a plan for taxpayers to be payed back in full or in excess. There were 3 provisions that would have done that:

1) Sale of Mortgage assets.
2) The treasury would have warrants to buy stock in any quantity and at any price they wanted in banks that sold their mortgage assets to the treasury, giving another avenue of payback.
3) After 5 years, there would be an evaluation of the plan. Any shortfall would then be payed for in some means by financial corporations.


Thus, there would be no long term cost to the taxpayers. Only the chance of profit.

But those that were against it completely without reservations are those that want to "stick it to the man". Unfortunately, by doing so, they will be forfeiting tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of jobs.

I'll betcha if congress just took that $700B and distributed to the citizens much better would come of it than giving it to a blatant crook and incompetent like Paulson.

[texdav]

But the problem is that many of those citizens are co-conspoirators in that they committed frud by sign false income satement to get the bad loans .They and the loan officers are in it together,. Get one then the other is brought into the case.I would bet that any home owner who sign such a satemnent would be advised to take the fifth.Lots of crroks to go around and all will say that they just didn't know what the truth was.

[xS☺B☺s]

Originally Posted by texdav

But the problem is that many of those citizens are co-conspoirators in that they committed frud by sign false income satement to get the bad loans .They and the loan officers are in it together,. Get one then the other is brought into the case.I would bet that any home owner who sign such a satemnent would be advised to take the fifth.Lots of crroks to go around and all will say that they just didn't know what the truth was.

This money isn't going to any citizens. It's going to Wall St moguls, foremost of which is Paulsen from Goldman and Sacks. The masses aren't getting any gravy. That money will go directly offshore.

[HappyTexan]

And the "assets" they are buying back is not limited to the US.

This bill was never about main street.