« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Irony?
I've been thinking about the current adminstration's response to the current financial crisis. I'm no economic or financial expert, but I'm hearing from the GOP side that we have a situation that was caused by giving high-risk loans to banks, institutions and/or people that had little or no collateral to back up those loans.
Is it just my misunderstanding of these complex issues, or did the Bush/Paulson plan basically center around giving high-risk taxpayer-funded loans, to banks, institutions and/or people that have little or no collateral to back them up?
Am I missing something here?
Advertisement
Comments (9)
Kinda.
I would have to know which Paulson plan your referring to here in order to reply properly.
October 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, which plan?
The one McCain said he would back and wouldn't back and would claim his own and distance himself from? The one that taxpayers would benefit from and not benefit from because it favors lenders?
The one that demonstrates how McCain would cut spending across the board-- by spending 300 billion?
Is that the plan you're talking about?
October 12, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm talking about the plan that McCain voted for, and then went on the news later that day and called for President Bush to veto. Which one was that?
October 12, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've lost track. The most recent plan is to buy a non-voting equity stake in the ailing banks, I think.
One of the first proposals, and I'm not sure if it was the original one, was to buy the worthless *assets*, aka debts, of the ailing banks and other companies at an inflated price. Either they tried that and it didn't work or they didn't try it, I have no idea which.
October 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love these bank heist movies. Ocean's 13 was epic, but I think the latest Bush/Paulson production may be the biggest blockbuster ever!
October 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your analogy. If only Bush and Paulson were Pitt and Clooney, I would have more confidence in them. They'd be prettier to look at, too.
October 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afterthought: I think the bill that finally passed provided several options the administration can use. (Don't know the details) Frankly, I don't think anyone knows what the problem is much less the solution.
October 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first Paulson plan, the $700,000,000,000.00 one, was just going to dump a bunch of cash into troubled institutions. It was three pages long, and contained the awful "decisions by the Secretary of Treasury cannot be reviewed" clause. This version was voted down.
The Dems added some token oversight to the bill, some taxpayer royalties stuff, and this passed. Bush signed this into law. In reality, it wasn't that much different from the first incarnation.
Now, Paulson is claiming the authority to inject capital directly into troubled institutions by buying stock in the banks with taxpayer money. This amounts to Paulsons third plan in as many weeks. This is, really, the best way to go about addressing the crisis. Why it took the fucking Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America this long to realize this is beyond my comprehension.
October 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why it took the fucking Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America this long to realize this is beyond my comprehension.
This just underlines the complete incompetence of the bush administration...again. I've read that they were aware of it, but didn't have a contingency plan, which is obvious. Thank God there are only 100 more days we have to suffer through this gang who couldn't shoot straight.
October 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment