TW: Inhofe (R): Cancel the 'blank check'

[JMS]

Ranking Republican Senator acuses Paulson of giving bail out money to his friends and of hiding where the money is going even from Congress.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081116_16_A1_hHecri880405

He criticizes Henry Paulson for changing the $700 billion bailout plan.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration.

"It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World.

"It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.''

Inhofe's comments, unusually pointed even for a senator known for being blunt, come on the heels of Paulson's shift in how he thinks the bailout funds should be spent.

[Thiebear]

Actually he days it could be anyone.

Those of us that said:

You cannot let the people that do the mess, fix the mess. they will cover their asses first and fix the problem second.

Jamie Gorrelick = electric chair.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The blind gnat could have predicted this was going to happen...and as evidence I present myself...as such I'm as perceptive as a blind gnat.

[Buford T. Justice]

Those of us that said:

You cannot let the people that do the mess, fix the mess. they will cover their asses first and fix the problem second.

Unfortunately that's human nature.

[JMS]

The blind gnat could have predicted this was going to happen...and as evidence I present myself...as such I'm as perceptive as a blind gnat.

I'm guilty here. I supported the bail out. I'm a huge Bush critic, but I still fealt you had to support the administration and give him the tools to fix the problem in the face of an impending melt down. Now I'm thinking they dupted me again.. These guys not only didn't know how to fix the problem, not it looks like they didn't even understand the problem.

I'm thinking Bush's cabinent officials have always been idiots and his financial people are true to that coarse both in the lead up and proposed during this bail out. The solution to the crisis was never to hand hundreds of billions to the troubled financial institutes.

The solution to this crisis was always to help the consumer. We should have used the money to just restructure the bad loans. Give folks the option of taking out 40, 50 or even 60 year loans rather than the thirty year loans which we currently have. Give that option to everybody in the country. This would drop the payments by potentially 2/3rds and allow folks to stay in their homes and clear up the entire mess.

Let the finanical institutes fail, if that is their plight after the bad loans are taken off their books. After all they and their investers were always the ones taking the risk and trying to profit from these bad notes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm guilty here. I supported the bail out. I'm a huge Bush critic, but I still fealt you had to support the administration and give him the tools to fix the problem in the face of an impending melt down. Now I'm thinking they dupted me again.. These guys not only didn't know how to fix the problem, not it looks like they didn't even understand the problem.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I supported the theory of the bail out, my main criticism was and still is the complete lack of oversight. At this point it looks like they are just throwing money at anyone who comes with their hand out, heck even cities are asking for part of the 700 billion, plus the Big Detroit 3.

This is a copy of the email that I sent to my church, this was within about day after the proposal came from Bush. 9/22/2008*

I have recently come across information that seems have been missed by many in the press, a few are talking about it but the noise is still very quiet. I am sure that you are all aware of the current proposal that is going to Congress requesting 700 Billion tax payer dollars in order to bail-out the economic industry on Wall Street. What you may not be aware of is that the legislation that is coming from the Executive Branch states in section 8 that “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." This simply means that the ways in which this 700 Billion is spent cannot be reviewed by anyone, as such you are not able to be represented adequately, and no over-sight is allowed to make sure that your money is being spent in responsible ways. One would think that the single biggest bail-out that we have ever known would come with some sort of accountability and over-sight to make sure that we the people have the proper representation and voice regarding how our money is spent in Washington DC.

I urge you to please contact your senators and congress persons to let them know that you want to make sure that there is accountability and over-sight for this massive Wall Street bailout.

Now, while some of the language of the original 3 page proposal was changed, it looks as if the effects are still the same. :doh:

[Koolblue13]

Wouldn't this just be easier if the Federal Government just openly owned the banks and major corporations? Then we wouldn't have to worry about corruption and the prices would come down.

We the people are just screwing it all up with our whimsical elections and poorly spent non tax dollars.

[JMS]

Now, while some of the language of the original 3 page proposal was changed, it looks as if the effects are still the same. :doh:

Yeah congress put into the legislature there would be an independent oversite board. But Bush just hasn't appointed the members of the board yet and the money is still flying out the door.

[JMS]

Wouldn't this just be easier if the Federal Government just openly owned the banks and major corporations? Then we wouldn't have to worry about corruption and the prices would come down.

We the people are just screwing it all up with our whimsical elections and poorly spent non tax dollars.

I sense you are bing cynical.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah congress put into the legislature there would be an independent oversite board. But Bush just hasn't appointed the members of the board yet and the money is still flying out the door.

Part of the problem with the oversight board is that Paulson is supposed to be on it.:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I sense you are bing cynical.

I sense that your cynical sensory sensation sensor is sensing correctly.

[Koolblue13]

Why would you appoint an over sight board. I know these people were watching it all happen in the first place, what are they going to do different?

Hey, lets just give everybody free **** on credit, then when it fails their stocks will be worthless. Then, we can use their tax dollars to buy it up from them. We will make a **** load of money when it's all said and done. It doesn't matter if it's criminal, because people will be to busy arguing about which party did it and because of hard economic times, they will beg for help.

[The 12th Commandment]

I have nothing to say about this :moon: and it ain't a moon I'm just used to this position by now.

[Predicto]

They need to get the oversight board into place, fast. But that is not the same as saying that the loans should be made public. The whole point of the bailout is to provide liquidity to banks - that would be completely negated if, by providing a loan to a bank, you started a run on the bank at the same time. Which is what would happen if any of the loans were publically announced.

As usual, Jim Inhofe doesn't get it. That is because he is the single stupidest person in the United States Senate, which is saying something.

[MurrayH81]

It's very sad to think of people around the country, who are decent, hard-working, taxpaying Americans losing much of what they have, while so few are making so much money.

I am trying to stay positive, but it's very difficult to foresee how even large numbers of ordinary Americans can help remedy the situation any longer.

The professional political class and their 'purchased' stranglehold on our country are killing us.

[Thiebear]

At this point it would be easier to give every house owner 50k.

Problem solved.

[Koolblue13]

At this point it would be easier to give every house owner 50k.

Problem solved.

How about every person $24,000 so they could buy a house, thus putting value back into the market.

$2.56 Trillion dollars is looking more and more like the final number area.

[JMS]

They need to get the oversight board into place, fast. But that is not the same as saying that the loans should be made public. The whole point of the bailout is to provide liquidity to banks - that would be completely negated if, by providing a loan to a bank, you started a run on the bank at the same time. Which is what would happen if any of the loans were publically announced.

Predicto the "whole point" of the bail out wasn't to provide liquidity to banks. The "whole point" of the bail out was to unfreaze the credit markets. A distinction which turns out is hugely important.

Predicto, we've used up more than half of the first installment of this bailout package and the credit markets are still frozen. The banks are paying their investors dividends with the money, paying off their debts, buying other banks, and mostly hording the money.

In economically uncertain times it turns out banks even with money, would rather sit on the side lines and see what happens than dive in and risk making bad loans.

As usual, Jim Inhofe doesn't get it. That is because he is the single stupidest person in the United States Senate, which is saying something.

I think he does get it. I think Paulson is almost universally being labeled at best an incompetent, at worst a corrupt incompetent. Coming from the Republican side of this mess, Inohofe's claim is even more creditable, seeing as how it's the Republican administration and secretary he's condeming.

[JMS]

How about every person $24,000 so they could buy a house, thus putting value back into the market.

$2.56 Trillion dollars is looking more and more like the final number area.

How about allowing people to refinance for 40, 50 or sixty year morgages to avoid forclosures. Open up several new refianancing options to the entire country.

Japan has had 100 year morgages for decades.

Open it up for the entire country. These loans will allow many folks to stay in their homes and stop the very costly forclosures but still make them responsible for the debt they've incurred without costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Predicto]

Predicto the "whole point" of the bail out wasn't to provide liquidity to banks. The "whole point" of the bail out was to unfreaze the credit markets. A distinction which turns out is hugely important.

Predicto, we've used up more than half of the first installment of this bailout package and the credit markets are still frozen. The banks are paying their investors dividends with the money, paying off their debts, buying other banks, and mostly hording the money.

In economically uncertain times it turns out banks even with money, would rather sit on the side lines and see what happens than dive in and risk making bad loans.

I think he does get it. I think Paulson is almost universally being labeled at best an incompetent, at worst a corrupt incompetent. Coming from the Republican side of this mess, Inohofe's claim is even more creditable, seeing as how it's the Republican administration and secretary he's condeming.

I'm not saying the bailout was designed properly or is being operated correctly. It wasn't and it isn't.

I'm saying that making bailout loans known to the public is an absolute guarantee that more banks will fail, because that would start bank runs.

Inhofe doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground. He is opposed to the bailout on principle, and is attacking it any way he can think of. Because his IQ is only about room temperature, he is complaining about secrecy, which is just about the only thing that makes no sense to attack it on.

They need to force banks to make loans. That's the problem. Not secrecy.

[Koolblue13]

How about allowing people to refinance for 40, 50 or sixty year morgages to avoid forclosures. Open up several new refianancing options to the entire country.

Japan has had 100 year morgages for decades.

Open it up for the entire country. These loans will allow many folks to stay in their homes and stop the very costly forclosures but still make them responsible for the debt they've incurred without costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

How about letting the people who signed on to these bunk loans they couldn't afford in the first place, go back to renting and giving folks like me who knew they shouldn't be buying a house the down payment as a reward.

[JMS]

How about letting the people who signed on to these bunk loans they couldn't afford in the first place, go back to renting and giving folks like me who knew they shouldn't be buying a house the down payment as a reward.

If you think refinancing your home for an extra three decades is a reward then we have different definitions of the word. Allowing these folks to refianance for longer periods of time, and stay in their homes while giving everybody the exact same option wouldn't penilize anybody and wouldn't really reward anybody either..

I wouldn't refinance my home for 60 years knowing my kids would likely have to pay off my morgage. Many people wouldn't.

It just allows the folks who are in this mess to potentially work themselves out of this mess without dragging everybody down with them.

[Koolblue13]

I wouldn't refinance my home for 60 years knowing my kids would likely have to pay off my morgage. Many people wouldn't.

So the best situation would be something we could call "forever debt" that could be passed down through generations, like a home used to be able to.

You do see the problem with that, right?

It just allows the folks who are in this mess to potentially work themselves out of this mess without dragging everybody down with them.

So does mine. Let them go back to renting and think about what has happened, while those of us who didn't actually help to get us into this mess, fix the market.

[JMS]

So the best situation would be something we could call "forever debt" that could be passed down through generations, like a home used to be able to.

You do see the problem with that, right?

It's not a very attractive offer, but it's better for the troubled property owner than being put out on the street. It's also better for the banks than forclosures, and much better for the taxpayer who's other option is to absorb the hundreds of thousands of bad loans. This plan is also better for the housing industry because it will keep the bottom from falling out of houseing prices destroying the equity most Americans have in their homes.

You don't have to take out a 60 year morgage if you don't want to. You could go for a 15, or a 30 year loan, just like today. But if you wanted to buy a nicer home, or you wanted a lower payment you would have the option of going for the "forever debt" plan. Just like you do today if you choose to pay the minimum on that credit card.

This would give needed options to folks who did make poor decisions, although it would still hold them responsible for those decisions.

So does mine. Let them go back to renting and think about what has happened, while those of us who didn't actually help to get us into this mess, fix the market.

No your plan doesn't. If the forclosures occur, the forclosures set the value of homes; dragging them down. That crushes every home owner in the country. Paulson's plan was to buy up the properties and put the US taxpayer on the hook for the value of the homes even at the inflated original price which was 50% higher than today in some cases. Now Paulson wants to just hand money to the banks which made the bad loans hoping they're still willing to make more potentially bad loans in uncertain economic times.. Extending the duration of the loans will reduce the monthly cost of homes, and allow the folks the option of staying in the property. That's a win win. It avoids the forclosures and rewards nobody; while keeping the responsibility and financial burden on the homeowner.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Predicto the "whole point" of the bail out wasn't to provide liquidity to banks. The "whole point" of the bail out was to unfreaze the credit markets. A distinction which turns out is hugely important.

Exactly!! Everyone seems to think that the economic crisis is in the Dow trading, i.e. people not investing when instead it is in the credit markets, i.e. banks giving short term loans to businesses to make payroll and purchase supplies for their products once this dries up then payroll can't be met and the supplies for factories stop flowing, then production gets cut, people get laid off, who then spend less money, then about three months later when the quarterly earnings and projections reports come out people then pull their investments which then hits the Dow. As long as the banks aren't lending then our economy will NOT get better.