Petition to give Congress 72 hours to read the bailout bill before voting
Gabriela from the Sunlight Foundation sez,
Today, the Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to exercise restraint, and give lawmakers and the public time to read and respond to the proposed bailout legislation.Congress: Read the Bill First! (Thanks, Gabriela!)We believe all legislation should posted online for at 72 hours before a vote to give lawmakers and citizens sufficient time to review and debate it, and this bill is no exception.
That's why we just created a petition that urges Congress to wait until October 1, 2008 before voting on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. (That would be 72 hours since it was first posted online.)
This isn't a bill to rename a few courthouses; this bill is Congress's biggest intervention in the economy in decades. This important legislation deserves more time for public scrutiny. You can review and comment on the bill on PublicMarkup.org, too.
the latest
latest episodes
Looks like there will be lots of time to read it:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0929/breaking27.htm
...Congree?
Ooooh, can we please change our government? PLEASE!?
I would much rather have a Congree than a Congress.
Sounds like much more fun.
I'm mad that I don't have the chance to get in on this investin' action.
I don't have any money anyways but it's the tought that counts.
I liked 'Congree', but I fixed it anyway.
I had trouble just digesting the title of the bill. I would not have been able to pick the title out in a line up. Roll Call 674 for:
BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes
huh-
Is it a bluff? Are a few powerful and influential people and institutions trying to bluff their way into $700 billion?
The institutions that approved, funded, sold, and securitized these loans were perfectly aware of their enormous risk and high likelihood of failure. Why else would they have made something on the order of 5 million such bad loans if they did not have a high expectation of being bailed out in the end?
What will the $700 billion bailout plan do that the Fed isn't already doing without subsidizing or otherwise rewarding the consciously suicidal business plan behind the mortgage-backed securities crisis? The bailout is being pushed as an emergency measure to stave off a credit freeze by transferring all of the risk and concomitant losses of these loans to the sucker of last result: the US taxpayer. But is it really necessary? What will the bailout do that cannot be achieved by the Fed, which has already pumped in upwards of $600 billion to stabilize the credit system? That money MUST be paid back. It is a vastly less risky way for taxpayer funds to reinforce the system.
The bailout plan is a bluff. It is a plan to provide a few large and influential players with the cash to go on the largest spending spree of all time. They are currently champing at the bit. What is the tactic? Claim that there is a huge, imminent emergency, one that will explode on the scene in hours or days, and requires us to quickly approve hundreds of billions of dollars which Hank Paulson, veteran and ex-CEO of one of the firms ready to go on its pre-Christmas acquisition orgy, can spend with almost unlimited discretion. But it has to be NOW! We can't wait! No time to think it over! No time to look at alternate plans! No time to do it in a careful, stepwise manner! We need a Maverick! We need a leader! Blah blah blah BLAH!
It is a deliberate, planned lie. It is a bluff. It is the Iraq war all over again. 44 economists from around the country oppose the bailout. William Isaacs, ex-head of the FDIC actually helped work through the last big crisis, one with a larger one-day percentage drop in the Dow, and is reportedly offering to discuss alternatives. What other level-headed, cost-effective strategies are there? The goal IS NOT to save financial institutions from failure. To the contrary, those that are in grave trouble must shut down and auction off their assets. It is not the taxpayers' moral, legal, or political duty to rescue individuals or institutions from high risk or outright fraudulent business practices.
What should we do? The Fed must continue to inject whatever funds are necessary to keep the credit system stable through conventional channels, NOT by subsidizing failed business practices or needlessly risking taxpayer funds. The FDIC must be aggressive in seizing failed institutions and negotiating with surviving players for their acquisition or merger, or if necessary, liquidate the assets. We need to pace the strategy, and not react out of urgency or panic. It takes days, weeks, or months, not hours or days. If emergency measures are necessary, they too must be done carefully, and without handing out super powers to anyone. The disussions starting now should form the basis of emergency measures, not the greedy scams of a few.
.
Big banksters using their resources/clout for shaking the Markets to get people to go along with their theft oops I mean "bail-out" - these guys run the Market, and it's them who are selling, looking to panic people into backing the "bail-out", spooking people into selling as well.
There really is no hurry here, it's these same banksters who won't lend anymore even if your credit is good (hence 'credit crunch").
The last goodbye kick at the can from Bush and his neo-con buddies, the built in and set up spoiler for the next guys, trying to undo their damage done... I guess Iraq did not make them rich enough.
I love the part that advances the "zero reserves" standard for banks from three years from now to tomorrow:
Original story (9/28):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/28/225743/084/384/613878
Last night's update, walking through the steps more clearly:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/30/01617/5440/126/615177
Had the bill passed as written, the net effect would allegedly be to set standards as: