Cue Al saying that all problems are the result of regulation. The market works! Blind ideology is so comforting!

He forgot to mention cutting taxes!

Streamlining the regulatory bureaucracy is probably a good idea.

After all, it worked wonders for FEMA.

But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem ...

Yes.

"Hmm, those deck chairs need to be rearranged."

"But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?"

This is an April Fools joke, isn't it?

I know the question about the bush administration actually addressing a problem as opposed to trying to pull one over was firmly a tongue in cheek question but I think you should look at this situation and compare it to members of the mafia. They never stop doing illegal shit no matter how old they are or even if they're in prison.
The sooner we face the facts that these people are just trying to fuck us the better off we'll all be.

But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?

Unless they figure out a way to start a new war in Iran, or get McCain into the White House, their time is running out to complete their mission to destroy the federal government and drown it in the bathtub. Expect more Clear Skies and Healthy Forests.

The hardest thing to digest about the current gang in the White House (and the political/business machine that sponsors them) is that everything they do is intended to benefit the haves. It is difficult for average people to believe there exists an immoral gang that runs the government for their own enrichment and for the enrichment of their social class at the expense of everyone else.

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine captures the spirit of the thing exactly. Crisis, secular or created, is an opportunity to take advantage and channel more money and more power to the rich and the powerful under the guise of solving problems. Even the dim press notices the emperor has no clothes but because he is the emperor they pretend he is problem-solving and a sincere man of the people.

But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?

Are you kidding?

It's what they do. It's ALL they do!

The financial crisis and economy will become much worse from any solutions offered up by Paulson and the W. Bush administration.

Since the 'solutions' offered by Sec. Paulson will not alleviate the pain of the financial crisis for many Americans earning below the median wage, they should withdraw whatever deposits they have from US banks, default on their ARM's and make as many purchases from the black markets as possible. Paulson, W. Bush and Wall Street consider half of America to be wage slaves to debts owed the wealthiest corporations. The wage slaves have nothing to gain by bailing out their masters, so they should stop transferring their wages to them.

"After all, Paulson created his plan a year ago, well before the current crisis exploded last summer. Far from being a way to rein in banking industry excesses, it was originally a conservative wish list designed to "streamline" the federal bureaucracy and lighten the regulatory burden on Wall Street...."

Isn't this the exact strategy that brouoght us the Patriot Act? Anyone who believes that over 300 pages of legislation arrived on the floor of Congress less than 3 weeks after 9/11 and that it was written as a direct response to that attack is living in fantasy land. Likewise, this crisis (the mortgage crisis) has become just another excuse to tear down the institutions that have served us well for decades. Yes, just for once it would be nice if the Bush Administration had the courage to be straight with the American people - - or any other people for that matter.

Kevin, what are you looking for a bailout of homebuyers who over extended themselves or lied (via stated income loans) in order to buy a home because they thought the price would continue to go up? The problem with Clinton and Obama's plans are that they advocate a bailout using tax payer dollars which will not fix the problem. In fact, I don't think Obama or Clinton understand the problem which is the cost of housing. The average cost of a home is still far above the average income and the housing crisis will continue until these two figures get back to their historical spread of 3-4%. Obama and Clinton don't even discuss this fact. Housing prices have to drop and no policy or regulation can stop this or make it better!!!!!! Banks and consumers will have to eat their losses and that's the way it should be. Hell, I've been renting for years because I believed that housing prices were too high.

The only candidate who understands the housing crisis is McCain and that's pretty scary....

kd: But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem..

fuck you...

The federal government doesn't need new laws to address an actual problem. The financial markets are in the process of solving their own problems. Hence the big jump in the stock market. The AP writes today:

Financial stocks were among the big winners after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Switzerland's UBS AG issued new stock to help bolster their balance sheets. With that upbeat news and a fresh quarter ahead of them, investors appear quite willing to make some bets that the worst of the damage from the nation's credit struggles has been felt. Moreover, the moves buttressed the view that financial services companies are taking aggressive action to improve their capital bases and stave off the potential of a collapse similar to Bear Stearns Cos. Analysts believe there must be a recovery in bank and brokerage stocks to lead major stock indexes higher. Some of the biggest financial players had their biggest moves this year � Citigroup Inc. shot up 9 percent, JPMorgan Chase & Co. rose 6.5 percent, and Lehman surged 10 percent

Anti-Bush partisans are quick to claim that we're going into a terrible financial crisis. Some are comparing it to the Great Depression. OTOH people investing their own money seem to believe that the worst is behind us.

Since finance is about wealth creation, not wealth destruction, I don't see how creating financial weapons of mass destruction has a thing to do with being a world leader in finance!

kevin: But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?

I assume this is rhetorical. Remember what that John Dilulio said about the political arm of the white house taking over completely from the policy arm.

I am reminded what Paul Krugman said when Bush nominated Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman. "Can Bush be so weak now that he has to nominate someone qualified?"

Drum: But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?

To paraphrase Atrios: "yes"
this has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions

This mortgage and housing outlook by Frank E. Nothaft, Chief Economist, Freddie Mac had some pretty good information about how low income people were targeted by the subprime industry. The percent sold subprime mortgages that did not include taxes and insurance was significant and justifies calling the subprime industry predatory.

Let no one forget that what created this mess in the first place was legislation called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, authored, of course, by three Republicans.

The, possibly, good news is that this incompetent response, unlike Katrina or Iraq, is to something that matters to their core, controlling constituency. Bush and Paulson have proven that they are truly incompetent not merely part of a sophisticated conspiracy to make government look bad. Cheney and the neo-con twits really have no idea what they are doing.

I suppose not bailing out anybody, abolishing the Fed, repealing all the BS loopholes passed that allowed creation of these creative financial instruments in the first place is too much to ask.

Everything Thomas Jefferson promised has come true:
"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"The federal government doesn't need new laws to address an actual problem."

Really? So we should continue spending tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, to bail out unregulated institutions like Bear Stearns, without asking for additional oversight? Interesting point of view you have there.

"The financial markets are in the process of solving their own problems."

No, actually, they're not, which is precisely why we do, in fact, need oversight and transparency. If they want federal money to bail them out, then they need to take the oversight that goes with it.

"Hence the big jump in the stock market."

Moron, the stock market has been jumping all over the place, with near record-breaking gains and losses. That is not the sign of a healthy, confident market. A single-day gain like today's is indicative of precisely nothing.

"Financial stocks were among the big winners after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Switzerland's UBS AG issued new stock to help bolster their balance sheets."

Moron, did you happen to read just why those institutions needed to issue new stock? Free clue: try billions of dollars in losses.

"Anti-Bush partisans are quick to claim that we're going into a terrible financial crisis."

No, we are claiming that we're heading for, if not already in, an economic downturn, that the credit crisis is not, in fact, over, that the various economic indicators all show signs of trouble, and that the Bush administration has thoroughly mismanaged the economy.

"OTOH people investing their own money seem to believe that the worst is behind us."

Complete bullshit, but that's what we've come to expect from you.

And so the misadventure begins. The sad part is that instead of congress telling Bush and Paulson, "fuck off, we'll take care of it ourselves", they'll actually treat the administration's proposals as being serious. Only a complete moron would trust those who got us into this mess to get us out of it (i.e. Iraq).

Back on topic, now that faux-liberal's drivel has been dealt with, why should anyone be surprised at this? This has been their modus operandi from the very beginning. A few examples off the top of my head include the Bush tax cut packages, the Social Security proposals, the various faith-based grants, the "Clear Skies" initiative, and the attack on Iraq, all of which had one thing in common: none of them dealt with the "problems" they were theoretically created to handle.

Your uncle Norman isn't convinced there's a crisis--there's an opportunity!

The eskimos have 45 words for opportunity and only one word for panic; and that word is "bear stearns."

The worst is over. When we self-correct the market, and when the oil companies post record profits, that tidal wave through the economy is going to squeeze out some small firms and end a couple of careers--but that's what a bull market is supposed to do.

Silly liberals--do I have to spell it out for you? When you cut taxes, everyone gains in wealth.

Paulson's plan is to prevent future regulation, not fix the financial crisis so that the industry serves most Americans fairly and equitably. Americans should be worried the Democratically controlled Congress will not challenge Paulson's plan.

"When you cut taxes, everyone gains in wealth."
--Norman (the felon) Rogers

Everyone except our children, who are left with the bill for the irresponsible behavior of conservatives....

...No One will loose their home...

April Fools!

The cynic philosopher Diogenes took a lamp and went looking for an honest man. In present day America he would be looking for a conservative. There aren't any.

We citizens get stuck with the bill for bailing out the bankers who fleeced each other and who should be knowledgeable enough to not allow themselves to be fleeced. The customers they took for a ride are left to suffer the consequences.

As Gore Vidal described America a number of years back: "State socialism for the rich, free market capitalism for the poor".

PaulB, I do regular consulting for a financial organization that has taken steps to deal with their involvement in the sub-prime mess. They're not a major player in that market, so all they had to do was to properly reflect the liabilities on their books.

As you point out, some institutions had large losses, so they issued new stock. That's good. These companies correctly booked the increased liabilities. Increasing their liabilities reduced their net worth, threatening them with insolvency. The additional capital from issuing new stock prevented them from becoming insolvent

The problem everyone worried about is that cascading bankruptcies would severely harm the financial markets. Fortunately, the financial markets are avoiding bankruptcy by their own actions.

ex-liberal: The problem everyone worried about is that cascading bankruptcies would severely harm the financial markets. Fortunately, the financial markets are avoiding bankruptcy by their own actions.

Right, and Helicopter Ben's generosity with our checkbook had nothing to do with calming the panic.

No need to regulate Wall St. - the next time they fuck up the Fed can just hand out more cash. Isn't that how the "private sector" works?

P.S. If you're expecting a personal Fed handout, please recall that there are minimum capitalization requirements to qualify.

Alex, I agree with you that the Fed's guarantee's were a significant factor in avioding a worsening crisis.

However, I disagree where you seem to equate No additional regs with No need to regulate.

I have seen it again and again. A problem arises, public clamor grows, so more and more new laws and regs are added. The long-term result is so many thousands of pages of laws and regs that nobody knows them all.

We should be highly suspicious of any plan that puts more power into the hands of the private, secretive, heavily foreign-invested Federal Reserve, which isn't very well controlled by democratic mechanisms. Not conspiracy stuff from Alex Jones, just plain common sense (and note how many folks in the "Kansas" thread above are suspicious that Greenspan helped Bush by manipulating interest rates.)

"They're not a major player in that market, so all they had to do was to properly reflect the liabilities on their books."

Um, that might be difficult since finding out what the liabilities actually are is proving to be the sticking point. Unless they're writing off the whole package, which is likely going to be the case for many of these players.

"As you point out, some institutions had large losses, so they issued new stock. That's good."

Issuing new stock is neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad. It entirely depends on the circumstances. Issuing new stock when you're planning a $19 billion writeoff isn't exactly good news.

"These companies correctly booked the increased liabilities."

You have no way of knowing that. Neither does anyone else.

"Increasing their liabilities reduced their net worth, threatening them with insolvency. The additional capital from issuing new stock prevented them from becoming insolvent"

And this is your idea of good news? Remind me to never let you anywhere near my financial matters.

"Fortunately, the financial markets are avoiding bankruptcy by their own actions."

And you have no way of knowing that, either.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring the role of the Federal Reserve in helping these various institutions to avoid bankruptcy, and the resulting cost to U.S. taxpayers as a result. Even worse, there has been no action from the Fed or from the Bush administration to ensure that these problems will not happen again, which is precisely the topic of this thread.

How many billions of dollars do you propose to spend to bail out these various unregulated financial institutions? How many times are you prepared to bail them out?

"However, I disagree where you seem to equate No additional regs with No need to regulate."

Moron, the fact that institutions like Bear Stearns were unregulated in key areas is one of the major factors that led to this mess.

"I have seen it again and again. A problem arises, public clamor grows, so more and more new laws and regs are added. The long-term result is so many thousands of pages of laws and regs that nobody knows them all."

Complete bullshit and you know it since you cannot even be bothered to try to post a relevant example, nor defend (or even be honest about) the lack of regulation in this case and its role in the clusterf*ck. Get a brain or give it up because this was pathetic.

What's hilarious about faux-liberal's comments above is his insistence that a single day of trading on Wall Street somehow shows that everything is hunky-dory again. So what kind of "consulting" do you do for that "financial organization", faux-liberal: janitorial? Because you either are completely clueless on economic matters or you are deliberately lying. Which is it?

As long as we're touting your "expertise," let's look at this post of yours from October, 2007:

Today's economic growth looks mysterios to those who have been getting their news from our biased media. For years, the maistream media (and the lefty press) have downplayed Bush's economic success. People like Paul Krugman, who ought to know better, consistently focused on economic weak points (or potential weaknesses), but preferred not to tell his readers how strong the overall economy actually was.

Those who follow actual results know that the economy has been quite strong for years. Of course, the righty press has been happy to tell its readers how effective Bush's tax cuts were. For these people, continued economic strength is no surprise at all. It's just what the past figures would have indicated.

Yup, that's some real expertise, all right. Remind me to never let you near my 401(k).

We should be highly suspicious of any plan that puts more power into the hands of the private, secretive, heavily foreign-invested Federal Reserve, which isn't very well controlled by democratic mechanisms.

We should oppose any plan that puts more power into the hands of an unconstitutional fourth branch of government that Congress lacks oversight of. The Fed no longer serves America but only a few Wall Street firms. The Fed has become what the National Bank was; a protector of entrenched wealth.

Anti-Bush partisans are quick to claim that we're going into a terrible financial crisis. Some are comparing it to the Great Depression. OTOH people investing their own money seem to believe that the worst is behind us.

Just a few of the "Anti-Bush Partisans" who believe we are headed into a recession or worse:

The Wall Street Journal

70 of Institutional Investors

The International Monetery Fund

Commodities Traders

Various heads of Capital Investments Groups, Banks, and Investment Researchers whose job it is to know like Warren Buffet, Byron Wien, Jerry York, Amro -- and on and on.

The near record high 28 million Americans relying on food stamps to survive. 28 million.

The families losing their homes in foreclosure at a rate not seen since the Great Depression, a cycle that has is still on the ascendant.

To name a few.

ex-lib: I have seen it again and again. A problem arises, public clamor grows, so more and more new laws and regs are added.

or in the case of the bush admin.

Report: Government negligent in Utah mine collapse - CNN 3/31/08

Bush Housing Secretary resigns under pressure - USA Today 3/31/08

Bush Gives Out The Wrong Housing Hotline Number AGAIN - CNN 3/28/08

Fed offers $100 billion more to banks - Forbes.com 3/28/08

Military Tells Bush of Troop Strains - AP 3/27/08

Supplier Under Scrutiny on Aging Arms for Afghans - NYT 3/27/08

The Bush admin. has appealed a court ruling that the EPA violated the federal Clean Air Act when it issued less stringent requirements to reduce mercury releases from power plants. AP 3/26/08

Bush Admin. Trying To Stop Fraud Reporting By War Contractors Abroad - AP 3/20/08

State Department Official: Clinton, Obama and McCain Passport Files Breached - 3/21/08

Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark - NYT 3/18/08

Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest - Wash. Post 3/14/08

GOP Says Ex-Treasurer Diverted Up to $1 Million - Wash. Post 3/14/08

Dollar tumbles below 100 yen for first time in 12 years WSJ 3/13/08

Fed Plans to Lend $200 Billion to Banks - NYT 3/11/08

Top Iraq contractor skirts US taxes offshore - Boston Globe 3/6/08

KBR supplied contaminated water to troops - AP 3/9/08

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida - McClatchy Newspapers 3/10/08

and that's just in the last month...

heckofajob...huh

PaulB, you're correct in guessing that my client wrote off the whole package. They hold a large block of stock in a company directly in the mortgage default business. They wrote the value of this stock down to zero.

You claim Bear Stearns was unregulated. Bear Stearns, like other corporations, is regulated by the SEC. They're required to file accurate financial statements. There are innumerable rules concerning the preparation of these financial statements. They're required to have a CPA sign off on their financials. Their reporting is subject to the onerous Sarbanes-Oxley rules. Employees are subject to severe penalties for incorrect reporting or failure to follow all the rules.

I like the part about giving the Treasury more power, making it kind of a supercop. I guess that's based on the great job they've done in preventing excesses during the past eight years.

"You claim Bear Stearns was unregulated."

No, actually, I didn't. I was quite careful in my phrasing. You should try reading what I write.

"Bear Stearns, like other corporations, is regulated by the SEC."

A fact that is wholly irrelevant to this discussion, to the problems that Bear Stearns faced, and to the current clusterf*ck.

Nice of you to confirm that you know nothing at all about financial matters and that you are unable to have a serious discussion of regulation, bailouts, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted.

moron: Anti-Bush partisans are quick to claim that we're going into a terrible financial crisis. OTOH people investing their own money seem to believe that the worst is behind us.

Let's add to that list of Anti-Bush partisans...the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke warns of possible U.S. recession

You fuckwit.

You ask:

But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?

What you don't seem to want to understand is these aren't problems to the Bush team, the're opportunities. Opportunities to further their agenda.

"OTOH people investing their own money seem to believe that the worst is behind us."

Omigod! The market's down today! That must mean that the "people investing their own money seem to believe that the worst is [not yet] behind us!"

Moron.