2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/09/26/bailout-talks-implode/
0
0
  |   55 comments

Although we were able to report yesterday that the two sides had almost reached an agreement on the so-called bailout plan, I’m afraid that the talks have imploded in the hours afterwards.

The talks began as a serious attempt to deal with the crisis but devolved into ‘bickering, begging and a roiling battle between parties,’ as CNN put it.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass accused House Republicans of not being willing to negotiate. Senator John McCain, meanwhile, said that these Republicans have “legit concerns. Some of those have already been satisfied, such as accountability and oversight board and CEO executive pay. Members are aware of the crisis situation that we are in.”

However, McCain said, “They do have concerns, which I think when you’re talking about $700 billion to a trillion dollars, that need to be addressed.”

Barack Obama, meanwhile, had nothing useful to say expect for that he hopes that all sides will come together. He also criticized McCain: “One of the concerns I’ve had over the last several days is that when you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations,” he said, “then you can actually create more problems rather than less.”

Although a nice talking point, Obama seems to forget that McCain was probably asked by Paulson to return to Washington in order to convince House Republicans to support the bill. According to CBS’ Bob Schieffer, House Republicans would certainly oppose the plan if McCain wouldn’t give them political cover.

House Republicans are afraid to support it. Most of their constituents oppose the bailout plan. As such, they will need strong arguments to support it.

Democrats, meanwhile, have said they are not ready to support the bill if a majority of Republicans do not support it. This because Democrats want to portray it as “George Bush’s bill,” and not theirs.

In other words, there are – to a very large degree – politics involved. On both sides.

  1. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #69907
    Jason, Managing Editor Your non-responsive claim about "priorities" is irrelevant when we can do both AT THE SAME TIME.  We only need "priorities" when we must do something FIRST and something else LATER.  Since it is possible to drill more and invest in alternative energies AT THE SAME TIME, your endlessly repeated rants about "priorities" amounted to nothing more than non-responsive and annoying hijackings of those comment threads.  Now you are doing the same thing here with regards to the capital gains tax to the point that you are now on the verge of getting banned. And I already explained why I believe liquid capital is relevant and how your claims otherwise are just unsupported claims.  You just keep repeating yourself and being annoying.  Maybe you should try actually responding instead.
  2. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #69910
    Jason, Managing Editor Christine,

    The plan circulated by Cantor calls for a mortgage-backed security insurance fund, rather than taxpayer-funded purchases of those securities. The plan calls on the Treasury to design a system to charge premiums to mortgage-backed security holders to finance this insurance, according to a fact sheet.

    Republicans also seek to ``remove regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation.'' It also suggests that regulators call on financial institutions to suspend dividends, along with other steps to address liquidity problems.

    Cantor said the House Republican proposal ``does not leave the American taxpayers with the bag and makes sure that Wall Street pays for this recovery.''

     

    Note highlighted portion of quote from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alnOrNLYPTTU&refer=home

    The only references I am able to find to the possibility of making the Republican plan a part of a broader plan instead of a replacement are coming from Barney Frank, not from House Republicans.
  3. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #69912
    C Stanley Jason: I concede your point about Cantor and will add that DeMint also appears to be on the record with opposing the buyout plan in any form. There certainly are those hardline free market conservatives in the House (which isn't a bad thing on the whole- they represent the remaining spending hawks.) But it doesn't appear to me that these are the guys who've been put forward on the negotiating team, so my presumption is that the compromise that's actually being worked on is for insurance to be an add on, not a plan in itself.
  4. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #69913
    Jay_C I propose we fashion a taxpayer bailout after this bailout bill is passed.  Maybe the bank(s) that get the 700 billion can back it.  Anyone with me :)   (Sorry, just wanted to interject a little levity)
  5. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #69915
    Jason, Managing Editor Actually, that is built in already.  When Hong Kong used this kind of a purchase of bad stock in 1998, they wound up making a profit by later selling the government's newly acquired assets after the market recovered.  Most of the cost of the Resolution Trust Corporation was recaptured the same way during the 1990s. This component of the bailout plan is one of the many features that the media is doing a very poor job of explaining.