$700,000,000,000
Sep. 30th, 2008 09:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusWow, that's a lot of zeros.
Good thing it failed.
Yeah, I know I'm a little late weighing in on this. I just want to point out a couple of things.
1. This was not a "plan". This was a three-page document asking for money and lots of extra powers, with no oversight, and a vague promise that they will, really soon now, really, come up with a plan soon on how they want to spend the money.
2. Here's the scary paragraph that seems to accompany a lot of legislation starting in January 2001:
Yeah, that's right. Not only does he want all these extra powers, he's trying to claim that he has ultimate authority and is answerable to no court or government agency. They can't even review after the fact. And if you're house is seized in a shady back-room deal (See point 4 below)? Well, under this law, you can't even get a court to hear your side of it.
Somebody flunked First Amendment.
3. As a founder/president/executive director/envelope stuffer/T-shirt iron-er in a small non-profit organization myself, I found this article from Slacktivist blog to be just about the best summary of the proposal I've seen yet.
4. Fortunately, Congress did the right thing (for a change. Apparently, Paulson forgot to include the right people in his disgusting attempt at power-grabbing.) It bothers me greatly that any of the democrats voted for this shit, though. I'll have to find a list of which ones. I got me some stern letters to write.
Oh, yeah, here's another winning paragraph in the list of extra powers he wanted:
Read that carefully. Paulson can buy up any assets, at any price of the taxpayers money, he wants, and sell it to whoever he wants at whatever price he wants. Are you behind on your house payment? Now that the bank knows it can get higher than full market value (if they give Paulson or his successors a big enough cut), it has every incentive in the world to foreclose. Then, he can sell it at far below market value to anyone he owes a political favor too. Good-bye street full of old houses, hello new Wal-mart parking lot. He doesn't even have to use imminent domain, all he has to do is put the word out and wait a couple of years. Chances are everyone within the block will be at least a few days late at least once over the next couple of years. Especially if the bank raises your interest rates. Yes, you're saying, sure, technically the law says he could do that, but I'm sure we can trust him not to. Of course we can trust the banking industry. After all, after we removed all that regulation slowing them down they were able to usher us into a new era of economic prosperity, right? Um... OK, never mind. But the fundamentals of the economy are strong! And besides, 9/11!
Good thing it failed.
Yeah, I know I'm a little late weighing in on this. I just want to point out a couple of things.
1. This was not a "plan". This was a three-page document asking for money and lots of extra powers, with no oversight, and a vague promise that they will, really soon now, really, come up with a plan soon on how they want to spend the money.
2. Here's the scary paragraph that seems to accompany a lot of legislation starting in January 2001:
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.
Yeah, that's right. Not only does he want all these extra powers, he's trying to claim that he has ultimate authority and is answerable to no court or government agency. They can't even review after the fact. And if you're house is seized in a shady back-room deal (See point 4 below)? Well, under this law, you can't even get a court to hear your side of it.
Somebody flunked First Amendment.
3. As a founder/president/executive director/envelope stuffer/T-shirt iron-er in a small non-profit organization myself, I found this article from Slacktivist blog to be just about the best summary of the proposal I've seen yet.
4. Fortunately, Congress did the right thing (for a change. Apparently, Paulson forgot to include the right people in his disgusting attempt at power-grabbing.) It bothers me greatly that any of the democrats voted for this shit, though. I'll have to find a list of which ones. I got me some stern letters to write.
Oh, yeah, here's another winning paragraph in the list of extra powers he wanted:
(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.
Read that carefully. Paulson can buy up any assets, at any price of the taxpayers money, he wants, and sell it to whoever he wants at whatever price he wants. Are you behind on your house payment? Now that the bank knows it can get higher than full market value (if they give Paulson or his successors a big enough cut), it has every incentive in the world to foreclose. Then, he can sell it at far below market value to anyone he owes a political favor too. Good-bye street full of old houses, hello new Wal-mart parking lot. He doesn't even have to use imminent domain, all he has to do is put the word out and wait a couple of years. Chances are everyone within the block will be at least a few days late at least once over the next couple of years. Especially if the bank raises your interest rates. Yes, you're saying, sure, technically the law says he could do that, but I'm sure we can trust him not to. Of course we can trust the banking industry. After all, after we removed all that regulation slowing them down they were able to usher us into a new era of economic prosperity, right? Um... OK, never mind. But the fundamentals of the economy are strong! And besides, 9/11!
