Bush tries to sidestep the Constitution...again

[Drunken Durfin]

I'm glad that I am not the only one that sees a problem with this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94950330


The Bush administration's plan would grant the Treasury secretary nearly absolute control of the $700 billion authorized by the bailout measure. The language in the measure sent to Congress would make the Treasury secretary's decisions "non-reviewable" — including by "any court of law or any administrative agency." That would give the Treasury secretary powers that are not only extraordinary but, some would say, also unconstitutional because of the lack of accountability.

[Gan]

I really dont like how that proposal sounds. :(

[Mabus]

This "proposal" scares the mess out of me. That they want it passed in less then a week, and that the media were rock-solid behind it all week long, just blows my mind.

If it is the "housing crisis" they are trying to resolve (both foreclosures and property values) then there are several options they can try other then bailing out corporations that made bad decisions.

(pie in the sky)
How about a "works" programs, that would give $700B worth of jobs to tear down blighted properties, fix up neighborhoods and repair infrastructure. We could even offer the jobs to those with mortgages near foreclosure first, and force banks to renegotiate the mortgage if the person takes, and keeps, the job.

I am so, so against this giveaway of our money to help private corporations, it sickens me to think about it.

If they do not include seizing and forfeiture of assets of the officers of the companies, set pay scales for employees and executives, and a payback schedule (making this a loan, and not a giveaway) I will vote against any politician voting for the measure.

[Warriorbird]

This is fucking stupid. Both McCain and Obama are all about it. Ugh.

[crb]

This "proposal" scares the mess out of me. That they want it passed in less then a week, and that the media were rock-solid behind it all week long, just blows my mind.

If it is the "housing crisis" they are trying to resolve (both foreclosures and property values) then there are several options they can try other then bailing out corporations that made bad decisions.

(pie in the sky)
How about a "works" programs, that would give $700B worth of jobs to tear down blighted properties, fix up neighborhoods and repair infrastructure. We could even offer the jobs to those with mortgages near foreclosure first, and force banks to renegotiate the mortgage if the person takes, and keeps, the job.

I am so, so against this giveaway of our money to help private corporations, it sickens me to think about it.

If they do not include seizing and forfeiture of assets of the officers of the companies, set pay scales for employees and executives, and a payback schedule (making this a loan, and not a giveaway) I will vote against any politician voting for the measure.
Um, I don't think you understand this program. Nor the gravity of the situation, and it was bullshit social engineering shit like you propose (give government busywork jobs to people getting foreclosed on) that got us into this mess in the first place.

First of all, take off your marxist hat and realize corporations are not evil entitites from outerspace. No, indeed, corporations are owned by people, like you, and me, and pension funds, and school endowment funds, etc. Secondly corporations provide jobs. Thirdly, they aren't private.

In the end though, this isn't about bailing out banks, unfortunately it is about bailing out taxpayers. Those dipshits who made bad bets will now have their mortgages held by the government, who, being patient, can offer lower rates. This is about stopping foreclosures, which, if you pay attention, are what caused everything to begin with.

This is about keeping ridiculous subprime borrowers in their ridiculous overpriced homes. Hate it for that, don't hate it for being a corporation bailout.

And, you know, before this plan was announced, we were on the verge collapse of the financial system not seen in 80 years. It was scary.

Finally, recognize the government isn't giving money with this plan, they're buying investments. They will make a profit on these in the long run. The fact no one else has enough money to buy these investments than the US government, there are too many that need to be sold by banks thanks to various accounting rules.

Oh... and you can't seize the assets of private citizens without due process just because they were an officer at a bank. Sorry, we have this thing called the constitution that prevents that.

It seems to me you've been swallowing all the political rhetoric full throatedly without actually looking at the issue in true accurate detail.

It annoys me to all hell that this plan is necessary, I hate bailing out stupid homeowners, but it is necessary.

[crb]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0924/p08s01-comv.html



And Congress risks committing the same mistake it made when it helped to stimulate the 2003-2006 housing bubble. Lawmakers back then encouraged the government-backed firms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize more "affordable" homeownership with subprime and "Alt-A" mortgages that attract borrowers with low creditworthiness. Now all homeowners and the economy are paying the price as many borrowers go under.



Social engineering FTL.

[Gan]

Um, I don't think you understand this program. Nor the gravity of the situation, and it was bullshit social engineering shit like you propose (give government busywork jobs to people getting foreclosed on) that got us into this mess in the first place.

First of all, take off your marxist hat and realize corporations are not evil entitites from outerspace. No, indeed, corporations are owned by people, like you, and me, and pension funds, and school endowment funds, etc. Secondly corporations provide jobs. Thirdly, they aren't private.

In the end though, this isn't about bailing out banks, unfortunately it is about bailing out taxpayers. Those dipshits who made bad bets will now have their mortgages held by the government, who, being patient, can offer lower rates. This is about stopping foreclosures, which, if you pay attention, are what caused everything to begin with.

This is about keeping ridiculous subprime borrowers in their ridiculous overpriced homes. Hate it for that, don't hate it for being a corporation bailout.

And, you know, before this plan was announced, we were on the verge collapse of the financial system not seen in 80 years. It was scary.

Finally, recognize the government isn't giving money with this plan, they're buying investments. They will make a profit on these in the long run. The fact no one else has enough money to buy these investments than the US government, there are too many that need to be sold by banks thanks to various accounting rules.

Oh... and you can't seize the assets of private citizens without due process just because they were an officer at a bank. Sorry, we have this thing called the constitution that prevents that.

It seems to me you've been swallowing all the political rhetoric full throatedly without actually looking at the issue in true accurate detail.

It annoys me to all hell that this plan is necessary, I hate bailing out stupid homeowners, but it is necessary.

I'm in agreement that its bailing out people who have acted irresponsibly from the home buyers, to the lenders, to the CEO's of the investment banks.

What I'm not in agreement with, and what I'm really concerned about, which was not addressed in your post is this: (which is also the point of the OP)


The Bush administration's plan would grant the Treasury secretary nearly absolute control of the $700 billion authorized by the bailout measure. The language in the measure sent to Congress would make the Treasury secretary's decisions "non-reviewable" — including by "any court of law or any administrative agency." That would give the Treasury secretary powers that are not only extraordinary but, some would say, also unconstitutional because of the lack of accountability. Comments?

[Stanley Burrell]

<<And, you know, before this plan was announced, we were on the verge collapse of the financial system not seen in 80 years. It was scary.>>

Words cannot express how stupid you are, crb. I'm not even kidding.

[crb]

To call it non-reviewable is a lie. Probably why it is in quotes.

Everything is reviewable.

What they mean to say is that they won't be in the kitchen with the chef with a spoon in the pot, and congressmen, especially liberal ones, HATE not being invited to the party. They will not be the gatekeepers once the power is given. For every purchase, or loan renegotiation, or writedown they won't need to go back for more approval from congress. Which gives congress less opportunities to fuck things up with bullshit social engineering, or partisan posturing. Make no mistakes, congress wants the power to influence the allocation of the funds for political ends. That is what congress does.

So no, I don't have a problem with it. Congress can and will define what the funds will be used for, they don't need to be involved with every decision for their use, and I don't want them involved. It'll just slow things down and make things less efficient.

If congress doesn't like what happens, they can pass a law withdrawing the authority, they can call for Paulson's head and threaten Bush (or McCain) with impeachment if he doesn't deliver it, or various other things. These would all be public and visible actions though, as opposed to the quiet sort of backroom stuff you'd get by letting them into the kitchen.

When a body has the authority to change laws, they don't need to be in the kitchen to have oversight.

[crb]

<<And, you know, before this plan was announced, we were on the verge collapse of the financial system not seen in 80 years. It was scary.>>

Words cannot express how stupid you are, crb. I'm not even kidding.
That you are calling me stupid must be a compliment.

So you don't realize that there was a run on money market accounts and banks had stopped lending to each other? That was the start of a full on bank run and you don't see it as problematic?

[Daniel]

<<And, you know, before this plan was announced, we were on the verge collapse of the financial system not seen in 80 years. It was scary.>>

Words cannot express how stupid you are, crb. I'm not even kidding.

QFT

[Stanley Burrell]

That you are calling me stupid must be a compliment.

No...

I was just calling you stupid.

[Parkbandit]

No...

I was just calling you stupid.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/cripldbird/pot-kettle.gif

[Mabus]

Um, I don't think you understand this program. Nor the gravity of the situation, and it was bullshit social engineering shit like you propose (give government busywork jobs to people getting foreclosed on) that got us into this mess in the first place.
You must have missed the "pie in the sky".

I must admit I fail to see how this proposal is not "social engineering" for companies that made terrible decisions.


First of all, take off your marxist hat and realize corporations are not evil entitites from outerspace. No, indeed, corporations are owned by people, like you, and me, and pension funds, and school endowment funds, etc. Secondly corporations provide jobs. Thirdly, they aren't private.
Me, a Marxist...

I never said corporations were "evil". The ones involved in this current made-up "crisis" were damn irresponsible. They took full advantage of the laws they helped craft to run themselves right into the ground.

I say let them crash and burn. You feel the government should step in and help. Which is more "Marxist", pal?


In the end though, this isn't about bailing out banks, unfortunately it is about bailing out taxpayers. Those dipshits who made bad bets will now have their mortgages held by the government, who, being patient, can offer lower rates. This is about stopping foreclosures, which, if you pay attention, are what caused everything to begin with.
What "caused everything to begin with" was deregulation payed for with lobbying dollars from the right and liberal pipe-dreams from the left, which allowed these institutions to over borrow past what they could afford in the former case, and extend credit to people that cannot afford it in the latter case.


This is about keeping ridiculous subprime borrowers in their ridiculous overpriced homes. Hate it for that, don't hate it for being a corporation bailout.
I don't "hate" it for anything. I am sickened by it.

You can attempt to lay the blame solely at the feet of the 2.7% of people whose homes are being foreclosed, but that is a dramatic oversimplification.

This "crisis" is a complex system with more then one cause.


And, you know, before this plan was announced, we were on the verge collapse of the financial system not seen in 80 years. It was scary.
If it has to be propped up with almost unlimited funds with no congressional or judicial oversight it deserves to collapse.


Finally, recognize the government isn't giving money with this plan, they're buying investments. They will make a profit on these in the long run. The fact no one else has enough money to buy these investments than the US government, there are too many that need to be sold by banks thanks to various accounting rules.
Really?

You know they will make a profit how?

I want some serious conditions laid on any corporate welfare plan. The main one being that the price paid for the securities cannot exceed what the institution paid for the securities. I don't want these greedy bastards making a profit off of their bad decisions and coming out of my pocket.


Oh... and you can't seize the assets of private citizens without due process just because they were an officer at a bank. Sorry, we have this thing called the constitution that prevents that.
It happens all the time in the "war on drugs". Property is seized before trial, and it must be proved that the property was not gotten through illegal means, even if the accused is found innocent of the initial charge.

Seize these officers assets, and make them prove they did not defraud the investors through bad decisions.


It seems to me you've been swallowing all the political rhetoric full throatedly without actually looking at the issue in true accurate detail.
...

With the amount of money I have lost in the last few months I just want to say, "Fuck you.".


It annoys me to all hell that this plan is necessary, I hate bailing out stupid homeowners, but it is necessary.
This is not bailing out homeowners. This is not paying for homes that are in foreclosure. This is to buy securities that backed the loans that are now considered "toxic", or likely to default.

It's main purpose seems to be (from the hearings) to allow the institutions to still have money to lend beyond that which they have invested in what used to be high risk/high yield securities. They took the risk, now we, the taxpayers, are asked to take the loss.

I have already written both of my Senators informing them of how I feel about providing this money. I will vote against them if it goes through as proposed. Unfortunately, I have no Representative at the moment, as she passed away and is yet to be replaced.

[Audriana]

Things like escalated to the point where, you know, my man got too familiar and I ended up having to whip his ass man, you know, cause you know, he would step across the line. Habitually. He's a habitual line stepper.&#160;

[Mabus]

A piece of levity came into my email box a bit ago, I figured to share:




Subject: Not Spam -- Important Business Offer!!!

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude. I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars U.S. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully,

Minister of Treasury Paulson

[Parkbandit]

Eh... That email isn't much more of a scam than what the real Paulson wants.

[Daniel]

mabus,

I take back 20% of all the bad things I said about you.

Audriana: rofl.

[Drunken Durfin]

To call it non-reviewable is a lie. Probably why it is in quotes.



I am pretty sure that it is in quotes because they are the actual words from the proposal that is being reported on. That is generally how things are done with articles like this. I will poke around this evening and see if I can get a copy of the proposal itself, I don't have time right now.

[Cephalopod]

The proposal states:


Sec. 8. Review.

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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

[Tsa`ah]

For all the uproar about being non-reviewable and at the complete and total discretion of the agency ... no one seems to be concerned that the administration also wants to include non-domestic lenders and entities (such as off shore tax shelters).

[Gan]

Bermuda connection?

[Drunken Durfin]

The proposal states:


Sec. 8. Review.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

Thanks Nachos.

[Ron Paul]

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.


The events of the past week are no exception.


The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.
"

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.


The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook.
The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.


• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.


• Then there's this: "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." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.


There goes your country.


Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.


Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.


Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.


The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.


In liberty,

Ron Paul

[TheEschaton]

LOL @ Mabus being a Marxist. I love how crb blindly made an ad hominem attack on a fellow conservative just because he did not toe the party line.

Now, again, my knowledge of economics is limited at best, but what's to prevent Paulson from doing whatever the hell he wants with this money, without significant restrictions like the wage caps for CEOs that many Congressthingummies want? The language of the bill seems to imply that no one can do anything.

Or Congress can repeal the act, after the money's all gone. I suppose crb's spot on with that one. :P

-TheE-

[Miss Ismurii]

I LOVE RON PAUL

[Stanley Burrell]

I don't love, but I do like turtles.

[Mabus]

LOL @ Mabus being a Marxist. I love how crb blindly made an ad hominem attack on a fellow conservative just because he did not toe the party line.
While I may support McCain in the current presidential election, I am not a GOP member. I do not vote (R) or (D) "just because".

This current proposal seems unconstitutional, and a grab for executive powers, to me.

How the hell we could let Paulson decide what to do with a trillion dollars (or more) when he completely dropped the ball on seeing this coming just turns my stomach.

I do not see a "fix" for this as a single path that includes only a giveaway of our tax dollars to businesses that made bad decisions. Without addressing the fact that the dollar is devalued, good jobs are scarce, business taxes are to high, infrastructure needs work and "free" trade is a joke we will be right back where we were after they bleed the coffers dry.

They will do it. They will give over $3,000 (at least) of every man, woman and child's money (our money, not "the government's money") to these greedy bastards, and there is not a thing we can do about it.

I am disgusted.

[Paradii]

I LOVE RON PAUL

Just out of curiosity, what do you agree with Ron Paul on, or do you just say you love the man because every Joe College rants about him in between bong rips?

[Paradii]

While I may support McCain in the current presidential election, I am not a GOP member. I do not vote (R) or (D) "just because".

This current proposal seems unconstitutional, and a grab for executive powers, to me.

How the hell we could let Paulson decide what to do with a trillion dollars (or more) when he completely dropped the ball on seeing this coming just turns my stomach.

I do not see a "fix" for this as a single path that includes only a giveaway of our tax dollars to businesses that made bad decisions. Without addressing the fact that the dollar is devalued, good jobs are scarce, business taxes are to high, infrastructure needs work and "free" trade is a joke we will be right back where we were after they bleed the coffers dry.

They will do it. They will give over $3,000 (at least) of every man, woman and child's money (our money, not "the government's money") to these greedy bastards, and there is not a thing we can do about it.

I am disgusted.

Did you see the clip from March with Paulson going on about the strength of the American economy and how well off the major lenders were?

This whole situation is ridiculous.

[Mabus]

Did you see the clip from March with Paulson going on about the strength of the American economy and how well off the major lenders were?

This whole situation is ridiculous.
Yes, I have seen it over the past week.

I can see McCain saying "the fundamentals are strong", because he is not an economist. He believed the figures we are fed were facts. I can see Obama being blindsided by this "crisis" because he is not an economist, and he had the same data as McCain.

This is similar to those that voted for the Iraq resolution. They believed what they were told, and the media pushed it on the citizens (which in turn pressured their representatives).

I cannot see someone like Paulson, with a lifetime of economics, looking at (what many of us laugh off as propaganda) these same figures and not seeing that some course corrections were needed. He had more "inside" information on what was going on then anyone other then (maybe) Bernanke, yet did nothing until we end up in this media-driven "crisis".

Now we are supposed to give Paulson unlimited authority to spend our money, so he can go about buying the high-risk gambling chits that some greedy bastards stacked.

[crb]

I don't think you get how quickly this all happened.

A bank run type of situation, by definition, develops in days. The way to put one off is to instill confidence, which isn't accomplished by running around like Chicken Little. Limiting panic is one of the goals.

And I also wouldn't say Paulson didn't see this coming. Bush has proposed reforms to Fannie & Freddie numerous times, congress just took too long imposing them. Now you don't think Bush consults his Treasury Secretary on fiscal policy decisions? Bush thought up it all by himself? Come on... Obviously Paulson knew this was a possibility, the failure of mortgages and Fannie & Freddie. What should he had done? Asked for 700 billion 1 year ago? Maybe... congress would have been okay with that considering we're now in the shit and they're waffling?

I watch and read a lot of financial news during the day, and one pretty common theme is that most people did not see what happened, happening. I'm talking the journalists, investors from Warren Buffet on down, every economist they interview. They didn't see what specifically happened (the run on money markets and freezing of interbank lending) to spark this bailout plan coming.



LOL @ Mabus being a Marxist. I love how crb blindly made an ad hominem attack on a fellow conservative just because he did not toe the party line.

I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian. So what party line do you speak of? And he was wearing a marxist hat because he was attacking corporations like faceless entities unto themselves the way marxists do (ignoring that a corporation is just a group of people, employees, and stockholders, including pension funds, retirement accounts, etc).

[Mabus]

I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian.
You sir, are no true Libertarian.

None of the Libertarians I know support this boondoggle. None.

I am not going to guess your reasons for supporting it, as that would rely on guesses that I would rather not make, but you do not support this measure because of Libertarian ideals.

[BigWorm]

You sir, are no true Libertarian.

None of the Libertarians I know support this boondoggle. None.

I am not going to guess your reasons for supporting it, as that would rely on guesses that I would rather not make, but you do not support this measure because of Libertarian ideals.

Agree x 1000

This is pretty much the opposite of a libertarian plan

[Sean of the Thread]

This shit makes me sick.

Where's the money for my bad car loan and defaulted student loans? Oh that's right it was my fault and I take responsibility for it.

These assholes are cruising around in 40 foot yachts drinking a heiny laughing their ass off right now because they're not being held accountable for any of it.


Complete bullshit.

[Paradii]

This shit makes me sick.

Where's the money for my bad car loan and defaulted student loans? Oh that's right it was my fault and I take responsibility for it.

These assholes are cruising around in 40 foot yachts drinking a heiny laughing their ass off right now because they're not being held accountable for any of it.


Complete bullshit.

This is the only time that I've seen 99% of the PC agree with something in the Political folder.

This is, indeed, total and utter bullshit

[TheEschaton]

And the 1% that doesn't agree is crb, so it's irrelevant. Go write another petition, douchebag.

[Sean of the Thread]

rofl you had to go there.

[Daniel]

I don't think you get how quickly this all happened.

A bank run type of situation, by definition, develops in days. The way to put one off is to instill confidence, which isn't accomplished by running around like Chicken Little. Limiting panic is one of the goals.

.


And yet...you and PB both laugh at representive Barney because he didn't think there was a problem them.

Irony.

[Mabus]

As I stated earlier in this thread, I wrote both my Senators about this proposal. Senator Voinovich has yet to respond.

Here is the response from Senator Sherrod Brown (D) - OH:


Thank you for expressing your concerns with the problems in the financial sector and proposals to address them.

A lot of Ohioans, including me, are angry at the thought of bailing out people who made a lot of money making bad business decisions that created problems in neighborhoods across Ohio. I agree that we need to avoid rewarding excessive risk taking. These institutions made unwise decisions, and taxpayers should not be expected to
simply cover their losses.

Treasury Secretary Paulson this weekend sent a proposal to Congress that would give him almost unfettered authority to spend $700 billion purchasing troubled assets from financial institutions. On Tuesday, my colleagues on the Banking Committee and I held a hearing at which Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and others testified.

They made a strong case for the need to act quickly to prevent further damage to our economy. The turmoil in the credit markets has the potential to do great damage to a lot of innocent bystanders. I am afraid that if we do not act, the economic instability could affect thousands of American jobs and the savings of countless middle class families.

But Secretary Paulson's proposal is not the right answer. No Secretary should be given a $700 billion blank check. Taxpayers must be given an opportunity to recover their money, and assurances their tax dollars will not fund lavish pay and golden parachutes. We need strong rules to guard against abuse, and to ensure all types of institutions and regions are helped.

In the days ahead, we need to focus on containing the damage to middle class families and local businesses as much as possible. In the months ahead, we need to take a hard look at how financial markets are regulated so we never find ourselves in this situation again.

Thank you again for contacting me. I will certainly keep your views in mind as the Senate debates ways to help restore strength to our economy.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown


Obviously, a form letter, but at least he responded. I figured to share it, and ask that you all email your Senators and Representatives expressing your thoughts on this matter.

Their websites can be found here:
Senate (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)
House of Representitives (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml)

[ElanthianSiren]

This is fucking stupid. Both McCain and Obama are all about it. Ugh.

Sort of reminds me of the patriot act repeat. Everyone got all fired up, but thankfully some people in congress actually READ this time.

[Apathy]

I am a Libertarian.

No.

[Mabus]

Sort of reminds me of the patriot act repeat.
It reminds me of that, and the run up to the Iraq War, as well. The way the media was (is) completely on board, and hardly questioned the initial proposal, turns my stomach.