$700 Billion Bailout

[Balta1701]

that the big surge in government stimulus was between 1933-1936, after which, the President started listening to the Republicans and tried to balance out the federal budget.

 

 

All 25 Repubs in the Senate in 1935-1937 or the 17 in the Senate from 1937-1939? Or maybe its the 103 Repubs in the House in 1935-1937 and the 89 in the House from 1937-1939. As Opposed to the 69 DEM Senators in 1935-1937 and 75 DEM Senators in 1937-1939. Or maybe its the 322 DEM reps in the house in 1935-1937 and the 333 DEM REPS in the HOUSE in 1937-1939.

 

Who ever knew? Roosevelt was such a good listener, he was persuaded by two of the largest minorites in the history of Congress to balance the budget. Nice try. I'll sell that excuse though.

 

Kind of the same excuse I would expect to follow for the Messiah.

 

Please note; the large gap between federal spending and tax receipts through the end of 1936, and the rapid drop in government spending combined wiht increase in tax receipts after the 1936 election. Please also note the balanced budget that appears on there just before the 2nd contraction of the Depression era.

 

The fact that you don't like data doesn't make it not exist.

[Balta1701]

AIG will pay $450 million out in taxpayer money in the form of bonuses to the 400 or so employees in their Financial Products business. Their Financial Products sector, of course, was the one selling off Credit Default Swaps. The bonus money therefore is a reward for totally destroying the company.

 

Gotta retain top talent I guess. Because there's so many other Wall Street Firms just jumping at hiring these guys.

[Cknolls]

 

Please note; the large gap between federal spending and tax receipts through the end of 1936, and the rapid drop in government spending combined wiht increase in tax receipts after the 1936 election. Please also note the balanced budget that appears on there just before the 2nd contraction of the Depression era.

 

The fact that you don't like data doesn't make it not exist.

 

I don't believe I said a word about your data. I took issue with you trying to blame the Repubs, who numbered a few, as opposed to the Dems who had a super majority.

[Balta1701]

it's not fully online unless you have a WSJ subscription, but there's a fascinating summary of Bernake's dealings with Merril Lynch and BofA last fall in there today. Here's a summary.

Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chief Ben Bernanke reportedly warned B of A CEO Ken Lewis that if his firm pulled out, Merrill would collapse. They added that such a move, in the Journal's words "could undercut confidence in Bank of America, both in the markets and among government officials."

 

But that was just the start. Two days later, on a conference call, Bernanke told B of A that if it abandoned the Merrill deal, and came back to the Feds in the future seeking more bailout money, the government would consider removing the firm's executives and directors.

 

The threats, of course, seem to have worked, since Bank of America went ahead with the deal -- getting an additional $20 billion in bailout money to help digest Merrill.

[kapkomet]

it's not fully online unless you have a WSJ subscription, but there's a fascinating summary of Bernake's dealings with Merril Lynch and BofA last fall in there today. Here's a summary.

I just read that whole article. Pretty interesting.

 

[Texsox]

I've lost track, how much have we already committed and how much more is being proposed?

[Balta1701]

President Barack Obama’s struggle to push an economic stimulus bill through Congress may seem easy compared to what he’ll encounter when he returns to Capitol Hill for additional funds to rescue the banking system.

 

Obama will likely need to ask Congress for more money to recapitalize banks, as much as $1 trillion on top of the roughly $300 billion remaining in the current Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to an estimate by former Federal Reserve economist Ward McCarthy. That will be an even tougher sell for the new president than the stimulus plan, which is headed for a Senate vote this week after passing the House with no Republican support.

Only one guy's opinion, but probably not far from reality.

[Balta1701]

Sweet!

Details of the new plan, which were still being worked out during the weekend, are sketchy. And they are likely to remain so even after Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner announces the plan on Tuesday.

[mr_genius]

I've lost track, how much have we already committed and how much more is being proposed?

 

only 9 trillion

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=was...id=aGq2B3XeGKok

 

The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

 

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

 

[Balta1701]

The Bad Bank bad idea seems to be going out the window.

The Obama administration’s wide-ranging plan to stabilize the financial system no longer includes creating a "bad bank" but will still contain measures to buy up toxic assets from financial institutions, according to a source familiar with the plan.

 

In addition, funding for the bank-rescue plan is unlikely to exceed the $350 billion currently available under the TARP, this source said.

 

“They have to have enough to calm the markets, but there might not be as many details as previously thought,” he said.

 

A Treasury Department source said the plan was essentially complete with only minor “tweaks” being applied. The plan will be presented to members of Congress this evening, according to sources.

 

The package will be unveiled Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at 11 am EST.

I really wonder which came first...the plan, or the deadline for the plan to be unveiled.

[Balta1701]

Geithner's guess.

I'm still not certain that they actually have any clue what is going on. I think the markets are down pretty heavily on this plan because he didn't propose more government money yet.

 

Anyway, just to point this part out...Wall Street continues to prevail in getting what it wants, because they haven't been wrong about anything yet.

Some of President Obama’s advisers had advocated tighter restrictions on aid recipients, arguing that rising joblessness, populist outrage over Wall Street bonuses and expensive perks, and the poor management of last year’s bailouts could feed a potent political reaction if the administration did not demand enough sacrifices from the companies that receive federal money.

 

They also worry that any reaction could make it difficult to win Congressional approval for more bank rescue money, which the administration could need in coming months.

 

In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

 

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Axelrod did not deny that there were differences of opinion as the policy was being crafted or that he had taken a harder line on issues such as executive pay restrictions, as other participants to the discussions recalled. But he said he was ultimately satisfied with the final product put forward by Mr. Geithner.

[southsider2k5]

Geithner's guess.

I'm still not certain that they actually have any clue what is going on. I think the markets are down pretty heavily on this plan because he didn't propose more government money yet.

 

Anyway, just to point this part out...Wall Street continues to prevail in getting what it wants, because they haven't been wrong about anything yet.

 

No one knows what this is going to look like 6 weeks from now, let alone 6 months from now.

[Balta1701]

No one knows what this is going to look like 6 weeks from now, let alone 6 months from now.

I have a very good idea what it's going to look like 6 weeks, 6 months, and probably 6 years from now.

 

"Bad."

[Balta1701]

From now on, all discussion of Geithner's bailout plan is required to refer to the package as the "Bad Assets Relief Fund."