Stimulus Battle May Signal Tough Sell for Bank Rescue

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: Bloomberg.com

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- 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.

“It will take an enormous effort to build broader public support” for another bank rescue plan, said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Had the stimulus gone through swimmingly it would have made it easier.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOIOHVbliZdQ&refer=home

---

The way I feel after the pukes told the states to go fuck themselves, is let the banks go fuck themselves also.

If capitalism is so great, then let the 'free market' work, and stop depending on lower and middle class taxpayers to bail you out.

[OhioChick]

1. I agree with your comment 100%. n/t

[jwirr]

2. I hear what you are saying but I wish that someone would put something

together to tell us what the effect for the middle and lower class people would be of such a failure of the banks. Much of their money is in those banks. What would happen if we followed through on your suggestion?

[Still Sensible]

3. Therein lies the rub

It may sound just peachy to fuck those fuckers... but we all know on whose backs the weight of that fucking will be borne... And it won't be the bankers.

[D-Lee]

5. Agreed -- might be why further bailout plan for banks is delayed

We need to see what it is -- and isn't.

The first plan, with those contracts negotiated poorly by the Bush Administration, didn't work out too well. We know the contracts waived some of the protections Congress thought should be pursued, such as limiting outsourcing to foreign countries.

Just not sure what this second plan is going to be ...

[quakerboy]

8. I would think

FDIC would be covering that. Not that the middle class will have enough savings to worry about if this goes on a couple more months/years.

[Vincardog]

9. The middle and lower class people's money would be returned to them. IT is insured by the US gov

[Still Sensible]

4. Well you know the republicans want to rescue the banks

so, on its face there is more room for bipartisanship than on the stimulus. And the bankers will be all over their GOP friends to get something for them. The points of contention will be over the strings that get attached.

On our side, the number one priority has to be incorporating a solution to the mortgage crisis and shutting down the runaway foreclosures. That cannot be negotiable IMO.

[babylonsister]

6. Should be very interesting to hear what Geithner has to say about

this on Tuesday. Will he throw a curve ball?

[customerserviceguy]

7. Some banks just need to fail

thank goodness for credit unions for the rest of us. They usually make fewer big stupid decisions.

[Baby Snooks]

10. It's a scam...

"The events are financed by bank profits, and not from the government, he said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8C...

That is John Stumpf. The CEO of Wells Fargo. Defending the honoring of "top employees."

If the banks are making a profit, why are we giving them billions of dollars to keep them from collapsing?

All eyes turn to Congress. And to the White House.

[MasonJar]

11. What Bush/Paulsen did was criminal, giving away taxpayer money

with NO standards. That money went to corporate junkets, bonuses and etc. with zero oversight just like the two planned. It will be hard to get the other 1/2; I seriously doubt there will be any more after that. Where would it come from?

[disndat]

12. This should lead to the nationalization

of the banks, not just give them a $$trillion dollar blank check, no?.

[rpannier]

13. Do what they did with the S&L's

Take them over
Re-organize them
And then sell whatever is profitable

[Jersey Ginny]

14. Assuming all of these bailouts pass, isn't this a recipe for inflation?

Where the heck are we getting the money for this if we are lowering taxes? Are we printing it? If so, isn't this a short term solution which will have long term ramifications with enormous future Inflation?

[kiranon]

15. Republicans will want money for banks so use this as leverage to

return funding to education, special education and transit and help for states that was cut from stimulus bill. If not, then perhaps it is time to test the free market concept vis a vis the banks. Or, nationalize the banks. The French finance minister let poorly run banks fail and nationalized the one that looked like it could make it.

[earcandle]

16. I feel the same way. Lets have our own bank! A Federal National bank!

And we should roll back to earning savings at higher rates than loan rates. Why? Because banks make money on the use of our money, so the more we make available the more they can use to generate markets. They earn 10% interest over a period of time (months, years) and then get all of their money back. No loss, all gain.

They use our money to provide cash for City, State, Federal and Corporate Bonds used to buy inventory, build buildings, and land, and new assets, or pay debt, or provide services. The variety of monetary products and services include, but are not limited to making investments, selling stock certificates, processing the paperwork for public sale of stock. When banks sell bonds, and stock and loans, they make money and they earn interest. They do not need our money.

The credit card items we buy are dirt cheap, and brought on the backs of third world workers, and some companies may be selling items at 500% to 1000% markup(guesstimate), and we pay for that item many times over in interest.

We are suckas.

Lets not be stupid. Talk to people, help them to understand that our willingness to leave our homes to give our labor comes at a cost and the civilized way to trade is for compensation at a decent wage. We are crumbling because we sold ourselves out by (the younger set did this unknowingly, and sometimes encouraged to do it viciously) taking more hours and reducing our wages. Then we split the work such that 40 hours was considered part time and no labor laws. That is unconscious or plain stupid.

We got to find a way, FAST, to get our economy going. I have an Accounting Made Simple Learning tool on my noodlebrain site if you don't understand or have a clue about accounting, so you can manage your own and see your position and how to navigate. I have also a ratio analysis set up for a variety of barometers, but I don't have a link to it yet.

But ya know, you all can do it way better than I. You are networked and are experts at a lot of things or have specialties. I think the greatest obstacle on the left is the right to have an opinion and be right about it. With that attitude, no one can agree on a path. This is why I love math.

Giving up being right to find real solutions together is okay with me. Maybe we can help Obama out.

Let's create our own economy and networking system so that we all have value and and have what we need and want in future.

We got to start somewhere.

I blather.