25 harshest reactions to the bailout

[undergroundpanther]

"What the proposal actually did...was explicitly rule out any oversight, plus grant immunity from future review... f Paulson can't be honest about what he himself sent to Congress... there is no reason to trust him on anything related to his bailout plan."

— Paul Krugman


"I'm not going to fire you; you can still be called Congress. But you don't have any power."

— Jon Macey, Yale Law School professor and deputy dean, providing an allegory for Secretary Paulson's proposal



http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2008/09/24/25-harshest-reactions-to-the-wall-street-bailout/


My harsh reaction?

FUCK NO! Fuck all you wall street compulsive gambling snakes in suits,Fuck off and die all you greedy ass slime balls,YOU get OUT of here take your groveling manipulating ass away,go bail out yourselves, because there isn't a ethical skin flake on ANY of you,all you are is fucking loser white collar criminals.Fuck you and the market scam you made ,and all the debunked corrupt ideologies you come in here spewing as if you make any sense because you just wanna screw the poor the middle class don'tcha and blow that money on yourselves.Buy your own damn shit you made and SHUT the FUCK UP.

[stillcool]

1. Paul Krugman yesterday...

September 26, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Where Are the Grown-Ups?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
------
Well, the bipartisan “agreement on principles” released on Thursday looks a lot better than the original Paulson plan. In fact, it puts Mr. Paulson himself under much-needed adult supervision, calling for an oversight board “with cease and desist authority.” It also limits Mr. Paulson’s allowance: he only (only!) gets to use $250 billion right away.

Meanwhile, the agreement calls for limits on executive pay at firms that get federal money. Most important, it “requires that any transaction include equity sharing.”

Why is that so important? The fundamental problem with our financial system is that the fallout from the housing bust has left financial institutions with too little capital. When he finally deigned to offer an explanation of his plan, Mr. Paulson argued that he could solve this problem through “price discovery” — that once taxpayer funds had created a market for mortgage-related toxic waste, everyone would realize that the toxic waste is actually worth much more than it currently sells for, solving the capital problem. Never say never, I guess — but you don’t want to bet $700 billion on wishful thinking.

The odds are, instead, that the U.S. government will end up having to do what governments always do in financial crises: use taxpayers’ money to pump capital into the financial system. Under the original Paulson plan, the Treasury would probably have done this by buying toxic waste for much more than it was worth — and gotten nothing in return. What taxpayers should get is what people who provide capital are entitled to: a share in ownership. And that’s what the equity sharing is about.

The Congressional plan, then, looks a lot better — a lot more adult — than the Paulson plan did. That said, it’s very short on detail, and the details are crucial. What prices will taxpayers pay to take over some of that toxic waste? How much equity will they get in return? Those numbers will make all the difference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26krugman.html?pagewanted=print