Dear Rabbi,
I don't know much about economics but just on principle I don't think it's right to bail them out when they have failed.
I don't know much about the stock market either, but Sonny on General Hospital said "It's a crap shoot" and I believe him.

I know that if my bank doesn't have money , then I won't get a paycheck and hopefully the Pinkerton men will deliver cash around in vans. Oh well.

The thing is, I think the bail out money should go to the employees of the companys as severence pay for a year or so, the executives take nada. And then The Small Business Administration steps in to those communitys and helps start new businesses, banks, and training, with the bail out money. And maybe the payments due on the accounts receivables and sold mortgages can be regulated to suit the affodabilty of the customer.

Yours,

Hello Rabbi and Everyone,

Tower of Babel? Please, don't we have enough drama with this mess? Frankly, I have always, respected the "history" of the Bible and realize it has it's place in humanity's cultural/religious institutions but sometimes....imo, it is just a big old "downer" and since everyone is a bit uncertain as to their financial status right about now..another "downer" we do not need.

I think in a time like this it would be good to listen to someone one has a tad bit of knowledge in in the financial sector and who's word you have a bit of faith in and for me that would be Warren Buffet and he says,.....

"Billionaire Warren Buffett told congressional negotiators that if they can't agree on a proposed financial bailout, the nation will face "its biggest financial meltdown in American history," two sources familiar with the talks said.

Warren Buffett told congressional negotiators that failure to act could cause a financial meltdown, sources say.

Word of Buffett's omen came hours before Democrats posted a draft of the bailout bill online and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday afternoon she hoped the chamber would vote Monday.

have a great afternoon...ruth

News Accounts May Overstate Public Opposition to Bailout

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/news-accounts-may-overstate-public.html

"There is a very weird sort of prisoner's dilemna here. Namely, anyone who tries to frame the plan -- although framing the plan properly would probably make it more popular -- risks taking ownership of the plan, a plan which even if framed properly, probably remains unpopular enough to constitute a political liability. So no parties have an incentive to "spin" the plan as a positive, and as such, it continues to become more unpopular as the default narrative ("Wall Street bailout") is left unchallenged. The bailout, whether it ultimately passes or not, will likely be studied by game theorists for years to come, as there are conflicting and somewhat self-contradictory incentives (everyone wants the package to pass but nobody wants to vote for it) between no fewer than a half-dozen different parties."

Funny...(or not)

Bailout "Debate"

One bunch of guys is getting up and saying, "we hafta." Another bunch of guys is getting up and saying, "nuh-uh."

That will go on for three hours, ending at about 1 p.m. EDT, and then everybody will do what they were going to do last night, the "debate" notwithstanding.

But that's the way it is with every vote.

How convoluted will the battle lines be on this bill? They won't just cut across party lines, they'll cut across the internal moral and political compasses of each individual Member. Check this out:

Maxine Waters (D-CA):

"Bailout for Wall Street? I don't think so. I could care less about Wall Street and the high-priced schemers, their tricky products, hedge funds, short selling and insider trading. I care about Main Street. And Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. I'm voting yes on this bill."

Paul Ryan (R-WI):

"Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles. But I'm going to vote for this bill, in order to preserve my principles."

[...]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/29/11452/7359/37/614233

Paul Krugman supports the bill:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/bailout-questions-answered/

Bailout questions answered

"I’m being asked two big questions about this thing: (1) Was it really necessary? (2) Shouldn’t Dems have tossed the whole Paulson approach out the window and done something completely different?

On (1), the answer is yes. It’s true that some parts of the real economy are doing OK even in the face of financial disruption; big companies can still sell bonds (and have lots of cash on hand), qualifying home buyers can still get Fannie-Freddie mortgages, and so on. But commercial paper, which is important to a lot of businesses, is in trouble, and I’m hearing anecdotes about reduced credit lines causing smaller businesses to pull back. Plus there’s a serious chance of a run on the hedge funds, which could make things a lot worse. With the economy already looking like it’s headed into a serious recession by any definition, the risks of doing nothing look too high.

It’s true that we might be able to stagger through with more case-by-case rescues — I think of this as the “two, three, many AIGs” strategy; in fact, we might not be at this point if Paulson hadn’t decided to make an example of Lehman. But right now it’s not even clear who to rescue, and the credit markets are freezing up as you read this (1-month t-bill at 0.04 %, TED spread at 3.5)

On (2), the call is tougher. But putting myself in Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi’s shoes, I’d look at it this way: the Democrats could start over, with a bailout plan that is, say, centered on purchases of preferred stock and takeovers of failing firms — basically, a plan clearly focused on recapitalizing the financial sector, with nationalization where necessary. That’s what the plan should have looked like.

Maybe such a plan would have passed Congress; and maybe, just maybe Bush would have signed on; Paulson is certainly desperate for a deal.

But such a plan would have had next to no Republican votes — and the Republicans would have demagogued against it full tilt. And the Democratic leadership cannot, cannot, be seen to have sole ownership of this stuff.

So that, I think, is why it had to be done this way. I don’t like it, and I don’t like the plan, but I see the constraints under which Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, and Reid were operating."

No bailout!

hallelujah!

Shouldn’t more of us think like this?

Isn’t this rescue plan about the real world vs. the one we can borrow as much as we want, without ever having to pay anything back? The real world vs. the one we can expand our fortunes forever and never have to worry about the 53 trillion dollars the US has borrowed?

Unfortunately, for many, the bad times are either here or just around the corner. Whether it is better to take a big hit now or have a bailout that lets the bad times trickle down from the top, is debatable.

The people at the very bottom always suffer and won’t be much affected either way, but maybe some of those swindlers on top will feel, just a little bit, how it hurts to be poor.

Some bailout may eventually happen, but it shouldn’t. We are due for new way of doing things. Why not start now?

No bailout and Obama at the helm may give us a new start.

Dear Rabbi Lerner,

Your suggestions on an alternative approach to handling the current Financial Crisis are very insightful.

More than 190 U.S.top economic experts have agreed that the suggested Bailout Plan would be disastrous. They have slammed the bailout on the grounds of fairness, ambiguity, and long term effects. It would be conscionable for the government representatives to consult with these people before rushing to a "quick fix" for appearances only.

Andre Eggelletion is an expert on the U.S. Federal Reserve System and has published a book about it. He is well known in talk radio and is well versed on a wide pallet of political, economic, and social issues from a global perspective. He has stated that "the $700 billion federal bailout plan is nothing short of Marxism for the plutocracy. It's the biggest grab for power since the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913".

Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, said "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike. We have been given no credible assurances that thhis plan will work. We could very well spend $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis".

Senator Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky has said, "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it's un-American".

Federal Reserve Governor Richard Fisher says, "The bank rescue plan would worsen the fiscal chasm." He has told Secretary of the Treasury Paulson to go to hell with his plan.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

When something gets too big and bloated it collapses under it's own weight.
The scavengers show up to pick at the bones
The rules adjust and life goes on
money
the abstract creation of man
the cancer that breeds war
where do i put my trust
not in a bank
not in a god
certainly not in the politicians

i put my trust in me
a finite existence
fleeting and free
like a vapor
i am gone

the rules of man
meaningless to a god
the rules of a god
never voted upon
a dictator
a vapor
and then it is gone

oh god save me from this
crazy money mess
i can become a gardener
at a monastery
i guess

derek

Dear Derek,
I'm ready.

Hey Sherry
Can I suggest a book to you?

Ishmael
by Daniel Quinn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

brilliant and shocking but gentle

derek

Dear Rabbi,

I agree with a lot of what you said. Interesting how they attempted to rush everything preventing proper questions from being asked. I wish I could have been there to ask the questions to destroy the fictions.

If you haven't you might check out http://coinage.me which articulates not only the flaws, but the solution requirements for a new balanced and equitable system.

You might even email the link to your friends it destroys many of the fictions some are trying to protect.

The one you might like is called "The Money Changers 2000 years ago and today"

Click my name.

Governments do not go into debt the citizens do. What is odd is that the money they borrow is then loaned back to them with even more interest. Something doesn't seem right here how can money that is already owned by the debtors be loaned back to them? Who are these people in the middle taking a cut?

In connection with my ideas for a recovery I also think the credit card interest rates, given out by banks, are usary, which is illegal. But who cares, what the banks want the banks get. The rates should be lowered drastically so commerce can carry on.

Dear Derek,
I am wary of suggestions from people on IB since Keith suggested a book called Six Jesus to me a while back. So I seached for it and wasted about three minutes of my time that could have been spent sitting on the toilet reading The Adirondack Journal. Know what a' mean?

Everything that God does is most perfect.

#9
"i can become a gardener
at a monastery
i guess"

Yo Derek,
I was! Don't let that put you off ;)

Brother ed.

Dear Sherry,
Gregg Braden seems to have tracked down 'voodoo' inasmuch as I've tracked down just what you mean by it.

Where did you say you kept that poster?

Dear Ed, Don't you dare.
I googled Greg and saw his picture. Is he married? I have a daughter. (He has to be 6' tho.)

Dear Derek,
I looked for the book. But I think I'm reading it already. That's my voodoo.

PS: Dear Derek,
But tell me the ending. How do you get the gorilla off your back?

The best analysis of what to look forward to:

Hunter: Now We Need Leadership

Now that the first vote on the Paulson plan has failed, and barring alien invasion or other game-changer of planetary scope, it seems one of the following things will happen. We'll assume from the outset that neither Bush nor the Republican leadership has control of their own caucus, and it seems a demonstrable fact that McCain does not. That leaves:

1. A Paulson Plan, But Miniaturized. It may be that a lot more people will sign off on a $200 billion dollar bailout than would sign onto a $700 billion dollar one. I'm not convinced that would actually work, however, and I'm presuming Paulson has been saying that too. The whole premise of the Paulson Plan is to ride in with so much freakin' money that you can stabilize the entire mortgage-related marketplace: shock and awe for the financial sector. If you have much less money, it doesn't follow that you'd stabilize squat. It might just create an initial rush, benefiting few, followed by the same systemic collapse when the initial money ran out.

I'm not one who's been fond of the Paulson plan, and it's not because I don't understand or respect the (rather audacious) logic behind it: I just suspect it to be so obviously prone to corruption and corporate abuse as to be unworkable. There are some fixes that could be made, but likely the "easiest" shift would be for the House to simply cut the plan by two-thirds and declare their task done, saying they're revisit it later. It'd be dumb and insincere and quite possibly futile or even harmful in practice, and absolutely none of those things would stop it from being considered.

2. Paulson Plan With Conservative Shift. The House can attempt to pass the bill by loading it up with things that the conservatives want, hoping to persuade them. This seems unlikely to work: if the Republicans really are against any bailout based on their (cough) conservative principles, that would seem a non-starter. And any substantive concession to them seems impossible, or at least deeply stupid: proposals like "suspend the capital gains tax" paint the conservatives as more interested in privateering for the rich than actually helping solve the situation. We're not seeing class riots yet, but if the primary result of this Wall Street meltdown was that Wall Street got out of paying their taxes, I think the pitchfork and torch industries would see a banner Christmas.

So that seems a blind alley. The hardcore conservatives can't bring themselves to vote for anything that smacks of "socialism", which pretty much would kill any possible useful approach. And their own proposals are asinine money grabs that would do nothing to solve the problem -- the Democrats would deserve whatever scorn the public dished out on them, if they went along with anything even approaching their "solutions."

3. Paulson Plan With Leftward Shift. The House can attempt to pass the Paulson bailout plan by "owning" it, including strong measures to help homeowners and the general public, and telling the Republicans to get bent. (You know, like many of us were urging them to do, to little substantive effect.) That'll lose them most Republican support, but the premise would be that it would gain them more Democrats. The House could fundamentally alter the rules of the bailout in order to much more forcefully demand taxpayers be treated as investors in the companies benefiting from the plan: something akin to the 1992 Swedish plan.

This would have the benefit of, you know, actually working. Or at least being more likely to, since it is a more tested solution, and would by design discourage abuse of the program. Including at least some economic stimulus would help boost the economy such that, in theory, less intervention would be needed. Getting rid of "help" for financially sound companies would make things more palatable. Instituting a minor market transaction tax seems an absolute no-brainer, and should have been done long before now. Executive compensation caps? Meh. Compared to other far more vital structural requirements, it pales in immediate importance. The bailout plan that failed was weak-kneed in the compromise areas, and even then didn't get GOP support, which means the GOP support was never gettable in the first place.

As far as actually demanding taxpayer equity in the afflicted companies, yes: some Republicans would indeed scream "nationalization," primarily because they are dunderheads. But if your financial sector manages to collapse into a black hole of incompetence, book-cooking or generally irrational behavior, and furthermore manages to foul things up so badly that it is threatening to take the entire world economy with it, a short-term nationalization or whatever-you-want-to-call-it of collapsed companies hardly seems a surprising or outrageous intervention. It's happened before, it'll happen again. The CEO's in question should instead thank heavens that this is the new millennium, and modern governments have no plan to place their severed heads on pikes as a warning to others. Viva progress!

The common assumption, however, is that Bush would veto any plan that either provided substantial economic stimulus or taxpayer equity. Quite possibly -- though that'd be one hell of a gutsy veto, with the entire economy on the line. Certainly, if he vetoed it the Republicans would make sure the veto stuck, depression or no depression.

4) A New Damn Plan. The Congress can abandon the Paulson bailout plan entirely, and craft something different -- radically different. A bottom-up economic stimulus plan coupled with some short-term liquidity boosts; a radical plan for failing financial companies; buying every American a puppy. Who knows.

What's frustrating about this entire process is that it has been absolutely devoid of leadership. Bush is nothing but a paper doll standing in the background; nobody honestly expects he even understands the problem, much less has any confidence that he can rustle support for a workable plan. He has zero credibility left, even with his own party. Likewise, McCain has been, shall we say, unhelpful -- jumping to and from positions like an over-caffeinated child who's gotten into the coffee-flavored ice cream. He's shown no leadership, only campaign bluster. The Republican leadership itself is clearly not in control of their own caucus -- ironic indeed, given how often they have held their caucus in complete lockstep for years for even the most trivial and ridiculous of votes, only to have it fall apart now, when the economy of the nation is on the line.

And Democrats? Well, the Democrats haven't displayed anything resembling leadership either. They accepted the Paulson plan at face value, content to use it as the base upon which they could attach minor changes. There has been no substantive discussion of other possible plans. There has been no attempt to come up with a "Democratic" solution. No economists have been queried in order to find out what an alternate plan might even look like.

That is a failure of leadership -- and in a financial crisis, no less. Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats -- in all of Washington, there seems not one damn group worthy of confidence. Paulson deserves some credit for even coming up with a plan for people to shoot arrows into, given that it's a hell of a lot more than anyone else in power has done.

This is the same failure to lead that has marked this entire Congress. Time and time again, the Democrats have been content to let their opponents set the agenda, and have been reduced to constantly reacting to developments instead of controlling them. It is a dysfunction that seems in no hurry to self-correct; heaven help us, dealing with a financial crisis at a time when there seems nobody in the entire government up to the task.

This leads, alarmingly, to the fifth possibility for what's next:

5) We Do Nothing. This seems the most likely of all the scenarios, and would be the most damaging one. As in, very, very bad. The financial sector does need an intervention: the only question is how it should be done. Given that a large segment of the Republican congress has absolutely no interest in such an intervention, it falls to everyone else to come up with one -- and it's not clear that, given the divisions, anything has the votes to pass.

That's the key difficulty, here. I do not consider this first failure of the Paulson plan to be cause for alarm -- far from it, it was a crappy bill, even with the "compromises" installed -- but the dynamics surrounding the defeat may very well be alarming, because our capability for doing anything substantive has now run headlong into the functional and ideological divide that has paralyzed the Bush economy since Bush first seized control of it.

Let's take the Republicans at their word, and presume they're not going to vote for any "bailout", nor any "nationalization", or "socialism", or anything else that would inject government into the crisis in a significant way. Well, that's a problem, because without government intervention we're all but assured the crisis is going to get much, much worse. Their ideas? Tax cuts. More tax cuts. That's pretty much all they're interested in.

The Democrats can attempt something without them, but a plan of their own making may very well run into the immobile object that is the Bush administration -- an ideological hole so deep that nothing the slightest bit functional or non-reactionary can escape from it.

And Bush himself? Good God. I can't imagine a worse time for The Worst President In History to be in office. You can practically hear the markets collapsing every time he speaks, at this point.

The precipitous drop of the markets, in the wake of the unexpected failure of this first vote, will certainly light a fire under all parties. What's not clear, though, is that there's any middle ground that can be reached, if the Republicans really are that determined to foil any government intervention.

In short, every truly useful option seems impossible, and every expected source of leadership has come up painfully dry. We may be completely screwed -- at least until January. And that is much, much too long.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/30/2562/85965/17/615262

Listen to a knowledgeable RenaRF Speak Very Slowly:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/29/143536/436/784/614495

Quote: ... I don't think this bill is a 'solution'. I think it is more akin to emergency surgery necessary to keep the patient alive before taking a holistic approach to healing the body.

Sherry
There is no end.
As for the gorilla, you eat him just before the crash.

Ed
Did you learn anything interesting during your stay? Does one have to believe the way the monks do in order to tend to their garden?
If you were not a gentleman going in, you surely are a gentleman now.
When I grow up this is my goal, to become a silent gardener.

Thank you Ed and may peace continue to be with you

derek

Here's a GREAT solution:

Devilstower: Seize the Day

Republicans egged on this economic crisis and applied every lever of the Shock Doctrine in an effort to turn it to their advantage. They created it, they stoked it, they owned it, and they desperately tried to make it work for them, but this time the flames of fear got out of their control. Unable to suss out their next move, and facing an electorate that sees them as worse than useless, House Republicans scattered in all directions. Yesterday, in a self-confessed fit of snit, they walked away from the table because that mean lady hurt their feelings.

Democrats, well aware that they were being stampeded toward a solution their constituents hated, went into the deal with eyes peeled and teeth bared. They were unwilling to walk this thing across Capitol Hill without a decent amount of cover in the way of Republican votes in the House. Which was good, because the bill that came up for a vote yesterday was little more than the all or nothing proposal that Bush and Paulson had presented with 107 pages of obfuscation. It really shouldn't have been passed with Democratic votes alone. In fact, it shouldn't have been passed.

The temptation now is going to be to coddle the poor right. Give them some minor tweak in the bill to salve their fragile egos and gain the dozen votes that are needed to pass yesterday's bill.

Don't. Don't do it, damn it.

Things have changed since yesterday. The wind is blowing from the other direction now, and if you give the Republicans one thing -- if you even give them another chance at yesterday's bill -- it'll be the biggest mistake the Democratic Party has made since it signed on to George Bush's endless war. Not only that, you'll have passed over the best opportunity in this whole sorry mess.

Instead, take the bill in hand and mark up big changes.

* Add the ability for bankruptcy judges to review and adjust first mortgages so that ordinary Americans stand a better chance of staying in their homes.

* Put some real teeth in the caps on pay and bonuses so that Americans don't see this money as patching in the holes on executive's golden parachutes.

* Make the continuation of payments on this plan require an affirmative vote of Congress after each review, rather than having them continue by default, so we only pay if the plan proves to be effective and continues to be needed.

* Place realistic limits on the power this bill affords the Treasury Secretary, providing for both review and revision.

Will any of this gain a GOP vote? No. It'll probably lose most, if not all of the Republicans. To borrow a phrase from Daily Kos history: Screw Them.

Don't just pass the bill, own it. Pass it on a party line vote if that's what it takes to get it across the Hill and on the desks of the Senate. Let the Republicans chose whether they'll filibuster or veto.

And Nancy, if you want to fire off a few salvos at the GOP while you're doing this, please feel free. They're so cute when they sniffle.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/30/94331/0933/896/615400

#21
Dear Derek,
I thought they would all be clones. As I got to know them, I stood back amazed at the human diversity and, too, the antipathies! I realised that our 'monastery' is not to be contained, that we are all the same and that their paradigm was bust and that I was the unwitting messenger and awakener to that.
The particular Order in UK, is depleting rapidly, dying, but in spite of my open aversion to their RC rituals I was and am still, in retirement, treated as brother. Conventional gardeners have a reputation for being a law unto themselves over here. I got away with that and was given a free hand in so many ways over my 36 years, for which I am eternally grateful. Funnily enough, it was at a spiritualist meeting that I was 'given' this niche for my development, that I would move to a more peaceful place of solitude in my work, where my thoughts could be clarified. (Before that Tower of Babel fell, Rabbi)

Hey Ed
In these monasteries that are becoming empty, is it possible to quietly slip in and only tend to the plants? Would a silent gardener be left in silence? Human drama plays everywhere, this I know. Around and around this drama goes but a quiet heart in a quite place, for a time.....................I may be serious brother Ed.
I have a small boat and if I were to come ashore, how would I find an old untended garden in need of some care? Some old stone walls that need to share their story.

Before Babel, before the Sphinx, before Stonehenge. Back to the first person with a stick in the ground who notice how often the shadow changes.............back to when the first person looked at them self in the still water and was not frightened.

700 billion imaginary dollars and our world is at a stand still. What will those crazy Americans do?

Yo

Maybe the Isle of Skye

derek

Yo, Derek,
peas come from peas. Old Bro. Mendel was fascinated with peas, and now we are messing with the God Code. I always thought the human race was cracked! Now we see they are cracking up and you to the Isle of Skye. ( I'll leave that toothpick as a pointer)

Hush, my friend, we could end up telepathic!

derek & Ed,
heres to rowboats
and gardening
in monasteries!
I love you both,
~ Kate

a needle in a haystack
a toothpick on a distant shore
stands out like a beacon
a light house to my oar
i drift in silent circles
with no thoughts to be read
a billion creators above me
that fill my empty head

Hey Ed
I can hardly have a normal day any more.
When I google God code it just pops right up.
Amazing times we live in mate. A quiet garden for these shifty times, a right reward for waiting and screaming for so long, I can hardly remember.

if i reach out my hand
and splash in the sea
the next wave that you touch
was made by me

telepathy or wishful thinking

and yes peas do come from peas

Hi Kate
I send you much love and peace and a couple of peas from Ed

derek

"New Bottom Line: that every institution should be judged efficient, rational and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring for others, generosity and kindness, ethical and ecological sensitivity, and awe and wonder at the grandeur of the universe." ~ Rabbi

AMEN!

And I hope that the Rabbi sent this to Obama, as well as the anyone else that can help, as the resolution was excellent and appears to be achievable with a little work.

Cheers!
Char

BTW: I don't know how my earlier post #14 got on this tread, as I just read it, and #14 was meant for DKs post a few days ago .... but I guess it could apply here too, since it's all about the same thing.

Aloha Everyone

http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/ if you would like to sign a no bailout petition.. copy and paste or click my name. love patty

Just say "No Bailout" petition http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/

love patty

What? When the banks take over the foreclosures of private homes so that they can make money from them, we are supposed to bailout the banks who are in foreclosure? What is this? The banks gobble up the homes while they themselves go under so that they can get bailed out by the government who is already so in debt that it cannot even bail itself out? Is this crazy?