As a progressive, a liberal, and a democrat, I cannot support Geithner's plan

[AllentownJake]

I order these in importance to me from least to most with 1 being the least important and 5 being the most important.


1) What do the democrats get out of this plan? As part of getting this plan has a deal been struck with the other side to support it? As a party are we taking all the risk? We all know a few calls from these banks to their republican friends could provide enough cross party support to make this plan widely supported.

2) So what are we going to do about the rest of the economy. Throwing a trillion dollars into the banks? What does this do for Detroit and other businesses that actually make things instead of manufacture paper and computer entries.

3) What concessions have we gotten concerning other issues. Are these banks going to suddenly be more friendly or at the least be less vocal about their oppositions to unions and other progressive causes? Do we get the EFCA out of the deal and less opposition to regulation? Or are they going to use their coffers to finance campaigns against the very things we hold most dear. Our we essentially financing our opposition. We got no concessions on executive pay out of this or anything else I can see. It just looks like a giant gift to the enemies of the causes I believe in.

4) What kind of precedent does this send to the people that orchestrated this mess? Seriously they have just essentially robbed the American people and the institutions they were entrusted and not only are the going to get away with it, in a lot of ways they are going to be rewarded for that behavior. Rewarding bad behavior is not good for society.

5) We only get one shot at this. If this fails, we don't have the resources to get a do over. If this succeeds in the short term but only allows the bad guys to do the same thing again 2-3 years later what have we really gained? I didn't vote and volunteer to have a Bill Clinton. I voted and volunteered for an FDR. I want reform not a temporary uptick in the economy till the bad guys find a new way to rob us blind again.

[Deja Q]

1. These are the folks who idolize people who say "We are not a society, we are

individual men, individual women, and individual families."

The irony is, they claim we're not a society, yet have no qualms taking money society puts in for itself.

[AllentownJake]

9. Yep

They force unions to renegotiate contracts to cut costs than talk about the sanctity of a contract when their asked not to take a bonus after a bailout

[Uzybone]

2. 1 and 5 are rubbish. 2 - 4 are dubious at best.

1. So what if we take all the risk? We get all the reward too.

2. I guess Obama said the job is done once this plan was released. Why assume that nothing else will be done for the economy?

3. If the plan works, we wont need concessions from the banks politically. This admin will be almost untouchable.

4. I sort of agree, but you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

5. Nonsense. Even FDR tried many many things before he got it right. This talk of we only get one chance is crap.

[Jennicut]

4. FDR tried a million things actually. This notion that somehow we

cannot be allowed to experiment and time is running out is such a stupid thing to believe. If Obama stays popular by appearing to be sincere about getting us out of this mess he will have the political capital to try as many different things as we can. Funny how in the Depression people were less willing to simply believe in failure and oh no we might as well give up. We did not give up no matter what then. My Grandmother talked to me about this-people listened to FDR and he instilled confidence in them even if all his plans were not perfect or worked out.

[AllentownJake]

6. Time is not running out MONEY IS

What do you think we can just keep printing dollars before the currency starts to be devalued in some way?

How long do you think the rest of the world is going to tolerate us printing money before they start dumping it?

[stillcool]

16. time is running out?

too bad there is no magic bullet. Fixing Wall Street will not fix Main Street, and Main Street can't be fixed if the financial institutions fail, and take all industry intertwined down with it. I say let the financial institutions pull the trigger.

These interests control the Federal Reserve through about 300 stockholders:

* Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
* Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
* Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
* Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
* Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
* Kuhn, Loeb and Co. of New York
* Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
* Goldman, Sachs of New York
Because of the way the Reserve was organized, whoever controls the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controls the system, About 90 of the 100 largest banks are in this district.
Of the reportedly 203,053 shares of the New York bank:

* Rockefeller's National City Bank had 30,000 shares
* Morgan's First National Bank had 15,000 shares
* Chase National Bank had 6,000 shares
* National Bank of Commerce (Morgan Guaranty Trust) had 21,000 shares.
A June 15, 1978 Senate Report called "Interlocking Directorates Among the Major U.S. Corporations" revealed that five New York banks had 470 interlocking directorates with 130 major U.S. corporations:

* Citicorp (97)
* J.P. Morgan Co. (99)
* Chase Manhattan (89)
* Manufacturers Hanover (89)
* Chemical Bank (96)

According to Eustace Mullins, these banks are major stock holders in the Fed. In his book World Order, he said that these five banks are "controlled from London". Mullins said:
"Besides its controlling interest in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Rothschilds had developed important financial interests in other parts of the United States ... The entire Rockefeller empire was financed by the Rothschilds."
A May, 1976 report of the House Banking and Currency Committee indicated: "The Rothschild banks are affiliated with Manufacturers Hanover of London in which they hold 20 percent ... and Manufacturers Hanover Trust of New York". The Report also revealed that Rothschild Intercontinental Bank, Ltd., which consisted of Rothschild banks in London, France, Belgium, New York, and Amsterdam, had three American subsidiaries: National City Bank of Cleveland, First City National Bank of Houston, and Seattle First National Bank. It is believed that the Rothschilds hold 53% of the stock of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Each year, billions of dollars are "earned" by Class A stockholders from U.S. tax dollars which go to the Fed to pay interest on bank loans.

[AllentownJake]

26. I'm well aware of who controls the FED and that it is not part of the Federal Government

I also believe that these are the people that killed Kennedy.

[stillcool]

35. I can not believe that the major..

stock-holders..those 2%'ers in Goldman Sachs will lose a dime, regardless. Bankrupting a corporation is so profitable, when you are invested up the ying-yang in 2, or 3, or 4 others. Mergers are even better. For the life of me, I can't see the problem as that simple, nor the solution. I guess I'm financially challenged in more ways than one.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. The federal reserve board of governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate

They are indeed a part of the federal government. The regional fed banks (the part not controlled by the government) only have powers that are explicitly delegated to them by the board of governors. Every serious economy has an independent central bank. Formally ours is more independent than others but informally other central banks are just as independent and powerful. In parliamentary systems, the resignation of central bank heads in protest have led to successful votes of no confidence and the dissolving of governments.

[AllentownJake]

51. keep telling yourself that

[Hippo_Tron]

56. And keep telling yourself that the magical federal reserve boogeymen killed Kennedy

[nichomachus]

11. That's just not true

The New Deal Roosevelt had promised the American people began to take shape immediately after his inauguration in March 1933. Based on the assumption that the power of the federal government was needed to get the country out of the depression, the first days of Roosevelt's administration saw the passage of banking reform laws, emergency relief programs, work relief programs, and agricultural programs. Later, a second New Deal was to evolve; it included union protection programs, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/newdeal/newdeal.html


FDR sprang into action. He did not diddle around with thousands of harebrained experiments as you suggest.

[Uzybone]

15. Your thinking is wrong on this

FDR tried many programs before the depression came to an end. The point here is that just like FDR, Obama may have to try multiple programs before we find a fix. You may have no patience for that (which I don't understand) but I bet the American people will.

[AllentownJake]

18. What exactly about this plan is progressive in any way?

Other than the fact that President Obama's name is on it?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Bailouts aren't about progressive vs not progressive

There is a populist vs not populist political dichotomy here. The far right wingers agree with you about the bailout because they want the markets to "solve" the problem and don't agree with their tax dollars being used for much of anything but wars. Meanwhile the populist left doesn't agree with the idea because they won't support anything that could reward the heads of these financial institutions as a side effect.

Obama is not a populist and never has claimed to be one. Saving the economy isn't about progressive vs not progressive it's about what will work and what will not work. You need to save the system before you can remodel the system. The remodeling is the part where you can be progressive. But we won't have the opportunity to remodel if we don't save it.

[AllentownJake]

28. So let me get this straight

in order to save the economy, I have to save the individuals and the institutions that caused this mess to begin with?

What makes you think that people are going to be so clamoring for reform after these institutions are saved by the government?

[Hippo_Tron]

47. People have a memory that lasts longer than 2 seconds

They know that the system needs reform but they also know that it needs to be saved first. The idea that they would all of a sudden forget the system needs reform once crisis is averted is absurd.

And yes, quite often saving the system means saving the people that caused the mess. We don't do government bailouts because we think the people getting the money are swell and deserving. We do government bailouts because they are the best option out of a lot of bad ones.

[Uzybone]

29. Is there a progressive way to resolve "toxic assets"?

the only alternative I've seen is nationalize the banks and assume the debt. Is that progressive? I don't know if this plan is progressive or not, I just want the damn thing to work.

Obama s budget and priorities tells me that he is not looking to take us back to status quo once this crisis is resolved. But I think right now the priority is to loosen up credit, not to seek to score political points. If he fails at this, then all us progressives can kiss all our other dreams goodbye for a long time.

[AllentownJake]

31. There can be concessions that are demanded

We are essentially giving away something for nothing.

[AllentownJake]

5. Here is my response

1) This is a high stakes gamble. We are taking public dollars and giving it essentially to private entities. I want some bipartisan support on this one. To me this plan politically is like betting on one number on a roullete wheel.

2) If we spend a trillion dollars on the banks...I don't see what else is left. At some point you have to stop printing money. See Weimar Germany.

3) Yes because a great economy made Bill Clinton untouchable...oh wait it didn't. For all the concessions we gave over those 8 years I'm still scratching my head what exactly we got out of it.

4) When you reward the bad guys you embolden them. Trust me their next scheme will be even more audacious than the last.

5) FDR didn't have the massive national debt and a country with a massive trade deficit. Also there were 4 years of Hoover to give him some cover. Only the last 6 months of Bush's presidency was this bad. If this fails Obama won't be able to point the finger at Bush like FDR could at Hoover.

[sohndrsmith]

58. I'm officially rec'ing Uzybone's reply. (Well, okay, not officially,

because I can't, but if I could I WOULD do so officially).

For anyone who voted for Obama who has not yet gotten that they voted for someone who campaigned on the premise of being the president of _everyone_ , then, well... my guess is they weren't paying attention. Partisan "winning" is not high on the list of priorities for this nation right about now, as far as I can tell. Those who follow that route won't be high on the list of "Things To Take Seriously"... I don't think anyway...

Rather than criticize, have those who are doing so stopped to think about what this president has actually taken on, initiated, even accomplished... in what - (wait, I'll look it up) -

1512 hours
or
63 days
or
9 weeks ...????

Why does anyone think President Obama should have all the answers (much less all the right ones) right NOW... ? This man is brilliant. We could not have better leadership for the current crises and circumstances. Can you imagine if this was the first nine weeks of BUSH's administration? Or.... anyone's other than Obama? I say, "Thank goodness!", we have the right president at this crucial time... if we didn't - I can't even think of the possible results if Obama was not the one in charge right now... yikes...

What president in the history of this country has been faced with, tackled and been capable of handling this much, this fast or this massive in scope or scale in his first nine weeks? That might be a better thing to focus on. Especially if one wants to be impressed and reassured, because that will happen if one focuses on these things for a few minutes... it's rather astounding.

[msongs]

3. sorry, the "new democrats" are now in charge :-) and the rich white bankers win nt

[AllentownJake]

7. Looks like it

Kind of like "new labor" over in Brittain.

At least their liberals got universal healthcare through before the corptocracy got both parties.

[jody]

8. "progressive, a liberal, and a democrat" & not support Geithner! Makes sense to me. n/t

[Aloha Spirit]

10. Hey Jake, are you referring to the plan Geithner announced today? Or the whole process so far.

As a liberal, democrat, concerned citizen, I think the public private partnership is a pretty good strategy.
I don't think they would have announced it if they didn't think the auctions would have the result of generating
-sufficient private interest
-outflow of questionable assets from banks
-returns for the taxpayer
-capitalization for the banks.

And if it doesn't work the way they hope, it will at least bring to light, along with the "stress test" results which banks need to get nationalized as a plan B.

Your reasons for opposing today's plan, to me, sound more like opposition to the idea of a bank bailout period rather than his particular plan.

I don't see why we should assume that they won't have a clever way of building in prevention going forward, but I don't think that was dealt with today, and I also know that geithner and Obama and the rest of the team have may more plans beyond today's, as they have all, Geithner, Obama, Romer, Orszag, Summers, mentioned that there's more to come.

[AllentownJake]

13. I think its a very bad idea

For the reasons I stated. If I'm going to bail something out, I want something for that bailout. Because honestly we have a device already in place for a bailout. It's called the FDIC.

[Aloha Spirit]

19. I agree, and half of today's plan is about how they will be using the FDIC. I found this article

helpful
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003081571

I'm really curious to know what Obama had in mind when he said it's his responsibility to show the financial industry that business as usual will no longer be tolerated.
I also know that there are two things that Obama values--stability and efficiency. I feel confident that he is pushing his team to come up with creative ways to reform the industry so that it's focused more on the long term.

[amandabeech]

40. I don't see an adequate return for the taxpayer.

Not with non-recourse loans and subsidized interest rates that make the fund risk 7 cents on the dollar.

I've seen too many reputable people, starting with PBS, say that this is going to split the return on the investment of about 3/100.

[AllentownJake]

41. I don't care if we get a return if it fixes the economy

I believe we are not going to get a return and not get the recovery we want out of it.

[amandabeech]

42. I don't think that this is going to fix the economy, because

I don't think that liquidity is the entire problem.

It seems like Geithner thinks that we can go back to the status quo ante. However, the American consumer, who is responsible for 70% of the economic activity here, is tapped out and fears, with good reason, losing his or her job. Some jobs might be saved if, in fact, the banks decide that they can make money by issuing loans, but the banks are in business only to make money for their shareholders. Lending and the bottom line may not be the same anymore.

Then there is the moral hazard about bailing out a bunch of crooks who made this mess in the first place. You may trust them not to get us into trouble again. I don't.

[AllentownJake]

43. Exactly

Lending is only one component of this crisis.

[midnight armadillo]

44. The American consumer has no more money to spend

For 30 years our productivity gains have gone to 5% of the population.

And now Obama's going to hand the criminals amongst that 5% that engineered this system a trillion dollars to fix themselves?

[zulchzulu]

12. As a progressive, Geithner's plan will at least jumpstart the banks...

... and now they have no excuses.

They have to start lending and start getting back to allowing investors and entrepreneurs to get well-needed lending to start the economy back up.

I am a capitalist with a little socialism on the side. What we are seeing right now economically is Pure Ugly. Yes, there will be abuse. Yes, some people will make a boatload of cash and yes, they and we are gambling to pay the piper.

That's what choices we have now due the economy sliding into the skids... shit or diarrhea. Take your choice.

[AllentownJake]

14. After seeing their behavior after the last bailout

do you really think that this is going to jumpstart lending?

All I see different from this plan to the Bush plan is that we are attaching bad assets to the funds that are being essentially handed to them. So the banks get to dump their bad assets and what do we get from the banks in exchange? That is a burning question in my mind.

[zulchzulu]

22. What this plan says to the investor class: Put up or shut up

Investors can gamble on a trash bank by putting in $25,000 and perhaps getting $300,000 in what would probably be 10 years and thus help fund the Treasury with their gamble.

Banks can feel more comfortable now that Wall Street is gleeful that there is finally a Plan. Not just a plan, but as the Wall Street CNBCers are saying, Geithner's plan.

Do I like it? Do I like Wall Street? Do I like how we got into this mess with deregulation/Friedman economics/greed/lack of oversight?

The answer is obvious. No.

Do we just wait for the FDIC to repair things and kick things in (which is running out of money) to be the Hero?

Do we watch Wall Street tumble and have all of us who have 401k or other retirement investments dissolve into dust?

No.

We don't really have a choice. Be honest. We're not going to fully nationalize banks (like Krugman wants) and we're not going to get our lost money back anytime soon... perhaps in a dozen years... maybe.

Geithner's plan is certainly not perfect. But the main thing it does is get the investors and Wall Street folks a choice between whining or investing.

I look at it like the only way I can get my money back is to go to a casino and bet. I hate casinos... but if that's how we jumpstart the banking industry, I'll hold my nose and deal with it, no pun intended.

I wish we all lived in Utopia.

[AllentownJake]

24. Here is my fear

They get the money, they keep most of it, than after the economy slightly recovers they work on their next scheme. Since things are getting better the drive to re-regulate these clowns is less, and look they have a whole new pile of money to fund their bullshit propoganda. We lose, and the next little scam they pull is worse than this one.

Oh yeah and their goal of shrinking the middle class if further heightened. Not only that they did it under a democratic President.

[zulchzulu]

37. Regulation certainly has to be a component in the economic recovery

This plan to attempt to jump start the banking industry also has to be part of a greater plan that deals with regulation and not letting banks "work on their next scheme".

They will try. Next time, they will be stopped.

As for the shrinking middle class, one way is for entrepreneurs who need investment to start the Green Energy Revolution. That includes allowing new smart grids, transmission lines and putting a reality check on NIMBYs. There are actually investors who want to build wind farms who have been stopped by people who don't want transmission lines. These people assume wind power just somehow appears in an electric circuit magically.

The same people in the middle class need to assume that banks need an incentive to start ramping up. The private marketplace needs to be allowed to invest and that money invested in the plan for toxic assets helps fund the treasury.

Regulation better be part of the next phase of economic plans.

[AllentownJake]

39. Why do you think they will be stopped?

FDR started out with the regulations...we are doing it ass backwards.

[SanchoPanza]

53. Not Really

There's never a clear delineation in the 1st and 2nd New Deal, in terms of chronology, between the different efforts employed by FDR. There were relief, recovery, and reform efforts put in place simultaneously, and some were more successful than others. Most of the programs were instituted in the so-called "First 100 Days" of 1933. If anything, the larger and more systemic reforms tended to come a bit later.

The Federal Emergency Relief Agency, Civilian Conservation Corp, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Public Works Administration, National Industrial Recovery Act, Glass-Steagall Act, and Tennessee Valley Authority got through Congress by the summer of 1933. When Roosevelt got a bigger Democratic majority in 1934, you had expansion of programs that were more successful, abandonment of programs that weren't working (most notably FERA, whose relief mission was taken over by the WPA), and the creation of new programs and regulations. The WPA, Security and Exchange Act, Social Security Act, National Labor Relations Act, etc.

[ProSense]

17. Maybe you can answer

the questions in this thread.

[AllentownJake]

21. I'm for smashing these guys into tiny little pieces and than selling them off

Than having regulations on how big any individual bank can get.

[ProSense]

27. That doesn't anwser the question:

who would buy them?

[AllentownJake]

30. Give the American people stock in the damn things

I don't care just as long as they are smashed from the giants they are.

[ProSense]

32. What?

You want the goverment to own them permanently?

[AllentownJake]

34. It sounds crazy but for to big to fail...

break it up into 30 pieces and give every American a share in the 30 pieces.

Some people will sell thier share, others will hold onto it, others will buy other people's share.

The taxpayer paid for it, might as well give it to them.

[Aloha Spirit]

33. for the record, Sheila Blair, Bernie Sanders and others agree with limits on how big a bank

or financial institution should be.
I appreciated Bernanke's comments a couple weeks ago to the Council on Foreign Relations about how the international community must work together to agree on regulations for "too big to fail"-sized institutions.

[Hutzpa]

20. Are you sure you're any of the above

you named??? because this sounds like something Evan Blah would
say.

[AllentownJake]

23. Please tell me what's liberal about

creating a fund where elites can borrow money at low interest rates to buy toxic assets off of other elites and if their investment loses money they can recoup part of that money from the federal government. Oh yeah and the guys who caused the mess where people are being layed off and kicked out of their homes, well they are going to profit from this little intiative and they are making no concessions on future behavior, executive pay, labor issue, or any other thing.

[Hutzpa]

36. What you suggest we do???

seat back and let Wall Street fixes itself, which is highly unlikely because
that has been tried before, obviously they had to look after themselves before
anyone else which is their thinking.

I do think that exorbitant spending we've seen before on wall street is going
to stop, so for republicans, no more sponsorship from the echelons, its about
restricting and changing the financial policies that where written by the
republicans couple of years ago.

Thats what the noise is about.

All I can say is, we have a Leader that knows what he is doing and is also cunning
with it too.

[AllentownJake]

38. Really the spending is going to stop?

JP Morgan Chase just announced a brand new hanger for the jets for their executives today...and also two new jets.

These guys won't give up their bonuses when they've had a bad year what the hell makes you think they are about to give up their corporate boxes?

They are being watched like freaking hawks right now and they are still misbehaving like nothing happened.

[chascarrillo]

49. Yeah, that's why the Leader named Geithner, who created much of the problem in the first place.

Gullible. It's not in the dictionary.

[JamesA1102]

45. Number 1 is a political and ideological concern.

And we blast Republicans for putting party first.

[AllentownJake]

52. It was the lowest of the risks

and if the Republicans take power again everything else I care about, the enviroment, education, civil rights, war or no war,

Grow up and realize that sometimes a partisan battle is a good thing...however, this plan could have been written by the GOP.

Goes right out the fucking window.

[Barack_America]

46. 1). The Democrats run Washington now. It is our duty to "take all the risk".

I imagine that you probably would place "American" before even "progressive"? What happens to our country if Democrats insist on prioritizing politics?
"
2). What is royally fucking Detroit right now is the fact that no one can get a loan to buy automobiles. If Geithner's plan loosens up the credit markets, as advertised, this will help Detroit and the other companies you mentioned.

3). You have a point. But Obama did not get to where he is today by being politically naive. This is one I have to trust him on. But, as many pundits have said, the next election has less to do with Democratic vs. Republican favorability levels than it does Obama's approval numbers. A glance at Gallup today showed those at 65%.

4). See number 3. The trick is in how this plan is implemented. I trust Obama to do it wisely. It's no wonder that "regulation" is the major talking point lately. I'm interested to hear what Obama has to say about this at his press conference. I will be surprised (and disappointed) if this is not a major focus.

5). In general, it's not fair to compare Obama to FDR. Different people in different worlds at different times. FDR wasn't faced with a global economy and a foreign competitor owning so much of our debt.

[JamesA1102]

50. Excellent post!!!! nt

[SanchoPanza]

54. Rough Answers

1) The majority party generally takes all the risks. It's the price of governing. The good thing is that the primary opposition, in Congress at least, is not coming from Republicans. It's coming from conservative Democrats. This is good because their opposition is based on concerns from their local constituents, and its easier to address those concerns than those of an entire opposition party who wants to see you disemboweled in the 2010 midterms.

2) Systemic reform legislation is almost never combined into a one shot deal unless you're trying to hide something. Doing it piecemeal allows you to focus on one thing at a time and better manage the competing interests involved. I don't think anyone in Congress believes that Geithner's plan is all that's coming down the pipe this session.

3) The regulatory framework the administration wants to implement is supposed to be coming in the next few weeks, and probably won't all be done in one piece of legislation.

4) This is the unfortunate state we're in. There's very little high-level discussion of completely nationalizing the financial services sector and transforming it into a public utility, or capitalizing a new public financial sector through the government, for more reasons than I can count. Anything that doesn't involve a permanent takeover of this sector of the economy will, by necessity, require the participation of those private entities currently operating within it.

6) So long as the Administration has political capital in Congress, they have as many shots as they want. So call and e-mail your Representative and Senators. Call and e-mail other peoples' Representatives and Senators. Tell your friends and family to do likewise.

[BlooInBloo]

55. That's nice.

[RollWithIt]

57. 4 of 5 responses are complete garbage, but I'm here to slowly try to change your mind!

1,2,4, & 5. The only fair question is #3. But only sort of.

1. What do we get? Control. A lot more control than any previous government since Lincoln in 1861. Ya, more than FDR in 1934. Please take the time to actually read the new treasury plan.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/ppip_fact_sheet.pdf
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/ppip_whitepaper_032309.pdf

And finally go the holy grail of such information:
http://financialstability.gov/

To make a long story short, there is a hell of a lot of government control and oversight over everyday banking. More than any seen in a long, long, long, long, long, long.... you get the idea.

2. I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but the recovery act is pumping almost a trillion into the economy. Into jobs, education, scientific research, clean energy, infrastructure, heck, it's hard to find a sector of the economy that DOESN'T get any money. Well, unless you're unemployed in South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alaska. Then your governor will grandstand while you suffer. Throw on top of that a shit load of money in domestic spending (double Bush) in this years budget.

3. The only fair question. Will the banks ever really change? Well, yes they will, but only by the new regulations linked to in my response to 1.

4. What do you want to do? Shut down all the banks? All the insurance companies? All the mortgage lenders? What then? Besides no one being able to take out a loan regardless of background?

5. You really, really, really, need to stop watching MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, CNN, ABC, Paul Krugman the sky is falling articles, and start reading the actual plans.

Start here if you ignored the earlier links.

http://www.ustreas.gov/