Bailout Plan Agreement
Sep 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am by Susie
It all depends on what you mean by the word “compromise.” If you mean “bend over on anything that might help actual working people,” then yes, the Democrats have “compromised” on the Wall St. bailout:
A senior administration official, who requested anonymity to speak freely about the plan, said both sides had made significant concessions to achieve compromise. The Bush administration has agreed to accept a number of Democratic demands, including:
· The money would be dispersed in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion immediately, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.
· Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability.
· Firms taking advantage of the bailout would be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on “golden parachutes” at failing firms. The compensation limits will be enacted primarily, but not solely, through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay executives more than $400,000 a year.
The administration also agreed to Democratic demands that the financial services industry should help pay for the program. Under the agreement, the president would be required to propose a fee on the industry if the government has not recovered its money through sales of the assets within five years.
Democrats also made a number of concessions, abandoning demands that bankruptcy judges be empowered to modify home mortgages on primary residences for people in foreclosure. They also agreed not to dedicate a portion of any profits from the bailout program to an affordable housing fund that Republicans claimed would primarily assist social service organizations that support the Democratic Party, the official said.
Meanwhile, House Republicans won a major victory, persuading negotiators to include a provision that would require the Treasury Department to create a federal insurance program that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset, the official said.
Remind me again why I’m a Democrat.
“· Firms taking advantage of the bailout would be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on “golden parachutes” at failing firms. The compensation limits will be enacted primarily, but not solely, through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay executives more than $400,000 a year.”
It won’t touch the executives. The companies will have to pay taxes, is all.
And I like the bit about leaving to the next President to enact how to pay for all this crap.
Rat bastards.
Remind me again why I’m a Democrat.
because it’s a two party system and the other guys suck more.
actually, i’m still surprised that the dems didn’t cave last week when the “bailout package” was a naked unreviewable no strings attached $700 bil giveaway. at least they managed to say no to the original version and to add a few strings. i still think no deal is better than this, but this is better than what i thought we would end up with one week ago.
To be known forevermore as the Dodd/Frank/Pelosi bill. It’s perfect, a baldfaced theft of a trillion dollars, and the democrats get to take the blame for it! What could be better?
What a bunch of inept bozos!
They play pick-up-sticks while the rethugs play hardball.
The bailout plan is a bad idea on so many levels. Government is intervening in the normal consolidation in the financial services sector which has had a record run up in recent years - in 2006 fully 1/3 of *all* US corporate profits were from that sector.
Dave
See my blog post for some of the other reasons:
Just Say No to the Bailout Plan
Is the fifteen day thing for real or is it just a cover to make it appear that the Congress has to listen to the people?
I’m guessing it’s the latter, but one way to test it would be to FLOOD our Senators and Representatives with phone calls, letters and other forms of protest so that they will back away from this with only part of the money paid out.
It’s not great but it might be the best we could get.
Oh, and the White House certification of the necessity of the additional $100 billion? I can’t imagine why they put that in there at all, even as a fig leaf. Is there anyone in the WORLD who believes that the White House wouldn’t certify that in a minute?
You are a Democrat because they promised you a pony!!!
Yes, I’m quite aware of the “Republicans” are worse argument.
The question is, when does “worse” turn into “a vanishingly small difference”? I reached my gag limit with the Reid + Pelosi + Obama FISA [cough] reform bill, and no doubt others will reach their gag limit with the Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Frank + Paulson + Bush bailout for Hank Paulson’s golfing buddies. Still others may not reach their gag limit at all. I guess we’ll find out!
Lesser of two evils, I’m afraid.
I’m hopeful proposal, now passed, will do some good. They have to do something. But in the meantime, I found a hilarious song about it called “Bailout Man” to lighten a grim subject: Bail Out song