Now lets bail out other countries banks

[peternap]

In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department's mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night.

The theory, according to a participant in the negotiations, is that if the goal is to solve a liquidity crisis, it makes no sense to exclude banks that do a lot of lending in the United States.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson confirmed the change on ABC's "This Week," telling George Stephanopoulos that coverage of foreign-based banks is "a distinction without a difference to the American people."

"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said.

"That's a distinction without a difference to the American people. The key here is protecting the system. ... We have a global financial system, and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things, and I believe a number of them will. But, remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers. and the American people don't care who owns the financial institution. If the financial institution in this country has problems, it'll have the same impact whether it's the U.S. or foreign."

The legislative outline that went to Capitol Hill at 1:30 a.m. Saturday had said that an eligible financial institution had to have "its headquarters in the United States." That would exclude foreign-based institutions with big U.S. operations, such as Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS.

But a Treasury "Fact Sheet" released at 7:15 Saturday night sought to give the administration more flexibility, with an expanded definition that could include all of those banks: "Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.
The major change in the suggested eligibility requirements is the biggest change that Treasury publicly made after a day of briefings and conversations with Capitol Hill, and is likely the first of many.

Aspects of the $700 billion, two-year proposal that are still under negotiation include what, if anything, will be added to the administration's simple but sweeping proposal. And the parliamentary route, such as what committees or hearings might be involved, has not been finalized.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has a hearing scheduled for Wednesday that is likely to focus on the proposal.

Under what congressional officials called a likely scenario, the measure could go to the House floor on Thursday, with passage expected the same day.

The Senate could take the package up as soon as Friday and send it to President Bush for his signature, although the Senate schedule is less predictable and had not been determined.

Officials expect passage by huge margins in both chambers because  Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have told congressional leaders the country's financial stability depends on it.

House Democrats plan to insist on adding protections for homeowners facing foreclosure. They also want to add a measure to help homeowners facing bankruptcy and an executive compensation restriction designed to prevent golden parachutes for the heads of troubled institutions.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was supportive of the bailout concept in a statement released Friday, believes that "whatever gets done in Congress has to protect Main Street," senior adviser Stephanie Cutter said on MSNBC on Saturday.

On "Fox News Sunday," Paulson told Chris Wallace that he would resist the Democrats' desired limits on executive compensation.

more

[peternap]

"If we design it so it's punitive and institutions aren't going to participate, this won't work the way we need it to work," Paulson said. "Let's talk executive salaries: There have been excesses there. I agree with the American people. Pay should be for performance, not for failure. We've got work to do in that regard. We need to do that work. But we need this system to work. And so reforms need to come afterwards. My whole objective with the plan we have is to give us the maximum ability to make it work."

And the secretary told NBC's Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" that he doesn't want new regulations simultaneously: "That's not doable to do that immediately. But we very much need new regulations."

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) told Stephanopoulos on ABC: "If we're going to spend taxpayer money to get rid of bad debt in these places, what is the reciprocal obligation ... from the firms? ... I think there's going to be a strong interest to deal with the Main Street aspects."

Appearing with him, House Republican Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio retorted: "We've already dealt with that, when we had the housing bill last summer. I didn't vote for it, because it's $300 billion bailout for scam artists and speculators and others around the housing industry. But there are a lot of tools in there to help the Federal Housing Administration deal with the foreclosure problem that's out there. We need to rise above partisan politics ... and deal with this as adults."

[glenn kangiser]

Fury at $2.5bn bonus for Lehman's New York staff

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html

These dudes really don't have a grip on reality-- would someone please explain it to them? hmm

link from www.rense.com

[considerations]

And I thought I seen it all:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/07/campbell.brown.porn.bailout/index.html#cnnSTCText

[muldoon]

considerations - I dont think Larry Flint is quite serious, however he is quite famous for making these "statements" about political structure.   He went to the supreme court of that Jerry Fallwell cartoon back in the 80s, I think he is just poking some fun at the ridiculousness of it all again. 

peternap - take a look at http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=5329.0
Go back to my post in september, watch that video from Brad Sherman D-California who describes the foreign bailouts in the bill. 

edit - nevermind on that peternap - after I see the dates on this I realize  your post wasn't recent.  (oops) I'll leave it anyway as some new people may be interested in the comments we had back during the bailout. 

[Bishopknight]

I believe George Carlin put it best when he said...

"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice . . . you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying . . . lobbying, to get what they want . . . Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want . . . they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that . . . that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting ****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 ****in' years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly ****ier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your ****in' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They'll get it . . . they'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this ****in' place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich ****suckers who don't give a **** about you. They don't give a **** about you . . . they don't give a **** about you. They don't care about you at all . . . at all . . . at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue **** that's being jammed up their ******** everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it . . . - "George Carlin"

[glenn kangiser]

There's not much of a way to say it much more clearly than George did there.

[Bishopknight]

Ya, but I wonder how many people actually believe it?

I'm sure some people don't want to believe it. Just like people don't want to believe the "elephant-in-the-room", aka overpopulation.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/62157/

[ScottA]

I'm sure the next big war will thin them out some. But all sarcasim aside who decides whos kids will be the next generation when population control laws are passed? Do we want a future made up of selectivly bread humans?

[glenn kangiser]

The members of the elite whom I have seen pictures of were way too ugly for me to want to be one of them, no matter what my status.

If I had a dog that ugly I'd shave his butt and teach him to walk backwards. 

Probably too much inbreeding.