September 20, 2008: 11:47 AM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Here's the text of the legislative proposal sent overnight 20th September by the White House to lawmakers: Paulson, Bernanke and Bush presented it immediately before Congress was due to break for holiday and demanded an immediate assent. This is the full wording of the proposal.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time (my emphasis)

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency. (!!!!!)

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term "mortgage-related assets" means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term "United States" means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

First Published: September 20, 2008: 11:33 AM EDT

Congress remains under pressure to agree to some form of this abominable nonsense.

Beware Greeks bearing gifts. Or rather two wide boys bearing threats. Every bone in my body says this is not the route to take.

Basically the financial sector has screwed up and they are the ones coming looking for a bail out. The sooner we start to view it in that context the better.

Many of them should be forced into receivership and many companies continue to trade under those conditions until the receivers work out what they are actually worth and what to do with them. If they do that then we will get a clear idea who has a viable business and just has liquidity problems and who is bust. We also then need legislation to make monitoring the financial sector effective. All the Hedge Funds derivatives etc need to be sorted. etc etc.

Bail out in this form is not the way to go. The money would be better spent ensuring that people stay in their homes and that many businesses stayed liquid.

Let the spivs roast.

What's tickerman saying today about the total sloshing money? Bernanke is reducing money in circulation in order to drive up interest rates ?? Instead of implementing an interest rate cut of .5% which tickerman believes would cause a gain in the stockmarket in a day, he thinks Bernanke is allowing the rate to go down purposely because some more banks might go to the wall, thereby precipitating more need for the bailout .. ??

I've bumped Klein's Shock Doctrine thread as this is clearly what is going on.
Scare everyone rigid (and there is plenty to be scared about) and then introduce a system for passing every cent in the US to the bankers.

Someone on P.ie posted a hilarious "Nigerian Scam" email signed by Paulson on behalf of the Treasury, looking for your bank details, insurance number, your childrens savings accounts etc. etc. to be emailed off...

Quote :

When Paulson took over Goldman Sachs in 1999, they had $20 billion in debts. When he—in these high-risk gambles. When he left, they had $100 billion, which means he took their risk level from $20 billion to $100 billion. So it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that Henry Paulson, far from speaking for Main Street, is actually bailing out his colleagues for some of the very debts that he himself accumulated. This is an extraordinary conflict of interest.

Washington Post

It looks worryingly as if Pelosi and the Democratic majority in Congress will let this thing through with a few minor tweaks.

Has anyone noticed that it is not for 700 billion - its for 700 billion "at any one time" i.e. a 700 billion sized conduit which can flow for at least two years.

cactus flower wrote:

I've bumped Klein's Shock Doctrine thread as this is clearly what is going on.
Scare everyone rigid (and there is plenty to be scared about) and then introduce a system for passing every cent in the US to the bankers.

Someone on P.ie posted a hilarious "Nigerian Scam" email signed by Paulson on behalf of the Treasury, looking for your bank details, insurance number, your childrens savings accounts etc. etc. to be emailed off...

Quote :

When Paulson took over Goldman Sachs in 1999, they had $20 billion in debts. When he—in these high-risk gambles. When he left, they had $100 billion, which means he took their risk level from $20 billion to $100 billion. So it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that Henry Paulson, far from speaking for Main Street, is actually bailing out his colleagues for some of the very debts that he himself accumulated. This is an extraordinary conflict of interest.

Washington Post

It looks worryingly as if Pelosi and the Democratic majority in Congress will let this thing through with a few minor tweaks.

Has anyone noticed that it is not for 700 billion - its for 700 billion "at any one time" i.e. a 700 billion sized conduit which can flow for at least two years.

That document allows Paulson to contract any party he sees fit and pay them anything he likes to "manage" or "oversee" the programme. Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs up for the job ?

He would be subject to no legal controls and could keep shovelling the cash through the 700 billion hole.

I agree with the Squire that people's home and jobs should be protected, not the superprofits of Gog and Magog.

At the end of the day if they get their way those fools of Bankers will have no one to sell anything to.

cactus flower wrote:

I've bumped Klein's Shock Doctrine thread as this is clearly what is going on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-klein/now-is-the-time-to-resist_b_128433.html
Seems so.

Quote :

In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.

This Bill is a distraction from the main problem. The problem is confidence, there is lots of money but no one in their right mind would put it into Banks and Financial Institutions.

Consider what the Banks would do if you went to them and wanted a bail out and treat them in a similar manner. Force them into receivership and deal with that problem. It is the sane thing to do. If you don't you are pouring money into a bucket that have a hole in the bottom.

In business it is important to both realise when you have someone by the proverbials and have the resolve to act decisively.

Now is a good time to sort out the financial sector, regulate to rebalance the position of the financial institutions and make their assets and dealings transparent and accountable. It would also possibly be a good time to do a bit of asset stripping and make a profit.

Cash is king. IF Ben and Hank came to me with that load of hog's wash I would do them over good and proper!!! With a smile of course. Call their bluff and proceed with haste to close down on those whose interests they represent.

oops did the post in front of this just disappear?

There are rallies for No Cash For Trash going on across the States. Get your kit here:-

http://truemajority.wiredforchange.com/event/distributedEventCalendar.jsp

McCain has been trashed by a Congressman (name?) for contributing nothing to the process and wasting people's time.

I hope the protests and anger gather momentum.

Squire wrote:

oops did the post in front of this just disappear?

I think it was miine .. gremlins in the system? It was the one about the five drunks in a squat...



If the money is going to be fed into the system in installments of 200 billion then maybe it won't be so inflationary or it will give them a chance to see what effect it has.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Squire wrote:

oops did the post in front of this just disappear?

I think it was miine .. gremlins in the system? It was the one about the five drunks in a squat...



If the money is going to be fed into the system in installments of 200 billion then maybe it won't be so inflationary or it will give them a chance to see what effect it has.

O jaysus I read that. Good one. i hope my cat didn't accidentally delete it.

On the other thing - I'd want to read the small print. The first draft was only good for lighting a fire.

Perhaps they are hoping that most citizens in the USA can't manage multiplication? 200Billion times 2; 200Billion times 3; 200billion times 4; 200Billion times 5; 6; 7; and by this time everyone will have forgotten what the original amount was.

Well its all ended in tears. I would like to see the deal that they had "agreed" on - anyone got a link? Obama tried to get it through and his statement pretty well amounted to "sure t'will do". Somehow I didn't get the feeling that he had either not read it, or not understood it.

Would you say that the bank CEOs could easily fund the first 200 billion out of their earnings in the last two years? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown_983;_ylt=Aje8Ce26rqcNLVsyJeNWFCFv24cA

This is how the Swedes sorted out their property bubble and Banking crisis -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogine

They made the banks write down losses, the shareholders took the losses and the State took equity in the banks . Faced with that prospect, some of the banks managed to recapitalise themselves thankyou very much. The State eventually sold their shares on and lost little or nothing out of it.

Brian and Brian should be looking at this.

cactus flower wrote:

This is how the Swedes sorted out their property bubble and Banking crisis -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogine

They made the banks write down losses, the shareholders took the losses and the State took equity in the banks . Faced with that prospect, some of the banks managed to recapitalise themselves thankyou very much. The State eventually sold their shares on and lost little or nothing out of it.

Brian and Brian should be looking at this.

Bailout too little too late. Doomed to failure because it addresses thw wrong problem, the primary sub-prime problem instead of the derivative market in sub-prime.

Flying to Dublin this afternoon to get a flavour of the recession. Hope the weather is ok

Weather is great here in the West and has been for a fortnight at least.

Washington Mutual collapsed now too - a lot of banks will just have to be put to the wall, put down, put out of their misery. A lot should go bankrupt - it'll be hard for a lot of people but the money would be better spent into the economy and the financial system restructured.

Sarkozy is calling for an overhaul of the international financial system...

Quote :

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a top to bottom overhaul of the world's financial system Thursday and warned that the global financial crisis would hit French growth and jobs.

In a keynote speech on the economy, Sarkozy said the financial storm would cause long-term damage, amid what has been called the worst banking crisis since the 1929 Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression.

"To tell the French people the truth, is to tell them the current crisis will have consequences in the coming months for growth, for unemployment, for purchasing power," he told an assembly in the southern city of Toulon.

"The crisis is not over, it will have lasting consquences. France is too involved in the world economy for us to think for one second it could be sheltered from the events currently rocking the world."

On Tuesday, Sarkozy called during the UN General Assembly in New York for an international summit on the financial meltdown to discuss creating a new system of "regulated capitalism".

France 24

Could this be the first call for the emergence of the "Visible Hand"?

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

This is how the Swedes sorted out their property bubble and Banking crisis -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogine

They made the banks write down losses, the shareholders took the losses and the State took equity in the banks . Faced with that prospect, some of the banks managed to recapitalise themselves thankyou very much. The State eventually sold their shares on and lost little or nothing out of it.

Brian and Brian should be looking at this.

Bailout too little too late. Doomed to failure because it addresses thw wrong problem, the primary sub-prime problem instead of the derivative market in sub-prime.

Flying to Dublin this afternoon to get a flavour of the recession. Hope the weather is ok

Would clearly be money better spent to help people pay their mortgages. But mortgages are only part of the problem. There are credit card debts as well.
Maybe a combination of the Swedish approach plus some help to people who have been missold. And of course, a CAB for confiscating the illgotten gains of fraudulent and misselling bankers.

Somebody please tell me - if the banks are bailed out because people default on mortgages, and banks are given money to compensate, who will then own the houses and land?

cactus flower wrote:

Would clearly be money better spent to help people pay their mortgages. But mortgages are only part of the problem. There are credit card debts as well.
Maybe a combination of the Swedish approach plus some help to people who have been missold. And of course, a CAB for confiscating the illgotten gains of fraudulent and misselling bankers.

Somebody please tell me - if the banks are bailed out because people default on mortgages, and banks are given money to compensate, who will then own the houses and land?

Maybe people who owe money should be made to do ten years hard labour including the banks who financed them? Some earnings assessments to get mortgages included Christmas and Birthday presents and some brokers may even have added an extra zero to the declared income when the applicant turned around to get some sugar for their coffee. Breaking stones for ten years they should be.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=161&t=40841#p1350666

Have you read the Lehman thread on p.ie? Seabhcan asks the same question as you above here and kerrynorth describes how mortgages were sliced and diced and packaged on to other investment banks who didn't have their names on the mortgage backing either. Sidewinder comes in with this link to a case in Ohio where 14 foreclosures were thrown out of court because the mortgage lender trying to seize them couldn't prove that they owned the finance. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I don't know what law was changed after that but adjustments were made to protect the mortgage lenders of these types of mortgage...

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Would clearly be money better spent to help people pay their mortgages. But mortgages are only part of the problem. There are credit card debts as well.
Maybe a combination of the Swedish approach plus some help to people who have been missold. And of course, a CAB for confiscating the illgotten gains of fraudulent and misselling bankers.

Somebody please tell me - if the banks are bailed out because people default on mortgages, and banks are given money to compensate, who will then own the houses and land?

Maybe people who owe money should be made to do ten years hard labour including the banks who financed them? Some earnings assessments to get mortgages included Christmas and Birthday presents and some brokers may even have added an extra zero to the declared income when the applicant turned around to get some sugar for their coffee. Breaking stones for ten years they should be.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=161&t=40841#p1350666

Have you read the Lehman thread on p.ie? Seabhcan asks the same question as you above here and kerrynorth describes how mortgages were sliced and diced and packaged on to other investment banks who didn't have their names on the mortgage backing either. Sidewinder comes in with this link to a case in Ohio where 14 foreclosures were thrown out of court because the mortgage lender trying to seize them couldn't prove that they owned the finance. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I don't know what law was changed after that but adjustments were made to protect the mortgage lenders of these types of mortgage...

I think of the derivatives as a kind of soup, like the liquified gloop from rendered carcasses that spam is made from. It is no use asking who owns which pig.

The past two weeks in the US have been truely historical but they will pale in comparison to what will happen over the next week and the coming months. Bernake and Paulson have engineered one of the world's greatest shell games in front of the entire world and they only need Congress to pass an emergency bill which will obligate the US taxpayer to fund their own financial enslavement to the tune of $700 billion or so. In the last two weeks they've re-engineered the entire banking system through the creation of the mega-banks; essentially made the SEC redundant (one of the remaining regulatory agencies with some bite left); and have created a crisis so wide in its scope that they have nearly scared Congress into writing a blank cheque from the US taxpayer to recapitalise the very banks that have created the financial chaos. Today's WaMU takeover by whatever mega-bank for peanuts is just another example of their intent.

I take my hat off to Bernake, Greenspan, Paulson (and all Treasury Secretaries since the Reagan Adminstration) and their minions who've created this scheme and have implemented their strategy and tactics with a mastery unrivalled in modern history. However, there are about half a dozen senior Republican Senators who have thrown a spanner in the works. They want an equity stake in the mega-banks for the US taxpayers who are being asked to bail out the banks. It seems a small ask of Bernake and his cronies to give the US taxpayer a small stake in the companies who, afterall, will be allowed to carry out with their overall plan.

Yet, the sheer arrogrance of Bernake, Paulson and their pals is a sight to behold. Bernake and Paulson rode into Congress like they were some white knights coming to the rescue the maiden and were quite surprised when the Senate Banking Committee had the audacity to start asking questions before handing over a $trillion dollar cheque to Bernake & Cos banking buddies. These guys actually throught they had Congress and the US populace in such a frenzy that believed a blank cheque would be waiting at the door for them to collect. I wouldn't have been surprised if they thought the Finance Committee wasn't going throw them a party. Both Bernake and Paulson looked shell-shocked at the end of four hours of questioning. They truely couldn't believe that the good Senators would dare question them about banking. How dare they!

Over the past year, I think I have come to understand what the "new" global economy or village is all about. It's all about the very wealthy being as comfortable in tax havens in the Caribbean or Dubai as they are in New York, London or Frankfurt; while the wage earner is lectured about patriotism. What we are seeing is a never ending quest by some to accumulate as much wealth in as few hands as possible. Borders and nations are no longer of concern to the ultra-wealthy in the world - they are global players. Only the maintenance and growth of individual wealth is of importance. Our governors are too stupid or greedy to intervene. They are now part and parcel of this system.

Its seem like it's up to a few old "timey" senators in the US to at least put a partial brake on the scheme. Of course, the US presidential candidates could take a brave stand and begin to debate about the reintroduce regulatory frameworks like Glass-Steagall and more modern programs to reign in the unbridled greed and casino-like tendenancies of bankers. Indeed, they should put banking where it belongs as a conduit for real investment instead of a means of impoverishing wage earners and tax payers. 'Taint likely to happen.

Some see this era of financial consolidation as a new panacea where the US will be forced to reign in its profligate habits by other nations and national-blocs. This seems highly likely as the dollar (its debt) will be devalued as a holder of wealth. I can't see how the Oreintal side of the world won't become predominant economically and with attendant geo-political realinement. One thing I'm damned sure about is that if you're not in the top 5-10 percentile of any existing mature economy that you're standard of living, and that of your children, will erode and will continue to erode in the coming decades. The erosion of living standards may be dressed in commodity shortage or environmental clothing but the erosion will continue. Of course, if you're in the upper percentile, and connected into the global economy, things will never seem so good.

Quote :

Yet, the sheer arrogrance of Bernake, Paulson and their pals is a sight to behold. Bernake and Paulson rode into Congress like they were some white knights coming to the rescue the maiden and were quite surprised when the Senate Banking Committee had the audacity to start asking questions before handing over a $trillion dollar cheque to Bernake & Cos banking buddies. These guys actually throught they had Congress and the US populace in such a frenzy that believed a blank cheque would be waiting at the door for them to collect. I wouldn't have been surprised if they thought the Finance Committee wasn't going throw them a party. Both Bernake and Paulson looked shell-shocked at the end of four hours of questioning. They truely couldn't believe that the good Senators would dare question them about banking. How dare they!

I had the pleasure of watching some of this and the great displeasure of watching Obama shiftily, with the look of a schoolboy rep. on the pupil/teacher subcommittee, doing his best to support the bailout.

People in the US seem to have seen straight through this. How come Obama doesn't?

rockyracoon wrote:

Yet, the sheer arrogrance of Bernake, Paulson and their pals is a sight to behold. Bernake and Paulson rode into Congress like they were some white knights coming to the rescue the maiden and were quite surprised when the Senate Banking Committee had the audacity to start asking questions before handing over a $trillion dollar cheque to Bernake & Cos banking buddies. These guys actually throught they had Congress and the US populace in such a frenzy that believed a blank cheque would be waiting at the door for them to collect. I wouldn't have been surprised if they thought the Finance Committee wasn't going throw them a party. Both Bernake and Paulson looked shell-shocked at the end of four hours of questioning. They truely couldn't believe that the good Senators would dare question them about banking. How dare they!

Over the past year, I think I have come to understand what the "new" global economy or village is all about. It's all about the very wealthy being as comfortable in tax havens in the Caribbean or Dubai as they are in New York, London or Frankfurt; while the wage earner is lectured about patriotism. What we are seeing is a never ending quest by some to accumulate as much wealth in as few hands as possible. Borders and nations are no longer of concern to the ultra-wealthy in the world - they are global players. Only the maintenance and growth of individual wealth is of importance. Our governors are too stupid or greedy to intervene. They are now part and parcel of this system.

Shocking idea in the end there - that there is an elite who are looking for fields of slaves again ...

The sheer arrogance of Hank and Bernank - here is 6 minutes of Ron Paul giving Bernanke a lecture and it was posted 2 days ago. You might get some relief from the disgusting presumptious arrogance they seem to be showing the American people.

Can't listen to that at the moment, but in my view Ron Paul is in no position to lecture about this. He is, if possible, even more opposed to regulation than Gog and Magog.

The thought starts to come to my mind that this tiny elite may need us far more than we need them. They look great when they're strutting around unchallenged, but look how easily they were rattled.