Slashdot Mirror


$700 Billion Bailout Signed Into Law

Many readers reminded us of what no-one can have failed to hear: that the Congress passed and the President signed a $700B bailout bill in an attempt to avert the meltdown of the US economy. The bill allocates $700 billion to the Treasury Department for the purchase of so-called "toxic assets" that have been weighing down Wall Street balance sheets. This isn't particularly a tech story, though tech will be affected as will virtually all parts of the economy, and not just in the US. Among the $110B in so-called pork added to the bill to sway reluctant legislators are extensions of popular tax benefits for business R&D and alternative energy, relief for the growing pool of people subject to the alternative minimum tax, and a provision raising the FDIC's ceiling of guaranteed deposits to $250,000. Some limits were also imposed on executive compensation, though it's unclear whether they will be effective.

26 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. Friday by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is it that really bad legislation always seems to pass on a Friday?

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:Friday by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It has more to do with the stock market opening on Sunday night in Asia. Everything revolves around Asia now, you just haven't digested the fact. The government printed all that money so they can give it to the Chinese, because it's easier than saying "Give us back half your money, we are selling half the country in exchange for another 10 years of comfort to die in." Printing money and devaluing what exists is less work and has the same effect.

      You people keep wanting to make this an aberration. It's not. It's not a matter of "The system works, but someone didn't follow the system, we just need to sort them out and things will be ok." It's not like that at all. The fact of the matter is, the things that you hold most dear, your most treasured cultural values, they are what have done this to you. It's not the lawbreakers among you that did this to you. It's the laws and the people that follow them.

      That's why people don't want your "Freedom" and "Democracy" in their own nations. It's because they see what you have done to yourselves, and they don't want any part of it.

      I hope it happens quickly. The sooner you all fall to pieces, the sooner we can start clearing your poisonous influence out of our nations.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  2. Biggest Con Ever by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs until 2006 and current U.S. Treasury Secretary succeeded in scaring the public and Congress into giving him a $700B blank check to bail out his friends. If you think that money will "trickle down" to you or small business owners, or anyone other than the people it's directly going to, you are mistaken.

    The DOW plummeted to 10,365 on Monday September 29th when the bailout bill failed to pass. Every proponent of the bailout screamed, "I told you so!" Then on Tuesday September 30th, even without the bailout bill the DOW rocketed up to 10,850. Then on Friday October 3rd when the bailout bill passed and was signed into law, the DOW dropped yet again to 10,325 (even lower than Monday when the bailout bill failed).

    This bill will not help the credit markets, the debt markets, the equity markets or anyone reading this comment. It will help Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the rest of the former investment banks de-leverage from 60:1 leverage down to traditional 12:1 leverage on your dime while the economy goes down the tubes.

    They pulled out all the steps - even threatening martial law:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

    ...and our Congresspeople fell for it.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Biggest Con Ever by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Bushtards, every single one of them."

      They're not dumb, they're just evil. They have learned that they can get away with anything, and we'll allow it. No interest in principles, no interest in truth. This is the product of modern political and social pragmatism - a free-for-all, every man for himself. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to maintain your grasp on the teat of the American public tax pool. The alternative is to make it on your own, using your rational mind to survive and fulfill your goals; but, reason is outdated, obsolete.

    2. Re:Biggest Con Ever by illumin8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs until 2006 and current U.S. Treasury Secretary succeeded in scaring the public and Congress into giving him a $700B blank check to bail out his friends. If you think that money will "trickle down" to you or small business owners, or anyone other than the people it's directly going to, you are mistaken.

      Not only that, this article (sorry, NYTimes reg required) details how Henry Paulson, back in 2004, asked the SEC to deregulate Goldman Sachs and other banks to allow them to take on this toxic mortgage debt in the first place.

      We have just been ripped off by the most elaborate con in the history of the world. We let a banker tell us "let us break the rules so we can make more money", then when he did and the bottom fell out, we gave him even more money to keep him from going out of business.

      My only hope is that the voters check for who is voting for this and get rid of them next election.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    3. Re:Biggest Con Ever by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep, I've heard those and one other rumour.

      (Disclaimer: I work for a highly secret govt. agency with unlimited resources).

      Basically, a race of aliens threatened to build a new hyperspace-expressway through our solar system unless we provided the capital to bail out the luxury planet building markets. Apparently, the galactic economy recently collapsed and most of the universe is in a pretty bad recession.

      Personally, I'm not sure how much of this is true but I agree, it's probably a combination of all three.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  3. Sweet? by Entropy98 · · Score: 5, Funny

    How big of a check should I expect to get?
    --
      Blackshot

    1. Re:Sweet? by igny · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Scumbags managed to lose lots of their money, now they can rejoice for they now can lose your money. If you are an american taxpayer, your participation means that you are down roughly $5k.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  4. Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The major effect of this bill is that it is causing fiscal conservatives to blow gaskets. They can't accept the fact that the free market is what caused this mess.

    It is funny to hear them complain about how people on Wall Street became "greedy." I'm not a financial expert but I think that is part of the design. Everyone on Wall Street works for their own self interest. That is how the invisible hand is supposed to work. But conservatives complaining about the essential 'feature' of the free market is sort of twisted.

    1. Re:Free market by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The invisible hand of free markets probably works as long as everyone does act in their own self-interest AND everyone has the same access to reasonably accurate and complete information.

      If anything, this current crisis should deeply underscore that institutions cannot be trusted to:

      • Be accountable
      • Be transparent
      • Be honest and forthcoming about conflicts of interest
      • Be accurate regarding valuations of assets
      • Be reasonable regarding short-term gains vs. long-term risks

      Of course, if we would let everything and everyone fail outright in a horrific manner, maybe just maybe everyone would learn deep lessons. Nobody would deposit anything in any bank that wasn't bending over backwards to do all of the above.

  5. You're the weakest link, Goodbye! by Ostracus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to remember reading the BBC and noting that countries overseas wanted this bill as much as some in the US.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  6. Ridiculous by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, let's understand what caused this crisis. Then you'll understand why the bailout won't work.

    Economist: Why Bankruptcy is better than bailout

    The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities ( written EIGHT YEARS before this crisis, predicting everything down to the dollar amount)


    Now, check out the $150 Billion in pork-barrel projects that were added by the Senate to the original 100-page bailout that failed in the House, turning it into a 450-page bailout:

    - "Wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503)
    - Wool Research (Sec. 325)
    - Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
    - Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
    - Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
    - American Samoa (Sec. 309)
    - Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
    - Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
    - Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
    - Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
    - Railroads (Sec. 316)
    - Auto Racing Tracks (317)
    - District of Columbia (Sec. 322)


    This is the bill that senators are screaming about, saying "IT MUST BE PASSED OR DOOMSDAY!" Who believes them? And yet the bill easily breezed through Congress.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good links, here's the deal...

      The US has a mixed economy. Our currency is based on a perception of value (no more gold standard). We like for a market to be as unregulated as possible, but for any number of reasons sectors of the economy will have regulations (from health codes, to OSHA, to Sarbanes/Oxley).

      Perception drives our economy just as much as facts and reality. I don't like it, but it's just a flat fact. If people *think* our economy is good, they buy things and make investments. If they *think* it's bad, they don't buy, don't invest, etc... These are the basics, I'm building to a point.

      My point is, if we had a respected President, one who could come on TV and calm everyone down, this 'bailout' would be unnecessary. The market would recover. But because the general public has the *perception* that this is "the worst economic crisis since the depression" then something had to be done.

      I don't like what they did, but I agree they had to do something. I would have liked for it to be better, but it's not.

      Yes, there is obviously problems in the housing market and banking system right now, but (all suffering aside) it's just the market leveling itself out. Housing prices were inflated...they were going to come down. People took on loans they couldn't pay...they were bound to get foreclosed.

      In a perfect world, we could let AIG, etc. fail, give some emergecy economic help to people who lost their homes, and wait for the market to recover, but because of how *perception* plays a part in our economy, this "bailout"...though in theory the wrong move, in practice was needed...almost like a commercial for how good our economy will be...

      I hate that this is how it works (and I know I'm oversimplifying), but it's true.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  7. I know you're scared, but please think. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Carping right now, when the boat is sinking, is just plain stupid

    You know it's an amazing coincidence. You're saying the exact same thing that Henry Paulson and his cronies say. I'm sure that it is just that - a coincidence - and that you independently came up with the identical position completely on your own.

    I also suppose that if Henry Paulson said you needed to come to his house and blow him or the economy would go under you'd think, "No time to think!" and head right over to do it. If that's not the case, then why did you fall for his, "Sure, I'll give you a life preserver - throw me your wallet first!" scheme? There is time to think. Henry Paulson has said he has no plans to spend any of the $700B for FOUR WEEKS. Why the rush to pass it into within days?

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  8. It happens every year by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Between 1 and 1.3 trillion dollars has been spent on military projects and war for the last few years, depending on how you look at old debt. The money is not clearly accounted for, against constitutional principles, and it only goes to serve large corporations.

    Where is the public outcry? Where are the Republican talking heads when the budget is being discussed?

    The bailout plan may be awful, but it's by no means the biggest con ever. The biggest con ever has been going on since the end of WWII, and it has cost American money and lives, and in no small number. Any of these transparently partisan personalities are just squawking for advertising dollars and votes, same as always.

  9. Another Option: by teknopurge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have had the chance to speak with other business owners and some executives of, let's just say, large, corporations. The general feeling is that while action was necessary there was a much better approach:

    - ~500 billion USD given to the Fed
    - Allow the Fed to disperse the money through the discount window with loans at 1% fixed for 18 months then reset to Prime-0.5%
    - All mortgages that are currently in MBS tranches have their rates reset to Prime+1 for 24 months.
    - Have the US AG seek felony charges for lenders that committed fraud.

    The current bill is like trying to get fuel into a car through the tailpipe instead of filling up the gas tank.

  10. This proves how much Americans will sit and take! by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I find MOST incredible about this whole bailout, is the fact that nationwide polls of the general populace indicated between 70% and 75% were AGAINST the legislation, yet the Senate passed it through with FLYING COLORS, and House of "Representatives" were swayed to voting for it in a matter of only a few days. All it really took was throwing in a few key financial incentives and bonuses to the appropriate special interests, and some empty promises by potential presidents to be.

    The whole time, these "Representatives" were being flooded with demands from the American people NOT to vote for the bailout - but they turned a deaf ear to everyone, and made bold claims like "I may not be re-elected because of this, but I'm confident I did the right thing for America's future anyway." One moron said he changed his vote from NO to YES, simply because "I talked with potential president to be, Obama, and he personally assured me he would enact legislation after his election that's in alignment with what I want to see." (WHAT?!? You were VERBALLY promised some B.S. by a guy who MAY or MAY NOT become president, so that's more important to you than listening to the people who elected you and trusted you to represent their wishes?!)

    When HUGE taxpayer expenditures like this are voted through and signed into law in less than a week, despite 3 out of 4 Americans being strongly against them - it's clear we no longer live in a Democracy at all! This seems like as good a reason for an overthrow of our government as what we dealt with back around 1776! Yet people will not only sit back and accept it, but probably not even vote in protest for a 3rd. party like the Libertarians. (Incidentally, Bob Barr has been speaking out against this bailout the whole time, unlike our Democratic or Republican contenders. The man gets MY vote for that reason alone. At least he's in support of the will of the PEOPLE still!)

  11. Dec 2009 limit on the raised FDIC insurance limit by kris_lang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yep

    I read it too.

    If you're in banking, you must have noticed the fact that the increased cap of FDIC insurance from $100k to $250k will only apply until December of 2009, after which it reverts back to the limit of $100k per named account holder per financial institution.

    How many people might get suckered into longer term CD's (Certificates of Deposits, not the ISO-9660 type) that might go over the boundary of the TEMPORARILY raised FDIC insurance caps and end up either inadequately covered or stuck with early-withdrawal fees?

    Either way, NONE of the articles I have read make any statement about the fact that the so-called increase in the FDIC insurance from $100-thousand to $250-thousand is only going to last the length of calendar year 2009. That's a sham and a disgrace.

    Kris

  12. Seriously it is quite an achievement by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bush and collegues came into office promising to implement Grover Norquists ideas for contracting govenrment. The graphic phrase most often used was they would have to "strangle it in the bathtub" which was Norquist's shorthand for meaning that to reduce spending they had to basically remove govenement agencies and kill off revenue.

    Fast forward we have years of the biggest govenement expansion ever. Some bandy the word "socialist" over the bailout. But actually that misses the big picture.

    Suppose your goal was to move the governement more towards a corporatist outlook and to really strangle spending how could you do this.

    You do it with debt. This 700 billion will be paralytic both in crippling elective goverment spending as well as it's ability to raise future debt. Oddly It does not actually go on the books as debt even but it is a liability.

    And even if some day the loans and options they are buying pay off, it's accomplished the tow key goals.

    1) strangling it in the bathtub. There cannot be any socialist expansion during Obama because there simply is no way to finance it either with direct revenue or borrowing.

    2) a movement towards corporatism. The Government will rise and fall with the value of the companies it holds options in. What's good for the US really is what's good for AIG and JPmorgan, and the rest. Even the people admisistering the hen house in both the SEC and Treasury came from Goldmann Sachs.

    The 1930's was when Corporatism was invented and the country practicing it, italy, was consider a miracle. the rest of the world was reeling in the depression. Senators and congressmen hailed the Moussilini miracle and went on fact finding missions to figure out how to import this here. Adolf Hitler was swept into power in part by nationalism that awoke in the aftermath of WWI but also because he too offered the fascist miracle for germany.

    THe trains did run on time. THe auobahns emerged. It was spring time for hitler and germany too.

    SO we now have an odd time in the US. We are backing our way into fascism. We have all the ingredient. Cheney and his patriot acts have created police powers that are unprecendented in our history of civil liberties. Even our allies like britain have gone to a surveliance society and now ponder 2 days detenciton with charges.

    THe second fork of facism is corporatism where the state manages for the good of the corporations and vica versa. (the reason corproatism was such a miracle was precisely because of the vica versa. The people were really better off in the rising economy of italy).

    So while hitler managed to once and for all kill the term "facism" at one time, it's potential for being an ecomomic engine was admired.

    I note I'm not triggering Godwins law here because I'm not comparing my oponent to Hitler. Instead I'm saying that we are indeed backing into something that is facism in everything but name only, both the good and the bad.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Seriously it is quite an achievement by niktemadur · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's starting to look more and more like all those ideals were just a relatively short-lived fluke as we barter away our true freedoms for freedom from responsibility.

      Both the bill that was shot down and the bill that passed were disapproved by the majority of the citizenry. The People had no say so in the matter, the whole thing was rammed twice through the House in three days. If the House had shot it down again, the fucking bill with ever increasing pork and tax breaks would probably have been rammed three, four, five times in the course of the next week.

      Why did the bill return to the House just after being rejected? And considering that the Fed quietly pumped around $600 billion into the casino known as Wall Street on Tuesday, even as the House was voting "nay" on the bill, are there any doubts that The People have absolutely no say so in the matter?

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    2. Re:Seriously it is quite an achievement by OriginalArlen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Close, but no cigar. FORTY-TWO DAYS.. No, you couldn't make it up, could you.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    3. Re:Seriously it is quite an achievement by willow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were plenty of alternatives proposed that were less intrusive, safer, and better targeted to unfreeze liquidity to buy us time to fix the real problem of reckless, unregulated trading in fraudulently valued housing derivatives.

      All were all rounded rejected by Paulson and taken off the table without further debate. If you doubt this, do some research. The rush to pass this via fear-mongering is typical administration bullying at its worst.

      The Paulson plan is a naked power grab. Stop trying to sugar-coat it. It's a last ditch effort to save investment bank cronies from getting crushed from the upcoming recession by buying their junk at prices way above market value.

      --
      Moderation in everything, including moderation.
    4. Re:Seriously it is quite an achievement by karmatic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What if the government starts to print lots of money to fund that stuff, creating a large invisible tax on everyone through inflation?

      The problem with this is it drives up interest rates. A bunch. If I'm losing 12% a year due to inflation, and I want 3% interest for my risk and profit, I will not loan out money for less than 15%, as it's a losing proposition.

      We are in defect spending right now, and cutting services is political suicide. Here's the options:

      1) Continue deficit spending. Eventually, that compound interest catches up, and we default. At that point, the US can't get debt as easily, and spending is cut to meet income. What a novel concept.

      2) Inflation. Do it too much, and it gets too expensive for us to borrow. If we can't borrow, we're in the same boat as #1. This is effectively a tax on people with money.

      3) Cut spending. This is a good thing. Running a house with a vicious cycle of debt never works. Why would it work for a government?

      4) Taxes. Lots and lots of taxes. This leads to tax evasion, businesses (and people) leaving the country, etc. Excessive taxation is horrible for business, and places an unnecessary burden on small businesses and the poor (no matter how "progressive" it is.)

      Sadly, it looks like #4 is the way we're largely going to go. With all the liabilities we have, we're in for some real pain in the not-so-distant future. This will not work as they think, either.

      Here's a quick example:
      I run a software company. We are a US corporation, hiring US workers, with US taxes. All of our sales are done in-person, or over the internet. Corporate income tax can be avoided to a large extent through business expenses, leading to an effective tax rate not too much more than the income tax. Company pays employees, employees pay taxes, done. It works out to something like 40%, all said and done.

      Now, suppose the tax climate gets really nasty. A company like mine doesn't have to be located in the United States - most of our customers aren't anyway.

      So, it is possible to:
      1) Set up shop in Panama (who doesn't tax corporations on income derived outside the country).
      2) Move to another country (for example, Japan). Japan doesn't tax foreign-derived income for people who aren't "permanent residents". The US exempts the first $80,000. So, the first $80,000 are tax-free.
      3) If you can live off $80,000 for a while, you can get paid in options. Provided you meet the criteria, this can end up capital gains. So, your taxes on this ends up at 15%.

      So, for a hypothetical person making $150,000 - the taxes would be approx $10,500, or a 7% tax rate.

      Large companies can do similar things, like "license" a bunch of technology from a company they own, located in a jurisdiction that doesn't tax them (like Ireland). This lets them reduce their taxable income and funnel the profits to something taxed at a much lower rate. Invest in Irish corp, license _from_ Irish corp, pay 15% taxes.

      Yes, closing the capital gains "loophole" would even things out a bit; however, it has a lot of collateral damage; including people renouncing citizenship, reduced investment, etc. Given the credit crunch we're having, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

    5. Re:Seriously it is quite an achievement by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reposted: originally by Greyfox:

      Early on in this administration they changed the bankruptcy rules to make it harder to declare bankruptcy, stating that individual Americans need to be more responsible with their borrowing. At the same time they've driven this country into historic levels of debt and are now debating a bail out package for their friends on wall street with $700+ billion of taxpayer dollars. Time and again they vote to support their friends in big business, but if you're an individual facing possible homelessness they'll treat you to some weasel words and turn their back on you.

      This November we should all vote with one voice, Democrat and Republican, against the current corrupt congress. We should vote across the board, not Democrat or Republican but against anyone sitting in office. We should kick every single one of those bastards out, and we should keep kicking them out after just one term until they once more represent the people and not the businesses that contribute millions of dollars a year to their campaign funds. We should keep kicking them out until they spend more time doing the jobs we elected them to do instead of gallivanting around and campaigning for most of their terms. We should keep kicking them out until we find some people who actually take the responsibility to fix the major problems in thus country.

      It is time to put aside our petty differences and root out this corruption that infects our very core, before it destroys this country.

      I know at least 20 people including myself that are planning to do just this. I wonder how many others are going to vote against the incumbent?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  13. Re:bailout / rescue by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, the CEOs, but everyone else too.

    First, all the people that thought houses were investments whose price could never go down. Wrong.

    Second, all those people bought houses they couldn't afford at ludicrous interest rates, based on the idea that a bank would never give them a loan they couldn't afford. Wrong.

    Third, the banks that gave these ludicrous loans in the first place. Stupid.

    Fourth, the unscrupulous assholes who raced to find people to give these loans so they could sell the loans as investments.

    Fifth, the federal reserve for keeping the interest rates so low that the global pool of money had to find themselves an investment other than government bonds.

    Sixth, the global pool of money for investing in these loans without carefully looking at what they were buying.

    Seventh, all the wall street banks that also invested in all these things heavily and not seeing that they weren't worth their price, and their CEOs.

    Eighth, the government for not seeing this happening earlier and stopping it before it was too late.

    Ninth, the previous government (Clinton, sorry) for trying to let every American own a home. Heart was in the right place, should have asked an economist first though.

    How many times did you hear in the last ten years that property was a great investment that couldn't fail and that everyone should buy some as soon as possible? That was bad advice, every one of those people were wrong.

    Basically we all did this for not looking more skeptically at what we were investing in, and living beyond our means. But the economy is not the financial industry, the financial industry is just the fiendishly complicated mechanism that loans the rest of the economy money so it can function. Letting the entire economy fail to teach Wall Street a lesson sounds stupid to me.

    I lived within my means, I don't have any debt, and I'm pissed at everyone for screwing this all up so badly. But I want the economy keep going so that the means which I am capable of living within can continue coming, and here we are. Put me down for my share of the bailout, and do me a favor, keep wall street on a tighter leash. I lost a lot of faith in the free market over the last year, it was the market's mindless lemming me-too-ism that completely screwed the pooch here.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  14. You realize, of course, that you've left a lot out by shmlco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You realize, of course, that you've left a lot out?

    You realize, of course, that the CRA did not force banks to make loans to individuals who couldn't afford them? What it did do was say that you could not refuse credit based on location or area (redlining) and instead had to base your loan evaluation on the INDIVIDUAL, and upon the individual's ability to pay. (Try reading the bill and not the Wiki.)

    You realize, of course, that the vast majority of the subprime loans that are going belly-up were made by financial institutions like CountryWide... which are not banks, and as such, WERE NOT COVERED BY THE CRA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    You realize, of course, that in early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (under GW Bush) implemented new rules that substantially weakened the CRA, and as such, its impact on credit markets?

    You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?

    The same Phil Gramm, BTW, that was John McCain's presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser. The same Gramm that in July explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners."

    I could continue, but suffice to say that there's a lot of information that your oh-so-insightful post left out.

    Do you work for the Republican campaign? I only ask because such blatant cherry-picking of the facts to suit your own position is a party trademark.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.