Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert Reich's 5-point bailout plan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:00 PM
Original message
Robert Reich's 5-point bailout plan
The blogger is right -- this is a pipe dream even though it would be a credible plan in a sane country. But we can pretend.

Robert Reich has some proposals that are interesting, and would be doable if political discourse in this country didn't resemble Ebola in terms of how diseased it is. As it is , they have no chance in hell of happening. Here's Reich's proposals, for entertainment purposes only:

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?

3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?

4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/21/what_wall_street_should_do_to/index.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/paul-krugman-and-epic-of-gilgamesh-by.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
billybob537 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have a problem with #3
and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. McCain has 7 top lobbists running his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Robert Reich For Treasury Secretary
really, I've listened to him on NPR. Not only is smart, but I like his speaking style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frustratedlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. It makes sense to help the homeowners pay the banks...
Reduce the price/monthly payments rather than take a major loss on the property on the bank's side or lose the house on the homeowner's side. It makes more sense to make sure the people stay in the homes, or we are going to have tons of blighted neighborhoods of new homes with no one living in them.

They are basically making sure the banks aren't losing their tails. Why ask the taxpayers to bail them out, but add a burden to homeowners who are losing their homes because of predatory practices.

Take control of these financial institutions. It wouldn't take very many before the others would straighten up their act.

This smells and I can't figure out why. My impression is that the holders were calling in their chits as if it were a Depression and they panicked. What did they expect?

There had better be a stack of penalties going out to those who were involved in this mess. Martha went to prison. Why aren't these people heading the same direction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bronxiteforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC