While you're all outraged about the bailout...

[TGRR]

...Congress is weighing the merits of the "GIVE Act." Google it.

Then tell yourself that everything is going to be okay.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2857/show

See if you can find the horrible badfun part. And no, I don't mean all the "priorities for leadership shall be given to disadvantaged youth" bits. No, there's something REALLY funny in there. Give it a read.

[TheMercenary]

ACORN's got to get it's piece of the pie somehow.

[bluecuracao]

I'm feeling lazy. Why not just point it out, so we can be immediately amused, as you say.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

I'm feeling lazy. Why not just point it out, so we can be immediately amused, as you say.

Screw you, hippie. If you want first rate horror/mirth, you're going to have to work for it. You know, actually READ the damn thing.

But what the hell. It's only your future.

[bluecuracao]

TGRR, are you a medium height white guy, medium weight, with brown hair and hazel eyes? If so, I want you. Srsly, I am consumed with lust right now, no joke.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

ACORN's got to get it's piece of the pie somehow.

Naw. The whole bill isn't shown. Now take a look at the full text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...sel=TOC_64232&

Originally Posted by HR2857, Sec 6104,

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Are your annoyed by this... uh, these... bailout(s).
Then don't click on this link.
Seriously, don't do it.
Don't even think about reading this Rolling Stone article.
At least without taking your blood pressure and anti-depression meds.
You don't even want to know about;

The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution

or

The reason the number has dropped to nothing is that the Fed had simply stopped using relatively transparent devices like repurchase agreements to pump its money into the hands of private companies. By early 2009, a whole series of new government operations had been invented to inject cash into the economy, most all of them completely secretive and with names you've never heard of. There is the Term Auction Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and a monster called the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (boasting the chat-room horror-show acronym ABCPMMMFLF). For good measure, there's also something called a Money Market Investor Funding Facility, plus three facilities called Maiden Lane I, II and III to aid bailout recipients like Bear Stearns and AIG.

While the rest of America, and most of Congress, have been bugging out about the $700 billion bailout program called TARP, all of these newly created organisms in the Federal Reserve zoo have quietly been pumping not billions but trillions of dollars into the hands of private companies (at least $3 trillion so far in loans, with as much as $5.7 trillion more in guarantees of private investments). Although this technically isn't taxpayer money, it still affects taxpayers directly, because the activities of the Fed impact the economy as a whole. And this new, secretive activity by the Fed completely eclipses the TARP program in terms of its influence on the economy.

No one knows who's getting that money or exactly how much of it is disappearing through these new holes in the hull of America's credit rating. Moreover, no one can really be sure if these new institutions are even temporary at all — or whether they are being set up as permanent, state-aided crutches to Wall Street, designed to systematically suck bad investments off the ledgers of irresponsible lenders.

Believe me, you don't want to know.

[TheMercenary]

Well so much for Redux's trumpeting of transparency.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well so much for Redux's trumpeting of transparency.

Transparency is relative, dont you think?

There is more transparency in the ERRA (Obama's stimulus bill) than the EESA (Bush's bank bail-out bill)

There is more transparency in Congress now as a result of the Democrats ethics/lobbying reform in 07 than previously existed.

There is more transparency in the executive branch now than existed in the Bush administration as a result of Obama's FOIA guidelines

[TheMercenary]

My opinion would be:

Originally Posted by Redux

Transparency is relative, dont you think?

Quite.

There is more transparency in the ERRA (Obama's stimulus bill) than the EESA (Bush's bank bail-out bill)

False. Not the way it was ram-rodded through the Congress.

There is more transparency in Congress now as a result of the Democrats ethics/lobbying reform in 07 than previously existed.

False. There are just as many behind the closed door deals with Pelosi and Reid.

There is more transparency in the executive branch now than existed in the Bush administration as a result of Obama's FOIA guidelines

That remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

False. Not the way it was ram-rodded through the Congress.

I consider this provision in ARRA, among several provisions that require greater oversight and reporting on the use of stimulus funds, to provide some level of transparency and accountability:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:

* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;

* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;

* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";

* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,

* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and

* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.

IMO, that, along with provisions requiring on oversight board and provisions requiring whistleblower protection provides some level of transparency and accountability.

Obviously, you dont agree but that doesnt make it false.

False. There are just as many behind the closed door deals with Pelosi and Reid.

I consider the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 to provide greater transparency in the legislative process than previously existed.

Obviously, you dont agree and that doesnt make this one false either.

That remains to be seen.

Yep....but there is no doubt that the Obama FOIA guidelines represents a reversal and far more transparent to start with than the Bush FOIA guidelines.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued comprehensive new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines today that direct all executive branch departments and agencies to apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA....
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-253.html

As I said, none of these are perfect nor go far enough, IMO ...but its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.

BUt suit yourself.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.

Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?

Originally Posted by classicman

Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?

As I said, transparency is relative.

And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.

Would you prefer that the compensation restrictions/oversight panel/whistleblower protection provisions cited NOt be included in the stimulus bill (as they werent in the banking bailout bill that Bush would not have signed if such provisions were included) or that new, more open FOIA guidelines NOT be issued, or new ethics/lobbying requirements NOT be adopted by Congress?

We can either continue under the old ways or adopted policies and include provisions in legislation that MAY make a difference.

And as I further said....none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but IMO, are certainly better than the recent past.

[classicman]

none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but MAY be better ... we'll see... maybe

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.

But there is actually no proff that they will.