Unprecedented Power Shift In Bailout, Prof Warns

So help me out here, we're giving them all this power because they've done such a good job up to now. Right?
Right?
Bueller?

Sent by Winter | 3:04 PM ET | 09-22-2008

This is all profoundly depressing. Here I was optimistic about this being purely a nonpartisan financial issue, and it goes ahead and snowballs into another White House grab for executive power and secrecy. Ugh.

Sent by Jacob | 3:22 PM ET | 09-22-2008

Once again thank you NPR. The up to the minute info is great, I have tried most major world newspapers and
magazines - but this is what tech is for. I am also impressed that you are not letting those you interview off the hook with all the platitudes and generalizations that are rife on most media outlets.
Nice to see Laura transition from the BPP too.

Sent by peggy | 3:26 PM ET | 09-22-2008

This CANNOT be the Patriot Act, Second Act! Please, America, do not be fooled by this Administration again. It will be a "Shame on me" moment in our history. There HAS to be Accountability on Wall Street. We cannot give them the "Golden Parachute" that Washington is willing to give them. The American people cannot be left holding another bag of greed and corruption!

Sent by Celeste | 4:02 PM ET | 09-22-2008

Giving The Cheney/BUSH administration a NO overview contract is as bad as the patriot act, I agree. THIS ENTIRE administration (including ex-members like cheney, alberto) need to be WATER-BOARDED, since they don't think it's torture.
check out my blog markbnj.blogspot.com

Sent by mark Brown | 4:22 PM ET | 09-22-2008

does this seem coincidental that all of this is happening during an election season when no party is going to want to be connected to failing the economy and when this bill has the best chance of being bullied through with limited oversight? where can more information on this be found?

Sent by patrik | 4:27 PM ET | 09-22-2008

I agree with the others posting that handing this administration the power that Secretary Paulson seems to believe is necessary is enabling the same kind of irresponsibility that led us to this mess in the first place. We need a LOT more oversight, not giving a blank check to this administration.

Sent by Felicity Barry | 6:05 PM ET | 09-22-2008

This bailout is eerily similar to the Brady Bond bailout of the big money center banks (same gang as now, but merged a few times) in 1989 at the end of the Reagan administration's watch. The big banks were on their backs after overextending themselves to the Latin American governments and were nearing insolvency. (Citicorp's stock was trading in the single digits.) The government took those loans off the Banks' books and replaced these bad assets with Brady Bonds which were collateralized with Treasuries. It saved the banks and allowed them to lend another day. Twenty years later....

Sent by Stacy Brandom | 8:53 PM ET | 09-22-2008

Why am I bailing out my creditors?

How about sharing the decisions/blame/benefits by tripling down on the bailout and sending everyone that paid payroll taxes a $10,000 check payable only on the PRINCIPAL of home loans, credit card debt or student loans?

All excess goes into retirement accounts or loan term securities. (Helping with the short/long issues of credit).

The invisible hand of the market can help decide the winners and losers in this bail out. Not just the government. I can't believe I have to say this.

Everyone that is doing the bailing gets a reward by getting out from under some personal debt, while the banks and other finical institutions get an infusion of capital with the small price of none the interest that would have been earned on that outstanding principal.

Their customer will technical become better credit risks in the future because they have less debts.

With less debts to pay, Americans would have more money in their pockets to spend and further direct the invisible hand of capitalism to met our personal needs and wants.

Its a stimulus, bailout, the tax payer gets relief too package.

Besides its our money, and a lot of our own debt.

Sent by L. Gibson | 12:05 AM ET | 09-23-2008

Everyone seems to see the increasing power of the executive as a one-sided power grab, but hardly anyone notices that it is in fact the congress that is surrendering its legislative powers. I think both the increasing power of the executive and of the judiciary can be often understood as the abdication of responsibility on the part of the legislative branch. Unlike the president or judges, senators and congressmen have a whole career of elections to worry about, and its just easier to campaign if you've never actually done anything.

Sent by Andrew | 9:16 AM ET | 09-23-2008

What will be included under the heading 'other toxic assets?' The leverage permitted the investment banks, which I understand to be 30 times the assets the banks hold? The insurance called 'credit default swaps' treated as assets? The 'bets' on success treated as assets and permitted to be carried off the books? How do these 'assets' compare in size to the book value of the mortgage backed securities?

Sent by Jane Beard Ames | 10:18 AM ET | 09-23-2008

Rock on, L. Gibson. Not a single reason (beyond "it has to happen right now!!) to buy this "trickle-down" business anymore. Time for some bottom-up change.

Sent by Beanie | 11:17 AM ET | 09-23-2008