Rehberg - "throw the bums in jail"

[WhiskeyGirl]

Rehberg: Stimulus package won't make impact
By JAN FALSTAD
Of The Gazette Staff

"Two years down the road, I'm not sure we'll see much improvement in the economy," he said. He warned people to watch for interest rates creeping up, triggering inflation, because Congress is "piling debt upon debt."

Rehberg, who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, voted against then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's $700 billion bank bailout bill passed last fall when Republican George W. Bush was president and the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress...

I think it's not piling up debt - but sharing the prosperity with others..not Americans.

The House members were given no chance to amend the compromise that came over from the Senate and no time to read the 1,000-plus pages, he said. Despite promises that the legislation would be posted on the Internet 48 hours before the vote, Rehberg said the language wasn't available to House members until 11 p.m. Thursday or 10 hours before the debate started. That amounted to 24 seconds per page, if they stayed up all night.

"That's $735 million per page. That's a lot of money, and that's money we can't get back," he said.

Big banks considered "too big to fail," need to be broken up and bankers who broke laws and helped create this crisis should be punished, he said.

"I fall in the category of 'throw the bums in jail,' " Rehberg said, but he added that the country can never eliminate greed through legislation.

Montana leaders may be happy the state gets more than $600 million from the stimulus bill, but by the time that is paid back with interest, it will cost taxpayers twice as much or about $1.2 billion, he said.

"This is not free money," Rehberg said.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/02/16/news/state/15-rehberg.txt

[A's Fever]

I like the idea of the larger, insolvent banks being broken up into manageable pieces while recovering if and only if there are government supports in place to guarantee continuing operations and available credit for businesses who rely on the banks for daily needs, as well as qualified consumers who need credit for such things as auto loans and student loans.  If that can't be done, then I hope another way is found.  Remember the mess caused by Lehman going under and the sudden and severe lack of liquidity and credit in the capital markets.  Almost brought the financial system to a screeching halt and that was only one institution and one that did not do business with consumers.

I too hope that some or all of the architects of this mess are prosecuted and subject to clawbacks.  As I remarked the other day, many of those CEO's who sat on the hot seat in front of the senate banking committee recently were not the CEO's directly responsible for the crisis in those institutions.  Where were the former heads of Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Merrill, Countrywide, World Savings, Citigroup to name a few?  Just because they resigned or were fired should not under any circumstances excuse them for answering to wrongdoing.

Also wonder what "2 years down the road I'm not sure we'll see much improvement in the economy" means.  Even if it doesn't improve much, but at least stabilizes, that would be a positive and provide a glimmer of hope.  If the job losses start decreasing and finally stabilizing, that would be a great thing for people.  The jobless rate is a lagging indicator, so this will happen before it finally shows in the numbers. 

One final point:  I wish that Geithner's senate hearings focused less on his tax problems and more on his view about the possibility that the proposed government actions would devalue the dollar and create massive inflation.  This is obviously a great concern for many and it is precisely the type of thing he should have been grilled on (imo).  I have read that it is easier to control inflation than deflation or stagflation but it would be nice to know what the administration's thoughts are on this issue.

JMHO

[WhiskeyGirl]

I like the idea of the larger, insolvent banks being broken up into manageable pieces while recovering if and only if there are government supports in place to guarantee continuing operations and available credit for businesses who rely on the banks for daily needs, as well as qualified consumers who need credit for such things as auto loans and student loans.  If that can't be done, then I hope another way is found.  Remember the mess caused by Lehman going under and the sudden and severe lack of liquidity and credit in the capital markets.  Almost brought the financial system to a screeching halt and that was only one institution and one that did not do business with consumers.

I too hope that some or all of the architects of this mess are prosecuted and subject to clawbacks.  As I remarked the other day, many of those CEO's who sat on the hot seat in front of the senate banking committee recently were not the CEO's directly responsible for the crisis in those institutions.  Where were the former heads of Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Merrill, Countrywide, World Savings, Citigroup to name a few?  Just because they resigned or were fired should not under any circumstances excuse them for answering to wrongdoing.

Also wonder what "2 years down the road I'm not sure we'll see much improvement in the economy" means.  Even if it doesn't improve much, but at least stabilizes, that would be a positive and provide a glimmer of hope.  If the job losses start decreasing and finally stabilizing, that would be a great thing for people.  The jobless rate is a lagging indicator, so this will happen before it finally shows in the numbers. 

One final point:  I wish that Geithner's senate hearings focused less on his tax problems and more on his view about the possibility that the proposed government actions would devalue the dollar and create massive inflation.  This is obviously a great concern for many and it is precisely the type of thing he should have been grilled on (imo).  I have read that it is easier to control inflation than deflation or stagflation but it would be nice to know what the administration's thoughts are on this issue.

JMHO

Excellent points. 

I see destruction of the currency as a real problem.  The super rich get richer, and the rest of us get poorer.  Big companies get richer and make paupers out of the many places they do business.  No benefit for workers.

I do not see any stabilization until government focus changes away from creating profit and opportunity only for large corporations.  "Free trade" does not benefit the masses.  I think a better goal is to create a vibrant and diverse economy with opportunity for everyone. 

How long can any community exist when jobs, culture, and wealth are moved elsewhere?

mo