Just out of curiosity, here is apparently the case made in an op-ed by Robert Reich, Obama's financial advisor:

What Wall Street Should Do To Get Its Blank Check

The frame has been set, the die cast. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, presumably representing the Bush administration but indirectly representing Wall Street, and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, want a blank check from Congress for $700 billion or possibly a trillion dollars or more to take bad debt off Wall Street's balance sheets. Never before in the history of American capitalism has so much been asked of so many for (at least in the first instance) so few.

Put yourself in the shoes of a member of Congress, including our two presidential candidates. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair have told you this is necessary to save the economy. If you don't agree, you risk a meltdown of the entire global financial system. Your own constituents' savings could go down with it. An election is six weeks away. Besides, in the last two days of trading, since rumors spread that the Treasury and the Fed were planning something of this sort, stock prices revived.

Now - quick -- what do you do? You have no choice but to say yes.

But you might also set some conditions on Wall Street.

The public doesn't like a blank check. They think this whole bailout idea is nuts. They see fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in zillions for years, now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity. Wall Street's request for a blank check comes at the same time most of the public is worried about their jobs and declining wages, and having enough money to pay for gas and food and health insurance, meet their car payments and mortgage payments, and save for their retirement and childrens' college education. And so the public is asking: Why should Wall Street get bailed out by me when I'm getting screwed?

So if you are a member of Congress, you just might be in a position to demand from Wall Street certain conditions in return for the blank check.

My five nominees:

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?

Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. Well, you should tell them that the public doesn't like the idea of bailing out Wall Street. So if Wall Street doesn't accept these conditions, it doesn't get the blank check.

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

If any posters here know of any fat cats who are crying cos of this mess, then tell us. Its your duty as the citizen there you were.

I'm trying to figure out what this means.

It means if you know of any greedy bank managers or people higher up, tell us, we'll love to ask them a few questions!

And by "us" who do you mean?

The angry citizens.shareholders/taxpayers,

I see

Are you annoyed? None of us here, on this forum, want to see wages go down and taxes go up. I'm gonna state something now that I've read on another forum, you won't like it: It has been predicted that in Feb 2009, the US will collapse and merge with Canada and Mexico. The new currency will be the Amero. Some people believed it while one was actually shouting, "Troll". Its looking likely that in Jan, there will be a 1 trillion dollar loss in 1 week.

No, I am not annoyed, I just am being observant

I heard that the currency will be called Tamco. Any truth to it?

That's exactly what's going on here in the U.S., Turi. A few months ago, the "stagflation" word was being thrown around but with oil coming down since July (save for today's spike), the inflation hawks have been quieted. With that said, I bet we're in for more inflation pain in the coming quarters.

I'm glad some banks are a bit more risk averse as opposed to Charles Prince III, the former CEO of Citigroup. A quote from him in 2007 (before he was replaced): "When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to dance. We're still dancing."

Really? Gosh! I've never really liked the USA but this new country thing seems like really exciting ya knowz.

Damn... everything's back into the shitter already!

The only thing I have that's been going up during all this shit is my USAA Precious Metals and Minerals (USAGX) fund... UP 7.88% today! Doesn't make up for the rest, though.

Long term, baby!! That's what you have to keep in mind. Panic over the short term is what leads to financial market fluctuations. Realistically, what did the Dow do. It sounds frightening when the Dow goes up and down by the hundreds, but the actual percentage is small. That's what the media doesn't report.

Well, McCain released his "bailout proposal" at that bullshit Photo-Op summit yesterday...

The McCain Plan: "Fewer Regulations, More Corporate Tax Breaks"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13918_Page2.html

"In the long run we are all dead."

Douchebag better appreciate that one

Add WAMU to the institutions down the crapper. JP Morgan just took them over in a firesale.

Another one bites the dust...

I wonder whos next, I'm starting to worry.

Loves me so Keynes... Good one, DMC!

I'm impressed SB. From what I've read, most Board posters don't have quite the grasp you apparently have of the Dow Jones or the American economy generally. Despite the economy's ups and downs over the decades, the Dow Jones has returned enormous rewards for market investors. In 1981, the Dow was under 1,000. Today, it's over 11,000. Kudos SB.

Lessons learned....I hope. Of all the bailout proposals, I hope the Feds really squeeze the greedy CEOs/Bosses on their personal parachutes.

For example, have them do yard work for anyone whose pension went down the shitter.

Don't hold your breath on that.

Thank you for your kind words, Olivant. If I was going to retire next month, though, and my 401K just went down the crapper (as they all pretty much have), my response may not have been so calm and far-sighted.

While we are all concerned and perplexed about the 700 Billion for the mortgage bailout, the government boys and girls were passing legislation to fund $650 billion to loan automakers and open the gates for off shore drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic. Do you think we've been set up with this gas price thing? I feel the need for a big scoop of KY.

It's a $600 billion appropriation to continue funding government activities through early FY 2009 of which only $25 billion is in the form of loan guarantees to automakers.

A New Hampshire newspaper editorial gave their response to the recent economic crisis:

Suspension

"We have decided to suspend our editorial activities today so we can adequately ponder the implications of the economic bailout program."

http://www.sentinelsource.com/articles/2008/09/27/opinion/sentinel_editorial/free/id_324828.txt

WaMu's CEO: Bagging $13.65 million in 18 days?

In short order, the shareholders of Washington Mutual (NYSE: WM) have lost billions. A tier-1 private equity investor, TPG, has lost $1.3 billion on the company. And, unfortunately, thousands of WaMu employees have lost their jobs.

However, there are some winners. For example, there are the short sellers. JP Morgan (NYSE: JPM) is also likely to do well since the firm bought WaMu's assets for a mere $1.9 billion.

But there appears to be yet another interesting beneficiary: Alan Fishman. He is WaMu's CEO, who took the top job 18 days ago.

As should be no surprise, he signed a juicy contract: a $7.5 million signing bonus and a lump-sum payment for severance that comes to $6.15 million. In other words, if he leaves the company, he'll walk away with $13.65 million.

That's a pretty good deal in light of the fact that WaMu is the biggest bank collapse ever.

Moreover, I suppose it is yet further evidence of why Americans have low regard for the financial system. And despite huge bailouts, it's probably a good bet that little will change.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/27/wamus-ceo-bagging-13-65-million-in-18-days/print/