Frank Predicts Bailout Deal By Sunday

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Frank Predicts Bailout Deal By Sunday stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and DAVID ESPO | September 26, 2008 11:48 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Bush delivers remarks to members of the media outside the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, Sept. 26, 2008 in Washington. Bush spoke on the negotiations to finalize legislation on the financial rescue package. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and Congress anxiously revived negotiations Friday on a $700 billion financial bailout, one day after the largest bank collapse in U.S. history provided a brutal reminder of the risks of failure. Democrats talked optimistically of agreement by the end of the weekend.

"I'm convinced that by Sunday we will have an agreement that people can understand on this bill," predicted Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a key Democrat in eight days of up-and-down talks designed to stave off an economic disaster.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added that "progress is being made," although the day came and went without senior lawmakers from both parties sitting down together.

Neither she nor Frank divulged details at a late-afternoon news conference in the Capitol, though there was word of one fresh Democratic concession.

Pelosi told fellow Democrats during a closed-door meeting that the idea of letting judges rewrite mortgages to help bankrupt homeowners avoid foreclosure won't be a part of the emergency legislation. That provision, pushed by several Democrats, would be a deal-breaker for Republicans whose votes are needed to pass the measure, she said, according to lawmakers at the meeting.

Democrats and Bush administration officials also said they were willing to include House Republicans' idea of having the government insure distressed mortgages _ but only as an option, rather than a replacement for the administration's more sweeping approach.

Democratic and Republican staff aides met into the night on Capitol Hill. They were going line by line through legislative proposals in an attempt to clear the way for lawmakers to bargain over the weekend even as presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama agreed during their presidential debate Friday night that Congress must act soon.

Asked directly whether he intends to vote for a rescue plan taking shape in Congress, McCain said, "I hope so. ... sure."

Story continues below
advertisement

"We haven't seen the language yet," Obama said. "I do think there is constructive work being done."

Meanwhile, new details emerged of a remarkably tumultuous White House meeting on Thursday. With the session breaking up in disarray, according to two participants, President Bush issued an appeal, saying, "Can't we just all go out and say things are OK?" The group around the table, congressional leaders as well as McCain and Obama, spurned the presidential request for a publicly united front.

Earlier in the White House meeting, Democrats peppered House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio with questions about the details of an alternative he was backing. At one point, Bush, too, said, "I don't know what the hell they are," recalled one person who was in the room. All the participants spoke on condition of anonymity, saying the meeting was private.

Bush sought to coax the talks back to life on Friday, prodding lawmakers in a morning appearance to "rise to the occasion" _ and quickly.

In a sign of progress, House Republicans dispatched their second-ranking leader, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, to join the talks after their objections to an emerging compromise had brought negotiations to a standstill the day before. They demanded "serious consideration" for their plan.

"We want to see a deal happen _ there's no doubt about it," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.

The legislation the administration is promoting would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other sour assets held by investors, most of them financial companies. That should make those companies more inclined to lend and lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering.

But a significant number of lawmakers, including many House conservatives, say they're against such heavy federal intervention. Under the GOP plan, the government would insure the distressed securities rather than buy them. Tax breaks would provide additional incentives to invest.

The crisis was hardly limited to the U.S.

Bush held a lengthy Oval Office meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that focused on how the problems were spreading, then said, "I told him the plan is big enough to make a difference, and I believe it will be passed."

Presidential politics weighed heavily and unpredictably on the election-season effort to stave off a full-blown economic crisis.

After announcing earlier in the week he would suspend his campaign and return to the capital until there was an agreement, Republican McCain abruptly reversed course and departed for Friday night's debate with Democratic rival Obama.

There were fresh signs of urgency at both the White House and the Capitol, one day after the rancorous White House session and the collapse of Washington Mutual, the largest failure in U.S. banking history. The Seattle-based institution had invested heavily in the now-moribund mortgage market.

Still, the Dow Jones industrials rose 121 points for the day as investors anticipated a weekend agreement.

In days of negotiations, the administration has accepted demands from lawmakers to give Congress considerable authority to oversee the bailout and require that the government try to renegotiate the bad mortgages it acquires so more borrowers could keep their homes. Paulson also relented to requests to limit the severance packages that corporate executives can receive from firms benefiting from the government bailout.

In addition, rather than provide $700 billion up front, as Paulson initially requested, Congress would approve the funds in stages. Under one approach, $250 billion would be made available at once, with the president able to certify the need for an additional $100 billion on his own authority. The final $350 billion would become available with a second presidential certification, although this time Congress would have authority to block it.

Any compromise is also expected to require the government to obtain partial ownership of any company it invests in.

Democrats, too, signaled they were ready to jettison some of their priorities.

Frank indicated they might ultimately drop a requirement that a portion of any profits from the rescue be funneled to a fund to build housing for low-income people. That mandate, deeply unpopular with Republicans, "is not an essential," Frank said.

While Democrats control a majority of both the House and Senate, their leaders have made it clear they will not force their rank and file to vote without Republican support on a bailout advanced by an unpopular president on an unwilling public.

In an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll, only 30 percent of those surveyed expressed support for Bush's package. Forty-five percent were opposed, with 25 percent undecided. The survey was conducted Thursday and had a margin of error or plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. It was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews.

Aides to lawmakers in both parties say telephone calls from constituents are running heavily against the bailout _ in some cases nearly 100-1 against, making the vote a potentially tricky one for a candidate in a competitive race.

___

Associated Press writers Charles Babington, Jim Kuhnhenn and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and Congress anxiously revived negotiations Friday on a $700 billion financial bailout, one day after the largest bank collapse in U.S. history provided a br...
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and Congress anxiously revived negotiations Friday on a $700 billion financial bailout, one day after the largest bank collapse in U.S. history provided a br...
Filed by Dan Duray  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
114
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

A deal on Sunday. Good idea Mr.Frank, people will be busy watching the NFL.
So when you announce this bipartisan rape of every man woman and child in America, less people will hear about it.
It will also be after the Sunday morning talk shows too, so they can only speculate.

Watch both Obama and McCain tonight and see how little they say about this. What they do say will be pure BS as they are pure Washington pigs.

I hope the protests in New York continue all weekend long. This crime is not complete yet. Too bad we have to fight against both Democrats and Republicans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 PM on 09/26/2008
- BillZBubb I'm a Fan of BillZBubb 54 fans permalink
photo

What exactly do you propose to do about the economic situation if not this? Do you want the economy to collapse? Sure the original Bush/Republican plan was a ripoff, but the Democrats have added many features that actually make the deal palatable. Something BIG has to be done, or the financial system craters.

Under the Democrats plan, the government owns the debt and will be buying it deeply discounted. There is a real possibility that in a few years after things cool down, that debt will be worth MUCH MORE than it is today.

Also, under the Democrats plan, the government gets part ownership in the companies. That will also be worth much more once the crisis passes. Warren Buffett is no dummy and he is putting $5 BILLION into one of the companies. What does that tell you?

That sounds a lot better to me than risking a complete meltdown of the credit system followed quickly by a collapse of the economy of Depression proportions. But, maybe you'd rather risk that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 PM on 09/26/2008
- KarenHurtz I'm a Fan of KarenHurtz 34 fans permalink
photo

I for one don't buy the meltdown scenario. Actual people's deposits are insured and new banks would sprout up like spring flowers. What the real deal is that foreign banks wouldn't invest anymore and the dollar would collapse on the world market. If that happened, the exchange rate would be so crazy that imports would go through the roof. Guess we'd have to bring those jobs back home then. Not that scary if you ask me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 09/26/2008

We let the economy STINK for a while and let people not take their ANGRY GAZE OFF OF REPUBLICANS

These dumb democrats giving a bail out pisses people off . Cenk Uyger said it best that the Dems are giving the Repugnicans a Christmas gift by allowing the general public to think that the Democrats are bailing out rich people with Tax payer's money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 09/26/2008

Were where you when Pres. Bush announced that invading Irak was and urgency?

I guess you would have voted for the invasion since most of Congress was telling us all the Irak had WMDs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 09/26/2008

I have called every California Representative both today and yesterday.

I have thanked the Republicans for throwing a monkey wrench into the bailout.

I have asked the Democrats why their leaders are pushing something that the voters hate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 09/26/2008

well done.
If the Dems want this bill, let them pass it without the Repubs supporting it.
The Dems are a mayority, they can pass anything they want.

If this bill is so great, then they should support it and vote for it on a partisan vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 09/26/2008

well done.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 09/26/2008
photo

Pelosi and Reid have got to go after the elections. Bush set up a "come side with me" trap and now the dems are owners of this mess because they fell right into it. They are an embarassment to the dems. Bush gets to slink into history, still reeking a foul odor, but he at least got to put some stench on these stupid dems on the way out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 PM on 09/26/2008

Everybody has to calm down! Only one of two things are going to happen. A.) There will be an economic meltdown like the world has never seen, or B.) Things will work out.

I believe the latter will occur. It will take 3 to 5 years for this to stabilize and then , if handled right we will be in a much healthier position. The question at hand is, what is the right way to handle it? I would think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, it is a bailout out, but with out cash everything will grind to a halt. So the middle road seems to be a targeted release of funds and some serious regulation and oversight. WaMu thing is actually a good sign. The market is speaking, Morgan picked up some cheap assets, that will eventually turn a handsome profit for them and their investors. There is no question, more regulation and oversight will be and should be required, but again THIS is what the market is telling everyone, at least the ones that want to listen.

I am and will be taking a hit, but if that is what it takes, to get things rolling again, it is ok with me. I took a BIG hit with the tech bubble crash. I learned alot and with help re-allocated my portfolio, and recovered nicely. If not ,don't worry, misery loves company and there will be plenty to go around.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 09/26/2008

I will go with your B. Nothing awful is going to happen and, yes, it will take years to make Humpty Dumpty whole again. Decades, actually. But it also took decades to break him. This country has been set on self destruct since at least the 1980s.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 PM on 09/26/2008
- zitlight73 I'm a Fan of zitlight73 39 fans permalink

A bailout advance by an unpopular president on a unwilling public. Tyranny at work just like the Iraq War.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 09/26/2008

I still remember the chanting

"Four more years! Four more years!"

Bwaaahhhha­aahahhaaaa­hhaaahhhhh­haaaahhh..­..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 PM on 09/26/2008

We all know that Trickle-Down Economics failed, primarily in that it was a moder-day version of Marie Antoinette (i.e., "Let them eat cake."). In other words, the rich feast and the rest of us should be happy with the crumbs. As an analogy, isn't this bailout the same thing? Isn't the premise that moneys put into the hands of a few elite banks will free them of debt burdens so as to lend more moneys? The problem with this theory is that the economic environment hasn't change, nor will this action change the current dynamics. These banks and investment bodies have been bitten once. They are now shy and constrained with their loans.

A better program would be a series of public works programs wherein the populus would be employed and be able to afford credit. The moneys percolated UP from the basics of the economy would both improve our infrastructure and spur the economy. Monesy at the top without changing the dynamics of joblessness are really just wasted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 09/26/2008
- robynuva I'm a Fan of robynuva 5 fans permalink

No bail out? So the guys that own the furniture stores, the car dealerships, the appliance store, the jewelry store, and every small merchant that relies on being able to fincance purchases, he or she is just scr#$ed right?
Or the young couple who needs a frig because theirs just died, but can't get financing?
How much of our economy is made up of this kind of commerce? What did those folks do to derserve to be put out of business? What about the people that work for those businesses?
It is so much more complicated than we want it to be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 09/26/2008
- iluvsam I'm a Fan of iluvsam 17 fans permalink

Did you guys read this about the WaMu CEO? Outrageous.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/09/wamu-moolah-ceo.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 09/26/2008

NO Bailout WHATSOEVER under ANY circumstan­ces!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:08 PM on 09/26/2008
photo

Here is a link to the 102 page "draft discussion" document for those of you who want to read it for yourselves, rather than relying on the utter lack of information being discussed by the pundits on what this bill proposes to do:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/discussion_draft_Sept_25.pdf

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 09/26/2008
- DRaymond I'm a Fan of DRaymond 65 fans permalink
photo

Sure they can get a deal done by Sunday. All they have to do is keep McCain out of town.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 09/26/2008
photo

Barney Frank gave Paulson a blank check attached to a bill full of pork.

Paulson spent that check and wants another.

Frank will give him another and another.and another he is an enabler.

It is like one of Barney's boy toy whores at a Tina party too much pork or crank is never enough..
Addicts are amazing liars..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 09/26/2008

Franks is fluent in finance, is the Finance Committee Chair, and controls the very purse strings Paulson now must prostrate himself after.

Besides, Buffets already set the table, big finance gets a reprieve, because we're just too far down that ugly road and not everybody will be allowed to implode. For Wall, the rescue terms have become sphincter tightening.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 09/26/2008

Barney is fluid in corporate campaign contributions with crumbs thrown to the middle class.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:09 PM on 09/26/2008

Name me someone who isn't

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 09/27/2008
photo

The Government has to buy the property loans and start working on a better future with many Americans that need to own their properties and homes.The Government has to go in on this Bailout just so they can offer a more affordable housing and better loan conditions to the public,because the banks could never do that.The Bailout is inevitable and will happen with conditions that serve the public as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 09/26/2008

I think you are seriously out of touch with what is happening here. The government is not trying to become the nation's landlord. And I doubt you would like it if they did.

This is about liquidity. People (banks) owe other people (banks) money. That money has to be paid because that's in the contracts. When at any time the amount of money these banks hold falls below their minimally required deposits the feds are required to shut them down. This is a completely automatic process. Once a bank has made enough bad decisions and they can not balance their books any longer, they are doomed. The feds know at any given time which bank is at risk because banks have to report their finances. If there is a run on a bank, the process goes rather quickly, see WaMu.

The situation right now is such that more than just a few banks seem to have reached the red zone and could collapse at any time. Which would automatically trigger the FDIC and then the taxpayer (and other banks) would have to pick up the tab. So the money is at risk anyway.

OTOH, of more acquisitions like WaMu can be brokered and people calm down enough to leave their investments in the system, the worst can be avoided.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:45 PM on 09/26/2008
photo

The thing is that all the money everyone owes to each other can not be paid,there fore the Government takes over offering new loans to the bankrupt system so it can move on,it's like gas in a car.If the system acts smart after that the Bailout will bring it to the change that works for all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 09/26/2008
- NicoleAnon I'm a Fan of NicoleAnon 9 fans permalink

But you're wrong - Bernanke said in his testimony to congress that they wanted to help banks that WERE NOT FAILING right now.

And most of the banks that are in trouble RIGHT NOW are investment banks because they were over leveraged. I know some regular banks will fail but I would rather pay taxes for FDIC then pay investment banks for their bad decisions when they're giving bonuses to all their employees this year.

The banks have to find a way to get a bailout before the new administration is there - they're refusing to lend money to other banks or give people loans because they're taking the Fed and Treasury hostage and saying "either give us what we want RIGHT NOW or the economy will be in trouble and people will blame you."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 09/26/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect