Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

CCAGW calls for No votes for the Bailout?

Do they not understand the consequences and need of this action?

A letter from CCAGW Dated Sept. 29, 2008

Dear Representative,

You will soon vote on H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and it will be a difficult vote. The more than 1.2 million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) are angry about this financial crisis because most of it can be blamed on Washington. Taxpayers are now being asked to provide up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy failed mortgages and other troubled credit assets as a result of government meddling in the housing market. While the bill is much improved since the original draft that was circulating late last week, the bill is still too troublesome for CCAGW to support. On behalf of our members, I ask that you vote against H.R. 3997.

Starting in 1993, the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were re-written to force banks to establish new quotas for writing mortgages in low-income neighborhoods and to enter the subprime loan markets. The changes drove up the price of homes and the easy money was carried right into Wall Street where shaky loans were packaged and sold. While efforts were made several times to get a handle on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the implosion of the housing market, these efforts were stopped in Congress by the companies’ political allies.

CCAGW appreciates the efforts of several members of Congress that have improved the bill. Removing the 20 percent slush fund for groups like ACORN is an important policy change. The bill gives the Security and Exchange Commission the ability to suspend mark-to-market accounting. The bill will not give the $700 billion in one step but instead will require the President to certify that additional funds are needed. By establishing an advisory board, power is not left with one individual. But these changes are not enough to overcome the opposition to H.R. 3997 that has been expressed by CCAGW members and taxpayers across the county.

Government created these programs, and CCAGW is not confident that government can correct them. I urge you to vote against H.R. 3997. All votes on H.R. 3997 will be among those considered for CCAGW’s 2008 Congressional Ratings.

Sincerely,

Tom Schatz

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&...

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    CEO of BB&T, one of America's largest commercial banks (h/t nick):

    BB&T chief exec slams bailout plan

    A significant and immediate tax credit for financial institutions to purchase homes would be a more effective solution for the financial crisis than the proposed $700 billion federal bailout, says BB&T Chief Executive John Allison. . . .

    He adds the primary beneficiaries of the proposed rescue are The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS). The U.S. Treasury, he says, is "totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers," and "cannot be relied on to objectively assess all the implications of government policy on all financial intermediaries."

    Allison also said it is "inappropriate that the debate is largely being shaped by the financial institutions who made very poor decisions."

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm a democrat, and I didn't agree with the old bailout bill, and i don't agree with the new one. We are in a bad state, and we all want tax breaks, but not at the expense of adding more debt and increased future taxes to pay off an added $150 billion dollar deficit. The government is still buying all the assets that these companies messed up and now don't want. It's not even necessary. Companies like J.P. Morgan are eager to buy up some of these larger assets for cheap. The government is just filling itself up with toxic assets, and giving people $1000 tax breaks to buy us out of our own common sense. Maybe we need to learn from our mistakes as a country, rather than put $850 billion dollars into a large Band-Aid that's only going to help temporarily. This isn't a Democrat Vs. Republican thing (at least not to me). We can sit here and be blinded into blaming and bickering between ourselves like some school kids, while Capital Hill shakes each other's hands and says good job at putting us $850 Billion dollars further into debt.

    Whoever the next president is better have a freakin' good plan on how to get us out of this, because America is hemorrhaging money that we don't have. Despite how you feel about the war, when those troops come home, they'll have to deal with this crap too. Who wants to tell our boys when they come home "hey, thanks for fighting for us. Oh, and since you've been gone, your over extended tours in iraq and capital hill have put us over $1,450,000,000,000.00 further in national debt."

  • 1 decade ago

    No one knows the consequences either way, but we are in a recession and it can't be avoided. We HAVE to go through it. It is part of the natural business cycle. I believe in a school of thought that says, how many times will we have to bail out businesses now that a precedent is being set. I believe are monetary system may not recover if this bill is passed. Open yourself up to a different perspective and visit Mises.org

    There are a lot of economists that are saying what could happen if this thing passes and a few news shows are starting to talk about, like Lou Dobbs.

    Source(s): CampaignforLiberty.com Mises.org
  • Edward
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    CCAGW is right about opposing the bailout...however they've been sending me letters praising Senator McCain who opposes the earmarks they fight against...McCain voted for the bailout..I have sent them donations before but until they retract their endorsement of Senator McCain I am not sending them another penny.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.