Mark Sauder reports on Bailout

[HoosierHelen]

I received the following update from Mark Souder's office. I'm sure many of you have received the same.


The reference under Reduced Taxpayer Exposure caused me a question. I have heard in the news this bill was a 700 Billion Dollar bill. Now, 250 + 350 adds up to 600 Billion - did they only approve 600 Billion or did we loose a Billion somewhere in bank charges? Actually, I've heard recently the 700 Billion figure has risen.

Before I send my next inquiry to his office, I'm curious what other reflections you all may have on this content?

Dear Helen:



Thank you for contacting me regarding federal intervention into U.S. financial markets. I have greatly valued reading the various viewpoints across northeast Indiana. I appreciate hearing from you, and I certainly understand your frustration.



From the beginning of this debate, I-along with my fellow Hoosiers-have been furious about the current financial circumstances. I have great disdain for the idea of spending tax-payer dollars to bailout Wall Street. My support for the Economic Stabilization Act, however, was based on the belief that failure to act would put our local employers, workers, and economy at much greater risk. I was unwilling to jeopardize the future of hard-working families and individuals who did nothing contribute to the current situation.



As the collapse of the toxic mortgage-backed securities market began to ripple through the economy, Congress had to act immediately. Credit has tightened and small businesses, farmers and home owners will be impacted if things continue to spiral downward. I hope in the paragraphs that follow I will be able to share some of my views that guided me through this difficult decision.



I strongly disagreed with several measures in the original administration proposal. I felt that Congress was being asked to write a blank check for Wall Street and the Treasury Department, and I fundamentally opposed this action. I was outraged by the idea that we would bail out the very people who had run their companies into the ground. I was appalled that we'd allow golden parachutes to remain intact and that CEOs who'd gambled and lost could walk away unharmed. As the Congressman responsible for the most manufacturing jobs in the nation, I knew that if our GM truck plant, manufactured housing companies, and others did not have access to credit they would suffer great losses. Thousands of jobs could be lost.



When the latest compromise was unveiled, I was still concerned with the idea of government intervention. However, despite my concerns, I believe this was the most practical solution presented by the Democrats. Below is a listing of the provisions that I feel will protect Hoosiers:



o Reduced taxpayer exposure. Rather than the $700 billion blank check requested, $250 billion will be available to the Treasury Secretary and additional funds beyond $350 billion will require Congressional action.

o Taxpayers recoup losses. If after 5 years, taxpayers have lost money on the asset purchase program, the President is required to submit a plan to Congress to recoup these losses from the firms that participated in the program.

o Caps executive compensation. Ensures that bad actors who contributed to this crisis are not rewarded with millions of dollars.

o Helps struggling homeowners. Mortgage entities are required to work with homeowners at risk of foreclosures, considering the actual value of the house.



The vote I cast in favor of the Economic Stabilization Act was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make as a member of Congress. Despite much opposition, my job as the representative of northeast Indiana is to vote in the best interests of those I represent.



Thank you for keeping in touch with me. If I may be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again. I also encourage you to visit my Web site, which may be found on-line at www.Souder.House.gov.



Sincerely,

Mark Souder
Member of Congress

[james_t]

The reference under Reduced Taxpayer Exposure caused me a question. I have heard in the news this bill was a 700 Billion Dollar bill. Now, 250 + 350 adds up to 600 Billion - did they only approve 600 Billion or did we loose a Billion somewhere in bank charges? Actually, I've heard recently the 700 Billion figure has risen.

From Associated Press: The bill provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages, other assets, give tax breaks and increase the amount of federal insurance for deposits.

$250 billion is available immediately, $100 is available to be certified by the president, and $350 is available to be certified by the president, subject to congressional disapproval.

[HoosierHelen]

Thanks James for that clarification. A missing 1 Billion was troubling me. I feel better now.

I especially felt good about the following provision: Taxpayers recoup losses. If after 5 years, taxpayers have lost money on the asset purchase program, the President is required to submit a plan to Congress to recoup these losses from the firms that participated in the program.

[freemind]

Before I send my next inquiry to his office, I'm curious what other reflections you all may have on this content?

I don't put much weight on what Sauder says. Remember, he voted FOR the first attempted bailout. He then voted FOR the second, and sucessful attempt.
The second bill was more full of pork than the first. \

He is simply doing what ALL politicians do. He is posturing. Remember it is election season. He sold the taxpayers down the river, then argues at what a "shock" it is these execs take a holiday.

IF he had such reserves about the bailout, WHY RUSH to push it through. Not a single one of them had time enough to read the 450 pages of garbage before jumping over each other to pass it.


Smoke and mirrors Helen, thats all it is......

[HoosierHelen]

I guess my question to you Freemind, and also to the rest of our board is simply this:

Inasmuch as this bill was not avoidable (according to our financial wizards), what in this bailout bill is something we can request to be changed for the better - going forward? Hopefully, we get some tax saving suggestions & dialog on this thread.

As I mentioned earlier, I am encouraged by the 5 yr window protecting the Tax Payers from losses wherein our current President must come up with a plan to reimburse.

I sincerely intend to continue my correspondence with Sauder. Your input is valued. Please share.

Thanks.
Helen

[freemind]

I guess my question to you Freemind, and also to the rest of our board is simply this:

Inasmuch as this bill was not avoidable (according to our financial wizards), what in this bailout bill is something we can request to be changed for the better - going forward? Hopefully, we get some tax saving suggestions & dialog on this thread.

As I mentioned earlier, I am encouraged by the 5 yr window protecting the Tax Payers from losses wherein our current President must come up with a plan to reimburse.

I sincerely intend to continue my correspondence with Sauder. Your input is valued. Please share.

Thanks.
Helen

#1 Wizards aside, this bill WAS avoidable. Nobody was forced to vote Aye.
#2 Your not going to get anything changed in this bill. It is penned as law now, and they don't care now. Neither do 99% of the people. It is out of their radar now.
#3 Tax cuts are what should have happened, not a bailout. Encourage people to invest and make money.
#4 What REAL protection is your "5 year window?". What IF then, at the end of 5 years, they decide to "forgive" the debt? You loose then too right? What IF they take the company, and sell it ( after anything of worth was sold before they took it)? Nothing is still nothing.

Face it Helen, we won't get principle returned, much less the due interest.

This bailout was nothing but a "crap sandwich". Paint it however you want, but future generations will STILL be paying for this.

[HoosierHelen]

#1 Wizards aside, this bill WAS avoidable. Nobody was forced to vote Aye.
#2 Your not going to get anything changed in this bill. It is penned as law now, and they don't care now. Neither do 99% of the people. It is out of their radar now.
#3 Tax cuts are what should have happened, not a bailout. Encourage people to invest and make money.
#4 What REAL protection is your "5 year window?". What IF then, at the end of 5 years, they decide to "forgive" the debt? You loose then too right? What IF they take the company, and sell it ( after anything of worth was sold before they took it)? Nothing is still nothing.

Face it Helen, we won't get principle returned, much less the due interest.

This bailout was nothing but a "crap sandwich". Paint it however you want, but future generations will STILL be paying for this.

Freemind,

I'm certainly NOT painting this sandwich. I'm observing the sandwich. Please recognize the difference.

We have many possible votes in the next 5 yrs. I hope we have learned from our past and we are more vigilant as to votes in the House & Senate and choices of whom we send to the FEDS in the next 5 yrs.

Don't you believe our mistakes should show us where we have been weak?
I do believe that.

Thanks for your input,
HoosierHelen

[hairypumper]

Freemind,

I'm certainly NOT painting this sandwich. I'm observing the sandwich. Please recognize the difference.

We have many possible votes in the next 5 yrs. I hope we have learned from our past and we are more vigilant as to votes in the House & Senate and choices of whom we send to the FEDS in the next 5 yrs.

Don't you believe our mistakes should show us where we have been weak?
I do believe that.

Thanks for your input,
HoosierHelen

We can start with this election. We need to get Souder out. Tell us what he has done for us since he has been in. He is the one who said we need to get rid of career politicians. His own ads don't even tell us what he's done. All he ever does is put down his opponents and call them names. If it hadn't been for massive public outcry we wouldn't have a VA hospital in Fort Wayne, yet he wants to take full credit for saving it. You still have to go to Marion for most treatment and procedures. He fights for District of Columbia gun owners and sucks up to Republican leadership, but does little or nothing for us. I wonder if DC appreciates us sending a Representative to Congress to represent them. What good is a Republican going to do us in a Democratic controlled Congress when he did us no good in a Republican controlled Congress?

[Peaches]

I heard it said on TV that another choice would have been for Wall Streeet to bail them out, instead of Main Street, (which is us tax payers). Don't know much more about what this means, or the pros and cons of the alternative, but it was another route they could have taken.

[Blazer81]

You should not be shocked that Souder voted for the bill. President Bush told him to. Does he ever not do what Bush tells him to do?

If you listen to Souder's ads he must have only been in Congress for two years. Funny how he doesn't talk about all the years he was there with the Republican controled Congress and President. I guess all the bad stuff only happened in the last two years.

He is the epitome of what is wrong with Washington!

[blue adept]

Mark Souder, it's better not to talk about him. just vote him out!

[Mr Douglas]

Hey! It's working!!

Stock QuotesMenu
Name/SymbolLastChange
NASDAQ COMPOSITE ($COMPX)1,645.12-95.21
Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU)8,579.19-678.91
S&P 500 INDEX ($INX)909.92-75.02


Data provider
Quotes by Interactive Data Corp. delayed 20 minutes.
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc.©2008. All rights reserved.

[Mr Douglas]

I got this from, of all places, today's Doonesbury.-

"Rigging a game that privatizes profit, but socializes risk."

[HoosierHelen]

I got this from, of all places, today's Doonesbury.-

"Rigging a game that privatizes profit, but socializes risk."

Hey - that sums it up doesn't it? I'm still steaming over the whole matter and I know that is wasted energy on my part.

I was especially steamed when I read about the expensive resort the AIG employees visited last week (less than a week after taking our money).

My personal questions to Sauder will be regarding the regulations going forward on how this money is distributed and also managed after distribution. Who will be the overseers?

No more letting the fox watch the chicken house!

[Mr Douglas]

I'll spare everyone the YouTube-

"BAAAAR- Be- QUE- HOOOOOO!..... Me and you...."

[Mr Douglas]

But hey, we're all in this together, I mean what? What?

[Mr Douglas]

Unless you ALREADY have money coming out of your ears, and want MORE, ....-
or you have some vested interest in creating 100 million more poor US citizens (not sure what that would be) , then for God's sake, vote for ANYONE who isn't trying to make rich people more rich. Someone who actually gives a crap about our futures! I'm really not sure who that person even is! , or who wouldn't sell their soul once they got there, if they already haven't.

[LuciusBeebe]

I don't put much weight on what Sauder says.

That's my default. Guys who need not worry about re-election don't say much meaningful stuff.

[tired of the same old]

They should never have bailed out AIG! I was in an accident at work in mid 2007. AIG had the workers comp. insurance for my employer. I've been told by all the doctors that my problem may never heal properly. I'm still currently having problems and AIG refuses to cover any more bills. The company I worked for has since closed, Kitty Hawk. That shouldn't matter due to the injury happening when they had the coverage. I was out of work for approximately two weeks. I never received anything for that. I've been unable to find a lawyer worth a darn to do anything.

They should have given that money to people who actually pay taxes, so that they could pay their bills. Instead they gave it to companies who waste it and don't do the job they've been paid to do.

[blue adept]

Remember that when you hear Mr. Souder spreading his slams against Montagano. We do not need more of the same. Vote Souder out!!!!!