Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

12 Eye-Opening Thoughts About the Bailout's Defeat

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 1, 2008.


Experts discuss the politics of the bailout's defeat in the House, the fundamentals of the plan and where we might go from here.
Advertisement

We're watching economic history in the making. There is no consensus on what Congress is going to do next or what's going to happen on Wall Street in the coming weeks. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, and it's clear that the decisions that are being made now are going to have a massive effect on all of us.

To help readers cut through the media overload, we've gathered together a dozen views from smart, alternative thinkers on the bailout, the politics surrounding its defeat and predictions about where the economy, and the government's actions, might go from here.

What Happened

There's been quite a bit of discussion about exactly what happened with the bailout bill ...

Robert Kuttner offers his views, along with some suggestions for the Democratic leadership looking forward ...

In refusing to provide enough votes to enact a bipartisan bailout bill, Republicans may well have done Democrats a favor. The Democratic leadership gave up several provisions that their members wanted, including more relief for homeowners. But the Republican leadership took the position that they had extracted all they could get, and GOP House members were now free to vote their consciences. In practice that meant listening to the uproar of constituent backlash against a bill that did much for Wall Street and little for the common American. So the easy Republican vote was "No."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been promised that 80 or 90 Republicans would vote for the bill. That way, both parties could share responsibility. But in the end, just 66 Republican votes materialized.

According to my sources, once Pelosi learned of the double-cross, she told the Democratic whips to make it a conscience vote on the Democratic side as well. With the likelihood of voter indignation and the strong possibility that this bill would not fix what was broken, Pelosi was not prepared to make this primarily a Democratic bill. Knowing that the Republicans were walking away from the deal, she held the roll call anyway, to make clear just whose failure this was.

When the vote came up short, she held it open a few minutes but made rounding up additional supporters the Republicans' problem. When the votes did not materialize, she banged the gavel, and the bill went down.

What now?

... The moment for this bill may have passed. Pelosi was also facing growing rebellion in Democratic ranks.

... Both parties will now go back to the drawing board -- and it is here that Republican calculations may have backfired, big time. For while many Republican legislators are posturing populist, they really don't have anything up their sleeves that is true to right-wing ideology, that will please angry taxpayers, and that will fix the problem. Vote No is not a program, and as the crisis deepens the vote will look increasingly cynical and opportunist.

Veteran journalist Peggy Simpson writes about the partisan dynamics ...

Pelosi not only had to work for the Paulson plan, she had to immunize her own folks against a potential campaign crusade by GOP ideologues that this was "socialism, socialism, socialism," foisted off on the public by Democrats now in charge of both houses of Congress.

Voters, meanwhile, had been persuaded this was indeed a taxpayer bailout for the rich, not a rescue plan for the very financial structure of the country. Their calls to congressional members ranged from 100-1 against to 300-1 against ...

Pelosi said from the outset that many liberal Democrats would not budge from the opposition. She also continued the tradition of the late House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill of understanding that "all politics is local" and that if a vote would mean sure defeat back home, the member could get a pass.

Pelosi and her team told Boehner they could get between 125 and 140 Democrats and that Boehner and Blunt would need to find between 80 and 100 Republicans. That seemed feasible Sunday.

On Monday, Pelosi delivered, Boehner fell short ...

Boehner said Pelosi had chased away a dozen wavering Republicans when she gave a speech saying the vote on this unpalatable $700 billion rescue plan had been made necessary by eight years of Bush policies, including lax oversight on Wall Street ...

Pelosi could have skipped the partisan speech on the eve of the vote -- but she was still trying to rally reluctant Democrats to swallow the bitter medicine.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bailout

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The House Democrats Have a Plan: The No Bailout Act ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 1, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The No Bailout Act ...

"We can do better," says DeFazio. "We should start again on a new package."

That's exactly what the Oregon populist is doing with a new proposal, the "No BAILOUTS Act" (Bringing Accountability, Increased Liquidity, Oversight, and Upholding Taxpayer Security). Introduced Tuesday with co-sponsorship from some of the most outspoken critics of the Paulson machinations – including Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur, a leader of the anti-bailout movement in Congress – the measure would impose a securities tax equivalent to one quarter of one percent of profits and empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to deal more effectively with bank failures.

"The plan is based on a proposal made last week by former FDIC chair William Isaac, who recalled that in the 1980s Congress enacted a "net worth certificate" program – which allowed the federal agency to shore up the capital of weak banks to give them more time to resolve their problems – and the FDIC resolved a $100 billion insolvency in savings banks for a total cost of less than $2 billion.

"It was a big success and could work in the current climate," argued Isaac. "

The No Bailout Act ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Odd bedfellows...in Wonderland
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Oct 1, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I find myself and Dennis Kucinich agreeing with Pat Buchanan and Tom Delay about the "Not-no-but-HELL-NO!" bailout plan, clearly we have jumped through the infamous Looking Glass.

What a scary and yet exciting time to be alive!

One more thing. If you are an undecided voter, learn the truth about Old Man McCain and his so-called "heroic" war record) by clicking on: Vote Against McCain (one of the HOTTEST anti-McCain sites on the Web)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Senate Phone Number Posted by: Drume
» I'M A DECIDED VOTER Posted by: hoorah
» RE: Odd bedfellows...in Wonderland Posted by: suejim@gate.net
Paulson, The Fed and Wall Street Hold America Hostage ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 1, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The current bailout proposal will not work. It is not designed to take the credit freeze head on nor is it designed to help the economy. It is a money grab being forced onto the media, the Congress and the American people. It is pure Shock Doctrine tactics using the credit markets to extort hundreds of billions of dollars to fund a plan that doesn't even address the problem.

Stiglitz " the financial institutions have all these toxic products -- which they created -- and since no one trusts anyone about their value, no one is willing to lend to anyone else. The Paulson approach solves this by passing the risk to us, the taxpayer -- and for no return.

The second problem is that there is a big and increasing hole in bank balance sheets -- banks lent money to people beyond their ability to repay -- and no financial alchemy will fix that. If, as Paulson claims, banks get paid fairly for their lousy mortgages and the complex products in which they are embedded, the hole in their balance sheet will remain."

The bailout artists will be back for more installments at $700 billion each to fix the problems Stiglitz has outlined. Anyone who tells you that the current plan will pay for itself or make a profit is a liar, a fool or both.

This whole assault on our wallets has been orchestrated by Paulson, The Fed and the Wall Street Bankers. Over 90% of the toxic paper can be found on the books of those same Wall Street Banks. Europe and Asia have largely written theirs off and are now screaming at America to do the same but the Wall Street Banks want us, the American Taxpayer to pay for their losses!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» All for nothing Posted by: jon B
» RE: All for nothing Posted by: mmckinl
A Good Time To Gain Some Perspective
Posted by: skizum on Oct 1, 2008 2:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly, the odds on betting on any Bernanke/Paulson/Bush based bailout plan is going to be a big mistake; these are the guys who were instrumental in creating the problem and the ones to gain most from their bailout solution. Simple common sense screams that these are the very players who have earned the right, with their near 100% bad track records, to not be trusted with anymore power and resources to wield further impact upon American or global society.

We need to keep a bit of a common sense perspective here. Our entire economic system is just a virtual construct for managing the flow of goods and services. The problems the markets face now is the abstract concept of DEBT. This DEBT is threatening channels through which the (re)distribution of wealth flows. However, if we completely remove the economic construct, all the natural resources, goods, services, people and houses etc. that were there yesterday will still be there tomorrow. We just need to find a better way to manage it all.

I'm no financial expert but it seems logical to me that any immediate solutions for a stimulus or bailout plan should:
• favor the homeowners who are most at risk
• identify what industry mechanisms/laws/people enabled our current economic debacle and no longer rely on them
• inject the minimum amount of liquidity into the system to keep it stable while we reevaluate and redesign the fundamentals of our economic construct.

The bigger challenge here is that our current economic construct was set into chaos by unleashing the power of human aggression and dominance loose. Any truly effective reevaluation, regulation and redesign of our economic systems must deal with understanding these and other motivations of basic human behavior. Otherwise, human behavior and ingenuity will continue to cyclically recreate a new set of loopholes and rationalizations leading us into another imbalanced end game.

Unless our economic systems are based on a more fundamental understanding and balancing of our basic universal needs, as humans, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of inequity and unbalance until the resulting consequences leave life on our planet unsustainable.

I, for one, am not ready to yield, no even worse, give in to the notion that the financial constructs of the world are the bottom line of determining the conditions of human existence. Clearly, our current system of capitalism is not meant to create sustainable balance, equity, peace and the pursuit of happiness...but we can create one that does if it is based on those principals.

So far, the die has not been cast in this latest round of political drama, in large part because of the voice of the masses; let's at least continue to keep that up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't look now but ...
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 1, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress is going to try again and so fucking fast !

Ever notice that when it comes to things like SCHIP, they let it go but when it comes to bailing out Wall $treet, oil drilling, war spending, terri schiavo, and other rightwing shit they actually go out of their ways to pass it? Main Street had better realize that they elected pols which gave Wall $treet the power to FUCK and RAPE Main Street !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Charge!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: lizard010 on Oct 1, 2008 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bailout reminds me of Iraq, no plan , no idea , no strategy. - Charge!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guys, the Senate Votes Today
Posted by: Drume on Oct 1, 2008 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Telephone

Alternatively, you may phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's reminds me
Posted by: John Orford on Oct 1, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Galbraith? That's reminds me . . . I wonder what his father would have said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Battle Stations
Posted by: Direct Democracy on Oct 1, 2008 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CONTACT YOUR SENATOR:

http://www.senate.gov/
general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't This White Collar Crime?
Posted by: Carol Burns on Oct 1, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why aren't some of these CEO's/CFO's being prosecuted? Why haven't Bush/Cheney been impeached? Why didn't anyone see this coming? Or, was it planned? Whatever the answers to these questions, one thing is certain: our "leaders" at the helm do not and have never held the interests of the American people first and foremost. We haven't been able to trust our leadership for the past 8 years. Everything about this rush to bail out Wall Street stinks, right down to the similarity of the Bush speech to the one he gave after 9/11. He and his cohorts have gutted oversight in almost every aspect of our lives, from the Treasury to the environment to our food supply to immigration. Then they tried to privatize Social Security. What a disaster that would have been.
There must be a small number of individuals responsible for this financial fiasco: follow the money and the paper trail. Hold these ultra-rich financially responsible, including our corrupt President and Vice President. Monday came and went, and hell did not freeze over. What's the hurry? The hurry is that this is a robbery, and the robber barons have to make a clean getaway!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Name thy crime Posted by: jon B
Remember this article?
Posted by: chlamor on Oct 1, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With All Eyes on the Bailout, House Passes Trillion-Dollar Defense Bill
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 26, 2008.

It's 'empire spending,' not 'defense spending.'

On Wednesday, the House passed a mammoth defense bill by a 392-39 vote. It's expected to clear the Senate with little difficulty next week.

It was part of a trillion-dollar stop-gap measure to keep programs running through next March, allowing lawmakers to skip town without passing a final budget. The Associated Press reports, "The legislation came together in a remarkably secret process that concentrated decision-making power in the hands of a few lawmakers."

In keeping with the tradition of recent years, Bush held a gun to his own head and threatened to pull the trigger if his demands weren't met. According to the AP, "To earn President Bush's signature rather than a veto, House and Senate negotiators dropped several provisions he opposed. They include a ban on private interrogators in U.S. military detention facilities and what would have amounted to congressional veto power over a security pact with Iraq."

In other words, Congress also maintained recent tradition, swearing not to give Bush a blank check and then whipping out their pens and signing a blank check.

The number that the House sent to the Senate for "defense" -- $612 billion for the coming year -- is eye-popping. Imagine a stack of 612,000 million-dollar bills. Quite a pile.

That number's a sham, however. The budget calls for $68.6 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. War costs this year totaled $182 billion, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

The House passed the Brobdingnagian spending measure 11 months after George W. Bush vetoed a bill -- one passed with a lot of bipartisan support -- that would have added $7 billion measly dollars per year to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, covering 4 million more uninsured children. You'd be hard-pressed to find a clearer sign of national psychosis.

Google title for link.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emember this article? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: emember this article? Posted by: JSquercia
I Agree With Anderson, Collins, Muhammad and Pizzigati...
Posted by: Carol Burns on Oct 1, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...from the Institute for Policy Studies. There is no reason the taxpayers should foot the bill for rampant greed on Wall Street. NO BAILOUT! The only reason for Bush to try and rush this through is that it's complicated and he's trying to keep everyone who might offer a solution in fear mode before a more rational approach is found. Should we now bow down to Princes Paulson and Bernanke along with King George?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» fear mode Posted by: socialpsych
Time to step back
Posted by: Democritus on Oct 1, 2008 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Galbraith had a caveat that went along with his tepid support of an amended Paulson proposal. He said that IF we trusted the Treasury Secretary to do the right thing, we should support the plan. But that's just it. I don't think we can trust the former CEO of Goldman Sachs to do the right thing for the American public. Newt Gingrich called for Paulson's resignation recently. Bush should listen. Significant banking reform cannot occur so long as it is administed by someone who favors Wall Street over Main Street.

Once Paulson goes, then the "mark-to-market" accounting rules can be temporarily suspended to give the markets some breathing time. Then it's up to Congress to step back, review the plans put forth by non-partisan, professional economists, and finally decide what's best for the country. Remember how the Patriot Act was passed in a fit of panic? That's what this administration likes to do--act before they think. It's time to reverse that process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to step back Posted by: Lauren
it's the economy, stupid?
Posted by: imors on Oct 1, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that we have put ourselves and the world in this catastrophic economic situation testifies to 8 years of non-governance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

KUCINICH got it right -- It's the "Federal Reserve" Corp FARCE
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Oct 1, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and Kucinich isn't the only one willing to speak real truth to real power.

The Fascist parasite corporate crime rule the "Fed" represents is the core cancer behind all the smoke and mirror BS at a Washington-MSM axis. An ongoing Ponzi sham that political stooges have tiptoed around for a hundred years. That said, tinkering at the margin will only delay the inevitable. And the inevitable will be a relentless nightmare absent real reform.

Here's the skinny on the a private Fascist bank monopoly "Federal Reserve" Corp (never federal with less than no reserves):

The Federal Reserve sham basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to “FED” banks. The “FED” creates money out of thin air, then loans it back to the government [ i.e. the people ] charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt.



“I believe that [private cartel] banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the [cartel] banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the [private cartel] banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON (a founder of America on private cartel rule over his future nation. In a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802. Published 1809)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Abolish the "Federal" Reserve! Posted by: edgeofnowhere
samothrellim
Posted by: milltom on Oct 1, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about asking Warren Buffett to come to the rescue? If he can work out as good a deal for the American taxpayer as he did with his bail out of Goldman Sachs, we all would be much better off. And don't forget to put Michael Moore on the oversight committee!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Danger in Bailout Trickle-Down Economics
Posted by: lorenbliss on Oct 1, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire McBama/O'Cain, Democan/Republicrat approach to the financial crisis proves beyond any scintilla of doubt there is no difference whatsoever in the extent to which the two parties and their presidential candidates are committed to Reagan's Trickle-Down economics: that is, an economic system based on giving absolute power to the capitalist ruling class, including the power to piss on the working class at will.

Meanwhile the fact that no enactable bailout proposal includes bankruptcy and foreclosure relief underscores again the infinitely vicious pro-ruling-class, anti-working-class bias -- indeed treachery -- of the people we working class folk elected to represent us.

Which leads to the terrifying probability that once the working class recognizes the magnitude by which we have been betrayed, we will stay home from the polls in droves.

As a result, the Skinnerian, rule-by-behavior-modification fascist (Democrat) presidential candidate could lose, and -- especially given the disciplined conformity of the fundamentalists and evangelicals -- the theocratic, rule-by-maximum-brutality fascist (Republican) candidate could win.

Thus the nation would plunge the final distance into genuine JesuNazi tyranny, effectively becoming the Fourth Reich. Free-thinking women, unpopular minorities, atheists, agnostics, Pagans and other "heathens" or "abominations" would be forced into the role of scapegoat/public enemy imposed on the Third Reich's Jews and savagely persecuted accordingly. Meanwhile a foreign policy unequivocally based on global conquest -- "Conquer the World for Christ" -- would lead to thermonuclear war, undoubtedly with Russia and/or China, which would extinguish all human life on the planet, quite possibly reducing it to an ecological barren unsuitable for life of any recognizable kind.

All this is at stake not because of the economic crisis per se but because the Democrats are too greedy to do anything for us working class folk -- in return for which we shrug our shoulders, mutter the ultimate response of the truly hopeless (“whatever”) and cast our ballots not into the ballot box but into the trash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By Ignoring impeachment, My Dems have lost the moral courage to save America
Posted by: JohnHKennedy Denver CO on Oct 1, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

When Pelosi took Impeachment Off The Table, she told all of the voters and all of the World that an election was more important than standing up for the Constitution and the Rule Of Law.

Pelosi has lost the respect of her own party.

My Democrats have lost the moral authority to accomplish much of any anything.

Standing up to Bush and Cheney is the last thing they will do. Doing the right by the voters on the bailout is doubtful. They will do the politically expedient thing of course covering their own butts for the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thefairnessfella
Posted by: the fairness fella on Oct 1, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that any modified plan must meet the public fury test. People want there to be consequences for the greedy operators who have brought about this situation.

So, irrespective of how liquidity is achieved in the body of the bailout, the top of the bailout, the preamble, must be about consequences.

The management of any company needing bailout must accept heavy personal fines in order for their entity to qualify. The size of the fines would be a function of the amount of help the company needs.

If the public knew that CEO X was facing a 20 million dollar fine, this would do two things.

1. Make sure the aid is really needed because top management is going to do everything it can to avoid the fines and the stigma attached.

Thus, if there is any other way out, fixing the mess themselves, they'll be highly motivated to find it.

Secondly it sends a warning to future shady operators that they are on a very dangerous path....with consequences.

This is a plan every citizen can understand and which appeals to our basic ideas of fairness. Most people are not assessing the bailout ideologically. They want something which feels right and prudent.

That's the top. The tail of the new bailout has to be help for those duped into risky mortgages.

If necessary, their debts have to be either forgiven, or restructured in ways which make repayment possible by poorer folks in a stressed enconomy

Top and tailed like this, the public should then rapidly swing behind the revised bailout

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thefairnessfella Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: thefairnessfella Posted by: Ethical1
» RE: sorry about your parents Posted by: Cybershaman
A BIG STORY TO DIGEST
Posted by: jeffreytaos on Oct 1, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's Just so BIIIGGGGGGG! The Republicans wanted to take credit for the bill if it worked and boosted the economy by November, but they don't want responsibility if it failed. They want to give the money to their friends but they don't want to lose their own jobs. Then they play two sides, if the bill is critisized, they claim it's socialism by the demoncrats, yes on purpose i did it, but never mind, you get the point, the republicans have no great interest in doing anything good for this country, just advocate prayer in schools, quasi science, real science is the devils work, kiss ass, kiss babies, and go home to play golf, sleep at the sheraton, pay for call girls, and wait for Jesus to come. for what, so they can repent at the last minute....just because Jesus forgave the one on the left and the one on the right at the last minute, what makes these guys think he will do it again. Yes, my tirade, no answers, no clues....why...how is anyone supposed to understand derivitives in the stock market, read about warren buffet and call me in the morning. hope my voter registration comes through.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MR GEORGE
Posted by: mopar1938 on Oct 1, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only wonder how much money the PRESIDENT has lost on the stock market.
I think this bail out problem should be decided by the Americn people and put it on the upcoming election on 11/4/2008. That is the only way we will find out what the country wants and not depend on the politictions and their self intrests.
It is about time we take control of our own destiny and not rely on people who will do what they want and not listen to the voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greenback's Value Spiralling Towards Zero
Posted by: Stogie on Oct 1, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it curious that despite his screaming for YEARS that the US is headed for economic disaster, no one seems to be listening to Ron Paul's take on what needs to be done in the present crisis. The value of the US dollar has been driven ever downward by deficit spending primarily for foreign wars and maintaining a military presence in foreign countries. Now we're going to borrow another $700B to rescue a dysfunctional financial system, which will not solve our problems. Let a REAL free market solve this - there will be pain in the short term, but our dollar will then recover, to the benefit of every American. And bring the troops home - 760+ military installations around the world - that is what's really bankrupting us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On Target Again
Posted by: crazy carlos on Oct 1, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Damn mmckini, You always seem to echo my own thoughts--but you say it much better than I. Great post.

Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

worth saving?
Posted by: phindrup on Oct 1, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does anybody think that the US economy is worth saving?
It certainly hasn't done much the citizens of the US, and has been utterly disastrous for all those countries where US ideology has been forced upon them via the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank.
If this forces the closure of US overseas bases and causes US citizens to take a real hard look at themselves, their communities and debt/greed driven existence then it will have been a blessing for the world at large.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: worth saving? Posted by: BigRon
No bailout at all, please.
Posted by: craigandrew on Oct 1, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would rather navigate the economic jungle on my own, than rely on the guidance of these corrupt buffoons. They have a history of guiding innocent travelers directly to the headhunters.

Have a nice day C:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"WHAT I WANT"
Posted by: pearce on Oct 1, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BEWARE BAILOUT RD 11, NEW SHADE OF LIPSTICK

By David Swanson
SNIP:

I want a bill immediately to ban predatory mortgage lending, ban states
from preventing cities from restricting predatory lending, and commit
the federal government to allowing states full freedom to restrict
predatory lending.

I want a bill establishing a maximum wage at 10 times the minimum wage,
and including all forms of income in that calculation (and raising the
minimum wage how ever much required to pass the bill). I want the tax
system created by that bill to pay for any necessary bailouts, and want
such bailouts enacted and overseen by Congress.

I also want a Tobin tax on all transactions in finance, insurance, and
real estate, including currency transactions.

I want Congress to haul fraudulent bankers into Washington and force
them to testify, fire them without compensation as part of any bailouts,
and refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution.

I want serious regulation of Wall Street.

I want a five-year moratorium on foreclosures, and a bailout of
homeowners equal to any bailout of bankers.

And, finally, I want $700 billion invested in green energy jobs
immediately, to be paid for by a tax on carbon emissions.

In fact, I would like to see all of these steps included in a single
bill called the "Honest Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008."
Somebody explain to me why that wouldn't be a good move for our economy
and a smart political step for those who propose it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "WHAT I WANT" Posted by: boing007
Wall Street
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Oct 1, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All I know is that Wall Street has never done anything for me! Nothing! As far as I am concerned, they dug their own hole, now let them sleep in it! Why should Main Street America bail the whiners of Wall Street out? I jsut dont get it. Whose going to bail us out?

JIff
Online Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is walking right into their trap
Posted by: eeezzz on Oct 1, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by going along with the status-quo and defending the bailout. I can't believe he is setting the table for his own failed presidency! The Republicans are handing him the biggest pile of crap ever and he's eating it up and passing out heaping servings of it to the rest of us. OMG, I'm watching this happen and I cannot believe it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THERE WAS NO DEFEAT YOU IDIOTS
Posted by: ashbaines on Oct 1, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WAIT JUST A MINUTE -- Bush and the FED pumped $630 billion into the sytem Monday morning... just before the vote. Not a peep anywhere but a Bloomberg story... like the weather.

The NEXT DAY - Bush signs a $630 billion dollar spending bill... WHAT? we are supposed to think it's the same money?

And now we are still hearing about the $700 billion bailout.

They've spent 1 TRILLION, 260 BILLION in TWO DAYS !?!?!? and they want MORE????

Why are these men still breathing? -- Where are the gallows? the pitchforks?--the Jacobins??? --

NOt a PEEP anywhere but Crooks & Liars and Bloomberg.... not a fucking peep!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No matter what, nothing they do is going to matter.
Posted by: symcokid on Oct 1, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This economy has had so many safeguards put in place since the Great Depression of '29 to help thwart yet another and all there really seems to be is one overlapping another each time troubling times seem to be on the horizon. Haven't there been enough stop gap measures put in place that really do little or nothing and what good is this Bailout BS or propping up going to do in the long run? Our economy is a "false economy" anyway that was created out of thin air and now without even a gold standard to back it up. It's just going to be back to the SOS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -