Bailout Stalled. Activism Surging

posted by Peter Rothberg on 09/29/2008 @ 3:33pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (47)

Subscribe Now

With the House of Representatives narrowly rejecting the bipartisan $700 billion rescue of the financial industry this afternoon, the markets have plunged again, but at least, as my colleague Chris Hayes just wrote, it shows that "Democracy turns out to be alive and well."

I'm glad the bill went down. It could and should be much, much better. As Arun Gupta and Medea Benjamin explain in a new post at TheNation.com, despite attempts by legislators to portray this as a compromise bill that helps both Wall Street and Main Street, in reality it represents an appalling transfer of wealth upward.

The vote against the measure was 228 to 205 but the bill's supporters vow to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration again as soon as possible.

While this debate is roiling Capitol Hill, the activist community is working to help define appropriate terms for a bailout on which a progressive consensus could emerge. Click here to implore your elected reps to demand a better economic stabilization bill.

This Wednesday, Oct 1st, Jobs with Justice is calling for a national day of action against the bailout. Look for the closest office of your Congressperson or Senator. Organize your family, friends, group, whomever to do a picket, hand out literature, flood the office with phone calls--whatever. The imperative is to act now. For more information, go to bailoutmainstreet.com.

Comments (47)

The economic problems extend far beyond bailing out failed banks. The best and most effective route would be to immediately create and fund a new federal bank which can provide new funds for new structurally sound loans made by banks. Encourage investment into public infrastructure, provide mortgage refinancing, and business for development, not mergers. Assist the banks that did not get in to this mess to take over failed institutions.

Posted by Shaman at 09/29/2008 @ 3:40pm
NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAI

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/29/2008 @ 3:44pm
Pelosi shows some REAL leadership this time!

From AP:

In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.

"They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over," Pelosi said.

"Democrats believe in a free market," she said. "But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans -- some in the Republican Party, not all -- it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos."

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 3:57pm
This is a MUST read:

http://tinyurl.com/3tgwyx

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 4:10pm
Yeah, it's a good thing the bailout failed in it's current guise, but it'll be interesting to see how significantly the final bill will vary from this multi-headed monster.

I suggest a reasonable shift in personal investments to commodities such as gold, platinum, or palladium --as a hedge against the ultimate threat, the collapse of the dollar.

Perhaps popcorn is a good investment as well.

When the going gets tough --DOW down 748 points at 4:12 pm--, everyone goes to the movies.

;-)

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/29/2008 @ 4:12pm
Congratulations, PETER...

ya finally won one!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 4:14pm
From AP:

In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.

"They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over," Pelosi said.

"Democrats believe in a free market," she said. "But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans -- some in the Republican Party, not all -- it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos."

Way to go Nancy!! So DON'T REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR!! Let the bill die!! You show 'em Nanc!

NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!!

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/29/2008 @ 4:18pm
With no thanks to the Democratic Politboro of stephin fetchits, Frank, Reid, Pelosi and Dodd, the bailout died today with the gratitude of the American people. There could have been be no more obvious a move to control the outcome of the vote than that exhibited by the leadership of the Reid/Pelosi/Bush Administration. Marcie Kaptur captures much of the spirit of the regime's street thug approach in this brief segment:

http://redstaterebels.org/2008/09/wall-streets-greed-game/

Guess whose side Barak Obama would have been on had it been a Senate rather than a House vote: The Politboro's of course. He's made his support of the bailout clear enough. Progressive voters need to cast Obama into oblivion and vote for Nader.

Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 4:43pm
Progressive voters need to cast Obama into oblivion and vote for Nader.----------Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 4:43pm

Question that jl won't give a straight answer to....ready?---

Oh, lowell, if Obama is "cast into oblivion" by progressives voting for Nader...

who gets elected President?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 4:46pm
From Chalmers Johnson's Nation essay today:

"...Congress has been corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that by voting for more defense spending, they are supplying "jobs" for the economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions. If we cannot cut back our long-standing, ever-increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left."

Q. And who of among our "major party candidates" has made even a peep to link the war and our faltering economy?

A. Neither --and there is the crux of the biscuit, the story in a nutshell...pick your own description.

The bottom line it that we are hurtling forward at breakneck speed to the end of the line. Perhaps today's passage of a national railway safety bill was the ultimate ironic sendup?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/29/2008 @ 5:03pm
well...if it don't cause the end of the world, perhaps a better deal can be negotiated...

i predicted this long ago...but how to deal with it when its going down? arent there folks with phd's to deal with this????

lol...

THE DYSTOPIC FUTURE IS NOW!!!!

Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2008 @ 5:18pm
Well, we've got Peter Rothberg, Happy, several erstwhile liberal posters, and 135 House Republicans on the same page.

Anybody who thinks they know what's going on here is nuts.

Stand by for a nice cheesy legislative compromise in two days or so. A little something for everyone.

Posted by MyParadigm at 09/29/2008 @ 5:20pm
Yaaayyyy!!! We have not yet been completely robbed! Posted by Zero at 09/29/2008 @ 3:59pm

Let's not say that much. I mean we have still been robbed. They just didn't take your watch as well yet.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2008 @ 5:28pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/29/2008 @ 5:03pm

First, kudos to the individual Democrats and Republicans in the House who defeated the Pelosi/Reed/Bush Politboro today! A peoples' victory by any measure. And where was the candidate of "change" in all of this? Why backing the Politboro, of course. This from MSNBC:

"In Colorado, Democrat Barack Obama said, 'Democrats, Republicans, step up to the plate, get it done'."

Sorry, bojangles, nobody else is dancing to Mr. Charlie's tune right at the moment.

And, Mr. b_kool_66, he's moved right along with the Politboro on war expenditures too, talking anti-war - at least during the primaries - but voting system whenever it came to the funding. If you consider yourself a progressive, vote for Nader, b_kool_66. If a conservative, vote for Chuck Baldwin. Bring an end to our slavery to the thieves that have a strangle hold on our government.

Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 5:48pm
Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 5:48pm

You omitted this part JLOWELL:

From CBS

Today, Obama praised the Democratic and Republican leadership for their work on the rescue plan, but said it is important for Congress to "step up to the plate." He was cautious not to fault John McCain specifically for the financial crisis, but rather blamed the crisis on the philosophy that drove the Bush Administration.

Obama explained that it is "a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down on everyone else, a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary…it's a philosophy that prefers scoring political points to showing leadership."

He said what's need now is "adult supervision" of the White House - "What we have seen over the last few weeks is the final verdict on this failed philosophy. This is the consequence of 8 yrs of irresponsibility. And it is time that we had some adult supervision in the White House, that's what I am running for President of the United States."

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 6:06pm
This entire circus has had the somewhat curious effect of creating some very strange bedfellows. Is it possible that when the chips are down we are all Americans? Hmmm. I wonder.

When all this is over we can quickly scamper back to our respective foxholes and start taking potshots at one another again. Ahhhhh! Insane normality!

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 6:21pm
>guards his watch< Posted by Zero at 09/29/2008 @ 6:29pm

You may yet be needed to pick up a casio.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2008 @ 6:41pm
He was cautious not to fault John McCain specifically for the financial crisis. Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 6:06pm

Obama has no balls. He could easily lay this at the feet of McBush. The deregulation czar who robbed all those poor suckers of their life savings in the Keating 5 scandal.

Obama has no eggs in his basket. I can no longer consider a vote for Obama anymore than I could vote for McCain. When the shit hits the fan Obama wants to be polite and aloof. Screw him.

My vote is going to the PSL or the Green Party. Follow along and vote your conscience when headed into hell. At least my soul will rest easy..

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 6:42pm
chaoszen-My Soul isn't affected by voting for whom I hope will do the best job.My Soul will rest easy no matter who I vote for or even if I don't vote.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 6:50pm
I was disappointed that the Dems were so ready to pass the bailout bill. Very disappointed but not surprised. However, I was surprised by my agreement with the Repubs. They were on the right side on this one, for whatever reason.

Posted by k330k at 09/29/2008 @ 6:59pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 6:42pm

If you are paying close attention and have learned from the 2000 race, a vote for ANYONE other than Obama "is really" a vote for McCain!

Repubs created this mess with THEIR economic philosophy of deregulation and the "market can solve all problems" approach to the political economy.

They can either let this play out for the whole world to see how ridiculous this flawed philosophy actually is or get over themselves now and this silly classroom puritanical free-market "theory" BS and start dealing with the reality we face which requires serious oversight and regulation of markets.

The time is on the Dems side, so either the Repubs get real soon or face total disaster in November.

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/29/2008 @ 7:43pm

HAPP, given your expertise...

what percentage of the failed loans were CRA loans?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 7:49pm
this may well be the time, the sins of your fathers/mothers, will be paid by YOU! Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/29/2008 @ 7:43pm

Not really. This is how an economy SHOULD work. You spend what you have. You don't drive yourself into debt. One of the biggest problems in this country is being indebted to companies. That's why I only have one credit card that gets paid off all the time. Average debt in this country 9,000 dollars I think. It shows the difference in mentalities. You want to charge everything to a card. I only want to spend what I have. And if that means holding out a little longer before buying that house to save up money. Or holding out to buy a car. Then that's fine with me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2008 @ 7:53pm
Remember all the various tables showing campaign contributions by Fannie, Freddie, the big Wall St. (mostly Jewish) Investment Banks and the money-center commercial banks......the top recipients were Demos as well as the Demos having received the most in number and dollar amounts. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/29/2008 @ 7:36pm

SooHappy is soo twisted and apparently Anti-Semitic to boot. Democrats received 57% of contibutions from Fannie and Freddie. Since there are more than 14% more Democrats in congress (House and Senate) than Republican. That means that Republicans took about 7% more money from Fannie and Freddie than Democrats. Put that up yur ass and smoke it.

Not that any of that matters, both parties are equally corrupt in my opinion. But I just can't stand smug self absorbed assholes like SooHappy getting away with anything.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 8:09pm
Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/29/2008 @ 7:43pm

Community Re-investment Act was a housing anti-discrimination bill.

What you really want to see is this, HAP:

http://tinyurl.com/3tgwyx

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 8:11pm
If you are paying close attention and have learned from the 2000 race, a vote for ANYONE other than Obama "is really" a vote for McCain! Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:20pm

Im sorry but a vote for La Riva or a vote for McKinney is not a vote for McCain. It is a vote of my conscience. It is a vote that is absolutely necessary. The Republic is at stake. If we cannot break the mold of this two party system which is feeding the corporate wolves with the blood of ourselves and our children and our childrens children. We will never break free of tyranny.

It matters not which candidate from the Republican or Democratic Party is elected. They both bow to their corporate masters. In the final analysis the only thing that matters is if the individual finally stands up and says "Enough!" Regardless of the repercussions. Regardless of the pain. It is past time for true patriots to let their voice be heard.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 8:48pm
>>>If we cannot break the mold of this two party system which is feeding the corporate wolves with the blood of ourselves and our children and our childrens children. We will never break free of tyranny.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 8:48pm<<<

It is a WASTED VOTE that helps McCain, and you are bright enough to understand this.

We agree that greater diversity among political parties is necessary, but you don't start at the top.

The way to create a multi-party system is to elect Greens or other parties to your local city councils and other local government positions. After you build a critical mass at the local level, leverage this into state elected positions, and THEN, AND ONLY THEN, do you start fielding congressional and other federal candidates, including presidential ones, with some real chance of success.

The Naders and Perots of the world have done the multi-party movement no great favors. They have allowed their personalities to become a substitute for the heavy lifting required at the local levels to build a base of support needed to make third parties viable in the United States of America.

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 9:09pm
They have allowed their personalities to become a substitute for the heavy lifting required at the local levels to build a base of support needed to make third parties viable in the United States of America.

Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 9:09pm

It was a fatal mistake of the founding fathers (and they didn't make many) to not implement a Parlimentary System into the Constitution. I think they did not for fear of emulating the very system they were in rebellion against. Pity. If they had we would not have as many barriers in the establishment of a multi-party system.

If we had a Parlimentary System the executive would be dependent on support from the legislature and the vote of confidence. Any lack of confidence could be dealt with immediately. This would have prevented most of the abuse of power that we see today and fostered a multi-party system.

Unfortunately we are hamstrung, due to this single lack of foresight.

The time for building a base of support at the local level to support a third party is long past. The barn door is open and the horse is already gone.

So we are stuck with what we have. Until this system crashes, there will be no opportunity for change. I wish it were different. But it is not. So the only alternative I can see is to vote my conscience in the hope that others will. But I know that will not happen. I do know that I will feel that at least I did the right thing. Instead of perpetuating and exacerbating the problem.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 9:47pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 9:47pm

Chaos, if we had a parliamentary system, you'd still have the same coalitions that are needed NOW to get things passed.

The failure of the bail-out proves that the Congressional system operates nearly the same way. You had liberal democrats (who would be a party) and conservative Repubs (who would be a party) uniting forces to stop the two centrist parties of Pelosi Dems and Boehner Repubs.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:10pm
Chaos, if we had a parliamentary system, you'd still have the same coalitions that are needed NOW to get things passed. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:10pm

Not necesssarily the same coalitions. If we had a parlimentary system based on proportional representation rather than first-pass-the-post we would have a true multi party system. That way each party has less then a majority vote which forces parties to get together and form working coalitions. Two party systems are to stuffed with constituents, to large, constipated. They can't agree on squat which slows down the progress of legislation and reform. And allows abuses of power by those who could care less about the republic.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 10:45pm
Also a two party system allows centrists to exercise control before the bread is baked.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 10:48pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 10:45pm

But look at the current "third parties", chaos.

You have the Greens on the Left...and the Libertarians on the Right. Sure you'd get them together on abortion and Constitutional rights...but how do they agree on massive environmental regulations or the taxes needed to fund light rail or alternative energy research?

So...how do they "get together and form working coalitions."???

Then you'd have the Libertarians join with basic Republicans on every 3rd issue...and break their coalition with the Greens, who wouldn't trust them the next time an abortion or gay rights vote came up. Plus, you'd have the same constituencies you have now, just under different labels, but with the same political bent.

Plus, if you think the coalitions are going be more "left-of-center" and not more "right-of-center" (from Hard Right Repubs to conservative gun-friendly Dems)....you're not paying attention.

You're making the classic mistake (that is if you're hoping we switch NOW to Parliamentary)...that of conflating American sensibilities with other nations'. They're very different.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:59pm
that of conflating American sensibilities with other nations'. They're very different. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:59pm

You are spot on there. But we were discussing a theoretical situation in which the U.S.A was Parlimentary with proportional representation from jump street. If that were the case then the evolution of politics in this country would have been much different than it is today.

As it is now a total breakdown of the status quo and a total refurbishing of the Constitution would be necessary to even begin this evolution in politics. As it stands now the majority of Americans would be incapable of adapting to this level of sophistication.

Only a total commitment to higher education sponsored by the government to pay for grade school through college and beyond would foster the level of understanding necessary to collapse the ignorance of the masses. But ignorance is a condition that is promoted by capiltalists and fascists in order to subjugate the working class.

That is only way they can get away with the crap they are pulling now.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 11:27pm
>>>Also a two party system allows centrists to exercise control before the bread is baked.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/29/2008 @ 10:48pm<<<

It is not clear whether a coalition of progressive voters within a centrist led party would not have "more" power than a separate "progressive party" that bargained as a group separate from any other party.

It may be the case that a progressive coalition within another party would have a better prospect of pursuing a progressive agenda by pulling the entire party in a progressive direction, including opposition parties.

The goal is to build the largest and widest coalition of progressives regardless of party identity, and if that can be done within another party, then that should be favored over separate party status.

If you are able to match multi-party support to proportional representation in lawmaking, judicial and executive positions, like in The Netherlands or New Zealand, then having a separate party would give you more power than a coalition within another party because you could exert a proportional amount of influence on public policy.

In the US, a proportional party representation system would obviously require a constitutional amendment. Therefore working within one of the dominant parties provides the best prospect - the only prospect - of having any meaningful power or influence in society.

Posted by Metteyya at 09/30/2008 @ 12:02am
Therefore working within one of the dominant parties provides the best prospect - the only prospect - of having any meaningful power or influence in society.

Posted by Metteyya at 09/30/2008 @ 12:02am

I agree. Working within a currently dominate party does increase the chances of the public policy the individual would like to see implemented.

That is the beauty of a multi-party system. Everyone has a voice and everyone feels more inclined to become involved in the process. Because no one feels overwhelmed. That makes for an exciting and vibrant Democracy. Everyone feels free to join coalitions that best express their desires. At the end of the day even those who didn't win the day, still have the satisfaction of knowing that the influence of their party or coalition of parties had some effect on the the final position. And there is always another day.

And because it is a parlimentary system. If the party who won screws up they are forced to pay the piper through a vote of no confidence. And the process begins anew.

It keeps eveyone honest and on their toes. And if campaign promises are not kept. Bye Bye.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/30/2008 @ 12:36am
We have a two party system because the Corporate overlords find it the cheapest way to provide the illusion that you have a choice.

Posted by koroviev at 09/30/2008 @ 12:53am
Also, in re: the Bailout Bust....

Just wait until the Repubs twist in the wind a few days, while the stock market tanks.

They know that they are on the hook for whatever happens as a result. Fair or not, that's the way it is. And, there will be business failures, jobs lost, 401K's decimated...

This bill is going to be passed.

Posted by koroviev at 09/30/2008 @ 01:18am
Both components of our economy are suffering; the financial services sector (the tracks on which our economic train runs) and more importantly the producer/consumer sector (the engine that pulls the train). The bailout plan that was rejected really only offered relief for the financial services sector. Democrats need to assume more of a leadership roll; re-write the bill adding relief for producers and consumers and then properly educate the public as to why it needs to pass. In this way they reach out to Republican legislators through their constituents. Since Bush and his team have proven inept in educating the public, the Democrats should use their most recognizable figure as their spokesperson Barack Obama. The Democratic bill should be just one component of a strategy aimed at rebuilding our economy to the point when it was at its greatest strength; from the years 1948 to 1962. What gave it its strength then was a large, productive and fairly paid middle class.

Posted by Al4Music at 09/30/2008 @ 11:52am
It is a shame that partisan politics prevents a good bill like the Paulson one from getting passed. The thing that most people understand is that we will make money on this deal. When Clinton loaned $700 million to Mexico during his presidency, we made money. When the S&L trust was created, we made money.

I urge everyone to stop being partisan and to be rational. We need a Paulson-like bill to be passed.

Posted by es at 09/30/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by es at 09/30/2008 @ 12:08pm

Oh yeah, what's good for Warren Buffet has to be good for the rest of us. Right?

Posted by Sorelish at 09/30/2008 @ 12:46pm
EVERYONE - email and call your Senator(s) and Representatives(s), picket if you can, call and email the candidates, but KEEP UP THE PRESSURE, let them know that it is not acceptable to help out the rich at the expense of the average American and our children!!! Let them know that to force us to buy the toxic deals they have made will prove toxic to them as well!!! PUSH BACK!!!! We can make this work, but we have to keep at it! They are trying to fool us and panic us into ANOTHER big mistake - DON"T LISTEN TO THE MEDIA -DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!!!!!

Posted by ucnick at 09/30/2008 @ 1:18pm
I urge everyone to stop being partisan and to be rational. We need a Paulson-like bill to be passed.----Posted by es at 09/30/2008 @ 12:08pm

How was it "partisan" if dozens of REPUBLICANS voted against it too?!??!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 1:55pm
All the tremendous popular support for killing the bailout and this is what that shmendrik, Barak Obama, has to say about it:

Obama calls on Americans to support rescue plan

Sep 30 01:22 PM US/Eastern Write a Comment

RENO, Nev. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector. Obama told a crowd at the University of Nevada at Reno on Tuesday that if Wall Street fails, ordinary people will be hurt, too.

The Illinois Democrat warned that if Congress doesn't take action, people will find it tougher to get a mortgage for a home, a loan for college or a loan to buy a car.

Obama is proposing that the limit on federal deposit insurance for bank accounts be raised from $100,000 to $250,000. Increasing that limit, he says, would help small-business owners and reassure nervous Americans as well as help shore up the economy.

Obama reminds me of the puppy that used to appear on RCA records in front of an old fashioned Victrola, you know, the one with the megaphone, with the caption, "His Master's Voice". He'll tap dance for massa, promise. Will there ever be an end to the pitiful servility when it comes to this snake? I'd doubt it. When he's president there'll still be his lobbyist backers to satisfy. Progressives vote for a man, not some stephin-fetchit. Vote Nader!

Posted by john lowell at 09/30/2008 @ 2:02pm
TN needs to post a survey on this issue.

The bailout plan as it now stands is:

O Ridiculous.

O Basically sound but requires considerably more oversight protection.

O The embodiment of corporate welfare.

O Sucks. Start all over again.

O Fabulous! Did Bush come up with that plan all by himself?

Or something like that. How 'bout it, Peter?

Posted by jackwells at 09/30/2008 @ 2:33pm
Now we're hearing things like:

"The administration should explain this in a way the average american can understand."

translation...

"Oh shit, they're on to us!"

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/30/2008 @ 3:28pm
I appreciate everyone's point of view, seriously. I'd like to disagree with some of my replies. And if you disagree further, that's great. Maybe I'm missing something here. Perhaps I can be swayed.

As to the "What's good for Warren Buffet" comment, I actually agree with it. As over 50% of Americans are stockholders, we are just as much Wall Streeters as we are Main Streeters. And I'll take Warren Buffet's track record with Berkshire Hathaway anyday.

As far as the partisan comment, even though republicans and democrats voted against it, it's becoming more apparent that the far right is coalescing because they want no government intervention and the far left is coalescing to have 100% government takeover. This is why I was saddened by the partisan nature of current events. Both extremes I believe are a bad idea.

This bill needs more work, but overall I like the direction of the bill. I'm a working class teacher, democrat just like many of you. I'm not a multi-billionaire ceo looking for a golden parachute :)

Posted by es at 09/30/2008 @ 4:54pm
"The Democratic bill should be just one component of a strategy aimed at rebuilding our economy to the point when it was at its greatest strength; from the years 1948 to 1962. What gave it its strength then was a large, productive and fairly paid middle class."

And how do you propose to do this? Do you have visions of high school dropouts with union cards getting $50/hr to assemble lawn furniture? If you think we're going to become a manufacturing labor force again, then figure out what it is we're going to build. Then figure out if your $50/hr grunt is going to be competitive with some 3rd world peasant.

Posted by sntauri at 09/30/2008 @ 6:25pm