A Congress That Can Say "No!"

Texas Congressman Lloyd Doggett, one of the few members of the US House with a steady track record of keeping his head at chaotic moments, was not impressed by the fact that the Bush White House and Democratic and Republican congressional leaders had come together to support a $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street's worst players.

"Like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, this bill is fueled by fear and haste," declared Doggett, a former jurist who has a habit of keeping his head when others in the House fail to do so.

What was different this time was that the populist Democrat with a record of casting votes that do not come to embarrass him, was on the winning side of the House division.

Unlike 2001, when the White House and congressional leaders forged a bipartisan combination to pass the Patriot Act; unlike 2002, when the powerful players in the executive and legislative branches crossed party lines to form a united front to give President Bush unprecedented war-making powers, the fight over the bailout plan that was backed by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate finished differently.

In one of the last monumental votes of an era of legislative dysfunction, courage and prudence prevailed over fear and haste.

The coalition that rejected the bailout bill by a 228-205 vote Monday was truly bipartisan.

It was not made up of powerbrokers coalescing to evoke the elite consensus that once led another Texas populist-- Jim Hightower-- to suggest that "America does not need a third party. We need a second party."

The 95 (mostly) liberal Democrats and the133 (mostly) conservative Republicans who blocked the rush on Monday to pass the bailout bill were the dissenters of both parties-- the outriders from the established order.

They do not usually unite--although it has happened a few times in recent years on trade votes. And they do not usually hold together in the face of whipping--not to mention outright bribery--by party leaders.

But this bailout bill was so poorly crafted and so misguided in its priorities that it welded together dissident Democrats and renegade Republicans to say "no."

The debate was remarkable. Sometimes liberals sounded like conservatives. Sometimes free-marketeers came off as radicals. (Texan John Culberson mustered a populism few thought the conservative Republican had in him when he declared, "This legislation is giving us a choice between bankrupting our children and bankrupting a few of these big financial institutions on Wall Street that made bad decisions.")

Ultimately, however, it was the word "no"--and the ability to utter it in the form of a roll-call vote--that united all sides. That and the threat of an election where voters may not be inclined to reward members of the House and Senate who seem to be more concerned about Wall Street than Main Street.

Few of the free-market purists on the Republican side shared the objection of Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair Joe Baca, D-California, who said of the bailout bill, "There's nothing in here that guarantees new jobs, nothing that guarantees salary increases. And that's a huge problem."

Few of the progressive Democrats who opposed the measure agreed with Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter, who worried that the government's entry into the marketplace might limit what he vaguely referred to as "economic freedom" – but what sounded more like survival-of-the-fittest capitalism.

Yet, on Monday, urged on by two of the Capitol's more consistent dissenters, California Republican Darrell Issa and Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur--who developed something of a rogue coalition to whip the "no" votes--the outsiders briefly became the bosses of Capitol Hill.

It may only have been one vote on one day. And the powers that be will scramble to reestablish their position.

But Monday's rejection of a bad bailout offered an indication of the republic that might be – if members of Congress voted with the courage and the conscience that the founders intended when they imagined a chamber that was to be "the people's House."

Comments (78)

1. 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."

   This is a MUST read:

   http://tinyurl.com/3tgwyx

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:42pm

2. 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 @ 7:42pm

3. 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 @ 7:43pm

4. I have a sneaking suspicion that Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker (and out of proud, tenure in the House) is quite limited now.

   She's been shown to be a complete failure and utter failure at Lyndon Johnson's First Rule...

   "If you want them to follow you, you better have their pecker in your pocket!"

   If McCain wins, I see a big disaffection from her. If Obama, she might last until 2010 or beyond, but not much more.

   The woman is damn near silly.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 7:45pm

5. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 7:45pm

   Actually, it was a political stroke of brilliance.

   She actually has the power to get free-market conservatives to renounce their classroom theoretical philosophy or face total disaster politically.

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:49pm

6. This congress has an approval rating in the single digits and those numbers are headed south. This is doing damage not only to party, but to country.

   Posted by Incoming at 09/29/2008 @ 7:51pm

7. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/29/2008 @ 7:50pm

   HAP,

   You obviously didn't read the article in the link in my first post that shows Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley getting an "exemption" in 2004 from the SEC so they can increase their debt-to-capital ratio from 21-1 to 40-1.

   I wonder what "Democrat" was in charge of the SEC in 2004, and wonder if there is any connection to this reserve requirement exemption and 3 of the 5 requesters of this exemption going out of business, with the other two BARELY HANGING ON?

   Here's the link, AGAIN:

   http://tinyurl.com/3tgwyx

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:57pm

8. >>>But the free market must be allowed to decide who can get the credit!

   Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/29/2008 @ 7:56pm<<<

   Maybe you should tell this to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, as they have been quite resistant to their "market determined" credit rating in the Credit Default Swaps market which rates them at "junk status", and are still hanging on to "institutional" credit rating agencies they control, like Moodys.

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 8:00pm

9. Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:57pm

   Typo...should read "increase their debt-to-capital ratio from [1]2-1 to 40-1"

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 8:03pm

10. I stand ready to be corrected given my limited understanding of econ...but this failure was awful. As we speak, I'm watching a CNN analyst just devastate the criticisms of the bailout by pointing out how much the bailout affects people far beyond just the "fat cats" that Nation writers are lambasting. There seems to be a lot more at stake than just the "big corporations" upon which blame is consistently laid. At the VERY LEAST, I think it's troubling that Nation writers and posters aren't even pausing a moment to CONSIDER this, satisfying themselves with attacking the big corporations and feeling satisfied when the government seems to "stick it to the man."

    By the way, I want to resurrect an interesting issue from another thread. There was evidence, surprisingly uncontested, that companies weren't simply embracing risky policies; they acted in part because they were pressured to do so by Democratic administrations (and this was not really corrected by Republican government, so both parties are to blame). This raises legitimate questions about the corporations' blameworthiness to begin with, even if you think that their blameworthiness was sufficient.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/29/2008 @ 8:15pm

11. >>>satisfying themselves with attacking the big corporations and feeling satisfied when the government seems to "stick it to the man."

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/29/2008 @ 8:15pm<<<

    I think it is a lot more than that.

    We are having a good ole fashioned philosophical debate concerning the merits of a free-market philosophy with minimal to no oversight or regulation (Repubs) versus a philosophy that recognizes market failures and attempts to redress these failures with the common resources of the government (Dems).

    Some Repubs have decided to "go-to-the-mat" to defend their classroom theory while reality is hitting them in the face everywhere they turn. It is simply a matter of time before these "theorists" come around, and time is on the Dems side.

    The longer this drags out, the longer the economy stays on the front page...perhaps all the way to November.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 8:39pm

12. Its amazing that the CRA operated for 20 years before the Bush era of deregulation without causing a meltdown. Where would the republicans be without a minority boogyman to blame for the failure of their policies?

    Posted by Guiles at 09/29/2008 @ 8:41pm

13. Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:49pm

    "She actually has the power to get free-market conservatives to renounce their classroom theoretical philosophy or face total disaster politically."

    Possibly the most moronic statement ever posted here, and that says something. What you call 'free market conservatism' is what built this country, it's the leftism you espouse that is a classroom theoretical philosophy, and a total failure in practice everywhere and anytime it has been tried. But somehow the socialist mythology gets reborn every generation, with a new group of morons calling it by a different name e.g., 'socialism', 'liberalism', 'progressivism'. A stinker by any name at all.

    As HAPPY points out, it was the social engineering of the last 20 years that created the housing bubble, not the free market. Obama's policies of more regulation is like drilling more holes in the boat to keep it from sinkin. But we know you folks will go along. This kind of silliness seems to get reborn every generation.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 9:15pm

14. Posted by pontificus at 09/29/2008 @ 9:15pm

    Maybe you know, PONTI....

    what percentage of the failed mortgage loans were CRA?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 9:28pm

15. Thrawn and everyone:

    There are other ways of resolving this crisis, without bailing out Wall Street. We need to accept that no solution is without cost - even doing nothing will ultimately be costly, if congress chooses that road.

    The immediate cause of the problem is a flood of foreclosures which have resulted in those "worthless assets" Paulson wants us to buy for $7 billion. The "worthless assets" are not the mortgages themselves but the derivatives based on mortgages (how to handle derivatives properly is a topic for the long term solutions discussion). What congress can do now is to put a moratorium on foreclosures and work on renegotiating mortgage loans, including principal when appropriate. This would give homeowners a bit more money that would be used as "economic stimulus," just like that $600 we all got at the beginning of summer. That is, if the homeowner doesnt have to pay his/her entire income to the bank, s/he can spend it on other stuff. It would also put value back into those mortgage-backed derivatives that have Wall Street so upset.

    Frankly, I'd don't mind using my tax dollars to bail out homeowners who are in trouble. Even if we bail out a few folks who were flat-out stupid, it's better, morally, than bailing out folks who were flat-out greedy and predatory. Plus it is better for the economy in the long run, which means its better for the taxpayer.

    An underlying cause of this crisis is unregulated greed, and once the economic fire has been contained, we need to start imposing regulations on greed. There is no such thing as a free market in an economy the size of ours, and the sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can get down to fair and proper regulations to prevent this from happening again.

    Posted by bjl at 09/29/2008 @ 9:41pm

16. Finally! Bush didn't get what he wanted. This bill is flawed. It's crooked and it stinks to high heaven! We need to do something, but this bill is designed to bail out Wall Street ONLY. It serves no other purpose. It doesn't require the crooks responsible to change a thing about the way things are being done. The very practices that got us here are considered just fine. It doesn't REQUIRE any help for homeowners. It partially fills the coffers so that the greedy and unscrupulous can continue to "play" the same games. It gives $700 billion to the temporary treasury secretary (former head of Goldman Sax sp?) which is on it's way down (conflict of interest?). It is time to stop the foolishness. Anything that Congress passes MUST require a fundamental change, or we will be here again possibly not very long from now.

    This is a great example of how the"Shock Doctrine" works as explained in Naomi Kline's book by the same name. This administration got us on several pieces of legislation right after 9/11, but this time, by some miracle, the smug, shameless fools didn't get their way. I really hope that this resistance can be maintained until a sensible bill is worked out.

    Listen to Roosevelt's speech compared with any syllable that Bush has uttered on this topic. Bush encourages fear, whereas Roosevelt attempts to combat fear, etc.

    What's to come is not going to be pleasant, but something has got to change. Paulsen is part of the problem. His position is a conflict of interest. The whole thing stinks!

    Hooorah to those brave Democrats and Republicans!

    Posted by annazen108 at 09/29/2008 @ 10:03pm

17. Nichols, what's wrong with you? We are about to enter the Great Depression, Part II, but, by God, at least we really stuck it to Bush (wealthy, and with no worries) and the fat cats on Wall Street (also wealthy, with no worries)! Joe Sixpack is going to lose his job, his house, and watch his 401(k) shrivel to single digits, but at least he, through his elected representatives, really showed those arrogant bigshots who's in charge.

    Instead of cheerleading this self-defeating stupidity, how about trying to educate people (if you know yourself) about what happens when credit freezes and a genuine panic begins?

    Posted by sgoodman at 09/29/2008 @ 10:36pm

18. "Educated folks over 45 knows the truth!" says Happy. "Those of you under 45, welcome to the world your Liberal elders created"

    I'm one of those educated folks over 45 that Happy is talking about. I'm 55, and I've got a masters in business from a very fancy university, among other things. I was there 45 years ago, which would be the 1960s. The economy was good, in fact, from the end of WW II until the end of the Viet Nam war - mid '70's. We got into trouble over oil - remember OPEC? We're still in trouble over oil, even after nearly three decades of conservatism. It was during those three decades that the gap between rich and poor began to widen. Even Nixon and Eisenhower were more liberal than the folks that ran the country beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan. Reagan promised to cut inflation (remember inflation, the bogeyman?) and increase the volunteer army (no more war so no more draft). He cut inflation by bringing the economy to a grinding halt, and he increased the army by increasing pay and benefits; the army was the only place a young man could go to get a decent income and an education if he couldn't get into college - since there were no jobs and no financial aid to students.

    Blaming "liberal elders" for the current crisis is a rather large stretch, my friend.

    Posted by bjl at 09/29/2008 @ 10:38pm

19. Happy-It's funny how it was the Bush economy when things were going well,but it instantly became the liberal economy when it goes bad even though liberals elders aren't in charge and never had enough power to be blamed for all that you blame liberals for..For the most part conservatives from both parties have been in charge and not the liberal wing.They have not had much power in our lifetimes making blaming them rather weak.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:40pm

20. I am so pleased the the House sent the market scrambeling. Sixty-something percent of the U.S. wealth controled by FIVE percent of the citizenery tells the whole story in 1968 it was twenty-something. And for the Warren Buffet fans out there I have this question: how on earth can one individual create such enormous wealth over a twenty year period of paper shuffling without a the deck being stacked in he and his friends favor. I know his company financed many wonderful projects but in the long run he just couldn't have paid his fair share. And I would like to add, at least Bill Gates put a product together that in terms of enriching our nation and the world in so many ways at least deserves more than the Buffets, Icanns,ect. his fabulous fortune. The taxpayers including myself put the squeeze on the House and in turn, the House on the financiers where it justly belongs and guess what the stock market didn't crash and won't because the sixty-percent somethings have investments THEY need to protect so let "get to work." our demoracracy worked today for the first time, in somethig major, in a very long time. BRAVO!

    Posted by time2act at 09/29/2008 @ 10:42pm

21. Blaming "liberal elders" for the current crisis is a rather large stretch, my friend.----Posted by bjl at 09/29/2008 @ 10:38pm

    Twelve years of GOP Congresses....nearly 8 of Dubya White House....

    but "liberal elders" are to blame for the economy.

    They must be like the "Secret Masters of Tibet" the conspiracists think control the world from an underground lair beneath the Himalayans!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 10:51pm

22. "CRA was enacted in 1977, its companion disclosure statute, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975. While many of us warned against bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium, the massive breakdown of underwriting and extension of risky products far down the income scale-without bothering to even check on income-was primarily a post-2003 phenomenon."

    http://tinyurl.com/3jtf52

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 10:54pm

23. Calling any financier "liberal" is like calling Charles Manson a Saint.

    Posted by time2act at 09/29/2008 @ 10:56pm

24. Mask-The party of personal responsibility never takes responsibility for anything that they do wrong.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:01pm

25. I was relieved and heartened by the NO vote today.

    There's something 'fishy' about the timing, the huge numbers, the insider that would be God, the complete absence of free market principle, and all this without ever the barest mention of the households in peril.

    Bush seems to be admitting that he has no plan... by throwing a 'hail Mary' as far as he can... as quickly as he can... in order to 'connect' with his legacy... with the American people cheering in the stands... in the final minutes of his Presidency.

    But we've been down this road before... George...

    The thing that galls me most... is that any economic commitment we make as a nation to the continuance of failed and detrimental policy... will be a constraining force the next President's probably superior agenda.

    What's needed here is competent and compassionate leadership... and GWB's stats in these columns are not flattering to him.

    Time to stop the bleeding, and start the research.

    Posted by ttr at 09/29/2008 @ 11:05pm

26. Happy-Pretending that these imaginary libs of yours controlled education and that is what has caused all problems is too ignorant for words.Libs had nothing to do with minority families nor are minority families obsolete.In fact,there is one three houses down from me and another a few houses from that one,but there are two white broken families in the hood...Where do you get your nonsense from?Rush?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:28pm

27. Happy-So,when you had the lib elder nonsense debunked you went for the my side is less guilty than the other side nonsense...You are getting closer to honesty.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:37pm

28. Happy-Which party they donate to would have no relevance to the issue of lib elders controlling America or the educational system.It's good that you figured out that libs have nothing to do with minority families and are shouting it out.I'm surprised that you were able to be that honest considering the brain washing Rush has put you through about that subject.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:42pm

29. "The thing that galls me most... is that any economic commitment we make as a nation to the continuance of failed and detrimental policy... will be a constraining force the next President's probably superior agenda." ttr

    Quite. So mission accomplished.

    Posted by sloper at 09/29/2008 @ 11:45pm

30. OK, so a number of things (and I REALLY hate harping on this). I'm still surprised that NO ONE seems to have responded to a rather important claim made elsewhere, namely that companies were pushed into a lot of these risky loans by Democratic presidents who wanted access to resources by poorer people and Republicans who just refused to reign it in. This seems kind of important.

    And yes, there is an interesting philosophical debate going (though there seem to be few philosophical arguments and more economic analysis).

    I realize that some people have been willing to put out alternatives, which is kind of important here (because yes, some people ARE just saying "fat cats bad!", though I realize many are making more sophisticated arguments than that). It just doesn't seem like people appreciate how important the existence of the stock market has been to a LOT of people who are't millionaires. It's not just a question of whether foreclosures happen; the stock market is interlinked with a LOT of areas in the economy, and having it fall drastically like it did today isn't good for anyone.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/29/2008 @ 11:46pm

31. Happy-It's easy for you to hide behind your computer and call people cowards.I did not tell a lie nor were you able to show that I did which is why you did not try to.Your statement is that minority families are obsolete and libs did it.You were unable to show that minority families are obsolete nor were you able to show that libs are responsible for other people choices and actions.Got facts rather than name calling that you'd be too scared to say to my face?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 11:59pm

32. I guess then the well educated criminals in thousand dollar suits were educated by "liberal" schools of higher education. If schools named such as Yale turn out monsterous conservatives such as the Bushes, the student must not have been paying much attention. Now if they went to UCLA maybe some compassion would have rubbed off, but "liberal " Yale, UPenn (Warton,) Harvard Business no way because big business by nature is rebublican for the most part and chances are only conservatives have what they "conserve" for themselves by the way, the money it costs to attend. Plus in college, students like to mingle and conservative parents I don't think would want their greedy natures, carefully passed down to their pampered children tampered with by oposing viewpoints at such a prime development stage in the students life. the very idea business schools which is where most of these criminals were educated are anywhere "liberal" is simply preposterous.

    Posted by time2act at 09/30/2008 @ 12:02am

33. My advice to a lot of people today was "go home. take a warm shower and watch 'Soprano 'reruns or something". Under no circumstances were they to watch the news-particularly CNN and FOX the twin towers of "what if!!!!!!!!!!!!!" fearmongering journalism.

    After 9/11 shook the American psyche to its' core the Republicans told us to go to Wal-Mart as if nothing had happened thereby defeating the terrorists (??????). What the hell did they expect?

    Grown-ups in charge.........oh good grief.

    Posted by Pogge at 09/30/2008 @ 12:32am

34. Remember how republicans want you "to keep your own money" instead of paying taxes? How's that going for you now...? Remember how "markets provide solutions"? What they really meant was "markets provide opportunity!". The opportunity for some people to plow others under while amass their fortunes on their way to early retirement on the beach or the golf course.

    Am i the only one who is not just sick of republicans, but especially Texas republicans? Have these clowns done anything right for this country in decades...? To Texas democrats: work harder. Our sympathies and hopes are with you...!

    Posted by xlator at 09/30/2008 @ 12:51am

35. Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/30/2008 @ 12:35am

    Maybe because it has been investigated to death and the connections just didn't pan out.

    Besides, how seriously are we supposed to take the allegations of a party that spent 40 million smackers investigating the Clintons FOREVER and found nothing substantial, then put the country through an impeachment that went pretty much nowhere and has-from Newt Gingrich's affairs to Rush Limbaugh's drug habit to John and Cindy McCain's adultery-pretty consistently claimed that morals only matter if it's a Democrat under investigation.

    The National Enquirer says Saint Sarah slept with her husband's best friend. If it were Joe Biden you all would be calling for a special prosecutor. (Not that I think she had an affair and if she did it's no one's business but she and the GOP. Why should any of us give a rip who an obscure Alaskan mayor was or was not sleeping with).

    Posted by Pogge at 09/30/2008 @ 12:54am

36. I'm not celebrating -- first of all, Pelosi should NOT have agreed to let this come up for a vote unless and until it was in a form that was acceptable to a majority. The "no" vote has made the problem worse (the credit markets need confidence in order to get moving again) and also made us look even stupider than we are. It would have been better to keep the weekend negotiations going until they got a better deal.

    Second, the problem goes way beyond $700 billion, this is just the first of a long series of measures that are needed to get the economy back on a reasonable footing.

    So, while I'm glad Paulson didn't get his blank check, this was a huge failure of leadership and no reason to celebrate.

    Posted by takemyveepplease at 09/30/2008 @ 01:06am

37. Somewhere in Texas two villages are missing their MBA idiots

    Posted by winyahn at 09/30/2008 @ 01:08am

38. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/30/2008 @ 12:49am

    A number of people have brought up Freddie and Fannie being "forced" to give loans to unqualified borrowers. These rumors run from merely poor people to people living on welfare or unemployment.

    Yet no where have I found any rule, regulation or stipulation that anyone, Democrat or Republican, enforced in such an idiotic fashion. I'm not saying it couldn't be true, but it sounds more like regurgitated Rush than reality.

    Actually most of the poorer folks around here are doing okay. It isn't crappy mortgages scaring them because the homes they bought were within their means, modest as they are. It's keeping their children from freezing this winter that is scaring the hell out of them, because the cost of LP and home heating oil is going to put them on the street.

    BTW I am also curious, if scads of our oil comes from Canada why are our refineries and our emergency stores in Texas and other hurricane prone states?

    Sorry, guess "xlator" already answered that above.

    Posted by Pogge at 09/30/2008 @ 01:29am

39. This all looks very familiar to me. I remember when Ronald Reagan addressed the nation on tv and asked everyone to write their Congressman in favor of deregulating the financial markets. And they did. And Congress did. And RR signed the bill. And a short few years later, we had the S&L scandal and a huge taxpayer funded bailout. The latest debacle is just another example of the consequences of the failed conservative anti-regulatory approach to dealing with the excesses of capitalism. When are the American people going to wake up and realize that they are being taken for a ride - the profits are privatized at their expenses (look at median incomes and the widening income gap, for instance) then the losses are being socialized at their expense.

    Posted by Lair at 09/30/2008 @ 02:45am

40. Actually, it was a political stroke of brilliance.

    She actually has the power to get free-market conservatives to renounce their classroom theoretical philosophy or face total disaster politically.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/29/2008 @ 7:49pm

    Even blind squirrels have been known to find acorns from time to time.

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/30/2008 @ 05:53am

41. Happy-It's funny how it was the Bush economy when things were going well,but it instantly became the liberal economy when it goes bad ...

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 10:40pm

    Isn't it obvious?

    This was not a failure of free market theory at all.

    It was the fault of the weak-kneed namby pamby libruls who imposed their socialist strictures on the market.

    A truly free market would never have gone this way, because greed is good and Ronnie Ray-gun is like unto god and it's morning in Amer-cuh.

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/30/2008 @ 06:20am

42. Posted by skeletonman at 09/30/2008 @ 06:20am

    I'm just curious - where did you get the idea that free markets are a 'theory'? Socialism is a theory. Free markets are an economic fact of life.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 07:43am

43. Posted by skeletonman at 09/30/2008 @ 06:20am

    I believe the crux of the bailout debate is addressed in this passage from Wikipedia:

    "While some economists regard the free market as a useful if simplistic model in developing economic policies to attain social goals, others regard the free market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the ideal free market solution are 'wrong' even if they are believed to have some immediate social benefit. "

    The former party described above include liberals, socialists, 'progressives', and their ilk that believe that the free market can be more or less gamed, or commanded, by the State to attain social goals. Myself, and other 'free market theorists' or 'conservatives' or 'greed capitalists', the latter group described above, would liken this notion to the idea that one can create one's own reality simply by passing laws. Thus, free market 'theorists' believe that the former group described above, through distortion of the mortgage market, through Congressional Acts pursuant to this line of the former line of thought described above, like the Community Investment Act, and the setting of interest rates by the Fed at artificially low rates, can be substantially blamed to have created the housing bubble. BTW, virtually all politicians have a direct personal interest in fostering the notion that economic reality can be dictated by the State.

    I don't think we can blame all of the housing bubble on misguided government policies, though, although certainly they were a major contributor. Bubbles occur quite frequently, throughout history, with and without government intervention Tulips, financial panics, and bubbles in all sorts of commodities seem to be an artifact of human nature

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 08:27am

44. I agree with you MASKDELTA about Pelosi. She's quite useless, and I'd add her days of riding the "first" wave are about over. She demonstrated typical partisanship yesterday, comes off like she doesn't give a damn about anything except looking good. People will only put up with that for so long.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/30/2008 @ 08:35am

45. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/30/2008 @ 08:35am

    I disagree. I think what Pelosi did yesterday made a hell of a lot of sense, if you frame it in terms of the goals of a partisan Democrat. When you hear that in her speech yesterday she went out of her way to antagonize people on partisan lines, and the the Dem House Leadership made no effort to make House Democrats vote in favor of the bill, the political brilliance seems to be quite clear.

    Obama has gotten quite a positive bounce in the polls out of the economic troubles of the last week or so. It is in the interest of the Democrats to keep the bad times rolling as long as possible, and with help from their friends in the media, blame it all on the Republicans. I heard on one of the liberal news outlets yesterday, for example, that it was the 'House Republicans' that were at fault for the failure of the Bill yesterday. But 95 Democrats, mostly lefties, voted against it as well.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 08:45am

46. But 95 Democrats, mostly lefties, voted against it as well.-----Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 08:45am

    That really doesn't make sense, does it, PONTI?

    Why would conservative House Repubs HELP Obama get elected by opposing a bill to "keep the bad times rolling as long as possible"??!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 08:56am

47. If McCain wins, I see a big disaffection from her. If Obama, she might last until 2010 or beyond, but not much more.

    The woman is damn near silly.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 7:45pm

    She sure did pick an odd time to air her displeasure with the Bush administration policies. My hunch is that the dems knew that if they went with the minor majority vote and put it onto the republicans to pass a "socialistic government bailout", there would be no way in hell that the rethugs, especially the ones would vote for this bill.

    Now, the dems can pretty much rewrite another bill and use their majority to push it through. One of two things will happen, Bush and the rethugs will have to concede on a lot of ground, or wallstreet doesn't get it's bailout.

    I still say that the government should loan them the money with interest to be paid back in full in a set time frame. Just the same as if a person wished to consolidate his/ her loans. This way, the tax payer gets paid back for sure, and wallstreet won't be lining their pockets with money they have to pay back. What's so difficult to grasp on something like this?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 08:59am

48. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 08:56am

    "Why would conservative House Repubs HELP Obama get elected by opposing a bill to "keep the bad times rolling as long as possible"??!?!?!?!?"

    In terms of political tactics, which Republicans are always second rate at, they got bamboozled, but I think they voted against it on principle.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:01am

49. In terms of political tactics, which Republicans are always second rate at, they got bamboozled, but I think they voted against it on principle.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:01am

    Ponti, You've outdone yourself again. Have you ever heard of Karl Rove, you know, Bush's consigliori political advisor? W referred to him as turd blossom for a reason.

    Christ, the republicans wrote the book on "bamboozling", deception, misinformation and graft. Get a clue.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 09:08am

50. So the Nation is saying Hurray for the Republicans? Where am I?

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/30/2008 @ 09:10am

51. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 09:08am

    Well, Karl Rove is a pretty good political operative for a Republican, but apparently he was nowhere to be found in the House yesterday, because the Republicans clearly got out-maneuvered, in my view. Whether it will work out to their detriment, in the end, remains to be seen, but in terms of tactics, they got taken.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:14am

52. go to yahoo.com, and the headline tells you that taxpayers will be paying for this regardless of which way you slice it. well, sure. go out to dinner in a group, and the statement that "the diners will pay" is true in a general sense (let's leave aside the fact that in the case of the mortgage fiasco, most of us weren't invited to the table). of course, among those diners, who pays & how much is a very significant question. this is the question that yahoo & everyone else seems to be intent on obfuscating. why not prepare a series of payment options, and let people vote on them? for example, one could have the top 20% paying for 80% of the bailout, with the logic that not only did they have more to do with it, but that they reaped nearly all the benefits of the fake wealth that was created. but that's (or should be) the liberal plan. "but we're all in this together!" wall street might say, suddenly discovering the joys of social solidarity, & propose a bailout plan spread more or less evenly on everyone who pays income tax (ouch!). or maybe the rich & the middle could stick together & really try to sock it to the poor with a national sales tax and a whole host of user fees, etc. there ain't no water in a dry rag is what they'd soon find out, but they could give it the old college try. but anyway, why not put forward a variety of plans, be explicit about who will pay for them, & let everyone vote? once we saw that the whole thing could be paid for with military cuts & making the rich actually pay the taxes they owe, we could all go back to picking out our halloween costumes.

    Posted by Jason Rhodes at 09/30/2008 @ 09:48am

53. In terms of political tactics, which Republicans are always second rate at, they got bamboozled, but I think they voted against it on principle.-----Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:01am

    Well, if you want to make the case that the conservative House Repubs are stupid....

    I won't argue with you.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 09:53am

54. BTW, since the bill failed.........

    shouldn't McCain "put the country first" and RE-suspend his campaign and get back to DC?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 09:54am

55. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 09:53am

    "Well, if you want to make the case that the conservative House Repubs are stupid....

    I won't argue with you."

    In terms of political tactics, they are often stupid. But that comes with the territory when you have what is called integrity.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:57am

56. Whether it will work out to their detriment, in the end, remains to be seen, but in terms of tactics, they got taken.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:14am

    I wouldn't be so quick to say that anybody was taken this go around. They say that political views from the extreme positions can end up being similar. In this case, we just ran into such a circumstance.

    The conservative republicans don't believe the government should be involved in private business affairs and are afraid of the government taking over or having too much or any influence in the free market system.

    Then, we have the far left who think the business world has run wild and don't want to spend tax money on businesses when tax money could be spent on social programs or infrastructure. They tend to believe that business power unchecked will turn into feudalism....something I agree with.

    So, we have two opposite system views siding with each other. The mixed market folks, that would be everyone in the middle, lost out on Monday's happenings. I'd wager though that come Thursday, a very similar bill will be voted on and it will pass by the slimmest of margins....that is if this truly is the market meltdown problem W and Paulsen have been making it out to be. The stock market seems fine today. Kind of makes you wonder what is really going on.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 10:12am

57. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 09:54am

    "shouldn't McCain "put the country first" and RE-suspend his campaign and get back to DC?"

    McCain is a Senator, right? Isn't the current action in the House?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 10:32am

58. they are often stupid. But that comes with the territory when you have what is called integrity.-----Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 09:57am

    I'm sorry.....What??!?!??!?!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 10:43am

59. Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 10:32am

    BTW, the bill was in the House when he suspended his campaign the FIRST time....yet he deemed it "necessary to put the country first" to return to "help" with the negotiations....

    why not now???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 10:44am

60. McCain is a Senator, right? Isn't the current action in the House?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 10:32am

    Problem is, 'Ficus, that he puffed himself all up big and tough, made a show of suspending his campaign to come back to DC - ostensibly to demonstrate his presidentialesque leadership abilities - but wound up looking like a doofus by not getting the rank and file to play ball.

    Hard to see how a guy who can't even exert influence over members of his own party at a so-called critical point in our history can pretend to lead the entire nation.

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/30/2008 @ 10:45am

61. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 10:43am

    "I'm sorry.....What??!?!??!?!"

    You're unfamiliar with the concept of integrity? Well, I can describe it to you. It often means you must put you principles ahead of short term partisan advantage. The opposite of integrity, for example, would be Pelosi's speech to the House, whereby she used the occasion of the nation's distress to score partisan points.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 11:21am

62. Posted by skeletonman at 09/30/2008 @ 10:45am

    "Problem is, 'Ficus, that he puffed himself all up big and tough, made a show of suspending his campaign to come back to DC - ostensibly to demonstrate his presidentialesque leadership abilities - but wound up looking like a doofus by not getting the rank and file to play ball."

    Well, he did what he could, and considering his Party is in the minority, he did well enough. If you want more, I guess you'll have to help elect him President;)

    By the way, can you describe for me what Senator Obama did for the country in this crisis?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 11:25am

63. Ponti-Neither McCain nor Obama did anything nor should they since this isn't their strong suit.McCain did try to use it for political gain by pretending that he was doing something,but he did nothing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 11:56am

64. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 11:56am

    "McCain did try to use it for political gain by pretending that he was doing something,but he did nothing."

    Hmm. So your opinion is, US Senators should not even PRETEND to do anything in a national crisis?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 12:03pm

65. Oh wait. Senator Obama did do something, he said he'd be by the phone if anyone needed him.

    Yeah. I did that too, and nobody called me either.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 12:07pm

66. ponti-You are correct.Politicians should not use a crisis in order to score political points by pretending to be doing something.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 12:19pm

67. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 12:19pm

    "ponti-You are correct.Politicians should not use a crisis in order to score political points by pretending to be doing something."

    God forbid they should pretend to be doing anything when we all know they're useless. It would be sheer hypcrisy.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 12:22pm

68. ponti-You are correct,again.They are pretty much useless.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 12:24pm

69. re: A Congress that can say "No!"

    I see this situation as a power struggle between the private sector and the public sector. Trying to push the bailout bill through congress was the private sector's last attempt to save itself the trouble of serious reform.

    But the public would not have it. They have betrayed public trust and will be left to fend for themselves.

    If anything, the failure of the bailout plan will be the beginning of shifting the tide towards fiscal responsibility.

    We saw its effects immediately on Wall street. Companies began liquidating assets to free up capital. There were some losses, but nothing over 10-15%.

    No need to panick. We should celebrate that our congressional leadership is finally stepping up to the plate and looking out for our public's interests.

    Posted by diogenes2 at 09/30/2008 @ 12:27pm

70. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 12:24pm

    "ponti-You are correct,again.They are pretty much useless."

    That's why we elect them. To be useless. And to not even pretend to do anything, especially not when they're supposed to be needed most.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 12:32pm

71. Hmm. So your opinion is, US Senators should not even PRETEND to do anything in a national crisis?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 12:03pm |

    Ponti, As you pointed out yourself, McCain is a senator, not a member of the house of representatives. Therefore, he's meaningless in a house debate. Neither Obama nor McCain could even cast a vote in the house, so McCain was showboating and definitely using the situation for attempted political gain.

    Unfortunately, for McCain, it backfired. Even after the bill failed he was trying to sound like he was above the politics of partisanship while at the same time trying to score political points for his campaign against Obama. A little two faced don't you think?

    McCain is behind in the polls and is using every stunt in the book to keep himself and Palin front and center in the media. I guess even negative press is good press in the political arena....either that, or both he and Palin are even more pathetic figures than what they appear to be now.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 12:35pm

72. Posted by pontificus at 09/30/2008 @ 11:21am

    No, I'm unfamiliar with the concept that "if you have integrity, it leads to stupidity"...which was your contention.

    BTW, all your scrambling around is looking sillier than usual.

    McCain was being "honest" when he "suspended" his campaign to return to DC to "help fix the financial crise"....

    but since the bill STILL isn't passed, you have no problem with him NOT "re-suspending" his campaign?!??!?!

    And then you attack Pelosi for partisan attacks....and MCCAIN used the failure of the bill to attack Obama and Pelosi!

    LOL....BTW, given your rabid partisanship, it must be tough to explain how both the Republicans who voted AGAINST the bill and Republicans who voted FOR the bill....were BOTH right!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 1:05pm

73. ponti-We elect them to be useful,but they decide to be useless and we don't need politicians to pretend to be useful because they will get caught in this day and age of computers,etc and make themselves look idiotic and make people feel less secure..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/30/2008 @ 1:17pm

74. I am not big on bipartisanship as a rule, But sometimes people with a different perspective can come to the same conclusion. Whatever works!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/30/2008 @ 1:48pm

75. LOL....BTW, given your rabid partisanship, it must be tough to explain how both the Republicans who voted AGAINST the bill and Republicans who voted FOR the bill....were BOTH right!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 1:05pm

    Mask, Now you are sounding like Katie Couric on the other thread. You know, asking those questions and raising points that are in fact true, but well, just not fair to bring up. He'll have to get back to you on this.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 3:17pm

76. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2008 @ 3:17pm

    Poor PONTI, is a victim of his own fetishment of all things conservative and Republican....even the contradictory stuff.

    Plus a general "Winston Smith-1984 memory hole" memory, where by stuff that happened LAST WEEK is suddenly re-written by MiniTrue and he believes it and regurgitates it.

    9/25/2008-- "McCain suspended his campaign to put the country first and set his own ambitions aside to go to Washington to work on the financial crises and the bail-out bill in the House!"

    Five days pass and then....

    9/30/2008-- "Why should McCain suspend his campaign, the bill is in the House and he can't do anything about it!?!?!"

    And any OldSpeak un-person points it out and he goes into even MORE contradictory things like "He (McCain) is useless like all politicians, but he was pretending to be doing something, therefore he's noble" and "Repubs who voted for the bill are stupid, but that's because they have integrity!"

    ?!??!?!?!? 2 + 2 = 5 and Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/30/2008 @ 3:54pm

77. The sad truth is the failure of this bill to pass is merely political grandstanding.

    It will pass in a week or so - probably at more like $800B and even greater govn't controls to "avert an even greater crisis."

    Americans will applaud their enlightened leaders and feel good knowing that obscene exec compensation will be kept in check!

    The destruction of our liberty is right on schedule.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/30/2008 @ 4:56pm

78. Texas Congressman Lloyd Doggett

    a true american.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2008 @ 11:51pm