Sanders on Bailout: “Let Paulson and His Friends Pay For It."

The Senate will vote this evening on some version of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's proposal to bail out bad bankers with a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars into the nation's troubled financial system.

As with the House vote Monday, the Senate vote will be a mess, with members voting on a proposal that is in constant flux.

A few senators are asking the right questions.

Like Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in the House, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has taken the lead in challenging the spin from the White House and party leaders.

Here is the latest take on the struggle from the office of the independent senator:

Senate leaders pressed ahead with plans for a Wednesday vote on a $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill that was rejected Monday by the House of Representatives in a close, dramatic vote. "We're all committed to keeping the progress on this rescue package moving forward," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told other senators. "Given the very serious problems we have in the economy," Senator Bernie Sanders said, "what is most important is we get it right, so that two weeks from now or two years from now we are not in the same position we are in today."

Sanders has said that if the Congress concludes that it is necessary to pass the greatest government intervention in history, the cost of a bailout should not be shouldered by the middle class "given the fact that the middle class is declining while the wealthiest people in this country have made out like bandits during the years President Bush has been in office."

Among the wealthiest Americans are the tycoons that ran many of what's left of the Wall Street financial institutions lining up for bailouts.

One of them is now the Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson. He was chief executive of the Wall Street financial behemoth Goldman Sachs. In 2005, Paulson received a $38 million bonus. At the time, it was the largest bonus ever given to a Wall Street CEO.

Sanders has argued -- to Paulson and others -- that those who caused the problem and stand to benefit the most from a government rescue should be the ones to pay for any bailout. The senator has suggested a five-year, 10 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples with incomes of more than $1 million. The surtax would yield $300 billion to cover losses the government could incur when it resells troubled mortgages it acquires from banks.

If a bailout is urgently needed, Sanders said, "Let Mr. Paulson and his friends pay for it, not people in Vermont making $30,000 a year."

Sanders also called for a major economic recovery package to put Americans to work at decent wages, a return to stronger regulation of businesses, and the breakup of giant corporations like those that got the country and Wall Street into the crisis. "If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," Sanders said.

In addition, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is refusing to join in the official wringing of hands in Washington and on Wall Street about Monday's surprise decision of the House to reject the proposed $700 billion bailout plan.

Of course, the maverick Democrat is concerned about the turbulence in the banking and insurance industries.

But he believes that the House vote created an opening to develop a better plan. And the Wisconsin Democrat is proposing some priorities for doing so.

"(Monday's) vote on the bailout proposal in the House of Representatives gives Congress an opportunity to address the major flaws in the proposal," the senator said on Tuesday. "We can do so and still act in an expedited manner."

The third-term senator, who often has been at odds with the Capitol consensus with regard to financial issues, is offering a list of specific ideas about how to improve the proposal.

"First, the negotiators should offset the cost of the proposed bailout so that taxpayers don't get saddled with it. There are plenty of proposals out there that can be considered, including asking Wall Street to bear at least some of the cost," says Feingold.

"Second, negotiators should add meaningful provisions to help families facing foreclosure. This is more than just a matter of fairness - the housing crisis is the root cause of the credit market collapse, and unless we address it, any rescue package is far less likely to work," Feingold continues. "Finally, negotiators must address the deeply flawed regulatory structure that paved the way for this crisis. The administration and others have said such reforms must wait for another day, but once a rescue package is enacted, we lose the leverage needed to enact tough reforms to get the financial sector to clean up its act, and we risk having to deal with this same mess all over again."

Comments (44)

1. how bout...an immediate infusion of 100 to 200 million with some restrictions on selling of stock, blah blah...with a commitment to provide for more and iron out a good deal...like a commitment of money based on commitment from multibuzillionaires (one last big investment tax break for the top cats)...dollar for dollar? one dollar per two dollars?

   it is the perception of COMPETANT action that is indeed critical here, not so much the action - though whats done now must indeed result in action.

   our bodies are what we eat but we are what we do...

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/01/2008 @ 10:12am

2. freeze selling of stock on certain businesses and allocate enough money to make payroll and carry out minimal business...

   then get back to work ironing out the next step...

   WORK, SENATOR CONGRESSMAN! WORK!!!!!!

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/01/2008 @ 10:15am

3. uh...billion...buzillion...

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/01/2008 @ 10:16am

4. Stop this financial crisis by holding these pecuniary institutions responsible by turning our government into an owner.

   Have them write down their losses before coming to the government and then issue warrants to the government. When distressed assets are sold, the profits flow to taxpayers, and the government will recoup more money later by selling its shares in these companies as well.

   If taxpayers are put-on-the-hook without anything in return it will be a grave mistake for our Legislators. The American taxpayer and voter will not support a plan leaving the former shareholders with anything!

   This is an irresponsible and greedy financial industry that is failing due to unregulated speculation and predatory lending practices.

   Any bailout worthy of support will put homeowners 1st, NOT a private industry that is on the verge of swindling them>

   Posted by Pendelton at 10/01/2008 @ 10:31am

5. well like all economic panics this is a panic...and the PERCEPTION (yes, based on reality) of competance and positive action on the part of the US gubbament is CRITICAL regardless of the shape and form of the action...

   allocate a third or a fourth of the asked for and legislate to protect assets...and...

   KEEP YO BUTS IN WASHINGTON SENATOR CONGRESSMANS AND KEEP EARNING YOUR NICE SALARIES AND AWESOME HEALTH PLANS YOU BUMS AND BUST IT OUT TIL YOU COLLAPSE DAMMIT!!!!

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/01/2008 @ 10:32am

6. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/01/2008 @ 10:23am

   On the continuum of "far left", are Pelosi and Sanders so close together politically that they can be grouped together, in your view?

   Also, given the fact that almost a hundred Democrats voted, "No", and given people like Kucinich were as much against it as Republicans Paul, how can you assert that Republicans were the "first" to do anything?

   Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 11:09am

7. Obama said it best. Something along the lines of, if your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't let it burn because the idiot was smoking in bed again and he deserves it. You call the fire department and get the damned thing put out before it spreads to your house.

   Not that I give a shit about them, but no one ever mentions that Big Finance is getting absolutely slaughtered by this. Paulson's friends are already paying for this. The problem is that they're out of money and there's still more to be collected.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 11:10am

8. far left.

   by Larry.

   you've lost your mind.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 11:18am

9. It took 40 years to get into this mess. I seriously doubt we are going to solve the problem overnight.

   US dollar's abandonement of the gold standard in the 70's combined with the policy of de-regulation created a market ripe for fraud and swindle. To add injury to the insult, predatory lending laws were loosened making the taxpayer a perfect target for market wheelers and dealers.

   Now they are holding the public at gun point demanding a bailout, rather, an extortion in exchange for making credit available. Where did all that money go? Did it disappear through thin air? No it just changed hands. Spreading unnecessary panic about the economy is the latest tactic for milking US treasury coffers.

   We need to prosecute crooks for fraud and extortion in this country, not bail them out.

   Posted by diogenes2 at 10/01/2008 @ 12:06pm

10. Sanders is more of a purist socialist in that he wants the same control without having to buy it first like the Dems seek.

    Liv, And you, the pure capitalist thought it was grand for the private market to bankrupt the federal government so it (private businesses) could profit from the surplus.

    Don't even try to spin this bullshit that the republicans didn't do this. They deregulated wallstreet, kept taking higher risk bets and made a shit load of money doing it. Now that they bet in over their heads, you are trying to blame the democrats for piss poor business decisions made by a bunch two bit gamblers?! These assholes gambled with the U.S. economy and now the only solution is to allow China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and whoever has the cash to buy us out.

    I wonder if the Saudi's will allow you to run your church if they take over...

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2008 @ 12:07pm

11. Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 11:09am

    Got to remember, to LVLIB, anybody Left of Alf Landon is damn near a Maoist!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 12:22pm

12. "Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Dodd, Frank and the others on the far left see this as their best opportunity to have a govt takeover of Wall Street. they want those financial resources and will do anything to get hold of them in their attempt to further create a socialist state."

    this has to be in the running for quote of the week, perhaps even quote of the month. liberty's insane rantings are almost as comedic as palin's interviews.

    i mean, if pelosi is already "far left" and "socialist," then where the hell is sanders? cuba?

    here's another classically idiotic quote from liberty:

    "It was the House Republicans that first demanded that Wall Street pay for this rather than the taxpayers"

    ah yes, those pesky house republicans, always looking out for the little guy. bullshit, liberty. the ONLY reason they are (now, not originally) opposed to a huge, financial bailout (they are not) is to gain some temporary political leverage/coverage for mccain.

    mccain, who was supposed to ensure the bill's passage, failed, and now should take some credit for its failure (and not the democrats, who were only giving the white house precisely what it wanted, as always).

    Posted by darladoon at 10/01/2008 @ 12:39pm

13. add tax cuts to the bill.

    Posted by Zero at 10/01/2008 @ 11:34am

    are you serious?

    no way!

    impossible.

    are you serious?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 12:55pm

14. "Simply voting against it does not equate with the fact that the Republicans also proposed but were shut down by Pelosi from an amendment to change from a govt bailout to a market required bailout."

    this statement carries no weight whatsoever. "shut down by pelosi". hilarious. i even heard she made boehner cry.

    "It was a marxist, FDR on steroids, class warfare speech."

    that's right, cuz obviously there is no class warfare in this country. everything's just fine and dandy. in fact, i wasn't even aware that there *were* classes in this country, i was so enamored with palin's sharp wit.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/01/2008 @ 12:59pm

15. It was a speech that could well have been written by Hugo Chavez. It was a marxist, FDR on steroids, class warfare speech. He also repeated his mantra that he is the one who is going to change the world. Seems he is holding on to his messiah complex.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/01/2008 @ 12:49pm

    Liv, First of all, Obama's speech one way or the other didn't start this problem. It was the neocon deregulation of wallstreet and the SEC that did this. You may rant on all you like about Marxism, communism and socialism, but non of those things caused this market melt down. It was good old, unregulated capitalism on steroids, or more to the point Milton Freidman on steriods. The guy was piece of crap, but to you neocon money worshippers, he was God incarnated into a college professor / business whore.

    Class warefare started the day the rich folks didn't like sharing anything with the people of this country and wanted to undo everything the new deal did. The figured that all of that federal money was really theirs for the taking. When I say theirs, I mean only the wealthy people. The rest of the tax paying folks in this country don't count and therefore shouldn't get to own anyhing but debt according to the neocon greedy bloody thirsty power hungry assholes.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2008 @ 1:05pm

16. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/01/2008 @ 12:46pm

    Market required bailout? Is that a new term you've come up with to justify giving more of my money to corporations?

    You see, what we really have here is a question of what kind of socialism to implement. Are we going to implement the kind that gives money to people defaulting on mortgages or are we going to give it to people holding those mortgages? Bailout, by definition, is socialism.

    I'm not so sure I like the idea of giving money to either - without acquiring equity in the house or the business. I may believe in socialism, but I certainly don't like this kind of "blank check" socialism that leaves all the assets in someone else's hands while I pick up the bill.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 1:11pm

17. Wolfie, you need a time out. Repeat "the wealthy provide opportunities for the rest of us" 100 times. And let's see you put your heart into it this time.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 1:12pm

18. Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 11:10am

    The analogy is nice nad normally I would agree. But in this case we should be able to save our own house without paying for the neighbor's house too.

    Posted by jrevere at 10/01/2008 @ 1:12pm

19. It was a speech that could well have been written by Hugo Chavez. It was a marxist, FDR on steroids, class warfare speech.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/01/2008 @ 12:49pm

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    the red menace returns.

    well, you can always go back to making killing machines.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2008 @ 1:21pm

20. Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 1:11pm

    And isn't it strange we hear NONE of the "old LVLIB" and his concern for how almost NO domestic spending is "authorized by the US Constitution" (except highways and maybe NASA)?!??!?!??!????!??!???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 1:22pm

21. Wolfie, you need a time out. Repeat "the wealthy provide opportunities for the rest of us" 100 times. And let's see you put your heart into it this time.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 1:12pm

    No I don't need a time out. Wealth is simply a measure of assets you have at a given time. As we've seen, the wealthy have been playing fast and loose with money they don't have.

    Overall, the wealthy have screwed the working class people in this country and every other country as well. The wealthy destroyed Chile, Argentina, Iran and so on in the 50's because they feared any form of government other than corporate run governments.

    Look at what is going on here in the U.S. right now. I notice that the wealthy aren't stepping forward to bail this country out. They want the working class folks to do it while their taxes are reduced.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2008 @ 1:24pm

22. Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 1:12pm

    I, for one, would like to thank our wealthy masters for the opportunity to fight and die in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else they see fit. Thanks for the wage slavery, where every year more and more work is required, for a smaller and smaller check. Thanks for sending my job overseas to more exploitable workers. Thanks for the opportunity to live in a polluted environment - where the cost of my increasing risk of disease is merely an externality that isn't calculated on your balance sheet. Thanks for the lines of police with batons that show up at any sizable assembly of citizens and the "free speech zones". Thank you for racial profiles. Thank you for making health care affordable only to those well enough to keep working in their jobs and to the upper 1% - many of whom still cannot pay for a catastrophic illness such as cancer.

    I'm sure I can think of more to be thankful for - but I need to start saving some up for Thanksgiving.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 1:24pm

23. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 1:22pm

    Yes, it's interesting to see it all get reduced to a politics of convenience.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 1:26pm

24. House Republicans have a new scheme: SUSPEND MARK-TO-MARKET ACCOUNTING RULES.

    I couldn't believe my ears last night on Rachel Maddow that "conservative" House Republicans are now urging the SEC and the FDIC to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules, so that mortgage backed assets do not have to valued at market prices.

    This obviously runs counter to the free-market philosophy of these Republicans, and continues to prop up real estate values well beyond their true market price as indicated by demand.

    Why won't these "free-market" types just admit that property values had been INFLATED, and the only prudent course is to let these values fall to levels where those with median incomes can afford. I know this doesn't help "particular" banks that are holding these property-based assets, but there is a broader issue of the affordability of housing that is being missed in all of this.

    In a well managed society, those with average incomes should be able to afford the average price of a home in their community.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/01/2008 @ 1:31pm

25. Liberty Unbalanced is obviously one of those fools who turned his back on all the progressive policies & legacies that fed him up & until he reached anointment.

    If you pick up a starving dog & make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principle difference between a man & a dog. Mark Twain

    My two Border Collies are spiritually light years ahead of Mr. Liberty.

    Posted by Sorelish at 10/01/2008 @ 1:31pm

26. Wolfie, you need a time out. Repeat "the wealthy provide opportunities for the rest of us" 100 times. And let's see you put your heart into it this time.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 1:12pm

    There was that better?!

    I just don't get the bail out theory. I can see trying to restructure homeloans to keep property values from plummeting off the scale. Further, I can even see holding the people signing for these adjusted loans accountable to pay them off.

    But, bailing out the wallstreet hedgers and banks involved in their Vegas like tactics is beyond belief.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2008 @ 1:36pm

27. "It was the House Republicans that first demanded that Wall Street pay for this rather than the taxpayers.

    It is the Democratic leadership that is pushing this bailout. They see this as a opportune moment to gain a serious first step in a govt takeover of the Financial services in this country."

    You mean that Bush and Paulson weren't pushing this bailout? That they weren't the first to come up with this plan? Boehner wasn't trying to get is passed either?

    Posted by brunowe at 10/01/2008 @ 2:14pm

28. SRJENKINS and others...

    I think I just found the video of LVLIBERTY's sermon last Sunday on the bail-out-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCMSLP3Wy8

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 3:03pm

29. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 3:03pm

    Except, "We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale," isn't something he would say.

    No, I think you were closer before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 3:20pm

30. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/01/2008 @ 10:23am

    Isn't it Republicans who introduced the bailout? Or are Bush and Paulson no longer Republicans? Also isn't it Republicans who are pushing to put the least restrictions in the bailouts? Hmm. Odd how you ignore all of that to say it's just Republicans who are trying to put a stop to this considering Republicans and Democrats all voted at the same time. There was no first. This isn't socialistic action. I like how in your flawed vision Pelosi supporting this is socialism, then doesn't that make Bush and Paulson socialists considering they are both pushing hard on this? Does that mean Kucinich, who is against this bailout is not a socialist? You need to stop this rabid generalization because most of the time you make wild assertions and ignore logical steps in your equations to make them. How do you explain all the Republicans who are also supporting this? Are they all socialists as well including Bush?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2008 @ 3:23pm

31. Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2008 @ 3:20pm

    Not so sure, SR.

    After all, he is COMPLETELY contradicting himself on domestic spending and its Constitutionality when it comes to the bail-out....

    if Bush told him that "globalism" is the rule of the day and "nations and ideologies have no part in modern business"....I'm sure he'd go with Dubya and Mr. Jensen on that.

    oh, but yeah....General Ripper on war and national policy....that's true!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 4:21pm

32. The Republicans "opposition" to the bailout exists solely to cover their flabby white asses. They can drag out one of their handy "principles" and claim this is the last thing they want. Being in the minority, they can get away that, evading any responsibility in the process, with the bonus that they can blame the Democrats for not doing anything, maybe even blaming them for causing the problem in the first place.

    Of course they're just being their usual hypocritical, backbiting selves. But since they've got the wacko churchgoing vote locked up, the MSM can't call them dishonest, and because they're such lockstep Nazis when it comes to passing legislation that dumps taxpayer money in their pockets, they can't be called undisciplined either. It just wouldn't make any sense, and that's what the MSM is for, to make sense of this dangerous world we live in.

    I hope Wolfgang's done with his time out, because I'm gonna have to take one now, before I go ahead and tell you what I reeallly think!

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/01/2008 @ 4:31pm

33. I think I just found the video of LVLIBERTY's sermon last Sunday on the bail-out-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCMSLP3Wy8

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 3:03pm

    Mask, You almost had him pegged, but the part where Ned talks about man first pulling himself out of the slime....you know that Liver would have a cow over that statement.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2008 @ 4:40pm

34. Mask, Liver is the guy on the witness stand.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8&feature=related

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2008 @ 4:56pm

35. Hello Wolfgang1,

    You posted some unadulterated B.S. up above:

    "....Don't even try to spin this bullshit that the republicans didn't do this. They deregulated wallstreet, kept taking higher risk bets and made a shit load of money doing it. Now that they bet in over their heads, you are trying to blame the democrats for piss poor business decisions made by a bunch two bit gamblers?!....."

    Here is what happened (from a letter to the editor of the Contra Costa Times):

    =====================

    Democrats to blame Letter to the Editor Article Launched: 09/29/2008 12:00:00 AM PDT

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/ contracostacounty/ ci_10600420?source=rss

    =====================

    Here is what needs to happen from here:

    ==========================

    October 01, 2008 Time for McCain to Name Names By C. Edmund Wright

    http://www.americanthinker.com/ 2008/10/ time_for_mccain_to_name_names.html

    ========================

    What you posted is not the only B.S. on this page, there is other leftist B.S. blaming everybody but the people who caused this - the Democrats.

    What I posted up above IS IT:

    1. The letter to the editor concisely stated the problem.

    2. The American Thinker article states what John McCain needs to do.

    That IS IT. You have no valid argument. Case Closed, lib Wolfgang1.

    Case

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2008 @ 5:58pm

36. Posted by brunowe at 10/01/2008 @ 2:14pm

    what he said

    And I think these distractive bursts of horse-pucky are mechanically generated by devices cunningly designed to emulate the logic of the ol' gipper and deployed randomly throughout the media

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/01/2008 @ 8:24pm

37. Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2008 @ 5:58pm

    I agree....I absolutely insist that McCain shift gears 34 days out and try to blame the economy on the Democrats and claim that Bush and the GOP Congress (in power from 1994-2006) is blameless and stop talking about "greed on Wall Street".

    Please...let him do that.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 8:36pm

38. Let working Americans pay for it? Right, big Mc called for it and obama followed. And this is only for a few cheap votes? I think those who voted are really for the people. Shame on you Obama.

    -------------

    Senators Who Voted Against the Rescue Bill The modified $700 billion Wall Street rescue bill just passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote. Now it heads to the House; if it passes there, onto President Bush who favors the rescue plan.

    Here is a list of the senators who voted against the rescue bill:

    - Waye Allard (R-Colo.) - John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) - Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) - Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) - Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) - Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) - Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) - Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) - Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) - Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) - Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) - Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) - James Inhofe (R-Okla.) - Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) - Mary Landrieu (D-La.) - Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) - Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) - Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) - Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) - Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) - Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) - John Tester (D-Mont.) - David Vitter (R-La.) - Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) - Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

    Note: - The only senator not present at the vote was Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is being treated for cancer. - By party, 16 Republicans and nine Democrats voted against.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 10/01/2008 @ 10:03pm

39. HELLO SHEEP!! The politicians are acting like they have to fix a problem that the free market has created. In fact GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS THE CAUSE of the problem. Heres why. The government has pushed home ownership as if it were some god given right. The governments push (numerous regulations and laws that made financing home ownership too easy to obtain) has caused lending institutions to give everyone financing.. even those that do not deserve it. Now, the Governments Bubble has burst and they are blaming the financial institutions. The government regulated the financial institutions to give away loans to those that would not have qualified for a mortgage in the past . For a hundred years banks made loans based on careful analysis of individual situations and finances. Large down payments were required and guess what? the free market worked. These old mortgages were safe investments for the banks and everyone involved (including poor homeowners) that are now being burnt by the governments actions. The governments intentions were good but once again the ill consequences of regulation are unavoidable. Simple economics will always prevail. FANNIE & FREDDIE were created by the government to make getting a mortgage easier for all. They succeeded. Government Regulation/Policies caused the whole mess.Now wait until the government bails out the banks... who else owns these FANNIE & FREDDIE mortgage securities? Pension funds..well we cant let then fail either. more government intervention..the bailouts are a slippery slope that could destroy our economy. Less government intervention..policies..propaganda.. is better in the long run. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

    Posted by truther227bu at 10/01/2008 @ 10:15pm

40. Posted by HelenDAO at 10/01/2008 @ 10:03pm

    Helen losing it as well as the Righties as she realizes Hillary just lost her shot at 2012 and 2016 and beyond.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 10:32pm

41. Seems like the neocon lurkers here love to use the term "far left" to describe politicians many of whom are actually right of center Democrats. Even Bernie Sanders is not "far left". But more of a left of center Independent.

    If you want "far left" you have to look towards the likes of the Communist Party of yesteryear. Nowadays if you are a Democratic Socialist which would describe a large chunk of Europeon countries, you are considered "far left". That is a totally ridiculous assertion. The neocons are attempting to pull the middle to the left so there is more room for their perverted extreme positions on the right (Fascism).

    Sanders is entirely correct with his idea to add a 10% surtax on members of the fascist nobility. Go get um Bernie!

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/02/2008 @ 05:25am

42. I agree....I absolutely insist that McCain shift gears 34 days out and try to blame the economy on the Democrats and claim that Bush and the GOP Congress (in power from 1994-2006) is blameless and stop talking about "greed on Wall Street".

    Please...let him do that.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/01/2008 @ 8:36pm

    Mask, SJ just proved what an idiot he really is. So, deregulation had nothing to do with any of this.

    The fact that we spend more on our military than all of the other world powers combined doesn't have any part of our declining economy along with the oursourcing of jobs.

    I"ve seen grabbing at straws, but SJ just joined Liver in being completely oblivious to reality.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/02/2008 @ 07:17am

43. Since Reagan was in office, the rethugs have been trying to privatize the government. Bush Jr has almost succeeded in the endeavor. The biggest obstacle in the way of complete corporate owneship of this country is the federal government.

    So, the plan is and has been to bankrupt it. Keep the federal government occupied in wars to justify all of the military spending to private defense contractors. Undrmine the credibility of the government by placing inept people in positions like "heck of a job Brownie", letting the Iraq war go on and on and on with no end in sight. This wasn't by accident, but by plan.

    The U.S. government is presently under seige by private investers. The bail out plan will run the defecit up higher and we the people will be in debt to foreign interests to the nth degree. Why? Because a bunch of crooked Chicago school business assholes couldn't find any other way to gain control of things so they sought to just flat out destroy the U.S. government. Heck of a job Bushy!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/02/2008 @ 07:27am

44. Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2008 @ 5:58pm

    If all the conservobots can come up with is this one incident from 2003 where Barney Frank spoke against regulation of Fannie Mae and McCain spoke in favor, and then somehow "Democrats blocked it" even though they were in the minority - the same web spun by lvliberty several days ago - I'd have to say the case really is closed. Due to lack of evidence.

    And I love Mask's suggestion that McCain change course again. If Sarah tanks again tonight, maybe ol' Maverick will come up with another real clever move.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/02/2008 @ 08:31am