Obama, McCain Join Senate Majority for Bailout

posted by John Nichols on 10/01/2008 @ 10:56pm

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

Subscribe Now

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain pulled off the presidential campaign trail just long enough on Wednesday night to cast what both of these cautious contenders hope will be "safe" votes favor of a financial bailout scheme based on the $700 billion plan proposed last week by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

In doing so, they joined an overwhelming majority of their fellow senators in passing the plan by a 74-25 vote. Forty Democrats and 33 Republicans voted with Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats but backs McCain, to advance a slighting altered version of the Paulson plan.

The Senate move sends the measure back to the House with "sweeteners" added in hopes of attracting enough Democratic and Republican votes to secure its passage in a chamber that rejected the Paulson plan on Monday.

No one was shocked that Obama and McCain went along with the Bush administration's plan to allow the federal government to begin buying up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of supposed assets from troubled financial institutions -- a move designed to rescue Wall Street speculators and bad bankers from the mess they into which they steered their firms and the economy.

Obama summed up the Washington consensus when he said during the floor debate, "There's no doubt that there may be other plans out there that, had we had two or three or six months to develop ... might serve our purposes better. But we don't have that kind of time. And we can't afford to take a risk that the economy of the United States of America and, as a consequence, the worldwide economy could be plunged into a very, very deep hole."

But not everyone was buying that line.

Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican who has been a key player on banking issues and who actually had the wisdom to oppose the deregulation moves of the late 1990s that helped create the current crisis, told senator Senate were in the process of having "failed the American people" by acting hastily.

"I agree we need to do something," said Shelby. "[But] we haven't spent any time figuring out whether we've picked the best choice."

Equally blunt was Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who rejected the bailout plan as "deeply flawed."

"It fails to offset the cost of the plan, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy since the great depression," said Feingold. "The bailout legislation also fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn't do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess."

Feingold pondered seeking the presidency this year, but decided against doing so.

That gave him the freedom that the man he backs for the job, Obama, and the man he has frequently worked with in the Senate, McCain, seemed to lack on Wednesday night.

Like the other senators who voted "no" -- a left-right coalition of 16 Republicans and eight Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders that withstood overwhelming pressure from the White House and Wall Street -- Feingold, Shelby and their compatriots rejected what bailout-critic Sanders says will put Wall Street's burden on the backs of the American middle class.

"The bailout package is far better than the absurd proposal originally presented to us by the Bush administration, but is still short of where we should be," argued Sanders. "If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people."

Unfortunately, Barack Obama and John McCain lacked the time, the insight or the inclination to recognize that reality.

Here is a rundown of how the presidential candidates and their 98 colleagues approached Wednesday night's vote:

Akaka (D-HI), Yea

Alexander (R-TN), Yea

Allard (R-CO), Nay

Barrasso (R-WY), Nay

Baucus (D-MT), Yea

Bayh (D-IN), Yea

Bennett (R-UT), Yea

Biden (D-DE), Yea

Bingaman (D-NM), Yea

Bond (R-MO), Yea

Boxer (D-CA), Yea

Brown (D-OH), Yea

Brownback (R-KS), Nay

Bunning (R-KY), Nay

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Byrd (D-WV), Yea

Cantwell (D-WA), Nay

Cardin (D-MD), Yea

Carper (D-DE), Yea

Casey (D-PA), Yea

Chambliss (R-GA), Yea

Clinton (D-NY), Yea

Coburn (R-OK), Yea

Cochran (R-MS), Nay

Coleman (R-MN), Yea

Collins (R-ME), Yea

Conrad (D-ND), Yea

Corker (R-TN), Yea

Cornyn (R-TX), Yea

Craig (R-ID), Yea

Crapo (R-ID), Nay

DeMint (R-SC), Nay

Dodd (D-CT), Yea

Dole (R-NC), Nay

Domenici (R-NM), Yea

Dorgan (D-ND), Nay

Durbin (D-IL), Yea

Ensign (R-NV), Yea

Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Feingold (D-WI), Nay

Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Graham (R-SC), Yea

Grassley (R-IA), Yea

Gregg (R-NH), Yea

Hagel (R-NE), Yea

Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Hatch (R-UT), Yea

Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Isakson (R-GA), Yea

Johnson (D-SD), Nay

Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting

Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Kyl (R-AZ), Yea

Landrieu (D-LA), Nay

Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea

Leahy (D-VT), Yea

Levin (D-MI), Yea

Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Lincoln (D-AR), Yea

Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Martinez (R-FL), Yea

McCain (R-AZ), Yea

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Murkowski (R-AK), Yea

Murray (D-WA), Yea

Nelson (D-FL), Nay

Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Obama (D-IL), Yea

Pryor (D-AR), Yea

Reed (D-RI), Yea

Reid (D-NV), Yea

Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Salazar (D-CO), Yea

Sanders (I-VT), Nay

Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Sessions (R-AL), Nay

Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Smith (R-OR), Yea

Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Specter (R-PA), Yea

Stabenow (D-MI), Nay

Stevens (R-AK), Yea

Sununu (R-NH), Yea

Tester (D-MT), Nay

Thune (R-SD), Yea

Vitter (R-LA), Nay

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

Warner (R-VA), Yea

Webb (D-VA), Yea

Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Comments (47)

Obama=McSame

You want leadership? I give you Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders.

You want an obesqious sell out: I give Barack "Senator McCain is right" Obama.

Pathetic.

Posted by neaguy at 10/01/2008 @ 11:09pm
Obama=McSame Posted by neaguy at 10/01/2008 @ 11:09pm

I couldn't agree more. In fact I was trying to work out a mathmatical equation to express that. But I couldn't quite figure it out. Maybe more math savvy people here could hash it out.

A few days ago I decided I could not vote for Obama. It was a difficult decision, but I decided to vote my conscience. I would gladly vote for the likes of Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold if they were running. And I can't bring myself to vote for Nader. So that leaves the Green Party or the PSL.

To me Obama and Biden and Clinton are really just middle of the road Republicans in Democrats clothing.

Posted by chaoszen at 10/02/2008 @ 05:39am
but 700 billion dollars for some asshole bankers and their whore wives? with a 100 billion dollars more in tax cuts for PR purposes? no problem.

Posted by Zero at 10/02/2008 @ 03:16am

Maybe it's way past time to hit the streets with a bit of civil disobedience?

I can't understand why people are not in the streets. Sheep? No Balls? Fear? Complacence? I don't know.

I would go out today and raise hell, but I would feel a bit silly doing it alone. And would probably be promptly arrested and sent to Guantanamo for a little "Enhanced Interrogation."

Posted by chaoszen at 10/02/2008 @ 05:47am
i don't know anymore. i think most who vote for this do so with reservations. once it is passed, the important thing is to get about the business of assuring such dangerous foolishness does not happen again.

Posted by dexter666 at 10/02/2008 @ 08:07am
T'hell with them both. Nader for President!!

Posted by ucnick at 10/02/2008 @ 08:12am
I really can't believe this is happening. Once again, our corporate owned government has dropped the "NO" out of "No taxation without representation". When it comes to the economy, Bush = McCain = Obama. Must not disrupt the aristocracy. Must maintain the establishment. "Change you can sort of believe in if you look past my support of the bailout." "Change you can kind of trust if you pretend I didn't say anything about changing the way we do business in Washington."

I agree with Frosty's sentiment these last few days, "My head hurts."

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/02/2008 @ 08:30am
Obama=McSame Posted by neaguy at 10/01/2008 @ 11:09pm I couldn't agree more. In fact I was trying to work out a mathmatical equation to express that. But I couldn't quite figure it out. Maybe more math savvy people here could hash it out.

Posted by chaoszen at 10/02/2008 @ 05:39am

MCBAMA!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 08:57am
Look, SOMETHING is going to have to pass....

You got the leadership on both sides in both Houses saying it's necessary or the credit will dry up. They don't make statements like that unless they believe (rightly or wrongly).

The trick is just not to give Dubya or Wall Street a blank check. You can debate what a "blank check" is...but eventually SOMETHING is going to get passed and signed.

And just because Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders oppose it does NOT mean it's a totally rotten bill (on the Left) anymore than if you're on the Right and Richard Shelby (as GOP as they get) opposes it.

Typically, if the Hard Right and Hard Left oppose something...it's usually a good idea.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 09:01am
I can't understand why people are not in the streets. Sheep? No Balls? Fear? Complacence?

Posted by chaoszen at 10/02/2008 @ 05:47am

Google Hot Trends (USA)

Oct 2, 2008

1. house peters jr 2. dennis eckersley 3. yucko the clown 4. brooke bennett 5. sellout.woot 6. joy sartin 7. preposition 8. nintendo dsi 9. rick astley 10. choi jin sil 11. chintakayala ravi review 12. spanx 13. bailout bill pork 14. fossett 15. living will 16. steve fosset 17. saginaw 18. zigs.com 19. mr. clean 20. destiny number

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 09:02am
Look, SOMETHING is going to have to pass....

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 09:01am

the credit train must roll on.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 09:05am
I may have missed something, but is this even legal? Can a bill which has been rejected in the House of Representatives, legally be voted on in the Senate? As far as I know, a bill must pass in both houses of parliament to become law. If the lower house rejects it, voting on it in the higher house becomes a moot point. One could argue, of course, that the bill which the Senate has now passed is not the same bill that was rejected in the House of Representatives. That may be so, but then it would still have to be voted on by the House of Representatives first, before the Senate would get a say. No?

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but these are some of the ground rules of parliamentary democracy as I've always understood them. And I've always thought they were the same in all parliamentary democracies the world over. I know for a fact that in my country - The Netherlands - no bill has ever passed in the First Chamber (our equivalent of the Senate) without first having been accepted by the Second Chamber (our equivalent of the House of Representatives). Because that would simply be unconstitutional.

About the bailout, some mixed emotions. Yes, it is an unfair and deeply flawed plan, because it will save those who least deserve it: the bankers. On the other hand, these bankers wield such vast economic power that saving them may be necessary to prevent them from taking everybody else down with them should they fall.

Posted by Amsterdam69 at 10/02/2008 @ 09:08am
"T'hell with them both. Nader for President!!"

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!

Just ordered another box of yard signs and banners!!

Posted by bleedingheart at 10/02/2008 @ 09:58am
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 10/02/2008 @ 09:08am | ignore this person | warn this person

The Senate didn't vote on the bill rejected on the House, they voted on a bill that the House had passed to them regarding forcing health insurers to treat mental illnesses the same as physical illnesses and to provide tax breaks for alternative energy production (H.R. 1424). However, the first appended a slightly modified version of the bailout package to it as an amendment to the bill.

The Senate can initiate most forms of legislation (except for revenue bills), however the House still has to pass it. This is different from the First Chamber in the Netherlands, which can only accept or reject legislation. Because of the slight modifications and because several other provisions have been added, it isn't the same bill that was rejected by the House. The House still has to pass it though.

Posted by brunowe at 10/02/2008 @ 09:59am
Obama's contributors:

Goldman Sachs $691,930 University of California $611,207 Citigroup Inc $448,599 JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919 Harvard University $435,769 Google Inc $420,174 UBS AG $404,750 National Amusements Inc $389,140 Microsoft Corp $377,235 Lehman Brothers $370,524 Sidley Austin LLP $350,302 Moveon.org $347,463 Skadden, Arps et al $340,264 Time Warner $338,527 Wilmerhale Llp $335,398 Morgan Stanley $318,070 Latham & Watkins $297,400 Jones Day $289,476 University of Chicago $278,885 Stanford University $276,038

McCain's:

1 Citigroup Inc (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $145,050 2 Blank Rome LLP – (attorneys) $141,400 3 Greenberg Traurig – (1750 lawyers) $129,987 4 Merrill Lynch (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $119,675 5 Goldman Sachs (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $111,050 6 IDT Corp – (telecommunications) $80,150 7 Pinnacle West Capital $77,850 8 Bank of New York Mellon (Subprime Scandal) $74,000 9 JP Morgan Chase & Co (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $72,100 10 Irvine Co Apartment Community $68,400 11 Broadcasting Media Partners $67,800 12 MGM Mirage $66,100 13 Credit Suisse Group $63,350 14 Lehman Brothers (Subprime Scandal) $61,450 15 Bridgewater Assoc $58,300 16 Cisco Systems $56,850 17 Triwest Healthcare Alliance $54,250 18 FedEx Corp $52,100 18 Wachovia Corp (Subprime Scandal) $52,100 20 Morgan Stanley – (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $51,950

Posted by bleedingheart at 10/02/2008 @ 10:03am
It was great to see at least "one" of our representatives (Cantwell) in Washington state show some form of leadership and vote "no" against this package. A package that still has so many loopholes, loopholes that the Bush cronies will again exploit for their own personal gains.

Please someone get me a real leader in the White House.........!!!!

Posted by rayven at 10/02/2008 @ 10:09am
Posted by rayven at 10/02/2008 @ 10:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

Yes...kudos to those brave senators you have a once of ethics left!

Anyone who has read this bill and matched it up against the sales pitch of Congressional leaders and thinks this is good for the American people is a damn fool. Its good for special interest groups...thats what Congress is concerned about.

Not even the stock market is impressed.

Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2008 @ 10:33am
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/02/2008 @ 09:58am

Okay, bleeding, I'm calling you out.

Been reading a lot of your posts, and 90% of it are hits on Obama and some distinctly RIGHT-wing slants on the issues....

You're a Naderite GOP poser. Still hoping to stir up a little action for Ralph to help Maverick and Caribou Barbie.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 10:40am
"Unfortunately, Barack Obama and John McCain lacked the time, the insight or the inclination to recognize that reality."

What a tom Obama is, serving the master with his empty platitudes of hope and change. Everytime he admonished the dissenters to "step up to the plate" he diminished himself further from his hawkish bravado to his pimping for the financial elites.

Posted by Lil at 10/02/2008 @ 11:08am
OK...they've added some "sweetners". None of them require $700 billion to implement. What's the connection? If they are such great ideas, pass them on their own merit and then give us a good bill that addresses the regulatory imperatives and fundamental economic principles required to begin a recovery. If you want to pump money into the economy, give it to people who earn $50k or less. I guarantee every penny will be in circulation before the end of the year. Create jobs & correct the decades of neglect to infrastructure. Screw welfare and safety nets for the upper class. They don't really add anything to the economy in the first place. I'm sorry their Beanie Babies, er, credit derivatives, are worthless pieces of crap and their game of passing them back & forth in an escalating frenzy has crashed. Might have to liquidate the yacht & a mansion or two.

Posted by soglenn at 10/02/2008 @ 11:08am
Credit will dry up... I thought living on credit with zero savings was the problem? So we should just postpone the inevitable shipwreck by patching the hole with bubblegum and toilet paper to keep it afloat?

Posted by Lil at 10/02/2008 @ 11:26am
You're a Naderite GOP poser.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 10:40am

i concur.

but how many votes will it bring. 4?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 11:32am
Credit will dry up... I thought living on credit with zero savings was the problem?

•• actually, that's a NEGATIVE savings rate!

So we should just postpone the inevitable shipwreck by patching the hole with bubblegum and toilet paper to keep it afloat?

•• arrrr, billy, the reefs of finance.

Posted by Lil at 10/02/2008 @ 11:26am

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 11:35am
Senator Sanders is one of the few that I trust. Watch for Kucinich and Kaptur in the house. There is still some testosterone left. Precious little but some.

Posted by lachatte at 10/02/2008 @ 11:39am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 09:05am

Okay, FZ....what happens if there is no credit? Specifically.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 12:01pm
Okay, FZ....what happens if there is no credit? Specifically.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 12:01pm

well, first thing is a return to real money.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 12:06pm
Did bank lending suddenly turn south since August? The latest data is for the week ending Sept.17, when the U.S. expropriated 80% of AIG equity and thus tanked most financial stocks. U.S. bank credit hit a record of over $7 trillion in the latest week--up from $6.57 trillion a year earlier and $6.92 trillion at the end of July.

Contrary to many comments, consumer and industrial loans actually increased in the latest week. Troubled giant banks have cut back on lending, but smaller banks have picked up the slack. Consumer and real estate loans dipped insignificantly through Sept. 17, remaining much higher than they were a year earlier.

If all the recent hysterical chatter about lending being "frozen" or "shut down" refers to anything real, it is not about banks loans (through Sept. 17) but about such arcane financial markets as asset-backed commercial paper or loans between banks. But this too is mainly about financial firms, not Main Street. Non-financial commercial paper increased from $156 billion at the start of the year to more than $204 billion from Sept. 3 to Sept. 17, dipping only modestly since then.

Economic journalists seem oddly fascinated with the last column of the table--interbank loans from one to another (aside from fed funds). "Banks won't even lend to each other," said a TV reporter, "so how can we expect them to loan to business or consumers?" But interbank loans are obviously tiny, and banks rightly regard lending to other banks more risky than lending to Main Street. There is no reason to expect the minuscule flow of interbank loans to determine consumer and business loans. That little tail can't wag the big dog.

Exerpt: Alan Reynolds - Cato Institute - Forbes 10/01/08. By the way, Libor was 5.5% in September 2007. No crisis then?

Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2008 @ 12:25pm
"As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

mr. keynes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 12:30pm
"What had happened in Genoa had happened in Amsterdam. The creation of credit, unsupported by real money, generated enormous growth. Money had been created out of thin air, credit grew to unmanageable proportions, bad loans were made, and bankruptcies resulted. The situation proved to be intrinsically unstable."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 12:06pm

Okay...continue....spell out the EXACT, DETAILED outcome of the American economy as credit disappears.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 1:10pm
how's this mask:

i loan you $10000 dollars so you can sell your self-published book, "how to infuriate".

now, we become partners in a temporary contract.

we agree that in a year's time you will repay me the $10000 + 3/4 of your profits.

so your book sells say $20000 in copies.

therefore you pay me $25000 and you keep $5000 which you can now use to fund a similar venture to help JOHN MAASCH sell his book, "horror tales of the dmv".

the important thing is that the economy is based upon real things, not paper shuffling.

and peace. the most important factor.

dude, i'm a musician and my study of economics has lasted a year thus far. nonetheless i can sense that something is very, very wrong and that we are repeating the errors that so many other cultures have previously done.

i'll keep trying because i know there is a better way. i have no debt, and yet i live quite well.

when i loan someone money, i expect no interest. their prosperity from my help will help me.

but we must end this ridiculous fiat money system.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:20pm
"This system frequently generates deficit spending, which is financed by creating money and offering credit. This creates a great balloon of prosperity which far outstrips the real wealth in the system. It also generates inflation and creates a system which is intrinsically unstable. All this credit must go looking for someone who wants to borrow and this inevitably involves lending money to bad risks - insolvent governments - who default eventually because they cannot keep up with the interest payments which they must find from real resources or borrow more to pay off the interest on the credit."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:27pm
spell out the EXACT, DETAILED outcome of the American economy as credit disappears.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 1:10pm

i think we are seeing that happen right now.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:29pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:29pm

Yes, Congress is going to pass a bail-out plan because they know that IF credit dries up, we go into a depression...not a recession...a DEPRESSION, since nobody will be able to get a loan for car (final end of Detroit)...or a home mortgage (crushing of carpentry, electrician, etc. jobs)....or money to expand a business or extend a business's own credit to its vendors and suppliers (general lay-offs, even bankruptcies).

It's not going to be your simple "Everybody gets out of debt and has to pay for what they want with cash"....it's 1932 and 25% unemployment and a crippled WORLD economy in which, if you're unlucky, somebody like Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo comes to power and "has a good idea" on how to fix your nation's economy with just a "small inconvenience of removing some civil rights"...

and no....it would NOT be "like it is now"....but a helluva lot worse and would finally make looneys like RESE and PLUNGER look like mainstream punditry!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Frosty, ask Mask to give us some examples of capitalist countries wherein "credit" has "disappeared."

Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2008 @ 1:40pm
"..outcome of the American economy as credit disappears."

The end of life as we know it....and I feel fine.

Posted by Lil at 10/02/2008 @ 1:41pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Bubble

the wheels on the bus go round and round........

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 1:39pm

i understand all that, mask.

however, giving the addict one more fix will only stave off the inevitable for so long,

and when the dealer realizes that the addict just can't pay, the smack goes away and the d.t.s are that much worse.

i expect nothing to change. i mean, i would end all violence in a heartbeat, but i know the drums of war will beat for many years to come.

i'm not naïve. i've no illusions of "Everybody gets out of debt and has to pay for what they want with cash" (to 'quote' YOU - heheh).

i understand the urgency of what's going on. i expect nothing to change.

i have no illusions of building a better ship when the one we all float on is sinking. save the people first. then (hopefully) we can construct something more stable.

unfortunately, i see the current "plan" as driving people (i.e. money changers) back to greed/complacency. it's just that i understand there has to be a better way.

this cycle of inflation/bubbleburst hits those on the lowest rung the hardest and it takes them the longest to recuperate.

isn't it fair that i get to scream against the wind?

why do you think i type so?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:58pm
Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2008 @ 1:40pm

How many African nations are demanding debt relief, OV?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 1:58pm

Feel free to be pessimistic, FZ.

I'm simply pointing out that if the US becomes like a one of those debt-ridden African nations (see above to One Vote) and nobody will loan us money....OR (more likely) we have to borrow it at monumental interest rates that keep us crippled for decades....everybody on this continent (including you guys) and likely the world will suffer.

This bill isn't good...and it isn't good that it's needed. Years of GOP/Bush deficit spending and GOP/MCCAIN de-regulation have simply made it necessary to forestall something much, much worse.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 2:12pm
This bill isn't good...and it isn't good that it's needed. Years of GOP/Bush deficit spending and GOP/MCCAIN de-regulation have simply made it necessary to forestall something much, much worse.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 2:12pm

i know that.

that's obvious.

but like you said "forestall".

that's not the same as eliminating the possibility.

the cycle of inflation/burst has to come to an end.

in the meantime, depression prevention is needed.

nonetheless, you've got to change your evil ways, baby.

either that, or it's argentina all over again.

but this time the whole planet goes flush.

i'm not pessimistic; i want fairness, that's all.

it's a beautiful day and i've got food and water.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 2:46pm
From what I read credit is still low compared to past decades and the smaller banks--not the big monopolies (isn't there some kinda law against that--I don't know seems I remember something back in the cobwebs about antitrust laws)are still lending, business as usual. The big players want you to believe the sky is falling for you because it is falling for them. Even Mr Obama shrugged that if they did nothing, nothing might happen. Hmmm, nothing, 700 billion, nothing, 700 billion--it's like it ain't even close but hey, we can't afford to error. Nothing, 700 billion--not like there's a whole lot of difference, huh?

Man, we are through the looking glass here.

Posted by Lil at 10/02/2008 @ 2:53pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 2:46pm

Okay, correct to "forestall...and then fix", FZ.

I still hold out hope that Obama is smart enough to realize that he's got to get our financial house in order (a la Bill Clinton) and not try for Ms vanden Heuvel's "New New Deal" and give us MORE debt.

End the war, let the tax cuts lapse, spike up the top marginals to the Clinton Era, tighten some spending, go back to sensible regulation of the financial system, and SEC enforcement on an order of Homeland Security....and dig us out of the hole.

and that solves 90% of our problems.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by brunowe at 10/02/2008 @ 09:59am

Thank you for that very clear explanation. Attaching the bailout as an amendment to another bill - very clever, if slightly absurd...

Posted by Amsterdam69 at 10/02/2008 @ 4:52pm
well, mask, it seems like mr. obama has been hinting at all that.

however, the one key element that MUST not be dropped is a federally funded initiative to develop alt. fuels, especially solar (check out your buddy, kurweil).

maybe they can drop the SUPERDUPER COMMIE BLASTER program or something......

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 6:56pm
because such a program would actually

give people jobs so they can pay mortgages,

develop new fuels so as to reduce the dreaded dependence on canada,

clean the sky,

and give the u.s. something new to export.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 6:59pm
This bill isn't good...and it isn't good that it's needed. Years of GOP/Bush deficit spending and GOP/MCCAIN de-regulation have simply made it necessary to forestall something much, much worse.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I think I am confused about your positions. We are on the same page here.

IMF would not and can not bail us out - your point I think. My point is that you can't forestall the cyclical nature of markets forever....a policy that the FED has been pursuing (watch for another rate cut) and a horrible monetary policy (by default) wherein war spending goes overseas. Economics is predicated on forecasting norms of human behavior that are subjective, and if based on mistaken assumptions and interpretations, can wreak havoc on an economy. To wit....how many theories of what caused the Great Depression exist?. Credit never really disappears in a capitalist society....its price just gets readjusted. Look at GE yesterday raising $12 billion through diluting their stock. The market says your commercial paper is crap, so find another way. They did via the private sector via stock issuance (another shell game worthy of exploration).

Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2008 @ 10:41am
End the war, let the tax cuts lapse, spike up the top marginals to the Clinton Era, tighten some spending, go back to sensible regulation of the financial system, and SEC enforcement on an order of Homeland Security....and dig us out of the hole.

and that solves 90% of our problems.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I would support your bill. Private sector continues to find a workout on its own...the way of the "free market." Wells Fargo buying Wachovia. Interesting comments by naysayers fighting through the media hype and lies.

Exerpt from:

By Jon Markman MSN Money 10/03/08 The recent volatility on Wall Street is virtually unprecedented and is likely to remain so until every trader dies of heart failure or the banking system is recapitalized with pixie dust, whichever comes first.

But don't blame Wall Street vacillation for the jumpiness. It should be seen in the context of a decisive, coordinated effort by governments worldwide to manipulate stock markets higher by every means possible without regard to such niceties as fundamentals, the rights of shareholders or the laws of financial gravity.

Few citizens will wish to complain, of course, for U.S. equities actually have a shot at advancing as much as 10% over the next few months. Wall Street veterans call this the "free-lunch trade," and it could be very tasty for a while.

Yet experts say it will likely fail eventually, by running into the usual set of bugaboos that we have discussed for some time: levels of debt deleveraging and slowing growth that no additional amount of monetary or fiscal stimulus can vanquish......

Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2008 @ 11:33am