Dems Should Urge Bush To Quickly Pass Their Main Street Plan

So the NYTimes reports that President Bush, of the record low approval rating and horrific track record on well, everything, is "urg[ing] lawmakers to act quickly on the bailout legislation [and] resist the temptation to add provisions that, he said, “would undermine the effectiveness of the plan.”

As if Bush has a clue about the what would undermine the "effectiveness" of the plan, or even what the idea of the plan even is. Let's face it, Bush has no effing clue. This is Paulsen's plan. But I have a ready made response for Democrats to President Bush:

Dem Lawmakers Urge Bush and GOP To Pass Dem Bailout Plan

I think they should say that "Bush and the Republicans are jeopardizing the economy by trying to make changes that would undermine the effectiveness of the Democratic plan."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Halperin: McCain Wins The Week | Uncharted Waters in Medical Pot Cases >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am fully prepared (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    for yet another game of chicken in which the Democrats, eager to do the "responsible" thing, are the ones to blink in the end.

    I'm "prepared" intellectually (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    only in the sense that I'm not a complete idiot (just a minor one) and history teaches us they will blink.

    But I'm not prepared emotionally. I'm seriously pissed right now. This entire thing is beyond ridiculous. I've not only called my representatives, I'm now calling my friends to call their representatives.


    Whatever the Dems come up with (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by WS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    it has to be the Obama plan.  It shows there's as big a personality as Bush/Paulsen in the new political scene and gives Obama anti-Bush points.  

    Then Obama should go back to DC (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:15:39 PM EST
    or something. I think it's pretty well known they're busy working on plans and he's campaigning.

    He's no economist (none / 0) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    wouldn't he be reliant on his financial/economic advisers (Jim Johnson, for instance) to come up with something logical? The problem didn't show up overnight, so how did they manage a solution so fast?

    Didn't the taxpayers bail out the S&L's not that many years ago? How did that go...taxpayers ever get their money back?

    Isn't it the Democrats who want to up the burden to the taxpayers by raising the $700B to $1T?  


    700 billion (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    why not commit 1 trillion to infrastructure jobs in this country and all the 3 million or so people who may be foreclosed the opportunity to have jobs which will help them pay their mortgages?

    A bailout in my opinion is short sighted.  If the problem is that people cannot pay their mortgages, what difference does it make who owns the note if you cannot pay it?  Job creation will get the economy moving again and will help the housing crisis short and long term and it will fix bridges, roads, schools etc.

    We have had 8 straight months of job declines and spending is about to drop significantly which will throw retail under the bus, who is going to bail them out?  

    They should renegotiate those loans in good faith and give people lower, locked rates so that they are affordable and take the hit in the margin.  The gov't should invest in infrastructure and do so in the same time frame Paulson is asking for in the bailout.

    This move is pacification and prolonging the crisis.  ONce that 700 billion or Trillion is committed, where will any MONEY come from to address infrastructure and more importantly job creation?

    Where are all the financial services folks going to work when the layoffs start next month?  More unemployment, dire outlook for at least a year and we are worried about the finance industry?

    Ignore the cancer and pay the guy giving you medical advice....

    A bailout is necessary. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    It's just a question of whether they bail out the top or the bottom.

    Advocate for HOLC.


    unless (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    we will have a complete failure of our banking system, i don't agree with "necessary".

    Well if you read around (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    complete failure of the banking system is very much on the table.

    I've not seen a single credible source that isn't very worried in one shape form or fashion.

    In all seriousness if you can point me to a credible economist who doesn't think our financial system is in mortal danger please do.


    haven't read any economist (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    not in favor of the bailout yet.  That concerns me.  Sounds like groupthink to me.  I think you will see some other opinions as more information is leaked.  Right now, I don't think we have enough information and it sounds to me as if the inmates running the corporations are now running the asylums as well.    

    Have You Read Krugman's Column... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    of today.  It's entitled "Cash for Trash".

    from Bloomberg today (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    "As details of the Paulson-proposed package emerge, so do concerns that the $700 billion cure may prove worse than the disease, virulent as it has been. Reregulation of Wall Street is one thing, critics say, while redefining capitalism another."

    Everyone needs to stop, breathe and think clearly.  Last time we rushed into something was Iraq and clearly lots of people think differently now about what the threat really was.  


    But (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    I don't see anyone here arguing that Paulson's proposal is a good thing.

    The consensus is that some sort of bailout is required.  That's much different from saying that one specific proposal is the one we need to go with.


    I still think that is short sighted (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    thinking.  Once you bailout either side you are not addressing one of the roots of the problem which is the steady decrease in employment.   A bailout of this magnitude shuts down government spending at the same time private industry is contracting.  There has to be a buffer.  

    Without a buffer, you will have more foreclosures next year at a higher pace because the job loss and wage compression will create an entirely new crop of foreclosures with little or no help.  

    No matter whose "bailout" is accepted or approved it will not address the substantial impending job loss bailout or not.

    I would agree that some sort of bailout is required but to what level still needs to be determined.  A bailout without a jobs program is no different than the stimulus, free money and a bandaid....


    and for that matter (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    so does Robert Kuttner.  He as at amer prospect, just read his article and addly enough we are in sync.  

    Outside the box thinking is what we need here.  


    Hi Steve; (none / 0) (#28)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM EST
    Let me answer you by stating I support the Paulson/Bernanke proposal.  In fact, Hillary Clinton supports it.  She also, wisely, states that this solution to our current economic/fiancial problems require a multi-faceted solution, including the current proposal of restoring confidence in our financial markets.  

    There will be no complete failure of our (none / 0) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    banking system. This has been a long time in the making, the banks in the driver's seat will be just fine.

    That's a bailout.... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    I might be able to get behind...at the end of the day you have something to show for the taxpayer investment...bridges, roads, schools, libraries.  

    The problem J...too much of the money ends up in blue collar hands...not the kind of wealth distribution our new right wing socialist friends had in mind:)


    well this bailout is so that the Chinese (none / 0) (#31)
    by thereyougo on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    who bought all them failed mortgages and other countries around the world won't come calling for them as China tried to do once awhile back and were appeased by the Saudis to hang in there.

    I can't help but feel the screw tightening, and once the again the taxpayer is bailing out the poor bankers with their big pensions while we little peeps have to struggle to save them.

    Well I'm damn mad too and whats that line in the movie? Not gonna take it any longer and I think the people who walked away from their mortgages were/are mad too.

    Banks have gotten away with too damn much, those fees they charge you for this that and the other thing, is just for starts. Late fees, over draft fees, etc. etc. I'm fee'd to death.

    I think the little guy royally said F*U banks and now the federal government (we the people) are indeed bailing us out and thank the US low end leader we have, we are hurting. BTD has it right GWB has no E*Fn clue.


    You are truly an optimist (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lizpolaris on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    if you can imagine that the Dem congress would ever consider turning the tables on the Bush WH.  What - stand up to an unpopular president on behalf of their constituents?  Well, what's in it for the corporations - if there's enough gravy there, maybe they'd look into it.

    LOL - don't take it from me (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lizpolaris on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:27:50 PM EST
    Here's Glenn Greenwald on the subject:
    Right-wing opposition to the Paulson plan is vital for having any meaningful chance to stop it. Does anyone have any confidence at all in the Democrats' willingness and/or ability to impede this bailout train if the Bush administration and the Right were vigorously behind it, warning the nation of impending doom unless we submit to vast, unchecked government power of the type Henry Paulson is demanding? The instances of complete Democratic acquiescence under those circumstances -- including when they "controlled" the Congress -- are far too numerous to allow any rational person to think Democrats, standing alone, would stop the Paulson plan. As sad as it is, meaningful right-wing opposition is critical for that to happen.

    That's depressing (none / 0) (#22)
    by WS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:55:53 PM EST
    I hope Nancy, Steny, and Harry are reading that.  Grow a Spine, Congressional Dems!  You CONTROL Congress.  

    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    Special Interests CONTROL THEM

    Here here (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    Stand up and make a damn pitch already.  Your pitch.  Something off speed.  Basic sh*t.  The same people who have fast tracked us Iraq, now want to fast track a trillion to Wall Street.  State the obvious and make a play on behalf of Main Street.  What is there to lose?  fake the wuck up, in the words of a great drunk.

    How hard is it for the Dems and our nominee to understand the concept of stepping up to the actual plate?  As opposed, ultimately, to cheering from the dugout -- if not the stands or outside the stadium entirely (since, so often, it feels like there is no Democratic opposition even in the game).  

    Leadership (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    Seeing that conditions have changed, Obama might do better cancelling his "faith" tour and redirecting all his efforts in pushing the Dem's alternative proposal. He needs to be out in front on this rather than watching it from the sidelines. The American public wants answers not hope and faith.

    Tweaking is needed but (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    This is the problem. If the Dems hold tough, everyone's 401k which is dropping like a lead weight, people's gas price rising back up, and more job losses will be blamed on them. The Bush team will say we wanted to help the American people, (doesn't matter that it is the corps), but the Dems held it up. If it is the economy that will be the driving force, perception will be that the Democrats can't handle it well. You wait and see when people get their next 401k statement and they have lost a 5th of their worth. Heating oil prices finally got down to last March prices. From $4.49 in July to $3.34 today. Tomorrow because of the way Wall Street reacted to the delay, they are going back up. Winter is coming. Everyone will be seeing that oil price.

    Something needs to be done quickly and with the Dems solution. It does not matter that this is under Bush's watch. The solution will be the winner and what is remembered. Everyone sees a Wall ST Bailout, but it effects everyone in America. Especially those voters.

    Governing to perceptions and trends.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    is never a good idea.  Maybe you win an election, but the country suffers.  It's part of the reason we have such a massive national debt, throwing money around making rash decisions so it is perceived that you've "done something", when more often than not you've only made things worse, or pawned the problem off to a later date, when somebody else is trying to get elected, and will do something else rash...rinse, repeat.

    I think (hope?) the American public is smart enough to realize that we need to think this thing through, and think long term...and if not, we deserve the worst government we can get.


    Record Low Approval Rating (none / 0) (#8)
    by bocajeff on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    I forget which is lower, Bush's approval or that of Congress. They both suck.

    I think they are about tied on the (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:12:40 PM EST
    suck meter unless congress has had a change.

    I can't get one thing out of my mind... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Oje on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    Every American family of three that loses their home in mortgage default or bankruptcy - after receiving no help from the U.S. government - will then have to pay $7,000 - $10,000 to bailout institutional and international investors who gambled on American mortgage securities.

    The ownership society in action.

    At the risk of being harsh, (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    they are still ahead of the game compared to paying their mortgage.

    I feel sorrier for the rest of us that are making our house payments, plus part of theirs.


    Harshness is.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Oje on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:32:14 PM EST
    once again, for those losing their homes, who must pay taxes upwards of $10,000 so that the value of your home does not continue to fall - you got the order of who is being bailed out reversed...

    The right-wing noise wants Americans to blame the individuals who fell behind in their payments or lost their homes to repossession, as if the entire crisis originates with a few bad apples. This has always been the Republican ideology and explanation of massive economic failure to justify a $700 billion liquidity bailout of global investors.

    Over-valuation of properties, predatory lending, variable rate lending, etc., etc., produced a systemic failure in real estate investments and mortgage lending that trumps any kind of personal responsibility that Republicans wish to assign to individual mortgage holders.

    In order to take the appropriate action, Democrats must first discard the notion of personal microeconomic responsibility (i.e., unemployment during the Great Depression) for a macroeconomic crisis of political ideology (i.e., Republicans' governing philosophy and penchant for cronyism, deregulation, etc.) in order to implement a socially-responsible plan to avert a growing economic crisis in the political economy of American homeownership and mortgage lending.


    Last I heard, Dodd and Frank were (none / 0) (#27)
    by WillBFair on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM EST
    on the job. I have faith in those guys. They're brilliant.

    Finally had a chance (none / 0) (#32)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    to read Dodd's and Frank's proposals.  Brilliant, addressing the crisis and the politics.



    Main Street Recovery Plan (none / 0) (#30)
    by Newt on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    A quick fix would be to prop up the economy by socializing home ownership with the transfer all at risk mortgages to government sponsored loans.  If we're going to socialize the risk, the investment must be socialized as well.  The bailout would be homeowner centered, not investment oriented, with incentive for good loans to be part of the pool as well.  

    Every homeowner should be offered the option to immediately transfer any and all mortgages on owner occupied properties into government owned financing.  Interest rates should be fixed at 5%, which would be enough of an incentive for anyone with higher rates to switch.  Homeowners who are not in foreclosure would be offered the same deal.  The banks and mortgage companies would be paid a nominal fee to continue to process the loan payments for each loan they already own.  Management of foreclosed properties would be through HUD and/or VA, since both currently have infrastructure for housing and could increase capacity to manage the attorney contracts for foreclosure.  The transition would be seamless in the sense that homeowners would not have to qualify for the new loans with a refinance process.  The government would simply assume the loan, offer a new rate, and have banks continue to manage the payments.   The loans would be purchased with the same fake money that we'd be using to prop up the wealthy with the current plan, that is, borrowing and increasing the deficit.  Only in this case, the new owners of any foreclosed properties would be us, or rather, U.S.  A homeowner wouldn't have to do anything; their monthly payments continue unless they chose to make changes.  (Savvy homeowners can opt to continue to pay the same monthly amounts, or revise their payments to match the new interest rates.)  Homeowners with financing at less than 5% can choose to do nothing.  Banks would not have a choice in whether to participate on a loan per loan basis, but could opt out of the entire package, which would mean keeping their junk loans as well as the good loans.   Too bad they'd lose good loans, but they want a bailout, they got it.  The public needs some opportunity to recoup costs in the long term, and this way the multimillionaires won't suck up the proceeds over the next few years until the entire economy collapses.

    Of course, a plan like this would help the homeowners and taxpayers more than the banks, so it's not likely to be offered or accepted by Congress.  

    Dems should urge Bush???? (none / 0) (#36)
    by justus on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:02:41 AM EST
    Bush has not even attempted to work with the Democrats since they took control of the House. He is now attempting this 700 Billion bailout, I believe, because it will raise the American people's taxes and the Rupublicans are trying to build their campaign on saying that Obama is going to raise taxes, (which is a lie), however they expect that the threat of more taxes will scare the people into voting against Obama. They will lie, steal, cheat or kill to win!