Agreement in Principle On Wall Street Bailout


House and Senate negotiators from both parties said Thursday that they had reached general agreement to move forward with the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion rescue effort of the nation’s financial system.

One plan under consideration would release $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion available at the discretion of the president. . . . They also said that there would be limits on pay packages for executives whose firms seek assistance from the government and a mechanism for the government to be given an equity stake in some firms so that taxpayers have a chance to profit if the companies prosper in the months and years ahead.


“We are giving the secretary authority that he will need in order to act and the funding that he will need,” Mr. Dodd said after the meeting, referring to the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr. “We also have dealt, I think effectively, with the issue of effective oversight, with homeownership preservation as well as with executive compensation.”

(Emphasis supplied.) If Dodd is right, the Democratic Congress has done its job.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama To Do Townhall If McCain Skips Debate | The Great Photo Op >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So the Same People (Government) who have been (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    warning us to give up our constitutional liberties or "terrorists will kill you"
    reduce the number of babecues you have in your back yard, and the number of SUVs you drive your kids in, or else "the earth will melt"
    are now
    telling everyone to fork over 750 BILLION dollars to B'crats in Washngton DC, or else our "IRAs/ Life time investments will whither away"??

    Is there any one else here suspicous of this supposed "Crisis"?

    I am suspicous (none / 0) (#89)
    by DaleA on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    The way this crisis came out of nowhere with a must be done by Friday deadline gives me pause. This looks to be taken directly from the Shock Capitalism playbook as defined by Naomi Klein. I notice there have been precious few actual details of who is in trouble and why. Just companies folding. And a lot of panic mongering. Wish the Dems will vote against this.

    The Dems are in on it.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    all they are good for is negotiating a couple extra bones for the little guy, provided it doesn't incovenience Powerman too much, same as always.

    Apparently thats enough for some people.

    This Wall St. con job probably won my boy Ralph a couple more percentage points though...in my circles, I've never seen lefties and righties agree that "this is some bullsh*t" like this before.


    What is the homeowner protection (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    From email - please call again; I just did:

    Dear Friends,

    We need your help to make sure average Americans are represented in the $700 billion Wall Street bailout Congress is considering.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House and Senate leaders are meeting with President Bush at 4 p.m. EST today to negotiate terms of this package. The latest bailout proposal includes a provision to amend the bankruptcy law that will allow people to restructure their mortgages in bankruptcy court and save their homes, just like wealthy Americans can with vacation homes and yachts.

    We need to keep the bankruptcy provision in the bill.

    PLEASE call your Representative before 4 p.m. EST today.

    This may be our last opportunity to have any impact on this bailout.

    Call the ACORN Toll-Free Hotline to Congress at (866) 888-9292. Ask to be connected to your Representative's office and urge him/her to tell Rep. Pelosi to hold strong and demand that bankruptcy and other provisions to help homeowners be included in any final bailout package.


    Bamboozlement thru and thru (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by pluege on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    sorry, but I don't believe anyone's word on this that is involved in it including Dodd's. This is the biggest scam on the American people since the Iraq invasion. The only purpose of this is to block future social programs (a.k.a expanded healthcare), choke off funding for existing social programs, and enrich the obscenely rich. Sickening, just sickening.

    I'll have (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    to wait and see about the home ownership issue but executive compensation and oversight issues do seem to be resolved from what I have read.

    Equity? (none / 0) (#2)
    by clio on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:33:25 PM EST

    I think so. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Pegasus on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    Maybe my news is behind..... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kefa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    at 3:33pm on Fox News Radio says House Repubs are
    not on board.

    The article that BTD linked to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by votermom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    says the same thing. House Republicans not on board.

    Pence is not on board (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    And frankly, who needs him?

    Case people forgot, Dems are in the majority.


    But what Dems will not accept is (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    the Repubs opposing the bill, it passing, and then Repubs running against the Program and hanging it around Dem necks because most Americans do not like this idea one bit. My sense from the morning reading is that Dems have voting plans on this which mean it will not go forward unless and until a large number of all republs are on board, so that won't happen.

    That's what I was going to say (none / 0) (#25)
    by votermom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    except you said it much better. The bailout is unpopular but necessary. If the GOP rank & file can get away with not voting for it, they'll use it as a campaign issue in their home districts.

    Bush will deliver enough Republicans (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    Mike Pence is a nobody.

    Are you (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    sure? Why would they want to stand with him in an election year?

    Am I sure? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    You think Bush can not deliver 50 House Republicans?

    You think the Republicans want to be blamed for a Wall Street meltdown? Be called irresponsible by all the Wise Men?

    Yes, I am quite sure. Are you sure you are not completely driven by your emotions now?


    Good grief. (4.50 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:05:30 PM EST
    Did I not ask you a rational question? It had nothing to do with emotions. Whatever. You're going to believe what you want to believe.

    No you did not (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    Frankly, you have not made a rational comment in quite some time imo.

    Politically, Republicans are actually (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    stupid to vote for this. But I think you're right that enough will.

    You think? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    I don't.

    Wall Street would crash again and they would get blamed.


    Some Republicans may (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    try to have it both ways.....A financial collapse is avoided (because others vote for the bill) but some Republicans vote against it anyway in the safety of knowing the bailout will pass, saying the bailout was unnecesary....

    I hope you are right and a lot of House Republicans vote for it....It appears the Democrats made sure McCain would vote for any final bill or there would be no final bill.....Another McCain stunt is to be avoided...


    You know how the CfG goes after them (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    "pork, pork, pork" etc.

    ya (none / 0) (#68)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    Senator Shelby just came out against it on CNN, but thats nothing new.  The house republicans can play politics with it to appease talk radio but they cant stop it either.

    There is no downside for them as long as it passes.  We'll never know what was avoided and if a depression comes anyway, they'll look justified.

    But McCain, he's stuck with it short of pulling the longest hail mary reversal in history.


    I would not rule out (none / 0) (#97)
    by jar137 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
    McCain telling the Dems he'll vote for it, but then changing his mind as the vote is taken.  

    That's why McCain's support is important (none / 0) (#82)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    Gives McCain another chance to be a maverick (none / 0) (#90)
    by Realleft on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:19:05 PM EST
     by differing from other Republicans AND demonstrate leadership when he brings them around through his wise leadership and focus on country first.  Or maybe I've just gotten really cynical.

    Pence is throwing a hissyfit (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    HE can't stop it.

    I think it is a done deal.

    The Dem deal.


    Pence (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    is an idiot. Good for the GOP if they throw him under the bus.

    What about Cantor? (none / 0) (#9)
    by votermom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    and his alternative plan ...

    What about him? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    Barney Frank was the negotiator, Eric Cantor is a guy with a vote.

    Can someone please at least summarize (none / 0) (#23)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    the 'alternative plan' which they are waving on tv but not reading. SHelby does not like bailing out foreign banks, which may be an issue that can be worked on, or so he said on msnbc. Pence seems to object to buying toxic mortgages at all, which is probably not something that can be compromised on the other side. Schumer was just on and said something about warrants, compensation limits, and oversight, before his mike failed.

    Pence is a bit player (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    He is a nobody.

    Reply? In a Word? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sumner on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:12:35 PM EST
    The Mother of all Rip-Offs

    The alternative plan (none / 0) (#84)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    is for the government to insure private institutions that buy the assets instead of buying the assets outright.  It isn't necessarily a bad idea but there is no time left for the train to change course.

    Does this new plan closely follow (none / 0) (#56)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:12:41 PM EST
    the HOLC Act of the 1930's?

    With all due respect, (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    the label "The Dem deal" is both partisan hackery and ludicrous on it's face. There's a 700 Billion lb gorilla in the room that it completely ignores, if you want to be fair.

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    As between Paulson's proposal and Dodd's counter-proposal, isn't it fair to say the final result comes much closer to the latter?  If you want to wait till they dot the i's and cross the t's to render a verdict, that's fine.

    The R's presented a 700B deal. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    The D's modified it (beneficially, imo).

    You can have opinions and debates over whether a 700B deal is greater or lesser entity than the modifications to that deal (I'd argue greater) but it's still a 700B deal presented by the R's.


    And it is now a 350B deal (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    on this legislation.

    With all of Dodd's provision for the most part.

    Dems win dude.


    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    And when I bought my house I only put 150K down. That made it a 150K deal and not a 750K deal.

    iow: (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    They said the bill would authorize the full $700 billion requested by President Bush, but that Congress was intent on disbursing the money in installments.

    Update (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    350B in this bill another Congressional authorization for the other 350B

    OK. (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    350B + 350B = the 700B the R's asked for.

    But, hey, if it works like it's supposed to you can call it HROC for all I care.


    Only if the plan works (none / 0) (#85)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    Let us hope it does.

    Ludicrous on its face? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    Last I looked, the Bush Administration Paulson deal got stuffed and the Dodd deal is gonna be the deal for the most part.

    With all due respect, Dems won the debate.


    Perhaps he means (none / 0) (#38)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    that there is not a clear winner as between the D's and R's in Congress, which is probably valid.  It's not like the Republican caucus drew a line in the sand in opposition to the Dodd plan or in support of the Paulson plan.

    But at the end of the day, I think the Dems control both houses and they have ownership of this solution, for better or for worse.


    Sorry, imo, that a 700B deal (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    proposed by the R's was agreed to clearly dwarfs the means that got it agreed to. I'm not going to argue any further with you over opinions.

    FWIW, I agree with you. (none / 0) (#91)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    how much teeth does this plan have? (none / 0) (#50)
    by thereyougo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    Thats MY concern. The usual cave in DEMS just haven't given me pause to hope this will have significant grit. Silverado is still in memory I haven't forgotten it. Its looks like a trend that started then continues. Its unacceptable if that is the case.

    Argh! I want to know how much it will help Main St.


    Lipstick on a Pig or Kabuki Theatre - whatever (none / 0) (#75)
    by ks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    The only thing I'm wondering is how Paulson, Shrub and our Dem leadership were able to keep straight faces as they played their game. In this case, used car salesmen have nothing on those guys

    Paulson:  I want 700B right now with no strings attached!!!

    Dodd:  700B? Where did you get that number from?

    Paulson:  Um, I kind of made it up but nevermind.  I must have 700B or else the sky will fall!!!

    Dodd:  I'll give you 350B right now (250B to Treasury and another 100B Presidential discretion) and the rest later BUT you must accept my conditions.

    Paulson:  Wow, I don't know.  I really need all of the 700B right now but let me talk to my manager...err, I mean the President. (Calls Shrub:  Put Cheney on the phone and stop laughing! Cheney: (giggling) Okay, let's hear what they have to say)

    Dodd:  Okay, you have to take an oversight committee, some vague cap on executive compensation for the firms that participate and taxpayers must get an equity stake in "some" firms that participate.

    Paulson:  (Blinking - Trying not to laught out loud) Wow, those are really tough conditions. I'm going to have to speak to my...um..the President again.

    Cheney:  Oversight committee!!! Hahahaha! Made up of whom?  They very politicians who take campaign contributions from the Wall St crew?  "Cap" on executive comp?  More showboating. They'll never prove malfesance.  Equity stake for taxpayers?  Please.  Soverign Wealth Funds got and get a better deal for a fraction of the cost.

    So, let me see if I get this straight. We pulled a 700B number out of out butts and we get 350B right away, take these weak conditions, and get the rest later!

    Paulson, Cheney, Shrub: Bwahahahahahahaha! Cheney: Hank, try not to laugh when you take the deal.

    Paulson:  Senator Dodd, while it was a tough decision, I'll take the deal.  You really drive a tough bargain!

    Dodd:  Great!  Great day for bi-partisanship.

    Both men shake hands and smile for the photo-op.

    Dodd:  Btw, Hank you coming to my fundraiser?

    Paulson:  Chris, wouldn't miss it for the world.


    Nice fly on the wall re-cap. (none / 0) (#93)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    Excellent job ks.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:06:10 PM EST
    Paulson's mistake was not asking for 140 billion right away...then he woulda got his 70 to help his boys at Goldman Sachs.

    How that is not a conflict of interest I have no idea.  


    Oops... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    Make that 1.4 trillion...all those zeros on the end its hard to keep track:)

    It seems (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    that the Republicans who understand the crisis and have been negotiating in good faith are on board with the agreed-upon principles, but the hacks who only care about partisan advantage are still thinking it over.

    Plus a few (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    genuine ideologues like Pence.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    Pence is the leader of the "purity troll" faction of the GOP.  They will never, ever get enough support to command a majority, but they have real principles!

    Pence and "purity" (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:59:13 PM EST
    I should probably just do a Google search to confirm this, but isn't Pence the same guy who fervently opposed Bush's Medicare Plan B, and then did a 180 degree turnaround after Bush and the other WH mobsters told him he could either support the bill or ensure that his son would lose his legislative race that year?

    I believe (none / 0) (#120)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:12:21 PM EST
    that was someone else, from Michigan I think.

    Sorry. Hit post, not preview. (none / 0) (#4)
    by clio on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    Equity only in some firms?
    Why only some and who determines which ones?

    Wait, wait! (none / 0) (#10)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    McCain is on the way! As soon as he finishes a speech and interview or two, he'll totally hit this 'bailout' thing.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    He looks pretty stupid now that's for sure.

    Yes, and then (none / 0) (#17)
    by CCinNC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    and only then will the Republicans get on board.  Our hero. /s

    They are already on board (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    except for the Pences of the world.

    Here's a dirty little secret, a lot of Republicans in Congress hate McCain.


    But's he's done (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    soooo much for the Republican brand over the years!

    Really, McCain whole career has been about John McCain. You can say that about a lot of politicians, but few have been so naked, so blatant about it as McCain. Shameful.


    One of the worst kept secrets in Washington (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM EST
    And the whole "suspend the campaign" thing was McCain acting like McCain. The McCain that they hate.

    And that (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    is exactly why McCain has been able to do as well as he has during this election so far. The fact that the GOP rank and file hate him makes him all the more palatable to the average voter out there.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    So why is MCCain insisting on tryting to pretend he is delivering the Republican votes on the bailout?

    You need to get your MxCain shilling straight. You are unable to keep your story straight int he same thread.


    Note of course (none / 0) (#44)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    McCain could be trying to have it both ways.  With him it's not door A or door B.

    The fork in the road (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    for the Straight Talk Express.

    HE is f*cked now.

    This stunt really screwed him over.


    Do you not realisitically (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST
    think that Obama should be at least ahead by double digits considering how much Bush has screwed up this country? Gallup has gone to having the race tied again at 46%. It's not "shilling" if you are facing the reality of the electoral situation. McCain should be dead in the water imo and he's not. What reason do you think that is?

    I have said as much (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    What is your point? You need an Obama bash in every post?

    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    but for some reason you seem to think today that stating facts like "McCain is still in the race" as shilling.

    Cherry picking polls (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST

    Democrats generally do not win by double digits....


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    I now have the meaning of shilling---any statement that is outside the bounds of Obama adoration. Gotcha.

    No, it is universally proclaiming (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    only anti-Obama slogans and purported "news."

    Come on BTD. (none / 0) (#94)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    Here's how GA's theory works:

    1. Crazy rank and file Repubs hate McCain, moderate and indies like that.  It means that McCain isn't pwnd by his nut wing base and that they can feel safe to vote for him.

    2. McCain comes to Washington as a leader and delivers enough sensible (I know an oxymoron) Republican Congress people to save the economy from certain ruin.

    Anyway, what did Obama do that was so great in this affair.  I can't see any of Obama's ideas anywhere.

    Of course, I don't think McCain is a leader. (none / 0) (#96)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    Just to set the record straight.  I also don't think that this will work.  But, still Obama didn't light any fires or make me have any confidence in his leadership or fighting for us.  Saw a lot of Hillary though.

    Obama has stayed calm, which is great n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST
    But it;s Obama's bill now (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    according to White House Bushie counsel on CNN.  He just said that the bill will incorporate the list of principles required by Obama.

    So both candidates will own it -- unless, of course, McCain backs out for the sake of the American public that deserves better.  Watch.


    the wing nuts in the Republican base (none / 0) (#118)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    are the Evangelical fundamentalists, not the fiscally conservative...

    He's doing well enough to lose by a lot n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    Then (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    why isn't he?

    You should read fivethirtyeight.com (none / 0) (#70)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    McCain's got a 27% chance by their methodology.  Obama is estimated to take 308 EVs to 230.

    538 is (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:29:47 PM EST
    a joke. Sorry. They have Obama winning OH when most of the polls have shown him behind.

    Do you have a quantitative background? (none / 0) (#86)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    If so it's pretty trivial to explain that point you don't understand.

    This sounds (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:33:39 PM EST
    eerily like Karl Rove in 2006 when he had the "real" numbers and you shouldn't believe the polls. Yeah, right.

    The data comes from polling and election results (none / 0) (#122)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    There's some simple matrix algebra involved, and basic stats, hence my question about your background.

    Poblano is a stats geek (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM EST
    and has a pretty good track record in the primaries.....

    And that's before Obama pummels him in the debates (none / 0) (#88)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    McCain has tacked right (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    The right now loves him....He abandoned his anti-torture position and many others....

    Yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    I know but does your average voter know? That is the question.

    Perhaps you could help (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:08:21 PM EST
    inform them....

    ya (none / 0) (#76)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    He's like that little dude in Conan II who marches up and stabs the dead creature after Conan has killed it.

    lol (none / 0) (#119)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST

    What would be really good (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    is if everyone except for the Club for Growth nutters votes for this.

    That (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    is what it's looking like will happen.

    That's bipartisanship we can believe in (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    And how this Congress ought to have worked from the start.

    Wow! (none / 0) (#101)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    I am so excited at this bipartianship on bailing out those poor poor pitiful starving fat cats while the rest of us have our great 401((k)s to fall back on!

    Oh that's right. How about this?

    "Let's hear it for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other Wall Street banks that are opening up tens of thousands of new, well-paying jobs for researchers and analysts!

    Unfortunately, the jobs are in India, the Philippines, and Eastern Europe, with many also headed to China. These powerhouse bankers - who profit enormously from America's people, laws, protections, and subsidies - no longer feel any responsibility for providing good American jobs. Indeed, they are likely to offshore some 40 percent of their research-related jobs, cutting about 200,000 U.S. employees this year alone."


    The point is (none / 0) (#103)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    we might not have our 401(k)s either, or not much left from them, if the stuff hits the fan.  People like Krugman and Billmon are cautiously in favor of this bailout.

    And I'm not ready to say a smart guy here has more right to analyze GS's data than a smarter guy in India.  An ex-pat friend of mine does that.  His company benefits, the country where he lives benefits, and I benefit indirectly from both.


    Smarter? (none / 0) (#108)
    by ks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    That's besides the point.  He's probably a lot cheaper.   Yeah, I'm sure it works out great for everyone except the US dude who got canned, but hey, he should have been smarter, huh?  : )

    I'll put everything I own.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    on red at the roulette wheel before I put a dime in a 401K.

    If I'm a broke-arse old man so be it, I won't let 'em make a nickel off me.

    Now I just have to plant some seeds down my pants so I can grow the balls to tax revolt, and stop giving the crooks in Washington and Albany my nickels.  Do I just let them continue to take their vig out of convenience?  Or do I do what I believe in my heart of hearts is right and just and not give these bastards another nickel?  Time for some serious soul searching...


    from most of this post (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    it looks like it is turning out to be a good day for America. Something reasonable might actually get done. Led by Dems and signed on by Republicans. I like it.

    Frankly, the devil is in the (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    details.  You always ask for twice as much as you want and be happy if you get half.  The GOP may have won after all.  If it doesn't have "cram down" provisions and helps the consumer more than the titans of WS then what do we have?

    Nicely put (none / 0) (#69)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    While I'm not at all happy with large-scale government intervention of this sort, it's clearly light years better than any alternative that would have been acceptable to the hard core free marketeers.  I'm very relieved that they seem to have done the right thing.  (But adding the cram down provision would have been better, in my opinion.)

    I've been in a very heated e-mail exchange with some of my readers over on my site about this, and I'm just stunned by the level of polarization.  A lot of people are so intent on punishing the banks that they want no part of this deal.  In no small part this is fueled by lefty radio, and their near-constant screaming about "it's $700 billion--and what if it doesn't work???"  I guess when those people find their house is on fire they don't bother to call for help just in case the fire department can't extinguish the blaze.  (The one exception has been AAR's Ron Kuby, who has been the only adult I've heard on the airwaves on this topic.)


    A major effort to explain the economy (none / 0) (#80)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:42:55 PM EST
    and how it works (or doesn't) is needed.  I am dismayed by the oversimplification on both the left and right.  You would think the left would have more sophisticated economic analysis given the right's attacks on "deficit spending" and the "insolvent" social security system.

    I am happy like when (none / 0) (#81)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    I'm "happy" when I have to go to the dentist. Really wish I didn't have to but know it has to get done anyway.

    I'm curious if you've heard Maddow's radio show this week and where she is at. I haven't, but generally find her to be somewhat levelheaded.  I really want the greedy jerks to be punished but I don't want our entire economy to collapse (I happen to like my car, house, job, etc.)


    BTW, I just want to add (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    I hope the filthy rich who knowingly helped create this mess pay for this in some way down the road.

    Good day for America? (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM EST
    I'd hardly call increasing the national debt by 700 billion when this is all said and done a good day.

    They may have just signed our national death warrant.  But the execution won't be tomorrow so the rich old people are happy, so I guess it is a good day for the old and fat...the youth and the American unborn, not so much.


    Good ole' Barney... (none / 0) (#35)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    '"McCain is Andy Kaufman in his Mighty Mouse costume - `Here I Come to Save the Day,'" Frank said as he left a Thursday morning caucus meeting with House Democrats, saying the Republican presidential candidate's decision to enter the mix "is not helpful."

    "He hasn't been involved," Frank said. "He doesn't know anything about it."'
    --Think Progress

    Changing BK laws (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    to allow BK judges to restructure home loans....that would be a huge added benefit...

    As it stands, a homeowner post-petition has to make all payments as they come due according to the loan documents, and also must effect a reasonably prompt cure (over 3-5 years) of all arrearages....that means the monthly payments go up after filing bankruptcy....

    Changing ARMs to fixed rate loans would be huge....The Republicans are really fighting this proposal.  But that would save a lot of homeowners from foreclosure....

    Frankly (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    with the housing market being what it is, I cannot understand why mortgage-holders would not do everything in their power to encourage workouts and avoid foreclosures.  After they foreclose on all these homes in lieu of taking cold hard cash, who are they going to sell them to?  How will they make money when all the foreclosed properties are just sitting there vacant?

    I guess it's good for the balance sheet and maybe that's all that matters.  But I'm still having trouble grasping the business decision that has prompted all this frenzied lobbying in opposition to the bankruptcy provision.


    Some lenders are renegotiating (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    terms but others are Bush-like stubborn....or functionaries working in large loss mitigation departments with no concern for the big picture or common sense...

    Our local paper today did a story on what (none / 0) (#66)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    has happened with the FDIC program of last year that has been working with distressed properties and homeowners.  The problem seems to be that almost half of the borrowers simply do not have enough income to even take on a modified loan agreement which includes changing to a fixed rate of 6.5%, a new appraisal and longer term to pay.  When those things don't fix the situation, and almost half fall into that category, there still are foreclosures.

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    I don't think there is any relief for those folks under any scenario.  Even if bankruptcy judges give you a break, they're just going to be relieving you from onerous interest terms or maybe cutting the monthly payment a tad.  But the government simply isn't going to step in and pay off anyone's mortgage for them, even if they're flat broke.  Just not in the cards.

    That's the problem (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:12:30 PM EST
    with 0 down "stated income" loans....And it is a mess that has no real solution for some folks...

    Whatever your position on the deal (none / 0) (#74)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    The article in The Economist is worth a read.  I should also add that in my book both Paulson and Bernanke deserve as much credit as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for making this happen.  Some choice quotes.

    The scale of the American authorities' response reflects both the violence with which this crisis has spread, and the determination of the American authorities, most importantly Mr Bernanke, to learn from the mistakes that made the Depression so deep and long.

    Not doing anything isn't an alternative.  Frank and Dodd recognized this and have improved on the Paulson/Bernanke framework to make the plan politically viable.  BTW I don't think Paulson was trying to do a power grab.  The political details needed to be left to the political body.

    That week, no investment-grade bonds were issued, for the first time (holidays aside) since 1981.

    How serious this is should it continue can not be overstated.

    In responding with such speed and vigour, they run several risks. One is that they overdo it, paying far too much for assets, sending the deficit into the stratosphere and triggering a run on the dollar. The risk of underdoing it may be even greater. Politicians, determined not to be seen as doing favours for Wall Street, might blunt the programme's effect in the name of protecting the taxpayer. Then there's the logistical nightmare of fixing a market whose very complexity is central to the crisis.

    We are not out of the woods yet.

    We are not outa the woods, and that's why (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    McCain pulled Obama into the White House and photo ops on this.

    65 Trillion Dollar Credit Swap Defaults (none / 0) (#77)
    by Richard0Thomas on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    Most of the world doesn't know about the 65 Trillion Dollar Credit Swap Defaults still looming. It dwarfs the mortgage crises.

    It is on http://coinage.me . where the flaws are articulated in detail unlike anything you see on the news, and a detail solution is provided to fix the foundation. Which everyone else seems to lack.

    Many people only see the appearances they do not see the fundamental flaw in the system itself.

    What about the no-legal/admin review lingo? (none / 0) (#100)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    Total discretion without telling what's being done and no review by any agency or court of law?

    Is that gone?

    correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#114)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    If your mortgage was with Indymac, now the feds hold it and my understanding is all foreclosures have been stopped and they are renegotiating the loans.  

    Under the bailout, the mortgage holder would have to declare banckruptcy and hope the Judge is willing to save the house and rewrite the terms.  If this provision stays in.


    Only half upfront (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    I like that if this is what we have to do.  Doesn't sound like this is a done deal though.