McCain's Plan To Break The Deal: Less Regulation, Accountability and Protection

Marc Ambinder reports:

During the White House meeting, it appears that Sen. John McCain had an agenda. He brought up alternative proposals, surprising and angering Democrats. He did not, according to someone briefed on the meeting, provide specifics. One the proposals . . . would relax regulation and temporarily get rid of certain taxes in order to lure private industry into the market for these distressed assets.

That approach has been rejected by Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and, to this point, the White House. During the meeting, according to someone briefed on it, Sec. Henry Paulson told those assembled that the approach was not workable.


Before the White House meeting, Democrats and Senate Republicans were on track to get legislation to the floor by tomorrow. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) McCain came to Washington DC determined to blow up the bipartisan consensus on the deal, proposing LESS regulation, LESS accountability, LESS taxpayer protection and help. He is a reckless, feckless, mendacious, craven, political hack willing to say and do anything to try and win. He is truly a disgraceful person, unfit for the Presidency.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain's Stunt Stalls Bailout Negotiations | Palin Attacks Obama, Gets Kissinger's Position Wrong >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tell me again how much you love McCain (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:57:18 PM EST
    you clueless PUMAs.

    PUMAs do not profess to 'love McCain', (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by honora on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    rather they 'love' democracy and are willing to stand up for principle over party.  

    Bulll and Sh*t (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:55:07 PM EST
    And what principle is that? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:14:11 PM EST
    You don't love McCain, but you are willing to help him get elected.  The principle of punishing Obama and the DNC for what happened during the primaries is more important than the fact that McCain will punish us all.  He's going to break the country. If he hasn't already done so.

    I'm sorry. In the immediate aftermath of the primaries, I was very sympathetic to the PUMA position. I was infuriated at the DNC. I was (and to some extent remain) unhappy with some of Obama's positions.

    But our economy, our security, our very existence as a functioning democracy are at stake. McCain is dangerous. Very dangerous. If the last 10 days haven't convinced you of that, I don't know what will.

    You may want to bite your nose to spite your face, but I don't. I'll try to figure out a way to punish the DNC later. It's more important to stop McCain than Donna Brazile and Howard Dean.


    Absolutely absurd. (4.50 / 6) (#52)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    No so-called PUMA should even be allowed to use the word principle.  PUMAs may not love McCain, but they certainly don't love principles either since the principles that Hillary Clinton stands for (and that I voted for) are best exemplified in the general election by Barack Obama.

    PUMAs stand not for principle over party, but for candidate over principles.


    BOTTOM LINE (2.33 / 3) (#86)
    by chopper on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:57:30 PM EST


    "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." -Sen. John McCain




    wrap yourself up in the flag (none / 0) (#70)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    that's a good argument

    I think McCain is wrong on most all the issues. (2.00 / 0) (#75)
    by daria g on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    And I think Obama is no Democrat and undercutting everything Democrats and progressives stand for.  

    And I spend my days surrounded by people who love Obama.  The whole thing sucks.  PUMA.


    I love McCain with all of Dick Cheney's heart :) (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:03:23 PM EST

    heart? (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    "Regulation" means (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:05:10 PM EST
    "Laws regarding."

    For example, we have regulated armed robbery by making laws against it.

    What might happen if we "deregulated" armed robbery by removing those laws?

    I might be thinking about a new career. (none / 0) (#5)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    If McCain has his way (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    we might find out.

    Ambinder's latest post (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kaybeel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    seems to refute some of the claims in this one.

    Though Sen. Chris Dodd implied that Sen. McCain sandbagged the rest of the negotiators by bringing up alternative proposals, McCain himself did not bring up those proposals, according to four independent sources briefed by four different principals inside the meeting, including two Republicans and two Democrats.

    The Democrats were left with the impression that McCain endorsed the GOP efforts, but they concede that he did not raise them directly.

    So McCain said nothing? (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    Wow! Some leadership!!! Great to see him there. You gotta be effing kidding me.

    all of the first hand accounts (none / 0) (#23)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    I heard on the news said that McCain really didn't say much at the cabinet meeting, especially when compared to Obama...

    I guess that makes sense, considering he's just their for leadership, not for his opinion..


    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:27:15 PM EST
    Snark right?

    True leaders know when to let others talk (none / 0) (#31)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    Yes, snark.

    Didn't you get the memo? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:29:48 PM EST
    You guys suspended your campaign -- I assume that means internet provocateurs also, right?

    If he said I'm for so-and-so's plan (none / 0) (#11)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    where that plan is above, what's the difference?  (I'm assuming the premise.)

    Let's assume he said nothing (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:24:48 PM EST
    Then why in eff did he even show up>? What in the hell is he doing?

    The man is a disgrace.


    So Obama is also (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by robert72 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:11:59 PM EST
    a disgrace for showing up? Did he say anything?  Why in eff did he show up? What in the hell is he doing?
    Good Lord, BTD. You are letting your prejudice overcome your sense of logic and common sense. Everything isn't always disgraceful with McCain, and everything isn't perfectly fabulous with Obama.
    I have been reading you a long time, and I expect better of you. Things are never black and white, evil and angelic.

    McCain asked for the meeting (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:51:59 PM EST

    your premise isn't supported (none / 0) (#22)
    by kaybeel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    by Ambinder's latest report.  I put the link in my reply to BTD.

    Actually it is supported (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:26:46 PM EST
    But tell me clueless PUMA, how is McCain demonstrating that GREAT LEADERSHIP you people tout?

    Wow, look at what happened to McCain (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by cpa1 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:17:42 PM EST
    One thing I hope for is that the Democrats make the Republicans pay for this.  They need to say, we are disgusted that we have to do this but 20 years of Republican trickle down economics are threatening the United States as a going concern and that is very very bad.  

    Reducing taxes on dividends and interest from 70% to 28% and then Bush bringing dividends down to 15% while many of us are paying 35% plus 7.65% for FICA is criminal.  That is 42.65% and if you are self employed it is 50.3% less the value of the SE tax deduction.  

    Then because all of Wall Street had so much f___g money to burn that they all wanted to earn a million a year, in order to doo that they needed to create garbage derivatives like CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations) CDS (Credit Default Swaps) and ARS (Auction Rated Securities,  which when they determined that their values died and in the case of the ARSs their auctions failed these wonderful Americans got this garbage out of the hands of their large corporate investors and stuck then to you and me and our pension and 401K plans.

    How many fk_g times are we going to let trickle down economics destroy us?  They must pay!

    McCain is toast (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    I can't say what I'm actually thinking because it would seem tasteless, but it's true.

    I think McCain is trying to make the deal look bad (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by barryluda on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    and undoable just so that he can come in and "save the day" with a new plan (maybe even similar to the plan that he -- or the repubs at his bidding -- just blew up).  It seems like an appropriate deal would have happened without McCain, so hopefully he won't get away with it.  But who knows?

    Here's the alternate-universe (none / 0) (#46)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    Rethug plan. No bailout, but lots of other shock-doctrine type goodies:

    • suspend the mark-to-market rule
    • repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
    • go to a zero capital gains tax
    • an "all of the above" energy plan (drill here, drill there, drill everywhere)

    And leave Dems pushing to spend $700B taxpayer dollars. With Bush.

    How can anyone argue with a straight face (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:05:48 PM EST
    that a zero capital gains tax would fix this problem? I'd love to see that one explained.

    They think there's a bunch of Warren Buffets (none / 0) (#66)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    out there, just a wastin' away in Margarittaville.

    He just put in five billion dollars without a (none / 0) (#81)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:32:16 PM EST
    capital gains reduction or a regulatory reduction. What's wrong with Warren Buffett.

    I like Warren Buffet a lot (none / 0) (#94)
    by robrecht on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:05:49 AM EST
    In fact, I know a couple of people who have met him and everyone speaks well of him.  I'm just sayin' that the Republicans cannot count on 140 Warren Buffets coming forward and each giving $5 Billion to buy up all these mortgage securities.

    Newt believes in pixie dust (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:27:28 PM EST
    As long as it's free market pixie dust.

    Hilariously, he says, well, even if it doesn't work, at least it'll cost less than the Paulson plan. The man missed his calling as a comedian.


    With no SOX and no capital gains tax (none / 0) (#79)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    the market for subprime mortgage-backed securities will be flooded with investors, allowing Wall Street to finance its own reconstruction.

    Just like Iraq financed its own reconstruction.  Remember how Wolfowitz told about that?


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#53)
    by Lahdee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    he could save anything at this point. As this develops he is appearing less than appropriate to the entire process. He has contributed nothing.

    I love it when Richard Shelby goes on CNN and demagogs this whole thing (20 economists John 20 and Bush isn't an economist), and lets not forget his performance at the WH, now that was a classic. He has completely upstaged McCain. Between Shelby and Boehner poor John looks like deer in the headlights.


    McCain was and is the biggest con artist (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:21:55 PM EST
    he talked against torture, he voted for torture, he talks for regulation, pushes for deregulation.  I cannot believe the number of people who have fallen for his lies.  He is the most disgusting.  

    last night all the reporting (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:55:12 AM EST
    I heard said the "House Republicans" were holding up the bailout bill.

    Can someone explain to me just how that is possible?  There aren't enough house republicans to do anything unless they are getting some help from house DINOs.

    They didn't institue a new philibuster rule in the house did they?  If ALL THE DEMOCRATS in the house want to do something, there is no way for the house republicans to stop them.

    The house dems are just afraid to pass the bill without republican support in case it doesn't work out and all the republicans would use it against them in the future.

    of course (none / 0) (#97)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    if the Dems are going to pass a bill on their own it really needs to be as far away from the Administration's bill as possible..

    one would hope..

    politics as usual from both sides, even during a 'crisis'...


    Oh really? (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:26:02 PM EST
    Then what did McCain say> Where's the leadership PUMA?

    Tell me how McCain is leading? Tellme what a GREAT LEADER he is!!!

    You MCCain apologists are a freaking joke.

    Ah, now that makes sense (none / 0) (#3)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:05:06 PM EST
    It was hard to see how McCain thought he could benefit from disrupting the deal. If the situation is really as dire as Paulsen and Bernanke say and he keeps a biaprtisan deal from happening, he'd be blamed for the result. He can't exactly run on "do nothing" and expect to win under the current state of panic.

    So the only thing that made sense is that he was looking for a way to either put his own stamp on the bill or else offer a competing one (Newt's?).

    He's going to market the (none / 0) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    tax cut/de-regulation self-financed Wall Street bailout as something that will save the taxpayers $700 billion.

    Because cutting the capital gains tax to 0 -- yes, ZERO -- won't cost the taxpayers any money. and more de-regulation will permit the market to self-correct according to orthodox capitalist principles.


    He certainly (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:06:43 PM EST
    blew up his "bipartisan creds" that he's been touting in one fell swoop.

    and now he puts a lot of pressure (none / 0) (#7)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    on Obama to decide what to do about the debate tomorrow...

    I guess Palin will get her stay...


    Obama will be there (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:11:18 PM EST
    No pressure on Obama at all.

    They have another play. (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:28:23 PM EST
    I imagine McCain / Bush scheduling a news conference or something for right before or during the debate with half an hour notice or something.

    I can't imagine McCain simply letting Obama have an hour and a half of television time without some plan to slam him.

    I hope the media remembers the bargain they made with the American people -- they gave us Obama in the primary and there responsible to see he wins in November.


    Without Reid and Pelosi? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:29:39 PM EST
    The political partisanship will be manifest.

    But I LOVE the idea of a joint Bush/McCain press conference during Obama's Town hall.

    That would be a GREAT split screen.


    The political partisanship. . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:31:55 PM EST
    is already evident.  I don't think they care.  The hail Sarah pass didn't work, so now they're trying a hail Mary.

    I haven't seen a lot of media today, but it doesn't sound like McCain is getting hit for pulling a stunt to the degree I would have liked.


    What I am watching (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:33:08 PM EST
    is terrible press for McCain.

    And now this. . . (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    Dems, some in GOP question McCain's intervention

    Analysis in this AP story not good for McCain.


    Hm (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    Not much in the way of McCain criticism from the Republicans in that article.

    If McCain really is pulling a stunt here, the only solution may be for some Republican to truly take him to the woodshed.  Enough of them dislike him that a candidate should emerge.


    if there is bad economic news (none / 0) (#73)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:48:05 PM EST
    linked to this, you bet the Republicans will be pointing fingers at McCain.

    Glad to hear it. (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    I haven't heard much since yesterday around the time McCain sprung his announcement.

    PS: You're not just listening to MSNBC, I hope?


    CNN mostly (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:36:43 PM EST
    At the corner (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    they seem to think that the debate isn't going to happen because negotiations are still going to be going on about the bailout and it won't look good for Obama to leave to go to a debate.

    It seems if they get something worked out the debate could happen. Barbour seems to think it's going to happen.


    McCain is going to give Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    90 minutes of free national TV time to talk about the economy?

    I doubt it.


    No (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    according to the corner, McCain is trying to back Obama into a wall by talking about how leaving in the middle of negotiations is poor leadership or somesuch. Try to pressure him to not have the debate and if he does to make him look bad. How many people are actually going to tune into an interview with Obama instead of a debate with McCain? They might be willing to take that risk.

    ah (none / 0) (#60)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:03:11 PM EST
    thats to McCain everyone is NOW on capital hill trying to save this. where is McCain? he is at home.

    Obama's a great guy and all... (none / 0) (#51)
    by EL seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:46:42 PM EST
    ... and smart as a whip I'm sure.  But to ask anyone to fill 90 minutes of airtime on their own is asking for disaster.

    Oh ye of little faith. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    More likely that mcC will go back on his (none / 0) (#82)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:36:38 PM EST
    suspension, because there is no prayer now of a deal before Friday at 10:30 PM.

    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:12:39 PM EST
    I don't see how this makes a difference to Obama. He's going anyway. However, what does it do to McCain? Is he going to show up or what? The question was always with him.

    In other words (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    this is what you get when you tell your staffers, "I have no idea about the issues involved here, but come up with some kind of alternative proposals that no one else has suggested so I can look like a player."

    I don't think it's McCain's personal proposal (none / 0) (#17)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    Boehner's his friend, not sure it's his either, or perhaps just something a bunch of idealogues wrote up on a cocktail napkin.

    I think Ambinder (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:23:55 PM EST
    probably has it right when he says there has simply never been much support for the deal from House Republicans, period.

    Boehner is a hack and he may well be playing political games just to help McCain, but that doesn't mean he would have the power to deliver the Republican caucus just by saying so.  The House Republicans are very closely tied to the party's know-nothing base.


    Boehner seems really dumb (none / 0) (#27)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    but (none / 0) (#93)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:00:00 AM EST
    he has a nice tan.

    How many Republicans do you need? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    Oh by the way, if Bush can not deliver any Republicans, then we are back we we started, then the Democratic plan wins by default.

    If it is a Dem plan then dammit, MAKE IT a Dem plan.


    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    Pelosi is standing in the way of that happening.

    Ambinder also says (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    that for a deal to work, Paulson has to talk to the House Republicans.

    So yeah, that's ultimately on Bush.  These people are all up for election in November and their constituents seem mad as hell about the bailout.  So the White House has to figure out how to talk those people down.


    If Paulson can not get House Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:32:14 PM EST
    Then it should be the Dem plan, with all the bells and whistles.

    I always thought that this... (none / 0) (#47)
    by EL seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    ...would be a more complex process than just a "gentleman's agreement" among elected leaders driven soley by bipartisan spirit.

    I'd expect that the 1/3 of the senate that're up for re-election this year will also want something that they can take home to show the voters.  

    Maybe they can give them all official testimonials from Oz to show the folks back home?


    Would Bush sign it without the House Repubs? (none / 0) (#37)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:32:38 PM EST
    That would be so frikken hilarious.  I think he would but he would be heart broken, poor guy.  I feel his pain.

    I think he would (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    He's not the one standing for reelection.

    The business interests who fund the GOP year in and year out absolutely want this to happen, in one form or another.  Maybe they need to figure out how to pressure the House GOP themselves.  "Don't you people realize that we bought this party??"


    I heard that Bush (?) wanted 100 (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST
    on each side of the House. The Senate apparently isn't/wasn't a problem, before I flipped the channel . . .

    100 in the Senate? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:39:21 PM EST
    Um, no.

    Sorry, wasn't clear (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    100 House Dems 100 House Repubs. Apparently the Senate had enough Repub support along with the Dems.

    They are trying to make it a true Bi-partisan I guess.


    Remember, it's Bush. (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:54:47 PM EST
    It's entirely possible he believes 200 votes would give him a majority in the House.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#64)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    Still doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#54)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    200 votes in the House doesn't even get you on the subway.

    A token doesn't either ;) (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:05:15 AM EST
    I think Pelosi was also for the bi-partisan #, so it may have been let's get at least 100 on each side for the bi-partisan showing. I think the Dems were close to having 100 but not the Repubs. They are perhaps counting on cave-ins by others after they felt they had enough cover? Congress doesn't have a lot of spines ;) Personally, I think we are (were) getting a lot of happy window dressing. The Dems are blaming McCain, but he may have ended up being a gift scapegoat by showing up.

    Now, everything you said in your post (none / 0) (#59)
    by tigercourse on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:02:58 PM EST
    is true... but wasn't everyone around here pissed off at the idea of government intervention in the financial markets, and wanted private industry to come in and clean up their own mess? Isn't that what McCain is proposing?

    It obviously won't work, as Paulson apparently says, but it seems like that's what alot of people here wanted.

    Not I (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:07:30 PM EST
    Sam I Am.

    BTD will you follow the white rabbit? (none / 0) (#77)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:00:30 PM EST
    If the Dems really believe a bailout is needed (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    THIS WEEK, they should pass their own dang plan, and let the Republicans stand by and watch.  If Bush vetoes it, it's on him.

    The fact that they think they need Republican cover tells me they don't believe that - they are not willing to bet their political futures on the belief that we need a bailout this week.  

    Either that or Obama is not willing to do anything that is not bipartisan unity.

    No one has convinced me that the Federal government has to step in this very week, or even month, to prevent a total meltdown of the country.  If that is the case, then it is too far gone already for this plan to work anyway.

    Can't we for once have a real debate on the problem, and the pros and cons of multiple solutions?  Why do the "solutions" to the most important problems get thrown together in a week?  This whole conversation is just insane.

    Not too far gone-- yet (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:51:42 PM EST
    From Steven Pearlstein's latest column in The Post

    "The financial situation is now downright scary. Don't look at the stock market -- that's not where the problem is. The problem is in the credit markets, which are quickly freezing. I won't bore you with technical indicators like Libor and Treasury swap spreads, but if you talk to people who work these markets every day, as I have, they report that the money markets are in worse shape than they were last August, or even during the currency crises of 1998.

    "Banks and big corporations and even money-market funds are hoarding cash, refusing to lend it out for a day or a week or a month. Even the best companies are having trouble floating bonds at reasonable rates. And the shadow banking system -- the market in asset-backed securities that ultimately supplies the capital for most home loans, car loans, college loans -- is almost completely shut down.

    "People are so nervous, and there is so much distrust, that all it would take is one more hit to trigger the modern-day equivalent of a nationwide bank run. Financial institutions would fail, part of your savings would be wiped out, jobs would be lost and a lot of economic activity would grind to a halt. Such a debacle would cost us a lot more than $700 billion."
    There is still time, but the window is closing fast.


    so F them (none / 0) (#85)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:02:02 PM EST
    take the 700B and start a nationalized bank...

    if that's the way banks want to play it...


    Well, that was thoughtful! (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:13:00 AM EST
    Thanks ever so.

    when a kid with a ball takes it and (none / 0) (#98)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    goes home because he's not able to shoot on every play, then I just find another ball..

    the banks want to take their ball and go home, let them...they'll come running back when they're not making any money...


    I'm mad about that too (none / 0) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST

    I'm not willing to punish the country with President McCain in order to punish the DNC. The DNC, and the Democratic nominating process, needs some serious changes. But you're kidding yourself if you think that will happen after a McCain win.

    I do carry 2000 and 2004 in my heart. Primaries and caucuses are inherently different than Presidential elections. That doesn't mean that they don't need to be fair. But if McCain is elected, there isn't an election in the country that is going to be fair, ever again.