McCain's Stunt Stalls Bailout Negotiations

Instead of working towards a fair, effective and appropriate proposal and solution for the credit/mortgage crisis on Wall Street, John McCain's stunt has led to an impasse:

[Senator] Dodd complained that late complications were making the episode sound more like “a rescue plan for John McCain,” the Republican presidential candidate, than one for the country’s financial system. It does no good, Mr. Dodd said, “to be distracted for two or three hours by political theater.”

The senator was apparently alluding to a growing revolt by conservative House Republicans against the proposed $700 billion rescue, and the fact that Senator McCain has not yet endorsed the plan, whose concept runs contrary to the policy positions he has taken for years.

(Emphasis supplied.) Country first my as*.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Sarah Palin: Bailout is About Health Care Reform | McCain's Plan To Break The Deal: Less Regulation, Accountability and Protection >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD do you want a bill passed? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    If that much moola is being handed out to banks, it'll never come back. And the next president is hamstrung.

    I'm in agreement with you tonight (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:12:24 PM EST
    The Dodd bill (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    was agreed to until John McCain pulled a political stunt and now Boehner is backing out of the deal at McCain's behest.

    Are some of you really not getting it?


    Well it is hard to follow. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    Most of the commentary was about the debate shennanigans.  And for the record this crisis stinks to high heaven.  

    fork over that much cash and you may as well resign yourself to no healthcare reform, no school building etc.  Call me a simpleton if you wish, but I am inclined to let the banks go under and take the punishment in exchange for a longer term goal.


    So it's time for a Dem "stunt" (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    if that's what it takes to get what sounds like a better bill that the Dems would do, per BTD's comment above.  Since the Dems aren't doing it, there must really be a reason, such as the markets, for the moving so fast on a lesser bill.

    Or not, as it is this Dem Congress.  It would be better if it had a reputation for not caving.


    It is easy to follow (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    There was a deal. McCain pulled a stunt. Now there is not a deal.

    What part did you miss?


    What deal? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    it looks like a ransom demand.

    From McCain (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    If he does not stop the sh*t,. I say pass the whole 9 yards Dem bill and let Bush veto that if he dares.

    No question... (none / 0) (#113)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:16:56 PM EST
    I'm glad if this is true.  No deal then act like a majority and pass a Democratic bill.  Should have been done anyway.

    Not true (none / 0) (#43)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    fork over that much cash and you may as well resign yourself to no healthcare reform, no school building etc.

    Altthough this bill is huge, the total cost will be much less than the 700B authrized.  This isn't a handout or an expenditure.  Real assets are being bought.

    Also, even if the full 700B were allocated, we could still have healthcare reform and education reform if we shift our priorities and tax policies.


    Well, we're not shifiting the priorities (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    as we already heard yesterday from the nominee.  Health care reform will have to wait, etc.

    Any pol would be a fool to promise it now, as they are not being given all the info on this, either.  They know more than us, but not much more, I bet, until the current administration gets out and we can get our hands on some files.


    Right, if Obama is elected (none / 0) (#87)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    We'll have to hold him accountable.  I am still hoping the country will come to its senses.

    well i have been at work all day... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    ...I saw numbers as high as $700 billion floating around yesterday.  I just can't see the final act of Bush's term in good faith. I just can't swallow it.

    Bush (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM EST
    is basically a bystander to this whole crisis.  Paulson and Bernanke are running the show, he's just nodding along with whatever they say.  I watched his speech last night and he just looked so wooden and uninterested.  I think he can't wait to kick back and enjoy his permanent vacation.

    Abosolutely (none / 0) (#90)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST
    Bernanke will likely be with us for a while.  He has a good understanding of the Depression.  He is trying to head it off.  I do not think he is acting in bad faith (though it is possible that he is wrong as Greenspan was).

    Have you thought (none / 0) (#108)
    by standingup on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    thru the consequences of our entire financial system collapsing?  I'm not trying to scare you but just consider the role that these banks play in our economy.  

    The people who are pushing for no intervention to let this settle out in the market where the market determines it's own floor also need to be very clear that they have no idea of where that bottom might be.  If it is anywhere near the one we had in the 1920's and 1930's, healthcare and school buildings will be the least of our worries.  


    Whose pushing that but Republican and other... (none / 0) (#116)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    "free market" idealogues?  Do a Democratic bill.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    I did not know that. And I did not know that Pelosi wasn't going to pass a bill without GOP participation either.

    Not the bill (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:18:15 PM EST
    that was agreed to.

    Pelosi should pass the full blown Dem bill, economic stimulus and all if it is just Democrats.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    I agree with that. If the GOP isn't going to do anything then just forget about them and do what you want. Of course, there's always Bush to deal with and I guess he could veto a bill like that.

    Let him do it then (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:25:48 PM EST
    If he can't bring his party on board, or control the reckless irresponsible McCain, then tough sh*t.

    Again, that is how it should be.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has laid the ground work, people are hopping mad giving their reps h**l and now is the time to be bold and pass the New, New Deal.

    Pass this and get out their and show what they are doing for the American people and show how Republicans are the obstructionists.  If true that McCain blew this up - yea.  Democrats need to take the initiative, and get this done and then spin with the truth like there was no tomorrow.


    YUP (none / 0) (#133)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    Obama will be stuck dealing with this HUGE mess, all this debt and no money for anything else that he wants to do.  It's going to be a disaster.  

    RE: reid wanted him and then he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    I might remind you that Harry Reid said yesterday that McCain needs to endorse this bill essentially because Reid was afraid  the repugs will not go along and it would be a democratic bill. Of course when McCain said that he would indeed come (I sort of see that as a minimum ie he should read it before he signs on and maybe he wants to have some input in the final out come while there is still time) then all of a sudden Reid backtracks and says oh we don't need you (the screams from the Obama campaign probably had a lot to do with it). Make up your mind guys -do you want McCains blessing or not? And if you do it is going to have to pass his muster -sorry that is the bottom line. If there are problems and things are unraveling it isn't because of him.

    Of course with all this we have our wonderful O=blah-blah just floating along and saying whatever you come up with will be fine with me. What else does one expect when the chosen one has never had an idea of his own ever.

    Contrast that to Hillarys op ed in the WSJ -once again a real solution and not just words.

    Ahh those were the days.  

    LEt me remind you that (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    John McCain pulled a political stunt and killed a biparitsan deal in a reckless, feckless irrepsonsible politically motivated stunt.

    The man is unfit to be President.

    Come on PUMAs, tell me what a Leader McCain is.

    Show me what effing morons you all are.


    Wow you are pissed :) (3.00 / 2) (#93)
    by dissenter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:50:16 PM EST
    I'm not a PUMA, I decided to vote for Obama but here is something you better think about from the other side. If this bail out goes through, I'm voting for Nader because I have no other way beside the emails and calls I have sent into a deaf Congress to register my outrage.

    This can cost Obama BTD.....and big. This is a no win vote. It is not a net gain for Obama. And it most especially isn't where I live in CO.


    Many PUMAs do not support McCain (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:50:55 PM EST
    and are working on getting more Dems (and women) elected as Obama's coattail$ aren't quite long enough.

    Of course. A little research would go (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:54:32 PM EST
    a long way.  It has been said before here, though, to no avail.

    There always is need for a scapegoat.


    He's not a leader. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    He'll lead nothing after November.

    It's actually a matter of which faction of the democratic party wins the spoils cum February.

    The left or centrists.


    Salo, are you on the Left, and Obama a Centrist, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    or is it the other way round?

    Just askin', so I know which army to join.


    No, Reid didn't want McCain there (none / 0) (#85)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:44:48 PM EST
    Reid wanted McCain to support it so House GOPers who did not want to support it and then have McCain out on the stump running against them for doing it.

    so Reid rightly saw that the process needed McCain to support it so House GOP would have cover and they would support it.

    instead McCain killed the entire thing by playing politics.

    now I say do no bill let wall street tank until the House GOP and McCain are back a week later begging for the bill to be passed.

    F*ck em, they got us into this mess I say leave it, let the public TRULY see what happen when the GOP ran the economy, and now lets see what they do to fix it.


    Has Senator Obama become (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    involved in the negotiations? Is he going to support a bill drawn by the Democrats? I'd like to see him support the HOLC. Perhaps, if he lent his name to Dodd's proposal, the Democrats would feel more empowered to move ahead on their own. He is, after all, likely to be the president who has to deal with the aftermath.

    Barack Obama would of course (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    support a bill with HOLC, accountability, transparency, bankruptcy reform an economic stimulus package and all the Dem bells and whistles.

    It was the GOP that did not support it.

    In a compromise, the bankruptcy provision was removed as well as the stimulus package.

    In McCain;s stunt killed a deal that was done.

    McCain is an irresponsible feckless, reckless, craven piece of sh*t.


    OK (none / 0) (#95)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    Then what is stopping the Democrats from just submitting their plan to Bush?

    They don't want a politicized bill (none / 0) (#110)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    Pelosi has said they won't submit a plan if it will win on a party-line vote.

    What's wrong with a politicized bill? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM EST
    If it's the right bill, it will be successful, and the Democrats will get to take the bow. Working across the aisle is something Obama says he's good at so if he puts his stamp of approval on it, he should be able to get enough Republicans to override a Bush veto should it come to that. Why are they letting John McCain control this?

    He's not controlling it, he's interfering (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:45:25 PM EST
    It's a critical bill, one that will likely lead to myriad bad consequences even if overall it's a good thing, and as such everyone should hope to see it passed with support from both parties.  If the Dems think it's necessary and the Rs won't negotiate in good faith, fine, damn the torpedos.  Obama, your snide comment notwithstanding, can't work miracles.  He's doing the right thing by staying calm and arguing for sensible and practical measures.

    My comment wasn't meant (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    to be snide. You read something that wasn't there so it must you who doubts that Obama could get some of the Republicans on board. My problem with Obama is not that I think he can't relate to the Republicans, it's that I think he'll be too good at it.

    ya (none / 0) (#122)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    I agree they should just pull the trigger on the bill asap and leave McCain looking stupid.

    Why not? (none / 0) (#139)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:24:31 PM EST
    What a wimpy 'leader'.   If it's a good bill, she needs to get it out there and Obama needs to say that he supports it.  Pelosi and Obama both need to be leaders!  Get out there, find a solution, and lead others to support it!  That's what LEADERS do!  

    I've seen (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    several posters here say that the bailout isn't supported by the public. Does anyone have a poll number to back that up?

    Read the the newspapers from around the country (none / 0) (#106)
    by dissenter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    Congress is getting inundated with calls by angry taxpayers that don't want this bailout. That is the best poll not some skewed thing Gallup came up with.

    Nobody is calling to say, "hey good idea."


    I think (none / 0) (#123)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:53:08 PM EST
    I think MSNBC today had it polled at

    30% for
    30% against
    30% didnt know what to think

    with the extra points sprinkled in there.


    Some polls (none / 0) (#142)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:37:05 PM EST


    I missed a lot of the news today, can anyone tell me if Obama supports the bailout?  What is he urging Congress to do?  


    who owns the rescue? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ricardo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:16:11 PM EST
    Who owns the rescue: McCain or Obama?

    Until McCain called his timeout it was clear that this was going to be the technocrats' rescue of another one of Bush's appalling messes...and McCain and Obama were strictly on the sidelines.

    Happily for us Democrats, Obama's numbers were soaring in the polls and everyone was pointing fingers at Bush.  Obama's victory seemed a foregone conclusion.

    In the course of a day McCain has totally upset the narrative...now it's no longer an unappetizing but foreordained bailout, but a heroic last minute rescue of the economy on the part of John McCain (McCain is already pulling even in Gallup daily tracking) - a rescue that my instincts are telling me will be concluded in Washington at about 10 pm tomorrow while Obama is talking to himself at the Ole Miss debate.

    Obama needs to own this "rescue" fast - if he doesn't, McCain will.

    Right (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:18:19 PM EST
    Go out on the street and find me 5 people who believe in that narrative.  Take as long as you like.

    Is Obama supporting the bailout? (none / 0) (#145)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:35:41 PM EST
    I cannot seem to find the answer here.  

    Sorry, but I have been unable to follow the news today like I should have.  



    And exactly how do you think (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM EST
    McCain's statement that he has come to Washington to create consensus and a bicameral bipartisan bill will play,  with this idiotic alternative House Republican plan, which has blown up the negotiations altogether for the moment? Is it leadership to achieve a blowup of what he said was a critical bill to keep the economy from cratering. What he has promised his public is a consensus, bicameral, bipartisan bill. A really big news clip about that just today.

    How is he going to get from where we are tonight to there? It's already the case that the Dems have said there is No bill without substantial republican support. And the repubs walked out of tonight's meeting.

    Completely aside from how he is going to get around his grandstand play suspending his campaign (but not really) until a bill is passed, and tried to kill the debate along with it, if he shows up at that debate?


    Check Gallup (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ricardo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    Look, Steve, I'm talking politics here and not anything resembling logic in a rational world...McCain is pulling an audacious Rovian switcheroo and Gallup tracking bears witness to it...

    McCain is taking it upon himself to be the face of the Republican rescue.

    And I'm thinking that Obama - not Chris Dodd - should be doing the same for the Dems...

    Again (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    Talk to real people.  No one believes McCain's stunt was a heroic rescue maneuver.

    The Gallup tracking simply does not react instantaneously to events like you want it to.  You cannot look at a number that was announced today and say "see, this proves that whatever McCain did yesterday was a good move!"

    I am not talking logic either.  I am telling you that I have still not found a single person who gives McCain any credit for anything besides a stunt.


    Ok, but where is Obama on the issue? (none / 0) (#141)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    Where's our leader?  He needs to be leading on the issue. I don't see that happening.  

    Dodd is the last person who should be (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by coast on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    working on this bailout.  Thanks Sen. Dodd for Freddie and Fannie.

    It's not (2.40 / 5) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    just conservatives who are against it. It seems lots of liberals like Gailbraith are against it too.

    Do they even need any Republican votes to pass it? Or do they need GOP votes to make up for the Dems that are against it?

    This is what I would expect from you (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    McCain is to blame and you know it but you will play the apologist for him to the end.

    I really find you almost intolerable now.


    I didn't even (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:13:05 PM EST
    mention McCain. I was talking about it getting passed in congress. Sheesh. What difference does it make if the GOP revolts if the Dems have the votes anyway? That's my point.

    OF course you did not (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    Sort of my point.

    Where are the blue dogs? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:51:04 PM EST
    So what is the party line on this bill? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    Seems to be lost in the details.

    The Dodd bill was agreed to (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    in essence.

    McCain's political stunt has blown it up.


    Barney Frank got it right (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    McCain is playing at being Andy Kaufman in his Mighty Mouse costume, singing "Here I am to save the day".

    And he had to blow up the deal that had been reached, to play that role.


    He is a foolish (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    reckless, feckless piece of sh*t.

    Barney or McSame? (none / 0) (#65)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:35:19 PM EST
    IF the latter, you're 100% right.

    McCain of course (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:38:11 PM EST
    Did Obama support it? (none / 0) (#146)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    How did McCain blow it up?  Is he that powerful in the House?  

    Obama needs to get up to the Hill and show some leadership on this.  He needs to lead, imo.


    Nancy has said (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    that they're not even going to bring it up for a vote if it's going to be a party-line thing.

    I can understand why they don't want to own it 100%.  Something has to be done, but it's not going to be hearts and flowers in the short run no matter what we do, which leaves the door open for plenty of demagoguery.


    They have 40 GOP votes in the Senate (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    Here's the thing, if it is a Dem party line vote, then is damn well better be a completely Dem bill 100%.

    Not ONE effing concession. NOT ONE.

    HOLC, bankruptcy, full equity participation, intrusive weekly oversight, etc.

    If Bush can't get some Republicans on board, then he has to swallow the entire Democratic bill.

    ALL OF IT.


    I am with you (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    but time is of the essence and at the end of the day I think it's just gonna have to be bipartisan by hook or by crook.

    The economy is going south no matter what, and I don't think the Democrats are going to let the GOP blame it all on the "Bush-Pelosi bailout" for the November elections.

    The talks were pretty darn productive up until the point McCain got into the process, and I think there are still enough Republicans who understand the stakes that something will get done.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:30:27 PM EST
    Do you really think the GOP will do something? After seeing how they ran congress for 6 years with Bush I really don't have much faith in them. I wouldn't be surprised if they just fell back into their "NO" stance. Heck, it's worked for them so many times before.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:34:38 PM EST
    Look, I've watched the same Republican Party that you have for the last decade or two.  We all know how deep the reservoir of bad faith runs.

    In this case, I'm encouraged by how well the negotiations progressed before McCain decided to get involved.  I didn't see the usual posturing and game-playing from Bush and the usual suspects.  But if they decided to just scrap it all and use this as just another partisan political opportunity, I can't say as I'd be any more surprised than you.

    If it comes down to that and the Democrats simply have no choice but to play grown-up and accept the political consequences, I agree with BTD that they need to just pass their best bill and go from there.  And politically, putting in all those homeowner-friendly provisions will hopefully counter the GOP spin that Dems are the party of Wall Street and they're the party of the little guy.


    I think (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:37:12 PM EST
    HOLC is the key. If the dems pass the bill by themselves then they should have it in there.

    It's odd because i'd... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    ...hazard a guess that the GOP's favourite system needs the bailout and that they will lose their economic position in society if they prevent a bill from happening.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    Thing is, a lot of those Republicans in Congress really do think they're the party of Main Street as opposed to the party of big business.  They got to this point by creating an alternate reality where whatever benefits big business actually benefits the little guy.  Corporate tax cuts mean new jobs and lots of trickle-down profits, etc.

    This crisis doesn't fit into their neat little framework and so they're a little lost.  The average Republican voter hasn't been fed years of propaganda about how this will benefit them, the way they've been fed propaganda about tax cuts and the like.  So that's why there's pushback.


    It's actually an interesting moment (none / 0) (#100)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    and in a way obama is damned lucky that it's happened.

    If he looks like a leader on the issue (none / 0) (#147)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:40:35 PM EST
    He could come out a real winner.  

    woooohoooooo (none / 0) (#27)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    Now you're talking.  I think this is exactly right.
    If the Republicans are going to play games
    the Dems should tell them...our first offer is the best offer and after that everything is our way or the highway.

    Christmas Tree Time! (none / 0) (#34)
    by WS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:23:19 PM EST
    Should have been that way from the beginning. (none / 0) (#109)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    Who cares what the Republicans and that discredited, corrupt, inept and lame duck "administration" wants.  This is for the American people and I am sick and tired of the Dems caving into this sh**t.

    Let them vote against a bill that will give relief to homeowners, health care, alternative energy, etal.  Stop the reactionary knee jerk garbage and be proactive.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:13:51 PM EST
    for answering my question.

    that's basically it... (none / 0) (#28)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    no one knows really what kind of effect this is going to have, other than the fact that there will be a short-term rise on the securities market...

    after that, who knows...all that we do know is that it won't be good news for quite some time...

    no one party is going to want to own this with so much uncertainty...and I don't think anyone can blame them...

    we consider that the original plan was given to us by a Presidency that has more than one time led us astray and made decisions that at least some of us had the foresight to know were bad, even if people argue that everyone makes mistakes...

    instead of throwing this proposition away and starting anew we get a democratic leadership without any cojones...

    pretty much all we know at this point is that the people who know the best won't be listened to, and the people who are listened to are either dumb about economics or totally biased about economics and have a personal interest in what happens...


    Democratic leadership (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    without any cojones? Of course, will it ever be any different?

    not when you have to worry more about (none / 0) (#63)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    what rural America will think (laughingly referred to as the 'middle' of the American  political spectrum) and then intertwine that with what San Francisco will think before you make any decision...

    Does anyone yet know exactly what HP (none / 0) (#152)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    is going to spend the money on? We can speculate all we want if he buyx s X or Y or Z, but don't know what he is thinking of doing, other than that it will include foreign banks.

    Even Dems like Boxer have said they need more details than they have.


    Nancy won't bring it up (none / 0) (#132)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:07:20 PM EST
    If they don't have the votes to pass it?  No duh.  Not exactly a news flash.  

    Don't be an idiot (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:11:59 PM EST
    The Democrats have a majority in the House.  They would win if it were a party-line vote.

    If you want to respond to my posts like I'm stupid, make sure the offender isn't you.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#148)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    I don't think that you are stupid.

    Why is everyone so angry about this issue?  Surely not because it's making McCain look bad, because that is great for us.  


    It's not a question of how many Dem votes (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by rdandrea on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:43:13 PM EST
    Dems aren't going to pass a piece of sh*t on a party line vote.

    Both sides are going to agree or it won't come up for a vote.

    This whole situation is bad.  And any bill that deals with it is automatically a dog.

    Republicans caused this problem.  Democrats aren't going to put their @sses on the line to solve it.


    McCain (none / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:07:51 PM EST
    "My Ass First, Country"

    I'm at the point right now though (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    where if we do THIS bail out we can't help anyone much after that, we can't do healthcare reform and so many other things it isn't even funny.  Maybe it should stall, maybe it should fail.  Look, I'm willing to give up my invested funds for universal healthcare.  It's a much better deal in my mind.  Throw some decent pay raises in there for Social Security and I'll call it good.  It doesn't change much in my near future but it changes everything for the working poor, poor, and elderly.

    I'm inclined to agree. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    I'm not a centrist who is invested in the Status Quo.  I want Status Post Bellum.

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM EST

    I'm not convinced the crisis ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    means no UHC.

    In fact, I think it might mean the opposite.

    In real terms, UHC would decrease healthcare costs, and would help the economy.

    This crisis may in fact force insurance companies to join us on the issue of UHC.


    It requires some sort of eminent domain (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    buy up the insurance company assets and buying out hospital owners.

    That's the reality. It's a short term expense that is now going to be out of reach.


    Actually, no... (none / 0) (#107)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    ...there are two ways to get this done without ED or buying out companies/facilities.  

    The Feds already have a health plan and provider network (contracted hospitals, specialists, physicians, etc.) through its Medicare/Medicaid products and the administrative support to run it, pay claims and all the other functions that a HMO/Health Insurance does.  Keep and expand the existing provider contracts and the "back office" and put a plan out there.  They can issue the Federal coverage and allow BigHealth to continue to do business proving private, "added-value" coverage to those who can afford it and/or want extra coverage.  

    Or, you regulate the heck out of BigHealth and tell them who they must cover, what coverage they need to provide and at what cost.  

    BigHealth is not much more than a middle man when you get right down to it.  They may loose either way, but at least some of them would survive.


    That would just be an excuse (none / 0) (#50)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    If we can avoid a recession/depression, the total cost of this plan will not be anywhere near 700B.  If we can't, then UHC will be the least of our concerns.

    Tell it to McCain (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
    who has decided to pull a political stunt and put the deal in jeopardy.

    I don't think you're getting it ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    healthcare costs are one of the primary reasons that middle class is hurting.  And the weak middle class is at the root of this financial crisis.

    IMHO, solving healthcare is one of the things which needs to be done to fix this economy.

    And with a weak and weakening economy, insurance companies may finally see the value in UHC.  In the way that many individuals, small business and even some large corporations already have.


    recently teh Dems have been depending on (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:40:19 PM EST
    excusing themselves becaus eof Bush's effing presidency. This is the perfect excuse.

    I think ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    in all likelihood this election is over due to the financial crisis.  I think Obama has this all but locked up.    

    But I'm also not convinced this bailout is the right thing to do, even with Dodd's well-meaning provisions included.

    And I know there's a large segment of the public who just objects to the bailout on principle.

    So, if McCain were to reject the bailout, could he benefit from that politically?

    McCain benefits politically (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:37:10 PM EST
    only if he comes out aginst the plan tapping into the resentment in the public against the bailout.  Then if the markets don't tank, he will look good.

    He also benefits politically if he comes out for the plan in opposition of his party.

    He could also benefit if the Dems cave in and adopt the Conservative Republican alternative.

    This is a stunt on McCain's part and an attempt to profit politically from the crisis.  I hope Obama doesn't let him get away with it.


    I think the Dodd bill is good (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    I think adding a stimulus package is good.

    I think HOLC is good.

    If this is just going to be a Dem bill, then damn it, it better be a Dem bill.


    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by dissenter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    Look at this from another direction. If the bail out does not go through and the economy tanks (which it is going to anyway) it will open the door so wide for direct loans from the Govt...Just like the car manufacturers got today.

    You can get what you want and more without a bail out. Plus they will slap serious punitive regulations on Wall Street. The democrats in my opinion are too stupid to figure that out and frankly, so are the right wing republicans because when this all goes in the crapper...Roosevelt type intervention is what is coming.

    There are NO assets behind all of the junk paper.  There is no recovering the money. They will modify this thing down the line and the Dodd version will be tanked anyway.

    This is a three month fix max. People need to start thinking long term. They need to start thinking about the real root of this problem and that is a country that makes nothing. We move paper.

    Anyway, think about it. The great reckoning is coming either way.


    absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:42:09 PM EST
    This particular socialist believes in  blackmailing CEO's, not the other way around. I suppose we are about to find out what's what with the left in the US.

    I'm with Salo ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:49:52 PM EST
    this is the Left's chance to rise to the forefront for the first time in more than a generation.

    And by "the Left," I don't mean centrists, or liberal types.  I mean the real Left.


    Tell it to Obama! (none / 0) (#153)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:55:51 PM EST
    He could come out strong on this, show some real leadership!  

    I agree with you on ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:32:25 PM EST
    stimulus and HOLC.

    And I wholeheartedly agree that a Dem bill should be a Dem bill.

    I just think the stock market and housing prices have a long way to drop before they stabilize.  So a bail-out of this size may just be throwing good money after bad.

    All that said, I still wonder if McCain were to stand up against the bailout (even for stupid reasons), could that bear short-term political fruit?


    Nope (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM EST
    I think it will be McCain's nadir.

    Yup (none / 0) (#151)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:51:48 PM EST
    McCain would be on the side of the people, against the big fat cats.  No bailouts for rich people!   He'd be for the little guy who is busy working hard and paying his mortgage.  He'd be fighting his party, and Capitol Hill, and the President!  What a maverick!   I can hear it now.  

    I've thought all along this is what he will do.  Obama needs to get out front on this, support the bailout or not.  He needs a strong position, show leadership on the Hill, get something passed,  before McCain jumps in front of him to 'stand for the masses against the fat cats AND the politicians' or some such silly thing.  


    Can you tell me? (none / 0) (#134)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    Does Obama support the bailout?  I've been trying to find out.  I apologize for not following the news today as closely as I should have due to some family issues.

    Why does it (none / 0) (#16)
    by WS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:15:42 PM EST
    have to be $700 billion?  How are we going to do our other programs?  Is Bush just fear mongering or is it really dire? Its so sad when people don't have trust in their leaders.  

    That's my question as well (none / 0) (#37)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:24:59 PM EST
    How did they come up with the $700 billion figure? If the securities, the mortgages, are basically worthless at this point, and there's no way of knowing how much they will bring back in after they are auctioned off.. how did they settle on $700 billion? (Please don't throw stones at me, economic experts -- I acknowledge my lack of understanding the details.)

    I wish I could remember exactly where I saw this (none / 0) (#51)
    by CCinNC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:29:41 PM EST
    but I'd swear someone at Treasury said they just wanted a "big number."  There was no other reasoning behind it.  I'll try to find that quote.

    Yep (none / 0) (#57)
    by CCinNC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:31:48 PM EST
    This was answered yesterday (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:30:54 PM EST
    "It's not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number."

    Yes, that is an actual quote from a Department of Treasury spokesman.  I kid you not.


    Criminy (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    This administration really is a case of the monkeys being at the controls.

    Now I know why I'm not rich. I always charged my clients the same hourly rate instead of pulling a number out of my hat when they asked me for an estimate.



    Someone from Treasury admitted (none / 0) (#62)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
    they threw a dart at the wall.  They needed a "Really Big" number to get everyone's attention about how "Bad" the situation is.

    It is based on delinquent mortgages (none / 0) (#78)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:41:30 PM EST
    They may want some cushion for other debt.  Auto loans and student loans are apparently showing similar issues.

    I really recommedn this article.

    Assuming it comes into existence, there are still numerous risks surrounding the TARP. The first is that it does too much. At $700 billion, the amount allocated to it easily exceeds the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) estimate of roughly $500 billion of residential mortgages seriously delinquent in June, out of a total of $10.6 trillion, though that figure will rise.

    Thank you for the link. n/t (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    Goddess, why are the Dems agreeing (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    to this sum, then?

    Sure, it's in installments.  But the bottom line, the total, is still $700 billion.


    Because it will be a bi-partisan bail-out (none / 0) (#129)
    by bridget on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    Wall Street didn't give the Obama campaign all that money for nothing.

    Gramm or Rubin, same thing. McCain or Obama, what's the difference here?

    Instead of carrying on about McCain and his grandstanding manner which is nothing new -

    True liberals should say NO to the Obama spirit of bipartisanship and fight to refuse the  hand over of money to the thieving financial system who expect to be rescued ... only to do the same thing again and get the money next time around from our kids.

    Reps or Dems - The rescue policy was always the same and that's why Obama was collecting like no tomorrow from Wall Street. AFAIK he received more from Wall Street than McCain. What does that tell you.

    Except media and Obamacans kept mum about it during the primary making sure everyone didn't forget that Obama got most of his Campaign money in nickel and dimes ....


    My thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#136)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:14:51 PM EST
    Why are democrats supporting this?  Why are we agreeing to pay off all these mortgages for people who should never have gotten these deals?  Are democrats going to pay mortgages for everyone?  The responsible and the irresponsible?  I'm not keen on paying the bills for those who lied to get mortgages they couldn't afford, on houses they had no business living in.  jmo  

    It's not (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    It's $350B

    Was $350 billion in the Dodd deal (none / 0) (#48)
    by WS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:29:01 PM EST
    before McCain ruined it.  The news people keep saying its $700 billion so I'm confused.  Who said $350 billion.  

    The deal agreed to today (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    McCain's political stunt blew it up.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    There are two opposition factions: those who want to help McCain score a point and those who are worried about opinion among the grassroots.  I read earlier that some GOP legislators are getting calls from constituents at the rate of 90 to 1 against the bailout.

    I'm not sure how many Republicans belong to each of the two groups.  McCain is clearly playing 100% politics.

    I've also heard that the recalcitrant Republicans are pushing some sort of alternative plan that involves mortgage insurance.  I don't know the details but hey, it's at least worth taking a look at the merits.

    My guess is that teh bailout... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    ....will prevent a Democrat from doing reforms in the next four years and likely leave that Dem as a one term failure.

    So It's rather amazing to see conservatives characterize the bailout as a socialistic measure.  It's the very opposite IMHO.  It looks like piracy.


    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    From my Wall Street perspective, the next four years look pretty friggin' ugly if there's no bailout of any sort.

    In terms of the treasury being dry, let's not forget that the treasury was already dry.  There's a lot of stuff we want to do that we won't be able to find the dollars for under any scenario.

    I have enough history as a Democrat that I've conditioned myself to settle for baby steps.  Realistically, the Democrats have to improve their reputation with the electorate for governance and maturity before we're going to be trusted with any kind of radical change.


    seize power, ram the reforms down the throat. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:49:11 PM EST
    That's what i'd do to be frank.

    Steve ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:02:22 PM EST
    for people on Wall Street this going to be bad either way.

    I think you can expect something akin to PTSD on the Street over the next few years.

    I suggest dusting off Louis Kelso's books and giving them another read.


    Shrug (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:27:55 PM EST
    Not me, my job is marvelously counter-cyclical!

    My opinion is that without a bailout, there will be an incredibly rough credit crunch that will be really ugly for Mr. and Mrs. Middle America.  Now, I'm not pretending that because I work on Wall Street I have some kind of monopoly on the truth, but I do have an opinion.


    People will have to qualify for their loans? (none / 0) (#137)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:17:13 PM EST
    Like back in the day when people didn't live on credit?  When people didn't over extend themselves?  When people only bought what they could afford?  

    Sounds good to me.


    Insights (none / 0) (#29)
    by jccleaver on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    You can get more insights into the general Conservative (or conservative) thought process at National Review's The Corner blog

    Apparently, here are some of the principles the House side is working for...


    McCain is already (none / 0) (#26)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST
    trying to take credit for "rescuing" the economy.

    From Politico:

    UPDATE: The campaign now says that McCain "will remain in D.C. tonight as he continues to take action in brokering a deal that will address the crisis as well as protect the taxpayer," and that "no further travel plans have been made at this point."
     (Emphasis mine).

    Who is really supposed to believe that Mr. "I don't really understand the economy as well as I should" is brokering this deal?  Particularly when it seems there was a deal before the meeting with Bush and there suddenly wasn't one after it.  If I were a democrat or republican doing the real work on this, I would be pissed at this grandstanding by McCain.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:23:15 PM EST
    Did that message come from the suspended McCain campaign?  Do they still have someone answering the phones?

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    I didn't even notice that. Apparently a suspended campaign can still put out campaign statements.

    Sure. Suspended campaigns keep staff (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:52:35 PM EST
    and fundraise and much more -- just as Edwards did, just as Clinton did.  

    McCain hardly was going to let his staff go!


    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#99)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM EST
    Steve's post was meant snarkily.  Mine was too.  Of course he didn't shut off all the lights--that's kind of the point.

    The point is that McCain used the term (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    carefully, and if anyone thought it meant he was going to do much more, they didn't understand the term.  Of course, that included many in the media.  But they didn't understand it when Clinton used it, either.

    I.e., it's almost a meaningless term, and especially after the primaries are over.


    He BROKE the deal (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    HE is brokering jack sh*t.

    Yesterday Republicans were saying (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    they wouldn't back anything McCain didn't back. (or was it the day before?). McCain could have stayed where he was.

    Sounds like Bush is also a problem according to a Dem talking on Dobbs at the moment. And Pelosi/Reid reacting to a sky is falling is a problem. Congressman Sherman is who was talking


    Blaming MCCain for breaking the deal (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    is true and politically smart.

    I would agree there for Dems (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:57:48 PM EST
    but they don't seem to have a consistent message before they start talking ;) The Republicans were on message when they were stepping out and saying they would support what McCain supported, which ever day that was.

    Was it a good deal? (none / 0) (#138)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:20:36 PM EST
    Why?  I am asking because I really don't know, but generally, I am against my tax money going to bailout these guys who screwed up.

    NO! (none / 0) (#144)
    by ks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:17:32 PM EST
    It was a classic 10% less evil move.  They still got 350M of the 700M upfront and agreed to some weak tea provisions to give everybody else cover for the other 350B they will get later.

    The man is a joke (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    Even Robert Bennett, Republican on the Banking Commmittee, said in this morning's NYT piece that McCain's politicking was a big stunt and that any bipartisan agreement was succeeding in spite of his games..

    McCain camp says bailout is dead....and..... (none / 0) (#83)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    Washington Mutual disappeared tonight, its assets will be bought by JPM Chase.

    Once the markets (none / 0) (#88)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:46:04 PM EST
    realize McCain just 100% completely politicized the issue, expect markets to take a huge drop tomorrow as they realize that McCain and the House GOP just about insured it will be a while till a bill is out.

    The Seattle Times article I just read (none / 0) (#112)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    says "some" of the assets and banks will be taken over by JPM Chase. Not sure what that means for those that don't get bought out (Wells Fargo is, purportedly, also interested in a deal with WaMu?) Not sure WaMu had any other choice but it's going to be a hard kick in the knees for depositors. Not to mention the bank employees here who will lose their jobs, adding to the thousands who already have.

    This turn of events is absolutely huge, in the negative direction, for Seattle.


    And the West in general. (none / 0) (#119)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    WaMu has a decent sized banking presence in Denver as well.  Lots of mortgages too.

    On the brightside, your economy is Seattle is pretty diverse these days.  That helps in tough economic times.  As long as everything doesn't go down in short order.


    I'm still nervous, MileHi. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    Our housing prices have been seriously overinflated for at least five years now. Our unemployment rate is way up and, depending on whom you believe, our state government will either be facing a deficit of $3.2 billion next year, forcing massive cuts in social and health services, or.. well, we really don't know.

    But I do understand that WaMu is all over the west and feel badly for anyone who has a mortgage or any kind of account with them.


    could look at this way (none / 0) (#84)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    So, this may be the last time I am every thankful for John McCain, but "thank you John McCain. Your glory seeking and complete lack of economic understanding has served your country well today."

    At this point efforts should continue to make sure that backbenchers in both the House and Senate continue to refuse to sign off on this mess. No good bill is going to come out of this Congress with the help of this administration. Kill the bill, give Paulson a hundred billion or so on strict strings just so that Bernanke and him can't blame Congress for the continued economic and financial deterioration which will occur no matter what is done, and go on holiday. January 20th a new Congress can start over with a new President and try and do it right.

    If it weren't such a horrible terrible thing and inflicting so much pain on so many, I'd be LOL

    The Debate must go on (none / 0) (#101)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:55:39 PM EST
    and McCain and Obama must take turns telling the country things we don't want to hear about why the plan is needed and which particular provisins are important.  Whoever does the best job of persuading the country is the debate winner.  That is the kind of leadership we need in a president.

    I would LOVE to see Obama take a (none / 0) (#140)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    Leadership position on this issue.  If he is going to be a real agent of change, he needs to be on Capitol Hill leading the charge, convincing others to support his ideas.