The Democratic leadership had tremendous leverage.  I truly believe that if they'd said "no deal" without a homeowner bailout and some sacrifices on the part of those benefiting from the bailout, they would have been able to get most, and perhaps all, of what they wanted.  Barrack Obama is the leader of the party that controls both houses of Congress. He has probably an insurmountable lead in the presidential race. His popularity and influence is enormous. He will almost certainly be the next president.  He himself has said that he spoke with Sec. Paulson, either crafting the original bill or, more likely, formulating the Democratic response. Yet, this bill is the very best he could do?  Or is it that he does not care about the same things as the rank-and-file of our party?  Perhaps he does not share our values?

The fact that there is nothing about homeowner relief in this bill is an insult to rank-and-file Democrats everywhere! This was the main thing that the rank-and-file wanted in return for a bailout and we go nothing.  Nothing.   And I would respectfully disagree with BTD on this point: This bill has zero protection for homeowners and you may be absolutely certain that none will be forthcoming in an Obama administration.  The bailout, even the modified Dodd-Frank proposal, is extremely unpopular in the country----with conservatives and liberals alike. Considering that fact, Obama and our party leadership will never have greater leverage to enact reform or to help homeowners than they have right now.  So, the question for BTD really does present itself: What exactly do you think the Obama administration will do in the future that it wasn't willing or desirous of doing today? And why do you think it?

This package is not worth $700 billion.  It does not meaningfully alter the system of excessive with executive compensation that got us into this situation.

It requires no sacrifices of any kind on the part of bank executives, investment bankers and people like Warren Buffett. It provides no new regulations on Wall Street's use of derivatives. The plan includes only a single provision that was a part of the supposed Democratic agenda, namely, equity participation. But, as I say, even that is of doubtful value to taxpayers since there is no fixed formula for the equity interest we receive. In short, the Dodd-Frank plan is a lot like the original plan but with a couple of fig leafs added to fool the rubes.

I am not prepared to make a gift of taxpayer money to Paulson's buddies on Wall Street. Not $700 billion, not $500 billion, not $100 billion, not anything.

Tnjen linked to Naked Capitalism, which has recording of call on torrent.

You know they say that you need second, third opinions for medical problems? Bcz to surgeon everything looks like it can be solved with surgery, so you should check with some other specialists?

Well, maybe to a Wall Street operator every problem looks like it needs some that special financial "wizardry" which made the Fat Cats to very wealthy recently. More of the same. Since most people don't know that much financial terms and even underlying actions, it's pretty easy to bamboozle them.

Have Dems been had by another Big Bamboozle? As they have been had by so much BushCo has done during the two Maladministrations?

Looks like it--and when things are done in secret, makes it even easier to bamboozle and spin and obfuscate.

Oh, my! Per local public radio, House vote is now underway!! Jim Moran is now thanking Barney Frank for saving Americans economy. And it's a good deal for the American tax payer. Hey, what could go wrong? Looks like "debate" is on, leading to vote.

Many who vote for it will face tough re-election challenges in 2010.

Throughout this crisis, there has been chatter and attempts to stop the freefall in Housing prices -- something that is counter-productive. Unless we want a Japan like decade of recession, we need to allow the various bad assets to seek their own levels via the open market.
...
A classic example of this misguided asset price focus is in the Bailout's suspension of mark-to-market pricing:

SEC. 132. AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND MARK-TO-MARKET ACCOUNTING.

(a) AUTHORITY.--The Securities and Exchange Commission shall have the authority under the securities laws (as such term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)) to suspend, by rule, regulation, or order, the application of Statement Number 157 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board for any issuer (as such term is defined in section 3(a)(8) of such Act) or with respect to any class or category of transaction if the Commission determines that is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors.*

... Former SEC Chair Arthur Levitt lectures the Congress on why mark-to-market is so important.

"That's why it's both dismaying and puzzling that as Washington debates the Treasury's bailout proposal, some of the largest banking and financial services trade groups are aggressively lobbying the SEC to suspend the mark-to-market, or fair-value, accounting standard currently in place, and to oppose any expansion of it.

To ask for a suspension in fair-value accounting is to ask the market to suspend its judgment. These trade groups claim that the fair-value accounting standard has distorted banks' balance sheets, and has contributed significantly to the market's volatility.

On the contrary, that gets things backward. It is accounting sleights-of-hand that hid the true risk of assets and liabilities these firms were carrying, distorted the markets, and have caused investors to lose the confidence necessary for our markets to function properly."
...
The plan as it is currently constructed fails to recognize that Housing prices still remain elevated, more foreclosures are likely, and that another 10-20% downside in real estate is quite likely.(My emphasis)