Obama Releases Statement on Bail Out Bill

Sen. Barack Obama is campaigning in Colorado today. He has released this statement on today's Bail Out vote and John McCain's specious response.

“This is a moment of national crisis, and today’s inaction in Congress as well as the angry and hyper-partisan statement released by the McCain campaign are exactly why the American people are disgusted with Washington. Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to join together and act in a way that prevents an economic catastrophe. Every American should be outraged that an era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and Washington has led us to this point, but now that we are here, the stability of our entire economy depends on us taking immediate action to ease this crisis,” said Obama-Biden campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

< Fort Dix Terrorism Trial Underway | N.C. Poll: Obama Takes Lead, Especially Among Independents >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good statement (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM EST

    Yes, a good statement. But what's he going to (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    do about it?  What is he personally going to do to see that this mess is cleaned up?  Any one of us could have issued a statement saying that this needs to be a time to come together for the good of the country.  I want to know what he is going TO DO.  Why didn't he tell Pelosi to cut the crap and just try to do whatever was necessary to pass the bill if that's what needed to be done?  They are this-tight if you believe what you read.  So Pelosi went to the floor with this bill knowing there was a good possibility that it would fail.  Why?  Why couldn't she have waited until she was sure of passage?  This is the Democratic leadership?  

    I still think Sen. Obama should be in the (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    Senate at present.  No flashy announcment about suspending his campaign.  Just go there and see what's going on and what you can do on behalf of the people of the U.S.  

    That's what a real leader would do. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    This problem was exacerbated by McCain injecting humself directly into the the mess.

    So Obama is similarly incompetent (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST
    at working with Congress?  That's really what you're saying?  Then -- we're really screwed for the next four years, either way.  Think about it.  Perhaps you want to put it another way. . . .

    No that is not what I am saying (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    I am saying going to DC  and injecting a partisan 24 hour news cylce plus populist radio, etc into the mix will will make a bill that deals with incredibly complicated material that is at a populist level unpopular, impossible to pass.

    What Obama is doing is correct.  He is talking to Paulson, talking to experts, and leaders of the Democratic party via the phone in a mature, relaxed manner and trying to get a bill passed that offers a solution.  



    Dude (none / 0) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    A hybrid FDR-Reagan couldn't get this thing through congress, the only person I can think of in the last century who could will this thing through is probably LBJ, seriously when was the last time we had a President who could actually push his will through congress at sometime other than complete national emergency (which is why Bush in 2002 was able to push his crap through-- try to find a similarily simple way to run for the bailout instead of against it).

    Reid asked publicly that McCain get involved, put (none / 0) (#111)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    pressure on the Repubs. I posted a link to video of Harry Reid saying this.

    Then, he used McCain's coming to DC against him.

    If this went down, maybe Repubs got PO'd at what Reid did.


    no they both are too polarizing... (none / 0) (#110)
    by laila on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:32:18 PM EST
    based on what they are running for...there is no way to let go of that power move on either side.  they should keep their distance until the house can get over this...

    Presumably, he could apply some pressure (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:03:50 PM EST
    to those Dems who voted no today.

    Presumably he and Pelosi can count yet they (none / 0) (#11)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:09:03 PM EST
    didn't have enough of a margin.  Why did they bring this to a vote if they weren't sure of its passage?  Stupidity, utter stupidity.

    The Republicans promised more votes (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    than they could deliver.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    why, oh why does Pelosi or any Dem trust these people? How many times does it have to happen before she realizes that she's being played?

    Oh, I think the Republican Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    wanted to get the votes. Their lame excuse about Pelosi's speech kinda proves it.

    Why oh why do any Dems trust any Bushies! (none / 0) (#107)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    Maybe they need to listen to people outside of the Maladministration.

    It's the Dem who are pushing the Bush Doctrine (none / 0) (#134)
    by insanelysane on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    screw you economics, and it's the House Republicans pushing against Bush. Nancy was with Paulson and Bush from day one.
      I am relieved to see the R opposition and the questions being asked are by the R's.
     If O was a leader he would get in there and come up with a bi part-plan and see that it gets done.
     Or... can we have Hillary back now?

    The Dems delivered every (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    aye vote that had been counted. Twelve Republicans reneged. Twelve more votes would have passed the bill.

    Yes...but the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:24:29 PM EST
    only needed 10 votes to swing from no to yes to carry the day.

    Can't blame the Rs for everything.


    No question that the Dems (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    should have whipped some more votes to get this through.

    No, they played politics. (none / 0) (#26)
    by alexei on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    You know, Lucy and the ball with Charlie Brown and the Dems fell for it again!

    Except... (none / 0) (#34)
    by prose on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    that if you are watching the pundits, they are pissed at the GOP.  Like McCain's "suspension" folks are seeing through their BS and calling this what it is - a failure on the part of the GOP that cost investors like me thousands today.

    That much is obvious. What I'm asking is why (none / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    did they bring it to a vote?  Surely Pelosi had to have known she would get stabbed in the back?  Maybe she did and that's why she gave the partisan speech.  She should know by now that she can't trust the Republicans, especially this close to the election.  The smart thing to do would have been to continue to work on something that would pass, something that was good.  Now the failure is going to just put people closer to panic.  Most of Main Street doesn't understand exactly what is going on, all they know is that somehow they may be in trouble, somehow their money might not be safe in the bank, somehow they may lose their job, etc.  What I'm saying here is that they rushed this thing through without thinking of the consequences.  Why the haste?  

    I think she did not know that she (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    didn't have the votes.

    I mean, if you presume that the Republicans are always negotiating in bad faith and will never stick to their word, then why even bother to keep Congress in session?


    If she's Speaker of the House she better learn (none / 0) (#49)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    to count better and learn who to trust and who not to trust.  It's her job.  And it isn't negotiating in bad faith or good faith, it's called living in reality.  And the reality is that the Republicans will screw us over every chance they get.  Especially if they have a chance to make us look bad.  They've done it over and over and over again.  Why should today be different?  These people are not voting for their country or for their constituencies.  They are voting for themselves, reading the tea leaves on which way it might fall when their next election comes around.  I am sick of the lot of them, Democrats and Republicans alike.  If they had voted for their country all along we wouldn't be in this giant sh%t pile.

    What about the 95 (none / 0) (#86)
    by rennies on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    Dems who voted no? Why blame the Republicans? Couldn't she have whipped any of these 95 into support?

    I'm not blaming the Republicans. I'm blaming (none / 0) (#101)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    Polosi.  She brought it to the floor for a vote without having all her ducks lined up.  Doesn't matter where the votes come from so long as there's a majority for what you want.  The point is that she knew she had lost some Dems but she thought she had a lot of the Repubs in the can.  She didn't!  I'm saying she's a lousy leader because she can't count, she hasn't learned who to trust and not to trust, etc..  I'm blaming Pelosi.  She's supposed to the the LEADER of the House.  Sheesh.

    Some guy on MSNBC said Pelosi promised to deliver (none / 0) (#109)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    120 Dem votes; 140 or so voted for this, per this report. (Caught this on the fly in a store w/ bank of TV's tuned to MSNBC).

    yep! (none / 0) (#17)
    by alexei on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    Absolutely but meanwhile... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    Marcos has a new post up about how Congress did the right thing. I swear I don't even know why I go there anymore. The good news is that I no longer associate Obama with his insane cheerleaders there anymore. They don't get him at all apparently.

    Markos is dead wrong IMO (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    Does he think he isn't going to feel the fallout from this? Ugh.

    I think he accepts the fact that we are (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    all going to feel this and now it is just a question about how much pain for how long.

    I agree with Markos in many respects (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    I don't like the bailout bill either, and I think a lot of people view it as a corporate sellout.

    I also don't like hasty legislation created to respond to singular events, now matter how terrible. That's how we got the Patriot Act and numerous bad crime bills (usually named after a crime victim.)

    Act in haste, repent at leisure. It's better to take time and draft the best bill possible.

    On the other hand, I think it could be a mistake to try and put homeowner relief in the bailout bill, as Kucinich argued earlier. Why not do them one at a time and take up the most pressing first?

    As for the stock market and the economy crashing within the next few days, once a good bill is passed, it will come back. As I heard Bill Clinton say last week, "Never bet against America."

    Again, I'm no economic expert, this is my personal opinion.


    How many more banks should we allow to fail (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    before we get a "good" bill? What makes you think we will get a better one?

    Roubini doesn't think the Paulson Fix will work-- (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    it's a wealth transfer, not a real infusion of capital into the money stream.

    RGE Monitor--says registration, but not needed.

    I'm glad this thing is slowed down. A Bloomberg analyst (I posted link, but maybe not here--must check) predicted the Paulson Fix would need $5 Trillion (yes, the amount with the "T") to succeed.

    Roubini has called the situation correctly so far--I put some trust in that when I evaluate his objections to the Paulson Fix.

    Also see Bernhard at MoonofAlabma.org.


    Uh Oh (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I have a partner in crime now.

    Make (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by chrisvee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    that three.

    number of failed banks since 1934 (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:33:56 PM EST
    2000-2007: 32
    1990-1999: 925
    1980-1989: 2,036
    1970-1979: 79
    1960-1969: 44
    1950-1959: 28
    1940-1949: 99
    1934-1939: 312

    I don't know how many we should let fail, but historically speaking bank failures have been far more dramatic than this.


    Aren't there simply fewer banks (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:40:31 PM EST
    in existence at this time? I'm not sure a historical comparison like that is going to be any more accurate than comparing the value of $5 in 1975 and $5 in 2008.

    good q (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    I will have to research and find out as I am not sure and it definitely should be included.

    at the end of 1980 (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    there were 14434 commercial banks.  

    Right now there is approx 9500.  

    I have to pick up my chitlings so i cannot do the math but we have roughly 35% less banks than we did at the end of 1980.  And with 8000 consolidations in the 1980's my guess is that the number of banks is more likely to be like 10% less than the late 80's and 90's.

    So 10% less banks, heck even 25% less banks than the 80's still puts us no where near the S&L level of failure statistically.  Unless I am missing something.


    number of banks (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    From the end of 1983 through the end of 1994, the number of in-sured commercial banks declined by 28 percent, from 14,461 to 10,451.

    There it is.. f+banks+in+US+in+1980%27s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us


    it should also be noted that (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    the 10 largest (financially speaking) until WAMU and Indy happened under Reagan/Bush.  In fact, republicans were in the WH for the bulk of the failings during the last 30 years.  I don't know what that means but it sure ain't pretty.

    My problem is..... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    ...that a lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck through no fault of their own and most of these people work for small businesses. (Not me, I have an extremely secure job.) My husband works for a small, but successful, media company and they couldn't meet payroll for a couple of pay periods because the company they used to handle their payroll went out of business and their assets were frozen. They were able to borrow money for the short term until the mess got straightened out. That was a year ago. In this climate, I think they would be screwed. And the people who would have been hurt the most would have been the most junior employees just starting our their careers.

    I don't understand all of the details either, but I am really worried for a lot of working class people out there. I myself will be fine.


    Lordy Lordy help me (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    I'm agreeing with that dude who made that women's studies comment :)  I agree with him viscerally at this moment.

    I think some of those people cheer just to hear (none / 0) (#9)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    themselves cheer.  I haven't been to the orange site since early this year so it may be different now, but back then a lot of the posters just didn't have a clue.  All they did was repeat stuff they read or heard somewhere else.  I'd bet money that the ones you speak of today don't have the foggiest idea what is really going on with this bill and this mess.  I'm college educated and had a 25+ year career in the real estate/finance business and it is hard for me to understand all the intricasies of the bill, and even harder to try to comprehend what might happen as a result of this mess should it not be cleaned up in a way that gives people confidence in our financial system.

    kos's post acknowledged that (none / 0) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:45 PM EST
    passing the bill might be the right thing, but it's better for the Dems to have the chance now to draft a different bill, one with more punitive measures against CEOs.  Yeah, more punitive measures against CEOs would be nice, but was it worth a 700 point drop in the Dow, and the continuation of the credit freeze?

    I just started going back there at the end of last week because I am feeling better about Obama after the debate, and I figured the Clinton Derangement Syndrome had burned out by now. I see that Clinton Derangement Syndrome has been replaced with new syndromes. Although to be fair, some of the diaries, and a lot of the comments, are not in agreement with kos.


    What's good about it? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    Framing this as "inaction" by Congress? How is that a good frame, especially since Obama was going to vote for the bill -- a rather odd way of showing outrage, if you ask me.

    Of course, Obama has to dance with who brung him, so rather than praising Congress for listening to the voices of the voters and rejecting a terrible bill (and offering a better one: HOLC), he's got to run the tired old partisanship riff....


    Problem, Lambert, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    is that this bill was the best we were going to get, and I now have no doubt that the economy needed it.

    The Republicans killed the bill, with assistance from some demagogic leftists, and now we will all reap the whirlwind.


    So, the Dems will cave completely.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by alexei on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:18:31 PM EST
    because they just can't propose their own bill and then sell it to the American people?  No, Lambert is right.  Pass a better bill and play hardball.  This Post Partisan garbage is defunct - Republicans never meant to pass this bill.

    I'm sorry you can't see (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    that there was probably no better bill to be had.

    I think you are being politically stupid.


    "No better bill to be had?" (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    You mean at that moment.

    There is always a better bill to be had.  Timing.  Leadership.  Discipline.

    If there isn't "a better bill to be had," we are all doomed.


    What's that sound? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    I've been told that's the sound of wisdom.  I'm finally getting old enough I can faintly hear it but I have little faith in it. Everything must happen now or else I might realize that with each passing day I'm beginning to wrinkle around the edges.

    Just wait.... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    the edges disappear entirely and most of what's left is wrinkles!

    The 'edges' seem to take up residence in attitude, though, so not all is lost.


    You know andgarden (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    I realized that our problem is "Never cry wolf."

    The hard left progressives think that there is no bullet in this gun. They think this is Iraq 2.0. They think that GWB is the little shepherd boy running around screaming "the WOLF is comming the WOLF is comming" for the 3rd time.

    What some people don't realize is that this time the wolf might very well be real. The congress is like a guy scrambling to load up their shotgun to scare off the wolf and there are people running around going NO, don't bring a shotgun take a sub machine gun, here, just give me a month and I'll put together a REALLY powerful gun.

    Meanwhile all the sheep are getting eaten.

    It may be that there is no wolf here. But there might well be. This is the disaster of a government that has lost all credibility. No one trusts anyone to tell them what is real, and you can't trust the media either. In the smokescreen of chaos and ambiguity eveyone is using the crisis to push their pet ideological agenda.

    We are well and truly a f&*^%ckd nation. And I don't just mean financially.


    Along the same lines: (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST
    if just today another failing bank was rescued w/o government money, even though disaster was supposedly inevitable if the bailout bill was signed before the Asian trading began today, is the bailout bill necessary or not?

    Second question:  is Sen. Obama relying on economic advisors from the same school of thought as the advisors of the Bush administration who favored deregulation and very low interest rates?  

    I'm submerging these questions in a reply to your post because I have zip background in economics and don't want it to show toooo much!


    first paragraph: "was not signed" (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    Two answers (none / 0) (#90)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    1. Just because banks are not going under at this time, does not mean much to me. The stuff I am reading tells me that the crisis is LOOMING not that it is fully under way. To use a metaphor it is like people trying to shore up a bunch of loose rock that is about to avalanche.

    IF the wolf is comming, i.e. IF the avalanche gets under way there will be a tipping point where incaction will start a domino effect that will be impossible to stop.


    Oh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    and answer number 2.

    I am not paying attention to Obama right now. Whoever his advisors are I am 100% postive that they are better than McCains.


    See, if Obama's economic advisors (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    (as opposed to his political advisors) are telling him not to endorse TARP, I'd like to know who they are and how they differ from the folks who got us here.

    Well it's certainly a fair question. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    I would also like to know the answer.

    "Help from some demagogic leftists"? (none / 0) (#87)
    by rennies on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    NINETY-FIVE Dem noes, to 133 Yeas.

    Oops, 140 Yeas (none / 0) (#88)
    by rennies on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    Including.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ks on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    Obama's co-campaign chair - Jessie Jackson Jr. who voted NO.  

    Ah. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    Wow! That is an interesting vote! (none / 0) (#118)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    Why not try option 4? (none / 0) (#142)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
    As BTD suggests. I'd like to see Bush veto it.

    Sheesh, who's got the leverage? The guys who want the trillion, or the guys who have it?

    Let's see the Dems exercise a little muscle, just for once. What are they scared of? That Broderalla won't talk to them at parties?


    lambert you hurt your credibility (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    by tying everything to your opposition to Obama. You aren't going to agree with anything he does, and that makes your opinion less credible.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#143)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    ... but when Obama does stuff thats IMHO good, I post in support of it, generally under a variant of the heading "Better". It's not my fault he hasn't given me a reason to do that on the bailout. However, I still have hopes of getting his attention! Thanks for sharing your concern.

    thanks goodness for lambert (none / 0) (#146)
    by bridget on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:16:30 AM EST
    a lot of bloggers have been hurting their credibility nonstop for the last year and a half but lambert is not one of them



    Normally the bipartisan thing is a bit much but (none / 0) (#60)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    This time bipartisanship is literally the only way to go- this bill has to be bipartisan its the only way to get it to pass-- Congressmen at risk aren't going to back it unless they have cover, and frankly as bad as this bill is (and lets be clear that while bad, this is a stark improvement over both the intial Paulson proposal and the frankly illogical GOP counter-offer: seriously, the "insurance" bit basically makes the public take all the risk in return for small "premiums" and if there is a turnaround we get nothing for our troubles, the only concievable upside is that if the GOP thinks Financial Institutions deserve non-profit insurance then surely they can't argue that the public shouldn't get the same with reagrds to health care).

    McCain just read a statement (none / 0) (#37)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    claiming that Obama and the Dems "infused partisan politics" into the bailout crisis.

    Yet, at the same time, he is still accusing Obama of phoning it in.

    When will his nose start growing?


    That statement was priceless. (none / 0) (#45)
    by indy in sc on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    He spoke about taking politics out of this--did he read the statements released by his campaign while he was in-flight?  Appaarently not.

    Laughable statement.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    Every American should be outraged that an era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and Washington has led us to this point, but now that we are here, the stability of our entire economy depends on us taking immediate action to ease this crisis

    In English, Burton is saying we should give greedy irresponsible enitities in DC and on Wall St. several hundred billion dollars to stabilize an economy destabilized by greed, irresponsibility, and incompetence.

    Dropping several hundred billion dollars in cash over high foreclosure areas would likely prove more effective.  But that ain't just either.


    Not address the real issues, as usual (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    Why are millions and millions of Americans willing to let the market collapse?  Why are Congressmen being crushed by calls, letters and emails from their constituents pissed off with a bailout plan?  The callers and the bloggers are going nuts over this.  I've never seen people more strongly against something that most would think Americans would support.

    It didn't take days to get into this mess and it's not clear that the $700 billion would solve the problem, since no one is telling these financial houses that they are responsible.  No one has been made accountable.  No one has been made to explain what happened.  Just give 'em money and let it go away.  That's not right.

    Obama is not listening to the American people.  He's only coming up with some flowerly words to keep his distance from this mess.  As usual, the statement is hollow in the core, no real substance.

    Still waiting for his brilliant idea for this mess...

    Brilliant idea? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    We don't need to keep reinventing the wheel.  There are models for what to do and what not to do.

    And not just FDR and the Great Depression.

    Anyone remember the 90s?  No, not OURS, navelgazers...the rest of the world's 90s.

    Remember?  Sweden in '92?  The rest of Scandanavia and then...the Japanese?

    Determined ignorance outweighs history's lessons every time.

    It's not MY Democratic Party any more...and I doubt 'the movement' can solve this.


    Um your examples (none / 0) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:25:50 PM EST
    Are extremely hard to adopt, Sweden- Nationalized much, much smallers banks and is far more tolerant of a command economy style system.

    Japan- Was a integrated Command, economy which was stagnant due to its political system being co-opted by business to degree to which we would be appalled (seriously, their political party system is in larged part organized around a hierarchy of corruption down to the local precinct/voter level, think the Philly "Block Captains" writ nationwide).


    Adopt? No...but learn from. (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:32:58 PM EST
    Cookie-cutter approaches are for the lazy and unimaginative...surely there is a basic lesson in the success of the Swedes as well as one in the failure of the Japanese and the different routes they chose when facing similar problems.

    Whatever the differences in our cultures and governmental structures, math is still math and numeracy is no different in one place than another.


    The problem is (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    This is far easy to run against than to run for, and frankly both sides are going to play to the populists, you may disagree with Obama but seriously can you tell me a way to fix this that is: A) Politically Safe (Otherwise there is literally no reason for any person not in a safe seat to back it) and B) Reasonably certain to work quickly (again a slow solution like what Volker did in the late 70's early 80's to kill inflation would be political suicide-- what incentive do Congressmen have to back a bill that while correct, will work slowly and thus kill their careers?)

    RE: Not addressed the real issue, as usual (none / 0) (#149)
    by WorkingGrandma on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    This American for one is not fooled by the scare tactics used by the politicians...the big money investor...Republican or Democrat...has more to lose than I do.  

    I do not believe they (the investors/bankers and etc) are going to let themselves drowned in this cess pool of greedy peers.

    They, the politicians, will come up with a good plan as soon as they get the message that people like me can't lose much more and don't really give a darn if they sink or swim anymore.

    Most of John Q Public have seen it coming and felt it already, so this recession we are in and the possibiilty of a depression is not a new revelation to most like myself.

    You can bet that most Politicians have got their hands in part of this messy pot or know someone who has...both Democrat and Republican.  So what the final decision will come down to will be decided by the politicians who have the least to lose and maybe still have some 'scrupples' and maybe would really like to get this country back on a good solid financial & political footing for themselves and for John Q Public.



    I know what you mean. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    What is the difference between them again? I need to be reminded. And if we are going to go to Hades in a hand barrel, why not roll the die all the way with Nader? What a crazy day.

    Heh. Based on how times (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cosbo on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:13:30 PM EST
    Obama agreed with McCain....it's Pepsi McCain, Coke Obama. I am so incredibly disillusioned and cyncial right now, that I'm starting to think like George Carlin.

    Carlin...or Sam Goldwyn... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    as in "Include me out!"

    I needed a chuckle today, so thanks for the reminder...just thinking of Carlin brings a smile to my face.

    Can never look at a menu without thinking of George:  "jumbo shrimp" indeed!


    We saw Carlin not long before he passed. He (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST
    was still as funny as ever.  What a genius.

    Nader? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    Surely you jest.

    There is a limit to what presidential candidates can do. McCain's attempt to inject himself as a "leader" was totally counterproductive. If Obama had made himself more visible, the GOP would probably have been even more resistant.


    I'm just in a throw all teh bums out mood today. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    Amen sister.... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:42:02 PM EST
    We should foreclose on the whole lot of 'em.

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself...there is no certainty, only opportunity...when the going gets tough, the tough get going...necessity is the mother of invention...fool me once...pick your motivational cliche and imagine a world without Goldman Sachs.

    For once I see a little hope...enough lowly House reps, both D and R, may have listened to their constituents for a change and put the brakes on this puppy to the chagrin of all the big shots.  Imagine that.


    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:18 PM EST
    was deleted for including profanity.

    Oh, Lord. (none / 0) (#35)
    by cosbo on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    Sorry, it wasn't like the economy was crashing or anything.

    Honestly... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by prose on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    I don't think Obama or McCain can lead on this.  It isn't possible in the political environment of running for the presidency.  Non-answers are what we can expect.  We saw what happened when McCain tried to get too involved in the process.  I think Obama and McCain need to talk about what they'll do next year, but let the congressional leaders work out what is to be done right now.

    I'd like to see Obama answer these (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    questions posed by David Sirota:

    Anyone who thinks we should pass the $700 billion bailout bill as is needs to answer a simple question: How does handing over $700 billion to Wall Street help the economy any more than, say, handing over $700 billion to homeowners, or spending $700 billion on a New Deal-style full employment program? In fact, you have to answer an even simpler question: How is handing over $700 billion to Wall Street a BETTER way to save the economy than helping homeowners or investing in the economy?

    If he believes in this bill, convince me, and other unconvinced Dems.

    What will you do (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    if you can't get paid because the bank that keeps your company's payroll fails?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    it would be a good thing if some of the candidates would start explaining it the way you have been. The GOP has framed this as a "wall street bailout" and the Dems have done NOTHING to counter this narrative. Pelosi, Obama or somebody needs to get out there and sell this idea and tell the public WHY we need it.

    PS. I'm with you on the credit. However, do most voters know this? I would imagine not considering how they are against it.


    I'm with you on that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    The Dem messaging sucked because some tried to play petty populists.

    Pelosi is many things but (none / 0) (#58)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:31:33 PM EST
    populist she ain't.

    I'm not talking about Pelosi (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    Marcy Kaptur is at the top of my list.

    I love Marcy Kaptur! Concise, witty, to the point. (none / 0) (#123)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    And she doesn't buy the WH BS.

    As well it might, (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    since it is Bank of America, one of the first to buy up the failing institutions and worthless assets.

    I guess I will do the same thing I would do when my country fails under the weight of all the bad debt it would accrue under this bailout. I think both scenarios are equally likely.


    Give a Major Speech on it.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by sallywally on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 08:53:21 PM EST
    and really answer the questions.

    Someone needs to do this. And clearly not Bush, or short bits by Dodd, etc.

    We don't need more "threats" of what will happen if we don't do something ASAP. Not that we don't need to hear that if it is true. But who will summarize it for all the American people?


    OK- Surreal Moment here (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:50:19 PM EST
    McCain and Obama Agree on Deal (not so suprising, they along with virtually every major contender in 2008 are centrist- interestingly the third place finishers for both the GOP and the Democratic Party were populists- Again thank god the Republican Money Men couldn't stand a Social Conservative who actually believed the Biblical obligations to help the poor, Huck would be fricking nightmare to run against right now), and more oddly both the Daily Kos and Free Republic oppose the Bailout which frankly is something I really can't remember happening ever, seriously our base and there base both hate this thing, wtf?

    Non-rational believerpeople (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:56:38 PM EST
    tend to fall into the same traps.

    No surprise there.

    Join 'the movement!'  Stuff you can believe in!

    I need some chocolate (but not Cadbury's Chinese).


    It's actually kind of funny (none / 0) (#96)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    Both sites (or at least a good portion of their readership) are now taking credit for the bailout failing, and hailing this as a banner day.

    OMG...sigh... (none / 0) (#138)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    Oregon has 5 member of the House (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:00:13 PM EST
    All 3 Democrats who endorsed Obama voted against this bill. Our 1 Republican and the sole Democrat who endorsed Hillary voted yeas. Would more forceful support of this bill from Obama have changed their votes? I don't know.

    My rep, Blumenauer, campaigned ferociously for Obama. Calls to him were overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. People don't like that the bill lacks anything to help homeowners keep their homes; they don't like the very squishy guidelines about curbing executive compensation; they want very clear and strict rules requiring equity stakes for taxpayers.

    And nobody has explained in clear and specific language just why this must happen now. Nobody should believe anything that comes from the Bush administration, and Paulson is part of the administration.

    Worse.... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    Paulson is a member of the admin. and Goldman Sachs.

    Conflict of interest?  Hello?


    It would be very interesting (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:13:10 PM EST
    to get an overall sense of what callers, letter writers (if any), e mailers are telling their representatives in the Congress.  For example, do they trust Paulson, who vastly expanded Goldman Sachs indebtness?  

    God Help Me (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    Please allow the American people to rise up in the streets tomorrow and DEMAND the outster of Paulson immediately!!!!  The man belongs no where near the writing of the bill that must be written and passes!!!!!!

    The American people failed to make their wishes pressed upon this administration and this congress where war is concerned, let us not fail again.


    MT, you are losing it. (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    But, before you go completely off the rails, how about posting a photo of your son's Auburn casts before they are removed?  

    That's a better idea (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    than worrying about something I can do nothing about other than rant :)

    And don't forget to save (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    those casts.

    They stink, they are evil (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:05:29 PM EST
    I'll have to buy one of those giant zip locks :)

    The real problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    we are in an election season and both parties are playing politics. It is absurd that both sides are blaming each other. It seems to me the Paulson plan was terrible and the Democratic plan was still flawed. We need adults in Congress now to settle this. And frankly I don't want McCain or Obama in DC because it sends a signal that it's all a political show. One example of the absurdity was McCain this morning taking credit for the bill in Ohio before it failed. I don't think the voters are that dumb. At least Obama is talking about the need for bipartisan support.

    So True (none / 0) (#115)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:37:28 PM EST
    Seriously, this is pretty much it in a nutshell, I mean I admit I am scared that this is all a "shock doctrine" ploy but, since there aren't any social service cuts this appears to be at worst simply a give away, and frankly while its pretty awful I have to ask if we have a real choice here. All that said you basically cut to the root of the problem, its to politically risky to vote for the bailout if its anything other than an emergency non-partisan thing.

    Err.. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:38:00 PM EST

    Then you cannot have Pelosi (none / 0) (#121)
    by DJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:42:09 PM EST
    et al blaming the Republicans and then wanting a bi-partisan agreement.   There is plenty of blame for both parties.  

    and (none / 0) (#124)
    by DJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:45:12 PM EST
    Pelosi has shown to be a divider in the Democratic Party and in the House.  She does not know how to build consensus.  

    Politics?? Surely not. (2.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    Well, they are both "politicing"...

    It does seem strange that Pelosi with Obama's help couldn't get 10 more Democrats to vote for the bill.

    This was a golden opportunity for Obama to close the deal, but he missed again.

    The version today must have had some very deep seated opposition in the country.

    Now let's see if Pelosi can herd all the cats back in the room, revise the bill and get a vote by Wednesday.... maybe there will be an economy left to argue about.... mnybe not...

    Maybe you should talk to McCain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    and the GOP. 12 votes? They couldn't get 12 more votes? Talk about a failure of leadership. And here I thought John went to bang a few heads in Washington last week to make sure this got done!

    So, what's the plan? (none / 0) (#10)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    Surely Democrats who kept calling this a Republican bill will now come forth with a Plan B...the Democratic bill.

    No?  They don't have one ready to go?

    Maybe they could hold public hearings so we could all get in on the 'what now' discussion.

    Well, they should (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:16 PM EST
    HOLC. Worked for FDR, would work for us. And it rewards the homeowners who kept current, and the banks with real assets who need their balance sheets cleaned up, instead of rewarding the gamblers who put all their money into derivatives -- who deserve to take a bath.

    I'm not sure HOLC (none / 0) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    would deal with the liquidity crisis fast enough. It's a good idea to deal with the problems that started this crisis, but I think its gone past the point where HOLC alone would be a solution.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#141)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:28:40 PM EST
    That's why Newberry's shot of adrenaline concept makes sense to me. Let's get to January...

    So (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    is Obama going to try to round up the votes in congress now? It seems he's been undercut by dems just like McCain was by the GOP.

    What is needed is a bigger commitment from the GOP (none / 0) (#27)
    by prose on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    otherwise this will be a one-party bill and Dems worried about their seat can't have that (interesting that 1/3 didn't vote for it...since that's how many are up for re-election).  Repubs don't have that concern.  They are trying to trap the Dems and win seats, not create a bipartisan plan.  The onus of responsibility is on Republican congressional leadership.  It doesn't even really have anything to do with McCain.

    I have a problem (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    with this whole mindset. If it really is an emergency and it's the best thing for the country then the dems aren't doing the right thing. They are as bad as the GOP and worrying about reelection instead of thinking what's best for everyone.

    If it's imperative that the GOP goes along then maybe it really isn't that imporant for the country? That's the message I'm getting here.


    That's my problem too (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    I don't think either party really believes their own BS about this being a real crisis.

    I think you are confusing the 1/3... (none / 0) (#56)
    by alexei on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    up for re-election with the Senate.  The entire House is up for re-election every two years.  The Senate has the one-third of its body up for re-election every six years.

    Well, no, prose.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    The entire House is up for reelection.  Every two years.

    A third of the Senate every two.

    No doubt you were thinking of them...


    yeah... (none / 0) (#140)
    by prose on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:02:45 PM EST
    I actually realized my error talking with someone about it later and came back to see how badly I got nailed on it.  Thanks for not being too rough.  :)

    Today's Wordsmith e mail (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    seems appropriate:

    with Anu Garg

    The pejorative suffix -aster (meaning something that is inferior, small or shallow) gives us some delightful words when it comes to name-calling. A reviewer brands a poet a poetaster (an inferior poet) and the reviewee might return the favor by calling the former a criticaster (an incompetent critic).

    In the same vein, we can have a philosophaster, an astrologaster, and a theologaster. Lest we get carried away here, let's remember that a grandmaster is not an inferior grandma.

    This week we'll review five words you can use to put people down.
    (PUH-li-ti-kas-tuhr) Image Blocked

    noun: A petty politician.

    From Italian politicastro, from Latin politicus (political), from Greek politikos, from polites (citizen), from polis (city) + Latin -aster (pejorative suffix).

    "The politicaster is looking for small opportunities -- for such pickings and stealings as a careless public may leave for those of his kind. The great politician is looking for great opportunities."
    Samuel McChord Crothers; In Praise of Politicians; The Wall Street Journal (New York); Jan 5, 2004.

    Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. -Ambrose Bierce, author and editor (1842-1914)

    Has Bill Clinton made a comment on this yet? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    Anyone know?  

    Only hear Bill Clinton heaping praise on Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:33:14 PM EST
    Stay on message about Obama.  Giving some advise to Biden on how to handle Palin.

    That's about it.


    I was hoping he'd take a break from that and (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    give some much-needed advice about this.  He's the only one I trust at the moment.

    Frankly (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:29:11 PM EST

    Just as we need a bipartisan solution, the problem is in a lot of ways bipartisan: Bush just pushed deregulation of the financial industry to a greater degree, much like he pushed the Clinton Administration policies on Iraq to a nutjob level (going from calling for regime change, to actually putting American lives behind making it happen).

    Assuming (none / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:47:24 PM EST
    Let's assume the bill is a good thing.
    Certainly it would have "calmed the markets".
    Maybe that's good enough for now. Whatever.

    The fact that it sunk is due, in my opinion, to McCain's little dramatic production. To the rescue, sayeth he. He must preside and balance and go across the aisles and all that rot. The Republican candidate swoops down like Batman and saves Gotham.

    And then there is Pelosi. Supposedly she is trying to garner votes from Republicans as well as Democrats. So what do she do? She says that this bailout bill represents "the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies -- policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."

    Great. That little gem was sure to bring dissident Republicans into the fold. What diplomacy.

    The leadership is this country is so polarized, and behaves so stupidly, that I wonder if we have seen the end of the country as we once knew it.  

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    McCain's fault? (none / 0) (#94)
    by rennies on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:13:58 PM EST
    What nonsense! How did McCain get NINETY-FIVE democrats to vote against the bill?

    How? (none / 0) (#125)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:45:56 PM EST
    Assuming that the bill is a good thing...
    it had to be a non-partisan undertaking.

    McCain politicized it.


    He reached across the aisle? (none / 0) (#131)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:54:49 PM EST
    Paulson said he could get by with $150B thru Jan-- (none / 0) (#126)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    Why not just give him that--and see what he does with it? Yes, he'll be back for more money. But maybe some Dems will hold hearings with alternative views on how to deal with this.

    Why give anyone in the Bush Maladministration a blank check?


    I still think this bill ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    is a dog in principle whatever protections you apply.

    The public sees that.  How could they not?

    I think Congress is actually doing its job.  By not passing the bill, they are reflecting the public's disgust.

    Rep. Udall, who's running for Senate and voted against the bill, said in an appearance on MEET THE PRESS yesterday that the calls he received had been running the gamut from "no to hell no!"

    "Let's give $700 billion to the guys who got us in this mess" is never going to be a winner politically.  Does Obama really want to tie his wagon to this star?

    Answer to your last sentence: (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:14:06 PM EST
    obviously not.

    agreed: (none / 0) (#128)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:51:42 PM EST
    Every American should be outraged that an era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and Washington has led us to this point....

    that said, why should these very same people be rewarded yet again? that is precisely what this bailout bill proposes to do, nothing more or less.

    there are no provisions in it for any direct help to the homeowner's, only the banks and investment funds, the very same people, along with lax regulatory agencies, that brought us this mess.

    i may be one of the few who is less than heartbroken that this legislation failed to pass, but i see it as nothing but giving more money to the people responsible for creating the problem to begin with.

    somehow, the logic of that escapes me.

    The Blame? (none / 0) (#133)
    by MGJams on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    Are they kidding us or just think we're stupid?
    Could the Repubs be the blame for something besides allowing McCain to play politics with our country? YES! They are mostly to blame for this outrage, Lies and Deceit, Borrow and Spend on Corporate America, while commiting whole sale robbery of our economy.Yes it was they! lol  sad to see that they are the cowards who won't admit blame for anything. Borrow and Spend, Lie and Blame, Duck and Coverup, They walk like a duck, talk like a duck and coverup like a Republican, that's their motto, you better believe it!

    Criminy, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    Obama could not deliver Jackson, his campaign guy and all he does is scold?  Wow.  I am floored.  

    Jackson, Michigan (none / 0) (#144)
    by MGJams on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:43:14 PM EST
    Well, hello from Jackson, Michigan, HOME of the Republican Party and I have a surprise for you Stellaaa, lol  Our city is going Democrat and Obama is our man. Now if you mean Jesse,,,
    I can't remember seeing him at many Obama rallies. so where was Obama supposed to deliver him to, the Gallows? lol  well let's face it, The Repubs have a problem brewing in America. Besides losing their Home Town, they seem to be losing the country too. Lies and half truths won't get it anymore.They have had 8 years of full control
    of the country, the Congress(which they hate) and the Presidency, golly, how much more time do you want to give them. The Dems have had a one man lead for two years, with 60percent needed to pass anything and override the Pres, and Reps voting like a pack of wolves,, what do you expect. Ask your President for a loan tomorrow, hell, he has stolen enough for all of you Reps to get loans. Isn't that what the Democrats just stopped? You know it, no oversite? Hey maybe you can get Palin to pray for you not to lose your house!
    Stellaaa! Stellaaa! Stellaaa! LOL

    Geepers...did you even get my point? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:44:51 PM EST
    I guess clueless is as clueless does.  

    How is bipartisanship working for you?  


    Sorry Stellaaa ;-) (none / 0) (#150)
    by MGJams on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:25:52 PM EST
    lol  no your right I must have missed your intent, sorry. But your right,, I'm not bi-partisan and will explain why.As a product of the 60s, I believe in togetherness, but it has been killed by this eight year nightmare.
    I would be if I hadn't just lived through 8 years of the most unpartisan  Administration (Bush)I have ever seen. Almost 45 years and unless it was Nixon, who I liked but didn't always agree with and I thought Impeachment was also called for, these guys have disinfrachised Democrats in a historical orgy of what I think of as a dictatorial rule. I can't be bpartisan until I see that this bunch is gone. I think there is a lesson here. Politicians need to listen to our people and polls are one way which has been completely ignored. As if because we are Democrats, we don't matter. Well I'm here to say we do matter and hopefully will prove it on November 4th. Sorry I missed your intent Stellaaa.

    Bail Out -Fail Bail (none / 0) (#147)
    by WorkingGrandma on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    I do not believe that my tax dollar should bail out these banks, as greed is what got this problem where it is....so let the greedy....put up or shut up....clean up....and learn from their own greed. If they have to take it from their personal bank accounts to correct the problems then that should at least be a very large portion of how this financial problem is solved. For a long time now, banks have bent over backwards to put our young people & others into housing and luxuries they really could not afford.  Double mortages to buy one house.....if the house wasn't worth it and one loan would not cover it.....then perhaps the people who bought these houses could not afford them or probably just as true....the house was really not worth the asking price. (I personally know people who have bought houses like this....and they truly believed that it was okay because their financial institute said it was okay and even helped them find the other loan institute for them. This whole mess started back when the farmers of our country were going bankrupt...to me is very similar to what happened to the farmers...land prices out of reach and banks encouraging farmers to just keep borrowing and buying.  I know farmers whose land was not worth what they paid for it.  They mortaged everything they had to buy ground that was not worth the asking price and it wasn't long and these same farmers were trying to figure out why they were going bankrupt. Again the banks allowed and encouraged people to do things they would not otherwise done.  So today we have large farming corp and the small family farmer is pretty well gone.  And our land is owned by people that do not even live in our country.  Whatever happened to the way of thinking that something is only worth so much and you do not pay more for it just because you think you want it. That is consumer greed, the other side of this mess. The one true realistic statement I have heard from Obama so far was when he said that McCann really does not get it. It is true the every day man and woman has been effected by the state of our economy for a long time now.  And if Mr. Bush and the rest of our political leaders have thought that this country was in such good financial shape then why are they now wanting "the tax payer" to bail out these greedy people who have got themselves into a big mess.  

    The Big question? Republican or Democrat (none / 0) (#148)
    by WorkingGrandma on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    Anyone who thinks that one politcal party is the cause of this mess...really is not thinking.  The Big Money is spread out nicely in both parties. (Have you ever known a poor or middle class Politician...Republican or Democrate?)  

    And yes this whole mess comes back to even we...me and you...Mr. or Mrs. John Q Public. We have for too many years used charge cards and paid ridiculous interest rates for things we have purchased. Young people given credit cards by their parents even while in high school and not taught that the credit card originally was a way to buy a 'real need' when the pay check for John Q Public did not quite cover until the next paycheck came.  The smart user paid the bills as soon as they could and only used the charge cards for things they needed and very rarely for things they wanted. Today there are young adults and even some older folks who think that just because one card is at it limits...just go get another one...thus we have young adults who will not be out of credit card debt for many years, unless they learn to "Just Say No" to these banks who want to give you special this and special that if you just use their credit card.

    The argument about what political party caused what is just political campaigning.....there are certain factors in each party that have succomb to greed.  Just remember that when you vote...vote for the man and not necessarily the party...no matter what side of the political coin you feel most comfortable laying claim to today.

    We all have to do our part to correct this mess and for Mr. or Mrs. John Q Public it may mean going back to getting what you need and not spending money you do not have, thus not filling the Republican and Democratic speculator's pockets.

    It is a good thing to deprive ones self of some things; in order to continue to grow and prosper at a reasonable rate...and you can quote me.