WaPo Poll: Americans Hate Bailout, Upset It Did Not Pass

There is such a misconception about how the American People feel about the mortgage/credit crisis Wall Street bailout. Of course everyone hates it. Who wouldn't? But the American People know the problem must be addressed. The latest WaPo poll demonstrates this:

Most Americans see the current financial situation as a "crisis," and there is overwhelming concern that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic recovery package will deepen the problem, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. . . [N]early nine in 10 expressed concern that the failure of the bill could lead to a more severe economic decline.

From a purely political perspective, something must be done. But what? Here is where the Democratic leadership should grab their chance to enact a progressive proposal. The WaPo poll says:

[F]ew voters said the package did enough to protect "ordinary Americans," and nearly half said it did not go far enough to shore up the nation's economy. . . . [O]n the particulars, about as many voters said the plan rejected by Congress did "too much" to help major financial institutions that got into trouble as said that the bill did "too little." Nearly half said the failed plan did not do enough to help the broader economy, and more, 61 percent said there was insufficient assistance for the general public.

That the bill did not go far enough to aid the public is a view shared by Democrats (69 percent), independents (59 percent) and Republicans (50 percent) alike.

The American people want the progressive Democratic plan. The Republican rejection of bipartisanship makes it a layup now for the Democratic leadership. Adopt the Democratic plan. Oh by the way:

Asked to assess responsibility for the legislation's failure, 44 percent said Republicans were the reason, 21 percent said the Democrats and 17 percent said both sides were responsible.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Candidates' Rosh Hashana Video | Looking For A New FDR >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think the Democrats should (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by barryluda on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:42:08 AM EST
    put together a  progressive Democratic plan and then put the existing plan to vote one more time -- saying that, in the interest of "Country First" -- they want to give a bi-partisan bill one more shot.  Should it be again voted down by the House Republicans, they should immediately put up the Democratic plan.

    I sure hope that's (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    what they are really working on at this moment, during the holidays.

    Why? (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    Why put up the same plan; the bi-partisan plan that was rejected?

    The polls are showing that the public already gets it.

    Was the plan in the interest of "Country First?"

    I think NOT.

    Get it out of your mind that bi-partisan is something wonderful and patriotic. IT ISN'T.

    In the political climate of the last 30 years bi-partisan always screws the average guy and for that reason harms the country.

    This is a time to put out a Democratic plan. A plan that includes an HOLC type plan.  That element alone benefits everyone from Main street to Wall street and it is a partisan plan. Put out a plan that will lead to the development of stringent regulations and that will benefit everyone from Main street to Wall street and it is a partisan plan.

    Etc., etc., etc.


    Democratic Plan (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by WS on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:45:03 AM EST
    would get entangled in the Senate.  If the Senate Republicans don't filibuster, we can maybe pass it but judging by their history, they probably will filibuster.  

    Another idea would be to cut the bailout to $150-$250 billion with strict oversight.  

    Then (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:18:44 AM EST
    we call their bluff. This is the problem with Democrats. Completely unwilling to play hardball.

    When promoting a dem bill the dems can push the middle class, the struggling homeowner, and site the many economists arguing for HOLC like projects. If the Republicans want to play chicken I say lets do it.


    Nerve (none / 0) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    If Republicans filibuster a progressive House passed bill the public will have their hides.

    I don't think they'd dare. It's just possible that their time has finally run out.  I find it encouraging (I'm rarely encouraged) that the plurality of the people blame Republicans for the failure in the House.

    A good House bill would contain oversight as the bill rejected yesterday contained.

    Liberals and conservatives rejected the House bill for different reasons.


    "44 percent said Rs were the reason" (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Finis Terrae on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:46:54 AM EST
    That is very good news for the Ds.

    Is it good news (none / 0) (#62)
    by Prana on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    for the Ds?

    Overall, voters split about evenly on the failed bill -- 45 percent supported it, 47 percent opposed it.

    So more opposed it than supported it and it failed to the delight of those who opposed it.

    So when 44 percent said Republicans were the reason it failed and 47% opposed the bill then a plurality of the public is happy that the bill failed and that can be looked at at positive points for the Republicans.

    You really have to look at both sets of numbers to decide who profited from the failure. In this case the republicans profit slightly more.


    Which roughly ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    reflects the House vote.

    Examine the findings more closely (none / 0) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    From the Wapost article:

    Most Americans see the current financial situation as a "crisis," and there is overwhelming concern that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic recovery package will deepen the problem

    I didn't care for the bill but it was better than nothing and vastly better than the Bush Administration's bill.

    You have to understand that there were several  different questions asked.


    I read the article (none / 0) (#84)
    by Prana on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    and saw that question and it does not negate my response to the post I was replying to. Different topic. Apples and oranges.

    As to the question you brought up even though "most" people feel there is a crisis, and there is some crisis we just don't know if it has mostly played itself out, the plurality don't support the bill that was voted on. In fact last night on Tavis Smiley he asked Governor Jon Corzin if it was true that emails and calls were 10 to 1 against the bill and Corzine acknowledged that is what he heard. And over at Glenn Greenwald's blog he quotes David Cay Johnson writing:

    But faced with as many as 200 telephone calls against the bailout for every one in favor, a lot of House members decided to listen to their constituents today instead of their campaign donors.

    So the bill was unpopular and there was obviously more action taken by voters to vote it down than to pass it. And even those who were for it probably wished for better but were reacting to the Bush scare tactics that a lot of Republican congress people rejected and the Democrats who rely on millions of dollars of Wall Street contributions were more than willing to put lipstick on it and try to pass it for Bush.

    BTW I disagree with: "better than nothing and vastly better than the Bush Administration's bill".

    "Better than nothing" is how we get bad legislation and "vastly better" does not hold up when you read the fine print of the bullet points we were sold.


    Excuse Me...What is the Dem Plan? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:51:16 AM EST
    I haven't heard anything of a Democratic Plan other than HRC's editorial to regenerate HOLC (which I  agree with). All we've heard so far is Dodd and Frank trying to put lipstick on the Paulson/Benarke pig. But as Greenwald points out, the Dem leadership [cough] is nearly as entrenched with Wall Street as the republicans. What kind of plan will they make?

    I don't think they will. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:19:28 AM EST
    But I do like to fantasize about it.

    I think I'll start emailing that poll to (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:51:54 AM EST
    Representatives who didn't vote for it.

    the repubs are sure doing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:59:17 AM EST
    all they can to blame Pelosi. I saw rove on "the factor" last night and the gall of this man is unbelievable, he said that he was "appalled" at the Dems "hyper-partisanship" and Pelosi's speech was "among the most vicious partisan attacks I have ever heard." Either the man has a gigantic set of cajones, or he is a complete lunatic.

    Could you imagine (none / 0) (#9)
    by WS on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:04:00 AM EST
    the Republicans somehow won the Presidency.  They'd be chortling and say the American people don't want "big government liberals" or "tax and spend policies."  We have a chance to remake America just like FDR did and for disappointed Hillary fans (like myself), she can continue Obama's good work in 2016.  

    Who are these people polling? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:00:17 AM EST
    I'm hearing the same in my office and on the street that I heard on Fox and Friends this morning...they had a reporter in a Dunkin Donuts in Eastern PA, nearly everyone in the joint was strongly anti-bailout/rescue.  These aren't anti-establishment whackjobs like me either, these are people invested in the current system with 401K's and mortgages and such.

    Maybe the American people are finally finding some guts...refusing to be extorted and willing to take a hit to do what is right, both morally and for the long term strength of our nation.  

    We blew our chance in response to the 9/11 attacks and let the bastards rob us blind...this time people are putting their foot down.  No mas.

    Or Maybe ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    One or more of the following:

    They don't understand that lending is drying up - commercial interbank lending for now, but soon to expand to businesses and then to individuals.  That is the crisis that has people like Krugman and DeLong supporting the Paulson Plan as imperfect as it is.

    They either don't have 401ks and/or pensions or haven't looked at them since August 30th.

    They don't realize that this is a slow motion crisis - kind of like a huge storm surge.  You wake up one morning and the water is up to your knees.  What is happening now is that the Fed and the FDIC are dealing with weakened institutions one by one basis.  The Citigroup takeover of Wachovia was engineered with the government agreeing to make good on losses if they top $42 billion.  The bailout (for depositors not investors) of WaMu and Wachovia is happening now on a piecemeal, under the radar screen basis.

    Or - many they just don't like the capitalist principles - after all, these people that got the huge comp packages did so legally.  Would anyone in the Dunkin' Donut shop turn down a bonus?


    Oh come on (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    what had Krugman supporting the bill that failed in any way, shape, or form was his belief he couldn't get anything else.  How easy we just all rollover but he wasn't freaking out last night like the crowd around here.  There is no evidence that the failed bailout would free up interbank credit either, it what people hope happens.  Last night on Count Down Krugman said it was a really crappy bill and he didn't whip out a crystal ball and begin making dire predictions due to the bill failure, he wasn't freaking out.  He seemed pretty calm.  He said he didn't know what could/would happen but there was no reason for people to panic.  What Krugman would be fully behind is a bail out with oversite that recapitalized the toxic assets (he said that much too last night) along with the government being given preferred shares in whoever we have to bail out so that my children and grandchildren don't have to pay for everybody's golfing buddy getting off the hook!  The doomsday crowd around here sure likes to pin things on Krugman that aren't his.

    My foot is down (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:31:09 AM EST
    That's the spirit.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:06:18 AM EST
    the American "can do" spirit that has laid dormant for too long.

    Now if we can get the fraidy-cats to look beyond their investment portfolio...


    Once they are fired (none / 0) (#61)
    by Gabriel on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    because the company loses its credit lines they will change their mind pretty quickly.

    Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    Though I am of the opinion that I came to my current job looking for a job, and I will leave here looking for a job.  It ain't like the old days were employers and employees had loyalty.

    Even in a depression like total collapse worse case scenario, I am confident people will still need holes dug, pipes unclogged, etc...and I'll find someone willing to trade a bowl of stew for a days work.  I will eat and I will survive, so will all of you if you've got any survival instincts whatsoever...and after the hard times we will rebound, without an additional 700 billion-1.5 trillion added to the national debt and more of our tax dollars being eaten away paying interest on old loans every year.


    kdog, gather you are not (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    a child of the depression.

    No.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    But I have eaten for a week on 20 bucks through some personal hard times....gathered with the homeless and downtrodden at day labor sites...so I'm not your average spoiled thirty-something either.

    More than anything, I don't scare as easily as others I guess.  I never had faith in our financial institutions, so there was no faith to be shaken.


    We need new leadership in Washington. Not (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Angel on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:01:46 AM EST
    just for president but for Congress.  Pelosi is a failure.  She demonstrated this yesterday.  Time to concentrate on getting a majority in the Senate and put Hillary as Senate Majority Leader.  Someone other than Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

    I was at a meeting last night and all the women I spoke with hate Pelosi, think she is giving women a bad name.  They love Hillary even if they are Republican.  One lady, whose husband is a financial analyst, said that her husband said this bill was far from perfect but that it needed to be passed anyway.  I think people are going to panic soon if something isn't done.  

    It is a complete leadership vacuum (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by votermom on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    Bush is a dead duck walking.
    Pelosi was looking shell-shocked yesterday. The two Presidential candidates are supposed to be their party leaders but they are both proving irrelevant.
    Not to be cantankerous, but I imagine if Hillary (or let's say Romney or Bloomberg) were the candidates they would be driving their party.

    Yes, and this is what is scary. No leadership. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Angel on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:13:57 AM EST
    None whatsoever.  Just a bunch of big egos pointing fingers at each other.  Do I ever wish Bill Clinton was still president.  Or Hillary the nominee.  Obama supporters, please don't pile on here.  I truly believe that Hillary would have taken charge of the situation.  Even some of my friends who supported Obama in the past feel this way.  No sour grapes here, just fear for what may happen.  

    I've got to make a meeting, so y'all please try to help the idiots in DC find some solution to this problem.


    Both candidates are cowards for (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:26:38 AM EST
    making sure they remain irrelevant on the issue of what must be done.

    This is what I think (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:09:57 AM EST
    Although the bill could pass with enough Democrats voting the Democrats want a big chunk of Republicans to vote with them so if this thing does go sour the Democrats won't have the Rep pointing the finger to them saying,

    Because the majority of this bill was passed by Democrats and failed then it's the Democrats fault not ours.

    However, if it does not go sour and it is passed because the Democrats passed it then it will be a feather on the Democrats side.  

    I feel the Democrats do not feel that confident about the bill yet.

    They (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:16:43 AM EST
    certainly aren't radiating confidence. They are simply too fearful to do anything. It's the same thing they've done so much in the last 2 years.

    You Are on to something here... (none / 0) (#54)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    The modified Paulson Plan is politically unpopular and there is no guaranty that it will work.  

    If they are smart they won't feel confident in the (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    bill ever being able to put a feather in their cap.  It doesn't have that capability.

    Of course, they feel no (none / 0) (#79)
    by seeker on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    confidence.  Who could feel confidence in a plan that requires no sacrifice from the share holders of those firms, was created by a man who came directly from making millions on Wall Street, and provided only hazy benefits to the risk-taking taxpayers.

    The fed injected (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:40:48 AM EST
    600 bn into the market yesterday and it still dropped 777.  The fed has pumped almost a trillion and a half into the market this year.  

    We had 2000 bank failings in the S&L crisis and we have had 12 so far.

    We keep hearing that the problem is toxic mortgages, yet 1+ trillion dollars in the market has done nothing?  We keep hearing that people took bad loans, yet we have nothing in the bill to help those people.  Someone gave those bad loans.  And many of those loans were good in the 2006 economy.

    Remember the 2006 economy?  Unemployment at 4.2%, laborers working, electricians working, carpenters working, loan documentation specialists working, title holders working etc etc.

    Barack Obama was very quick to point out that John McCain never used the word middle class in the debate.  Mr. Obama, in a market with accelerating unemployment, foreclosures and people struggling to put food on the table, your suggestions did not have ONE single mention of how to help the middle class.

    John McCain is done.  The old bill is done.  Give me and the American people some HOPE.  

    Why do we hate the bill?  Because it stabilizes.  Lots of coma victims are stabilized before they go into a coma, but they are still in a coma.  Meanwhile, the doctors, hospitals and health workers are all getting paid and either the insurance company is picking up a portion of the tab or the sick person is destined for bankruptcy.

    We are a nation of people in a coma and we are bailing out the insurance companies so to speak.  When we wake up from this coma our house will be gone, our savings gone and our families fractured.  Meanwhile, the drunk driving financeers will have done their community service and will move on with their lives, their jobs and their finances hurt but intact by and large.

    Do not pass this bill until it includes job creation, home owner protection, unemployment extension and a statement from our next President addressing how we the american people will be protected from losing our homes and suffering a far greater fate than the mortgage lenders.

    I hear a lot of talk about what happens if the bill is not passed, but not one mention of what happens over the next 6 months if it does.  The pols know exactly what is about to happen with UE and what is going to happen to the people who were lucky enough to keep their job until now.  those folks who were not at risk of losing their home today, will be suffer the most next year when they have no protection and are forced to foreclose and file bankruptcy under the new lopsided bankruptcy law passed by these very same politicians.

    This is my favorite part (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:51:53 AM EST
    We are a nation of people in a coma and we are bailing out the insurance companies so to speak.  When we wake up from this coma our house will be gone, our savings gone and our families fractured.  Meanwhile, the drunk driving financeers will have done their community service and will move on with their lives, their jobs and their finances hurt but intact by and large.

    Do not pass this bill until it includes job creation, home owner protection, unemployment extension and a statement from our next President addressing how we the american people will be protected from losing our homes and suffering a far greater fate than the mortgage lenders.

    I wish you were running for President, but we probably wouldn't have nominated you either because you stand for something tangible.


    and i am a bigger as* (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:57:47 AM EST
    than any of the candidates.  thank you for the compliment, you are too kind.

    I don't believe that.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    I doubt you're an arse, but even if you are you're an honest arse:)

    Keep talkin' that sense J...not sure if I totally agree, but your ideas are infinitely better than Paulson and Co. in my book.


    i would be worried (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    about anyone that agreed with all of my espousings as like most people much of it is framed around my life experience which is fairly concentrated or limited.  But heck, I have been to more countries than Palin and have been an executive so I guess that makes me qualified to be vp at least.  And I do think that Palin is smarter than me, just has way too much to learn in too short a time and has not taken much interest in world affairs in her public service time.  

    Too much truth (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    Most people won't be able to digest this much truth all at once :)

    Does anyone here know how much Fed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    has injected into the economy without a bailout plan? All that has to be figured into the cost of this.  And it should probably be publicized for all of those wingnuts who think existing tools will do the job, just what has been done in the interim with existing tools, that is.

    1.2 Trillion in a week last I read on it (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#58)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    they gave AIG a line of credit for $85 billion and yesterday they guaranteed losses for anything over $42 billion to enable Citibank to purchase Wachovia.  

    They took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with good and bad mortgages in the trillions.

    They guaranteed money market accounts.

    Starts adding up to real money.


    Fed's Injection Is an Attempt to Promote ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:09:21 AM EST
    the banks' ability to lend.  It has little if anything to do with the purpose of the $700 billion which is to clear the system of the toxic mortgages.  Calculated Risk yesterday presented an analysis that estimated mortgage losses of $1.3 trillion.

    yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    sorry if i was misleading in my comment

    I often disagree with your POV, (none / 0) (#69)
    by rennies on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    but this is a brilliant rant. Thank you.

    thanks i rant here (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    so i don't do it at home.  Saves my wife from discourse induced headaches.

    Shorter (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:48:02 AM EST
    poll: The public wants something done they just don't know what.

    because we are being told (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    we have a problem and the only solution is 700bn and no one is telling us what the net out is.  They are quick to tell us the net out of not doing it, and the only thing we get as a net out on the positive side is stability of the markets.

    Do most Americans feel like their finances and employment status will be stabilized by the bill?

    I am very fortunate and will be fine either way, but I have 6 siblings who are all 6 paychecks away from disaster and not one of them understands (nor do they care to hear the high level explanation of the significance of settling not only the US market but global markets as well) the bailout and what it does for them.  Everyone of them fears on a daily basis that their jobs are in jeopardy, how unsettling is that when you have 3 kids, a home and savings for 2 months?  The average time it takes to find a job is 9 months and usually you take a paycut.  

    I don't think mainstream America has been given enough information and that falls squarely on our leaders, ALL of them.


    If I didn't know better (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    I might even think that our leaders don't want us to understand this situation in depth.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 05:58:16 PM EST
    The deeper you dig, the more you realize you're being sold a lemon.

    Check this out, interesting article about how Morgan Stanley was rigging oil prices to cover up for their financial woes.  Link

    I'd rather starve than give Morgan Stanley another freakin' dime of our money.


    There (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    is a leadership vacuum. No one is telling the public why they need the bill. Most are simply glad that it failed it seems.

    Loading up the first round with nonessential earmarks was beyond stupid.


    Because (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    we don't know who to trust.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM EST
    no leadership from anyone on this issue. People just have this vague sense that something needs to be done but no one is out there explaining to them what needs to be done and why.

    And the people that ARE (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    doing the explaining....well. We've just been lied to 10 to many times.

    off the cuff remark (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    but I had never considered it.  You are right.  It seems to me that the people making these decisions are not worried about:

    1. Their incomes
    2. Their homes
    3. Their life savings
    4. Me and you

    sometimes the most simple of explanations are the most definitive.

    I just hope that Glenn Beck (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kempis on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    and other rightwing commentators who demagogued this bailout as an affront to the sanctity of the free market all lost a ton of money yesterday.

    I heard Beck forlornly talking about how inflation was going to kill us all after the bailout passed--and how he had told his wife to go shopping and buy shoes for his kids for next year. He was serious. According to Beck, we were about to go into the Great Depression because of the bailout--not unless it happened. He was advising us to stockpile sale items now because we wouldn't be able to afford them next year.

    Of course, Beck, like most everyone, thought the bailout would pass and therefore he felt safe to opine about what a disaster it would be. After all, he's a conservative commentator. He's paid big bucks to be the voice of unrestrained capitalism, to convince his listeners that the "invisible hand" is kindly waving at us rather than giving us the finger.

    But I bet you anything that when the bailout failed and the Dow closed at -777, Glenn Beck just about piddled his pants. I bet he did some tossing and turning last night as his portfolio took a nose dive, too. And I bet he's a lot more worried about paying for his kids' college today than he was yesterday. And it serves him right because it's guys like Beck that whipped up the stampede of emails and calls that scared conservative representatives into voting against the bill.

    Now, I don't know. Maybe it was a bad bill. Maybe it did need to be pondered a bit more and tweaked before passage. But the truth is, most of us are not economists and don't know what the hell we're talking about in varying degrees. Some know a bit more than others, but few are experts with access to all the data. Therefore, it's times like this when we need trustworthy representatives to make a decision for us that will benefit more of us than it will hurt. Unfortunately, trustworthy representatives are in short supply--mainly because most of our politicians are dependent upon big money for the viability of their political careers.

    I wonder how much (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:08:04 AM EST
    he pays for shoes.  Man, do I hate these fat cat media demagogues who pretend they have the same financial worries as the rest of us-- Beck, Dobbs, O'Reilly and the like.  Yech.

    Your main point is so right, though  We are completely without any kind of leadership we can trust, on either side of the political spectrum.  I don't believe any of them anymore, and that includes virtually all Democrats.


    Some people in my nabe are already (none / 0) (#42)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    stockpiling staples against the Depression to come and planning who they will feed and who they will not. That's how scary this is to some.

    Now that is sound economic planning..... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    your neighbors should become financial advisors.

    Trust But Verify as St Ronald Once Said... (none / 0) (#63)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    Trusting any politician is tough because they all have as a top priority their own reelection.  This means that they have to pay attention to the will of the electorate and the special interests.  Blind faith in your rep is folly.  On the other hand, I do expect my rep to do more than reflect the will of the people or special interests.  I expect them to be conversant on the subject of a bill and I expect them to do the right thing (with a little help from my letters or phone calls).  If they don't, then give them the bum's rush.  

    Well, now that we've had our (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    stupid populist moment, we can get to fixing this.

    I don't think the moment has passed yet. (none / 0) (#59)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    Round 2 is tomorrow in the Senate.

    Did I miss... (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    ... a populist moment?  Dang.

    They don't come around often enough for me to miss one...


    94 Democrats???? (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by STLDeb on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    Remember, this bill would have passed WITHOUT any Republican members if all of the Democrats had voted for it.

    It was a bipartisan compromise (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    Why the heck would you make a bunch of compromises with the Republicans, just so all the Democrats and none of the Republicans can vote for the bill?

    If this bill were the Democratic wish-list, I could see your point.  But it was written as a compromise.


    I Do Agree With You (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by STLDeb on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    I do agree with you that is was supposed to be a "bi-partisan" bill/support but just about everyone in the media is saying the Republicans killed this bill when 94 Democratic members voted against this also.  

    What surprises me is one of the Democratic members (Lacy Clay)is a STAUNCH Democratic & he still voted No!  

    I just don't like the blame going on all one party (whether Democratic OR Republican).


    Put Yourself in the Shoes of Your Rep... (none / 0) (#60)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    The Administration blindsides you with an emergency request for $7 billion.   The media calls it a Wall Street bailout.  Your constiituents are angry that people with big salaries are going to be bailed out and are angry at the whole concept of "too big to fail".  You aren't sure that the plan will work.  And you are up for reelection.  Your Republican opponent isn't in Congress and has the luxury of pretending to be a populist.  You watch the voting and notice that Republicans are not voting for their Administration's bill and that their leaders are not trying very hard to round up votes.

    It's amazing that any Democrat voted for the bill.


    According to AP this am, (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    Sen. Obama says Congress shouldn't "start over" with a new bill and the Congressional leaders and Paulson need to buckle down and get to work.  

    Agreement (none / 0) (#45)
    by STLDeb on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    Yes -- ALL Congressmen should be there -- McCain, Obama.  Make this a pure bi-partisan bill that protects the taxpayers and does NOT include any earmarks/pork.  No money going to any special interest groups of ANY kind.  

    So far, we aren't getting any support (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    on the idea Obama, a Senator, should go be a Senator and party leader--if, in fact, we are in crisis mode.  

    Have a Lock Down (none / 0) (#49)
    by STLDeb on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    Both presidential candidates (McCain AND Obama) need to be there, their respective house/senate leaders, Pres. Bush, Paulson, Bernacke.  Lock them all in a room & don't come out until there is a bill that all can agree on that protects America, her economy, taxpayers & our soverignity.  Food can be delivered, of course! smile  

    I will admit I started the 94 Democrats thread & I apologize.  That being said ... sheesh -- enough of this bickering back & forth of whose fault it is.  What I don't understand is why the divisiveness of whose fault it is, blah, blah, blah.  Stop! Enough already both Republicans, Democrats & Independents!!!!  No giving speeches before the vote.  


    See. We're on the same page. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    Being locked in the room w/Bush--that would probably result in a very quick deal.  

    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    Haven't we already had enough torture under this administration?!

    Defeat from victory. (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    The issue looked good for dems.
    Bush was shown to be the fool that he is.
    The economy is in shambles.
    Republican economics are obviously to blame.
    Bush speaks. He looks like a deer in the headlights. Clueless.
    The democrats seem organized and coherent.
    So what happens?

    Pelosi, the House Leader - leader of democrats - entrusted with getting this bill through - bungles it.
    Not only did she not convince and corral the democrats, but she makes a speech before the vote which is designed to alienate republicans by blaming them for the whole mess which she (and the dems) are about to clean up. You can argue that the repubs didn't put the country first, but neither did Pelosi. She as much as told the repubs they were a bunch of bungling idiots and then asks for them to validate her leadership. Can you spell diplomacy?

    I hope the economy does not tank.
    I hope people can get back their homes.
    I hope the guilty ones suffer some consequences.
    I don't know whether the bill that was defeated would have helped with any of it.

    What I do feel, however, is that the democrats now look like lost lambs as well as house republicans, and Bush is now looking more presidential. The BBC is now reporting the story as one where the question is if the house will come through with the action that the president says is urgently needed.
    Now Bush is framed as the good guy, and Pelosi looks like the deer in the headlights.

    yesterday (none / 0) (#73)
    by bramdizle on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    I said the crisis may lead to some new ideas and good things in the long run and got called a commi nazi wtf?

    Now is the time to get something REAL (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:14:16 AM EST
    done and not just pump funny into an already terminally ill system.  Sometimes it does seem that God really is looking out for us.  Now if the Democrats can only be courageous enough to do this, and then sell it the people like Clinton used to before they try to sell it to the Republicans so that the Republicans have to worry about returning home and facing their constituencies and reelection.

    And thank God that the intelligent (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:22:19 AM EST
    Americans remain the majority of Americans.  Americans know who created this mess and most understand whose ultimate responsibility it was to ensure that a bandaid got slapped on the cancer yesterday.  You can't fool all the people all the time.  I don't think Nancy Pelosi said anything wrong in her speech either, when times get this rough there is little room left for anything but the truth.  She told the truth, she didn't cheerlead a t*rd and I have respect for her that she didn't.

    Only republicans to blame? follow the money... (none / 0) (#86)
    by 18anapple2 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    follow the money...follow the money
    Securities & Investment: Money to Senators 1990-2008 (top ten)

    Obama, Barack (D-IL) $11,232,742
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $10,875,053
    McCain, John (R-AZ) $8,592,590
    Kerry, John (D-MA) $6,363,673
    Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $6,171,874
    Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) $5,822,625
    Bradley, Bill (D) $3,778,388
    Lieberman, Joe (D-CT) $3,685,963
    D'Amato, Alfonse M (R-NY) $2,464,298
    Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $1,595,548

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U&cycl e=All

    Money and Votes Aligned in Congress's Last Debate Over Bank Regulation
    ..The last time Congress seriously debated how to regulate the financial industry, the result was legislation that allowed the nation's largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A look back at that debate, which was over the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, reveals that campaign contributions may have influenced the votes of politicians who, a decade later, are now grappling with the implosion of the giant banks they helped to foster.
    The congressional vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley in November 1999 was not close. The bill passed handily with bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and Senate, 450-64 between the two chambers. President Bill Clinton supported the legislation and readily signed it.
    ...Many of the Democrats who voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley are still in Congress, as are many of the Republicans. Republican presidential nominee John McCain was recorded as absent for the 1999 vote. Democratic nominee Barack Obama was not serving in the Senate then, but his running mate, Joe Biden, supported the bill. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, at the time.


    May 25, 2006

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

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx0 02Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlE lementm0m0m0m


    Oops, I meant funny money (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:22:57 AM EST
    not enough coffee

    Gingrich playing both sides (none / 0) (#33)
    by stefystef on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:29:41 AM EST

    Gingrich was on the Sunday ABC new show proclaiming support for the bill, but now I'm reading he was telling House Republicans to vote against it?

    Doesn't surprise me.  Newt's always been a backstabber.

    The real irony... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    ...is the one any child could pick up on: that all this stuff we depend on -- food, clothing, shelter, etc. -- it all exists completely independent of money, all the stuff we make other stuff out of, it all exists whether money does or not.  But somehow human beings, a relatively smart lot of creatures, have managed to put between themselves and survival and prosperity, a game of imaginary chess dependent upon inanimate objects being shuffled like blips.  We'd be better off bartering with seeds and livestock.  Just an observation.

    What will today's polls say? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    AP says the Wall Street opened higher than it closed yesterday.  

    Credit Cards (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    People have been living off of their credit cards hoping the economy will change for the better and are buying food and necessities because they are short on cash.

    What happens next Feb/March when that debt is called?

    I don't guess you get a bailout for trying to feed and house your family.....

    cc from wiki (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:59:09 PM EST
    The 2005 bankruptcy bill was opposed by a wide variety of groups, including consumer advocates, legal scholars, retired bankruptcy judges, and the editorial pages of many national and regional newspapers. While criticisms of the bill were wide ranging, the central objections of its opponents focused on the bill's sponsors' contention that bankruptcy fraud was widespread, the strict means test that would force more debtors to file under Chapter 13 (under which a percentage of debts must be paid over a period of 3-5 years) as opposed to Chapter 7 (under which debts are paid only out of existing assets), the additional penalties and responsibilities the bill placed on debtors, and the bill's many provisions favorable to credit card companies. Opponents of the bill regularly pointed out that the credit card industry spent more than $100 million lobbying for the bill over the course of eight years.[11] There has also been significant criticism of BAPCPA's changes to Chapter 11 business bankruptcies.[12] Harvey Miller, one of the most-prominent bankruptcy attorneys in the country (particularly in terms of representing corporate debtors) has described BAPCPA as "ill-conceived."[13]

    and to that end (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    HSBC was just downgraded....

    Dennis K on the bailout (none / 0) (#85)
    by 18anapple2 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:44:49 PM EST

    AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, can you explain how it is that the Democrats are in charge, yet the Democrats back down on their demand to give bankruptcy judges authority to alter the terms of mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, that Democrats also failed in their attempt to steer a portion of any government profits from the package to affordable housing programs?

    REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I mean, those are two of the most glaring deficiencies in this bill. And I would maintain there was never any intention to--you know, well, many members of Congress had the intention of helping people who were in foreclosure. You know, this--Wall Street doesn't want to do that. Wall Street wants to grab whatever change they can and equity that's left in these properties. So--

    AMY GOODMAN: Right, but the Democrats are in charge of this.

    REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Right. You know, I'll tell you something that we were told in our caucus. We were told that our presidential candidate, when the negotiations started at the White House, said that he didn't want this in this bill. Now, that's what we were told.

    AMY GOODMAN: You were told that Barack Obama did not want this in the bill?

    REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: That he didn't want the bankruptcy provisions in the bill. Now, you know, that's what we were told. And I don't understand why he would say that, if he did say that. And I think that there is a--the fact that we didn't put bankruptcy provisions in, that actually we removed any hope for judges to do any loan modifications or any forbearance. There's no moratorium on mortgage foreclosures in here. So, who's getting--who's really getting helped by this bill? This is a bailout, pure and simple, of Wall Street interests who have been involved in speculation.