Third Party & Independents Archives

David:

I think we should look at the Republican proposal as it does not involve US tax dollars. The American People are very much opposed to the current plan being promoted.

There is currently $12 Trillion on the sidelines in money markets, CD’s etc in our country.

Why would you be opposed to the wealthy getting “Their hands” on these investments instead of the taxpayers who do not want them?

There is plenty of private money out there to handle crisis. You are the one saying Wealthy. It does not need to be just the wealthy. These investments can be packaged so that average americans can by into them. This seems to be a proposal that Americans would be more interested in looking at.

Craig:

But doesn’t the insurance part require the taxpayers to pay? Let them take the down side of the risk too. Taxpayers should be out of it entirely.

womanmarine:

The House Republican plan (I believe, someone correct me if wrong), is for the government to issue insurance (be the insurance company) but charge premiums to the institutions.

There is plenty of private money in the system to take care of this liquidity crisis. ($12 Trillion). It is simply creating a system that “encourages” private citizens to do so.

I subscribe to Jeremy Siegel a noted economist. He was all on board for this bail out until he heard the testimony in Congress. He said he was deeply disturbed by Paulsen’s lack of answers to direct questions from Senators. Especially dealing with how much these securities are worth, and how to place a value on them in the market.

Democrats appear to be close to a loose loose politically on this one. IF this flops, Bush is gone. The buck stops with them. The American people are very much opposed to this proposed bailout. If this proposal from the Republicans is a good plan, and Congress passes the current plan, and Obama wins, which I think is likely, it could cost dems the house of Representatives. Do you follow how that could happen?

You could have a situation where Obama wins and Republicans pick up seats in congress. I don’t see how this helps McCain, actually the opposite. However, imagine rushing to get this through, and then running home to campaign and be greeted by extremely angry voters. Remember this is the most unpopular Congress on record already. Since Bush isn’t on the ballot, I’m just saying that this is a big deal. If this can be solved without the taxpayer writing a $700,000,000,000 check, someone better look at it!!

Craig:

There is still the issue of who pays if this goes south. I still believe that if this plan is the way to go, the risk takers should assume the entire risk since they want the rewards. Taxpayers should pay NOTHING!

woman marine:

There isn’t an entity that can insure $700 billion other than the US Treasury that I can think of that can do it on short notice. But still we already provide insurance of this magnitude on many other levels (FDIC insurance for one).

This is a plan that does not require a large tax payer expense, and I think it should be considered. According to Rasmussen Only 24% of voters approve of this plan which means it is a little less popular than George bush and a little more popular than congress, just to give some perspective.

Craig,

The House Republican plan will cost the taxpayers more than the current Paulson-Frank/Dodd plan. Who cares that these companies pay premiums to the government, they will simply come back later and collect on all the losses these assets will cost them. It’s no different than an insurance company going down to New Orleans a day before Katrina hits and signing up everyone in the area for flood insurance. Sure, they got the first month premium checks, but then a couple of days later they’ll have to dole out billions for the houses lost, it’s a losing proposition. At least with the Senate plan the taxpayers will get an equity stake in these companies we take the bad assets from, so if the company improves in value it will make up for some of the losses from those assets.

pops mcgee:

I appreciate your response. Look at it this way, right now the Iraq war is more popular than this plan. George Bush is more popular than this plan. The American people are angry!!! Big time!!

What I am saying is that we had better “look” at options.

In terms of Katrina, it’s more like an insurance company going down after the storm. The premium includes the risk after the storm not before it.

Also, the premiums will include the risk we are facing now. The premiums should be adequate or the plan would not get a thumbs up from economists.

I agree. We can not insure that people who would buy these properties would not take a hit. If the deal is that good let them buy their own insurance. We can not continue in the business of guaranteeing success for investors. If investors are willing to take the risk, so be it. But as far as I am concerned they do it at their own peril. Not mine.

Craig,
There is ideological consistency to the House GOP proposal. I would rather find a way for things to correct themselves than involve the taxpayers, chiefly me.

What this plan doesn’t seem to involve is success. I don’t see how cutting capital gains and giving out these insurance policies puts us in a place for success.

With this bailout I’ve heard reasonable estimates of + or - $200 billion depending on how the market plays out over the next few years. Which really sucks that deregulation and greed has put us in this place but here we are.

This whole episode makes my head spin. There seemed to be almost no long-term planning by these companies who invested almost every last cent of their worth into the market and paid themselves ridiculous bonuses and when things turned bad it’s up to us to get them out of this. The story of Alan Fishman is a great example. Fishman, the CEO of WAMU who was hired on the 8th of this month with a 7.6 million dollar bonus. His company collapses in less than 20 days and he gets a 11.6 million dollar severance package. That’s for almost a million dollars a day for being CEO of the biggest failed bank in US history.

There had better be some regulation in place of these folks because they have proven that unfettered markets equal unfettered greed.

Craig if the taxpayers have to insure the down side why would the taxpayers not want to take the risk and fund the whole thing, especially when the option is to only take the risk and let others have the reward without the risk. I think the time frame may also be an issue.

The American people were against the initial Bush proposal that included no oversight and no judicial review amongst other inconsistencies, and rightfully so IMHO.

Folks, holding up the bail out for haggeling runs out the clock, and time may run out Sunday night. If even 3 enormous banks in Asia fail on Monday, the ripple effect will spread to Europe, Canada, The US, Japan, Malaysia, the UAE, etc in the weeks to follow.

The clock is ticking. And No Craig, this is not the Democrats responsibility. Their plan would have been to infuse tax payer dollars into keeping the occupants of defaulting loans in those homes, putting a floor under the falling housing values. But, time was of the essence. And Democrats deferred to the Bush/Paulson top down, instead of bottom up, plan knowing that time was of the essence.

It is now the Rogue Republicans in the House who are willing to haggle for potential profitable gains and obstruct consensus while running the clock out. So far, at least.

We shall see if they are willing to destroy the GOP on and risk financial cascade failures on ideological grounds. If the GOP intends to have any credibility with voters whatsoever in the rest of this century, they will not allow these Rogue Republicans to impede a resolution by the time Asian markets open tomorrow night.

Is there ANYTHING in the ‘rescue plan’ that undoes what was done to cause the problem?

I found this interesting: ‘Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?’
I am sure some of you will aswell.

This is exactly the reason why in your state, next time elections come up, as a citizen, it’s your DUTY if you oppose this or do not like how these guys are handling this bill/crisis, to tell as many neighbors, friends, strangers to VOTE these guys out of office.

Send them e-mails, petitions, whatever you need to do that takes an hour out of your day to say “We put you there to represent OUR interests, not your buddy or whoever slipped a note in your pocket”.

I know in PA, if one of our representatives or senators at the end of this mess did something clearly wrong or unethical, even if they’ve been in office 30 years, just vote them out, that simple.

David, there is a MASSIVE problem with your analysis here which you have failed to even mention.

FACT: These “Rogue Republicans,” as you call them, are a group of about 100 House members.

FACT: There are, as you may know, 435 members of the House.

Do the math, David.

You yourself say that “The White House, Senate Republicans (Shelby excluded), Democrats in the House and Senate, and moderate Republicans in the House” all want something different. And you’re right.

So why is this even an issue? Why is it that less than a quarter of the membership of the lower house of Congress can hold up passage of a measure supported by not only overwhelming majorities of both the Senate and House but the President of the United States? These “Rogue Republicans” don’t have the power to either pass or stop passage of a damn thing. So again, why is this even a topic of consideration?

Stop and think about that for a minute, and the answer—which is actually a pretty obvious one—will likely alarm and amaze you.

Dawn

Great link. This is the first time I have seen it. I have tried to say the same things for weeks, but the left wants to talk and nobody wants to study the facts. These things have even been coming out on the media, but the left bloggers still deny the truth.

Yes, the democrats have the votes to get a bailout though the house and senate, but when the american people are furious over the results, they will only have the dems to blame.

What are they to do?

Dawn, this rescue plan addresses banking credit and liquidity freeze underway, made acute by last week’s run on the money market funds.

The rest is of the problems and causes will have to be dealt with AFTER we avoid this current threat to the global financial system with U.S. Institutions being the proximate causal domino which sends the rest tipping over.

If you saw the move V for Vendetta, near the end V sends one domino over which knocks two over which knock 4 over and so on. You can stop the cascade in the first few knockdowns, but, once the geometric cascade effect passes the the first for or 5 knockdowns, there is no stopping the cascade.

That is where we are at this moment. Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., Fannie - Freddie, AIG and now WaMu are the first iterations of the domino effect. Asian banks investing in American institutions are may get hit very hard on Monday if our Congress doesn’t halt the cascade this weekend.

There were many causes, not the least was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that opened the door for multiple lines of financial business to be acqired through Mergers and Acquisitions creating these huge financial institutions which are now too big to allow to fail, and as we have seen, too big to control their lobbying for unfettered and unregulated activity.

Oldguy, and this was not even the Democrats proposal or bill. This is Bush’s proposal, Democrats would not elect this top down approach if they had a Democrat in the White House. But, there is not time to foist their own bill and have Bush veto it, and start over again. Democrats are being as responsive as they can be to the White House and the their constituents in trying to get this passed in time to avert larger failures, but, without the unbridled naked power and unaccountability the White House initially proposed.

I am not defending in anyway Democrat’s role in helping create this fiasco, (Clinton signed the G-L-B Act) but, within hours of receiving the bad news from Paulson and Bernanke, they grasped the gravity of the situation and the minimum requirements and balances to amend Paulson’s proposal to instill accountability, oversight, and minimization of risk for tax payers. The majority of Republicans in the Senate and half of those in the House grasped it too. It is the slower half of Republicans in the House, the more ideologically conservative on fiscal theory, that were the johnny come lately’s to throw up political obstacles too great for Democrats to ignore.

There is no way, as you say, that Democrats are going to be pushed into the position of taking the heat for a Republican sponsored bill that Democrats vote for, without a majority of Republicans taking the same amount of heat after it is passed. Couldn’t agree with your clear headed assessment more.

Dawn,

That video you linked to was absolute garbage. The CRA did not cause this crisis. Here is an article that explains how almost 80% of all subprime loans were outside the jurisdiction of the CRA. 50% from non-CRA mortgage companies, and another 25-30% from subsidiaries that don’t have to follow the full CRA rules.

This release from the Treasury department in 2000 shows that under the CRA, low income homebuyers were more likely to get prime mortgages, compared to non-CRA institutions where subprimes were the method of growth in low income lending.

This pdf of a study of the 15 most populous US metropolitan areas, shows that CRA institutions were less likely to engage in subprime lending, and when they did they were more likely to hold onto those mortgages instead of selling them on the secondary MBS market.

Yesterday I posted a link on the subject of what Sweden did in 1992 when they had a crisis almost identical to our own horrid mess. No one but Rick responded to that link. I was hoping more of you would have wanted to discuss it as a solution, but no such luck.

Anyway, I just now read that:
Krugman wishes we could do what Sweden did, but realizes that since we have to do something and do it fast, the Dem’s plan may be the only way to go at the moment.

Also, I was just reading economist Brad DeLong’s blog, and he agrees with what seemed to me to be the most logical solution of all:

Time Not for a Bailout, But for Nationalization…

John McCain and the House Republicans have blown up the Paulson-Dodd-Frank compromise—for that’s what House Republican Whip Roy Blunt says that John McCain did:
Roy Blunt: “Everybody else seemed to be rushing for a deal and John McCain came back and said, ‘Wait a minute, I think the House Republicans have the taxpayers in mind and I’m with them’…”
Now it’s time to go back to three principles. There are three options:
* Do nothing.
* Bailout (a la Paulson)
* Nationalization (a la Sweden 1992)
Do nothing was last tried in 1929-1932. The result was called the Great Depression. Let’s not do that again. Let’s decide between bailout and nationalization.
Nationalization has the best chance of avoiding large losses and possibly even making money for the taxpayer. And it is the best way to deal with the moral hazard problem.
It might work like this. Congress:
* grants the Federal Reserve Board the power to take any financial firm whatsoever with liabilities and capital of more than $25 billion that is not well capitalized into conservatorship
* requires the Federal Reserve Board to liquidate any financial firm in its conservatorship when it judges that the firm is insolvent (paying off in full or not paying off in full the liabilities of the firm at its discretion), unless
* the Federal Reserve Board finds that preservation as a going concern is in the interest of the taxpayer, in which case Congress
* grants the Federal Reserve Board the power to transform equity stakes in the firm into junior preferred stock at par value and then transfer ownership and custody of the firm to the Treasury
* requires the Federal Reserve to terminate conservatorship if the firm becomes well-capitalized once again.
In addition, Congress:
* grants the Treasury the power to issue up to $500 billion of troubled asset redemption bonds, the proceeds of which are then to be loaned to the Federal Reserve to be used to cover the liabilities of those liquidated firms that the Federal Reserve judges it is in the interest of the taxpayer to have their liabilities paid off in full.
Paulson had his shot. It’s time for the Democrats to pass a nationalization in the taxpayers’ interest bill and dare Bush to veto it. If he does, then announce that the congress will pass it again the day after the election. And if he vetoes it again, announce that congress will pass it yet again on January 21, 2009.

I honestly don’t see why everyone on both sides of the political aisle couldn’t get on board with this idea, since we know IT HAS DEFINITELY WORKED very effectively before, and did NOT involve a mountain of risk for tax payers, and would NOT be an arrangement where the government would be taking everything over permanently.

pops,

Explain why Loan Officers were ‘forced’ to give loans to people who they KNEW would not be able to pay them back.
A friend of mine is one of these loan officers who WAS working for a bank in Indianapolis. She had a quota to fill. She was required to process a certain number of loans per month regardless of whether the customers showed they were able to repay them.
She is looking for a new line of work because she just couldn’t do that to people anymore.

I realize that David.
My point is: Why should ANY of our reps sign on to a ‘bailout’ that does not address the underlying causes? At least PUT IN WRITING that the next step is…to remove the policies that brought us the ‘housing bubble’.
I have not heard a single statement about going back and fixing policies that contributed to the situation we find ourselves in.
My question is: Why are the same people who contributed to the policies, that brought us to this, in charge now? Is it simply because they know where they screwed up and they are trying to cover their behinds?

We are in the process of purchasing a second ‘home’. Our first home was bought with 30% down - for TWO reasons - when we purchased our home we still needed a certain amount as a down payment - the 2nd reason was we wanted to make sure we had a payment we could handle.
What ever happened to that?
When did people decide they could afford to buy something/anything on what they ‘plan to be making in the future’?
Our ‘second home’ will become our home when we get the property paid off and are able to afford build a house.
Our government spends more than it can afford. What do they do when they need more? They find ways to tax us where we haven’t been taxed before.
‘We the People’ cannot just go to our employers and say- ‘I am spending more now so you need to pay me more.’

This ‘bailout’ has to be seen as a loan. A way for the government to earn money or at least not lose it/give it away.

David, are you aware that one of the things these “Rogue Republicans,” as you call them, are demanding is that any profits made from selling assets purchased in this bailout must go DIRECTLY towards paying down the national debt? What is your objection to this measure? Why do you suppose all of the Democrats as well as the White House oppose it?

Barney Frank —- ‘Problems caused by policies we will have to address NEXT YEAR.’

Excellent article, David, thanks.

Do nothing was last tried in 1929-1932. The result was called the Great Depression.

When you see at the beginning of the argument that it is clear the writer has no clue what even caused the Great Depression, it is hard to take the rest of their ‘solution’ seriously.

When you see at the beginning of the argument that it is clear the writer has no clue what even caused the Great Depression, it is hard to take the rest of their ‘solution’ seriously.

What an blitheringly idiotic comment to make about someone like Brad De Long. I’m guessing you don’t even know who he is. As for his solution, it is the kind that got Sweden out of their crisis extremely quickly and efficiently — and without placing undue burden on their tax payers.

What an blitheringly idiotic comment to make about someone like Brad De Long

I don’t care if it was Jesus himself, if he makes an idiotic statement like that, he has no standing on the rest of his argument.

As for Sweeden in 1992, we had a similar situation here as well and it would have been much worse had we had the stiff accounting rules in place then that we have now, which is what is causing this to be a much worse problem than it should be.

However, anyone who buys the ignorant line that the Great Depression was caused by ‘doing nothing’ deserves to be pointed at and laughed at so they don’t make such moronic statements again in the future.

Rhinehold,

However, anyone who buys the ignorant line that the Great Depression was caused by ‘doing nothing’ deserves to be pointed at and laughed at so they don’t make such moronic statements again in the future.

Lots of things are done all the time. It takes enough of the right things being done to have an effect. It is quite correct to say that someone who runs in circles to escape an advancing lion, did nothing, though we quite clearly mean nothing effective. Of course english is a second language to some, especially when they are attempting to subvert an argument.

Laughing and pointing might even be construed as doing nothing, or even moronic.

DR

I don’t care who made the proposal, I am against it. I’m disappointed with Bush and the senate republicans who are supporting it. I worked and paid off my mortgage and I didn’t depend on someone else to do it for me. This is another example of the democratic goal of redistribution of wealth. Tell me why, if the left hates Bush so much, is the left so supportive of this bailout.

Dawn is correct; these loaning institutions were force to make bad loans. It is what Frank’s (the man who loves little boys) called “affordable housing”. A key word for buying votes by government handouts.

I am telling you right now, the American people will hold congressmen accountable for passing this $700 billion handout. Today the dems, when asked if they would go ahead and pass the bill, they said “the republicans are not going to leave us holding the bag”.

If the bill is so great for the economy and main street, why are the democrats afraid to pass the bill? Why is 75% of the American people against this buyout.

This is a continuation of government intervention in the market. This buyout will be followed by who knows how many more. When does it stop? Let the market correct itself, no matter what happens.

VV

I didn’t read your link to sweeden, I have enough to worry about in america. At my age, lots of numbers and statistics make me confused.

Old Guy,

Why is 75% of the American people against this buyout. I didn’t read your link to sweeden, I have enough to worry about in america. At my age, lots of numbers and statistics make me confused.

Asked and answered.

David good article. I still have my doubts about the whole thing. Maybe I’m just not as trusting as some but the timing of this crisis causes me to wonder if it has more to do with electing McCain to office and less to do with an actual crisis. I notice how the maverick repubs in congress and McCain have distanced themselves from the Bush administration and how the Dems in the house and Senate have now associated themselves with the Bush administration as they attempt to respond to this administrations crisis dujour. It explains the erratic behavior of McCain this past week as well as why after 7+ years the maverick 100 are not in lockstep with the administration on this issue.

While the crisis may be real and the need to correct it may be immediate the dems need to look beyond their desire to help and blow this scam up in the face of the repubs or walk away and let the repubs continue to be associated with the Bush administration they have held so dear this past 7 years. To gain association with this administration at this late date will only serve to give us 4 more of the same. I mean does anyone really believe McCain “suspended” his campaign for the good of the country? Does anyone really believe the rogue 100 now support McCain because McCain is such a good conservative all of a sudden? Or do you believe that they are distancing themselves from Bush in order to gain reelection and retain control of the white house?

Does “election year politics” come to mind? Does “the ends justify the means” come to mind? Does ” Starve the Beast” come to mind?
When you think repub does “For the good of the Country” actually come to mind? Or does deceit, Carl Rove and drown the government in the bathtub come to mind?

Does “win the battle but lose the war” come to mind Dems?

OldGuy said:

Tell me why, if the left hates Bush so much, is the left so supportive of this bailout.

There is no other choice. The alternative is to allow the economy to proceed into recession. Democrats nor non-ideological Republicans want to see that happen.

Dawn is correct; these loaning institutions were force to make bad loans. It is what Frank’s (the man who loves little boys) called “affordable housing”. A key word for buying votes by government handouts.

This is just plain ignorance speaking. The push toward homeownership began in earnest with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and was pushed forward by Pres. Clinton, and made a cornerstone of GW Bush’s ‘ownership society’, and was the motive for Greenspan keeping interest rates at 1% far longer than would be healthy for future inflation. There were many causes and players, and it was a bi-partisan effort.

I am telling you right now, the American people will hold congressmen accountable for passing this $700 billion handout.

NO! THEY WON’T. In order to hold them responsible, they would have to vote them out of office, and vote challengers into office in their place. That is the ONLY power voters have to hold politicians accountable, and they refuse to exercise that power out of ignorance and lack of education about the reason and rationale for ever having been given the vote in the first place.

Today the dems, when asked if they would go ahead and pass the bill, they said “the republicans are not going to leave us holding the bag”.

That’s right. This is an unpopular REPUBLICAN sponsored bill. Why would Democrats want to pass it and take ownership of it, as Bush leaves office? Republicans would never let them live it down. If this bill is to pass, it will be Republicans who will let it pass, or it won’t pass. Democrats may not be responsible, but, they aren’t stupid either.

If the bill is so great for the economy and main street, why are the democrats afraid to pass the bill? Why is 75% of the American people against this buyout.

First, 75% are not opposed to keeping the economy from buckling. A majority of Americans do not TRUST that what is taking place is in their best interests. I have explained previously this crisis in confidence which has reached a peak with this financial turmoil as a result of so many lies and deceptions by government.

This is a continuation of government intervention in the market.

Yes, it is. Government is the printer of currency, the backer of the currency value, and the single largest consumer entity in these United States. If you don’t want government involved in the market, you have to support the anarchists who would do away with government altogether. All governments in the history of mankind and in all organized societies have been integrally involved with the market.

This buyout will be followed by who knows how many more. When does it stop?

It will stop when the American people realize that decentralization of wealth and power are the only remedy. Centralized anything creates entities so large that the society cannot afford to allow those entities to fail. The Glass-Steagle Act worked to prevent these bailouts from ever having to occur. McCain’s adviser, Phil Gramm pushed to overturn it and was successful in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that allowed these behemoth financial organizations to be created.

Let the market correct itself, no matter what happens.

You must not be employed or have savings or a 401K. Because if the market fails, you and I and 100’s of millions of Americans will lose jobs, savings, pensions, homes, and the means to health care. We, OldGuy, are the market. The consumer side of it, anyway, as well as the labor in it. If the market fails, we fail.

j2t2, you are not neurotic to harbor suspicions of political ploys underlying this bill. They are omnipresent. But, there is also a very real financial crisis facing us and the world dead in the face. Jobs, savings, pensions, 401k’s and the standards of living hang in the balance. If the global banking system dominoes, everything about the way we live dominoes with it.

The joke being played on you and me by the politicians is this: It is the growth of behemoth financial institutions to such size that they become a threat to the entire economy if they fail, that is NOT being addressed. In fact, the solutions so far have been to make some of these behemoths even larger as with JP Morgans purchase of Wash. Mutual.

If the politicians are going to get serious about preventing this from ever happening again, they will legislate the decentralization and downsizing of the major financial corporations, and segregate their lines of business so that if one corporation fails, it has little impact on the financial industry and the economy at large. That was the purpose and success of the Glass Steagle Act, which was overturned by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, allowing the mergers and acquisitions to create these behemoth banking entities so large as to underpin not just the American but, the in part, the global economic viability.

That said, we must still rescue the current threat of domino collapse of the banking and financial institutions. But, if the voters don’t hold the politicians feet to the fire on Nov. 4, the decentralization of the financial industry will not take place and we will create another bailout situation down the road.

Loyal Opp asked: “David, are you aware that one of the things these “Rogue Republicans,” as you call them, are demanding is that any profits made from selling assets purchased in this bailout must go DIRECTLY towards paying down the national debt?”

No. I wasn’t aware. What is your source? Since it is a priori illogical, I need your source. Why would Republicans encourage private investors sector to buy bad debts which may be held until the market recovers and produce a profit, and turn over those profits to public sector? Where is the motive and incentive Republicans argue are intrinsic to the nature of markets?

If you are going to make stuff up, or buy whatever Republicans dish out, you might want to ask if it makes logical sense or not. Assuming risk without the reward of profit is about as Anti-Republican as it gets. You aren’t suggesting these Republicans are holding out for a voluntary socialist solution, are you?

Yes, You Are! Which is why it doesn’t make sense a priori.

Googlumpus, you are very welcome. I learn and become more informed as well as I research and write these articles.

Vertias Vincit, nationalization is a very loaded word and can take SO many forms as to be virtually useless without being defined in very precise terms.

That said, it is clear that the war between democracy (bottom up consensus decision making) and capitalism (top down hierarchical decision making) has come to a battle with this crisis that will change the course of the war for decades to come. The GOP’s top down and trickle down ideology has failed and the majority of Americans now accept that.

Whether the future lot of Democrats can and will divorce our government from the top down influence of corporate and wealthy lobbyists in government decision making however, is an unanswered question. For there lies to the source of power of preserving the top down process decision making structure.

Obama and McCain and some Democrats like Feingold and a few Republicans like Walker, recognize where we need to go from here. But, as yet, none have articulated a plan for just how we will get there to a more democratic society and process in which power and wealth are decentralized to the point that no one entity or sector of society can threaten the viability of the all the rest of the society and its functions.

They are making some of the right speeches about decentralizing energy sources and becoming more independent for energy, food, and jobs production. They have the vision. I have yet to see the details on how we move toward realizing that vision while preserving ourselves in the interim of the transition.

The fact that Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who are speaking to these issues of how we get there, remain barred from the Presidential debates by the Democrats and Republicans alike, is not an encouraging or hopeful sign that they are serious about their rhetoric.

Here is the link to the article I had previously posted.

Vertias Vincit, nationalization is a very loaded word and can take SO many forms as to be virtually useless without being defined in very precise terms.

I agree that the term nationalization probably turns people off immediately. I also agree that the terms of something like this would need to be very precisely defined. That said, I truly think the Swedes handled their crisis brilliantly. And I only wish that we could be able to do something similar to what they did — because if we managed to recover as quickly as Sweden did, American tax payers would be far more likely to get every cent returned, and nationalization would only be a temporary measure we decided to put in place for a very short time.

Paul Krugman in agreement with Brad De Long: The good, the bad, the ugly.

VV, the problem with trying to extract foriegn national solutions to our system is that they are foreign. Meaning different history, different culture, different political climate and structure, and different social psychology.

For example, Republicans would never accept the terms of the Swedish solution, and Republicans in the House have the power to block the current bill by politically hanging the albatross of unpopular sentiment toward this Republican sponsored bill around the Democrats neck if Republicans won’t, in a majority, sign on to it.

If Dems proffered the Swedish solution now, Senate Republicans would join House Republicans and Bush’s veto to block it.

Ergo, the Swedish solution would not and cannot transfer to our situation at this moment in time, and the crisis we face is now.

I agree. If you want to live in a country that does things the way that Sweeden does I might suggest the obvious.

Living a free existence isn’t for everyone. There is no reason to punish yourself for being born in the wrong country. It was not your fault.

It seems that once again, the House Republicans are stalling …. Democratic members seem to still want language protecting US, while the R’s are kissing butt. Pelosi still maintains that the Democrats are not going to jump off the cliff by themselves!

I just don’t get it.

Democratics are in power in both the Senate and HOR but have no alternative solution to this crisis. The 700 billion bailout is the only solution and the Democratics won’t pass it unless a minority of Republicans vote for it also.

Where is the leadership in this solution? Where is the alternative from the Democratics that will allow the majority to take responsibliliy?

If this bailout is the only solution why doesn’t the majority take on the responsibility of being the leaders they say they are and pass the bill?

Is it because it won’t work? Is it because this entire fiasco is a political manuver to consolidate the socialist agenda past the point of no return?

Where is the guts true leaders show when a crisis is put to them?

The idea the Democratics won’t pass this bill because they don’t want to be left holding the bag is pure cowardice. Shame on them.

Based on what I’ve read in this media, it is the Rogue Republicans that have shown the only courage in this yellow striped theatre and have been made the villian for their views. They are chastized and villified for taking a stand for thier believes. They are raked over the coals for not following lock step, blindly in line with the cowardly majority. They are damned if they do because they will be blamed for going along with it and they will be damned if they don’t when this manufactured crisis gets out of control.
And all we can do is play the blame game and point fingers and call each other names.

Shame on them?

Shame on all of us. We deserve what we get.

Weary haven’t the dems taken a 3 page neocon fascist primer and turned it into a 106 page bill in the past week. Why doesnt that suffice on such short notice as their input?

Why should the rogue repubs get a free ride on this issue and let the dems take the heat? It was a repub bill handed to the dems from a repub administration famous for crying wolf.

Why should the dems trust this to be a real crisis and not a sleazy repub trick to associate the dems with the Bush administration so close to election day? Because if they dont and the crisis is real then who do you blame for doing nothing?

Although Im sure you can blame the dems for this you should also understand that it is comments like yours such as the socialist agenda fantasies that would preclude the dems from letting the repubs gain a political point at their expense. Such is the problem we as a country face today.

As you may know our fearless leader Bush was planting tress and jogging isnt that what you would expect from a leader, unlike them no good socialist in the majority who were doing their jobs this weekend and crafting a bill that no one wants.

“The idea the Democratics won’t pass this bill because they don’t want to be left holding the bag is pure cowardice. Shame on them.”

Weary do you mean shame on them for not falling for the repub sleazy underhanded tricks? If the repubs could be trusted to do the right thing I would agree with you Weary but y’all have voted in a pack of dishonest disreputable repub politicians that cant be trusted and it pay’s to be suspicious of them. Hard to blame that on the dems.

“Based on what I’ve read in this media, it is the Rogue Republicans that have shown the only courage in this yellow striped theatre and have been made the villian for their views.”

Based on the news conference I just saw weary those rogue repubs should be villified. They used this crisis for political gain by claiming McCain saved the day because Boehnner couldnt do his job. Perhaps the repubs should look at getting someone with a backbone in his place. According to them they have gotten this taxpayer insurance program into the bill so their lobbiest can reap the rewards without the risk. So it seems we will get stuck witrh the bill afterall. The dems at least gave the taxpayers a chance to make some money on the deal. Who’s the villian weary?

If you ask me all of them should be thrown out of office and as 1 of the 100 happens to be my rep you can rest assured I will work towards that end.

There were 4 people standing next to Pelosi when she said it is the Federal Government who will be the lender to the American People. If that isn’t socialism I don’t know what is, but at least we now know who the hero’s/villians will be.

She took the 700 billion figure at it’s face value and still admitted it may not work.

Harry Reid was “impatient”. He wanted to slam this thru without any time for discussion even though it is not known if 700 billion is needed!

Pelosi can say this was a bi-partisan aggrement but she did not have one Republican visible with her when she announced this Federal takeover of the financing of the American People.

“There were 4 people standing next to Pelosi when she said it is the Federal Government who will be the lender to the American People. If that isn’t socialism I don’t know what is,

Well I agree Weary judging from your comments you don’t know what socialism but then who does. In this day and age the word is so over used by the conservatives that everything involving government is socialism. Yet when we follow the capitalist we ened up bailing them out at our expense. Go figure.

“but at least we now know who the hero’s/villians will be.”

Weary it seems you already had your mind made up as to who the villians would be.

I hope they all stay true to form and vote down party lines again.

“Pelosi can say this was a bi-partisan aggrement but she did not have one Republican visible with her when she announced this Federal takeover of the financing of the American People.”

Can you blame her Weary I know when I stand next to a known repub my hand is on my wallet. After seeing the lineup of repubs at their news conference I wouldnt want to be associated with that crowd either.

At least I waited until someone put their head on the block.

“I hope they all stay true to form and vote down party lines again.”

Weary wouldnt that be some serious backstabbing on the part of the repubs? While you may consider this kind of backstabbing acceptable you surely can see why the dems wouldnt go it alone on this repub administration caused crisis. You make it sound like the dems wanted this bill and this issue, but the facts still remain it was the repub administration not the dems that forced this “socialism” on the american people.

Myself I bemoan the fact that the dems were so helpful to this administration and so patient with the rogue 100 who were the actual problem with geting a better resolution to the crisis. Their grandstanding and politicalization of the issue, I mean really Bush calls a meeting and poor Boehnner feels intimidated and needs McCain to save him, kept the more responsible members of the house from formulating alternatives to the current bill and has done a disservice to the American people.

Willie

She took the 700 billion figure at it’s face value and still admitted it may not work.

The fact that it may not work was part of the original scenario presented by Paulson and Bernackie. Paulson is the financial expert here not Pelosi. Who the hell do you trust if you can’t trust the top person in the institution? I can’t imagine Paulson presenting this sort of news to congress just for good times sake. Hell this puts an incredible amount of egg on their face. It had to be very embarrassing for them. Not to mention they have to know that there would be and I am sure is suspicions of ethical and criminal behavior from the top down. These are Bush’s people. Bush had no choice but to present this crisis to congress. Would the situation have been any different if republicans were still the majority in congress? No, we would still be facing this financial crisis.

I can’t believe that anyone in this country is happy about this scenario. But I also have to believe that people would be much less happy if events did indeed play themselves out as predicted. This is not the end of the downturn. But if it is handled responsibly perhaps it can allow time for a somewhat more comfortable recovery for us working class people.

I personally expect heads to roll at some point. If McCain manages to get elected I doubt any heads will role. He will form self investigatory committees to investigate themselves as republicans always do. And of course a good slap on the hand for wrong doing. You can also bet your ass there will be no new regulation. Business on wall street will be allowed to continue as usual.

j2t2

Their grandstanding and politicalization of the issue, I mean really Bush calls a meeting and poor Boehnner feels intimidated and needs McCain to save him, kept the more responsible members of the house from formulating alternatives to the current bill and has done a disservice to the American people.

You are correct, this whole thing is sickening from so many different levels. From the fact that it even exists to republicans having the gall to attempt use it for personal profit and political gain. Mention of all those slimy lobbyists scurrying to capitol hill to do business at the mention of all that money made my blood boil with rage. I still can not believe that Paulson has not offered or been asked to step down. I even heard some republican senator on CNN this morning bitching about the notion of additional regulation being needed. I mean please how much more obvious does the need for oversight and regulation need to be. The guy was acting like no wrong had been done. Like this was somehow all the fault of Bill Clinton. And what is even worse is I think he actually believed it.

Partners at the Destruction
Fannie, Freddie and just about everybody.
By JOHN FUND

We will look back on the failure of Congress to reform the government-sponsored enterprises at the heart of the mortgage meltdown as one of the most expensive derelictions of its duty ever. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their lobbying clout, political contributions and even charitable largesse to charm or bully anyone demanding reform in their lending practices.

The Bush administration certainly didn’t cover itself in glory either, for example issuing news releases in 2005 touting the introduction of “zero down-payment ” mortgages through federal housing programs designed to encourage home ownership.
But the administration at least tried to warn Congress that the GSEs should be reined in. Gateway Pundit notes that President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times this year before Congress finally passed a bill increasing oversight of Fannie and Freddie — though by then it was too late.
Indeed, the White House’s list calls for GSE reform is a long one, stretching as far back as April 2001. At that time, the administration’s first budget declared that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s growing dominance of the mortgage market was “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
In 2003, after both Fannie and Freddie were found to have cooked their accounting books, then-Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to “create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate capital requirements.
Two years later, Mr. Snow again called for GSE reform, noting that recent events “reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform…. Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”
The response? Rep. Barney Frank, who now vilifies Republican House members for questioning a policy of throwing another $700 billion on the bonfire, insisted to the New York Times during the 2003 accounting scandal: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
The tale of lost opportunities and thwarted reform is a long one. As a reporter who covered the savings and loan meltdown of the late 1980s, I wish I had paid more attention to the next impending disaster. I knew Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bad-faith actors. I just didn’t realize how much their recklessness would spread to other players in the financial markets and create the conditions for the current meltdown. But make no mistake. When the history of this debacle is written, Washington’s failure to supervise and rein in Fannie and Freddie will be seen as the original sin.

You reckon this guy knows what he is talking about?

Chicagotribune.com
Scapegoating markets
September 28, 2008

Although capitalism has shown its superiority to other systems, it has always had plenty of detractors. The meltdown in the financial sector is their latest excuse to assert the dangers of greed, the need for greater government regulation and the folly of unfettered commerce. They see the market the way it’s depicted in the sculpture in front of the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, which shows a well-muscled man restraining a rearing stallion: a wild steed in need of a bridle.

Markets, of course, consist of interactions among human beings, and any institution featuring people is bound to suffer from human fallibility. No one ever said markets were perfect at the tasks required for a functioning economy—only that they are generally superior to the alternative. Sometimes those imperfections require government intervention—to prevent unwanted side effects like pollution or to promote the sort of information needed for sound decisions. But the causes of this debacle lie elsewhere.

Focusing on greed is a mistake. As economist Lawrence White of the University of Missouri-St. Louis puts it, blaming greed for economic dislocations is like blaming gravity for airplane crashes: Greed and gravity are both ever-present. Wall Street traders are not more or less avaricious today than they were 10, 20 or 50 years ago.

Nor is lack of regulation the root of the problem. Among the alleged lapses is the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which forbade the mixing of commercial and investment banking. Removing that barrier, we are told, spurred commercial banks to get into such risky investments as subprime mortgages.
But Megan McArdle of The Atlantic notes, “If this were part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble”—which for the most part, they have not been. The demise of Glass-Steagall turns out to be a boon. Were it still around, Bank of America would not have been allowed to buy Merrill Lynch.

But if insufficient regulation was not the culprit, what was? One, noted by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, has nothing to do with regulation: a “speculative surge” sparked by low inflation and low interest rates worldwide. That led to a global housing boom, which regrettably couldn’t last forever, and whose end inevitably produced casualties.

Another factor was something deregulation critics omit: a push to expand home ownership to borrowers who once were considered too risky. Economist Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas writes that “in an attempt to increase homeownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of government.” The result was to feed the housing bubble—and to expand the number of victims when it burst.

Then there was the big role played by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored entities whose failure is a testament to the dangers of mixing public and private enterprise. Conservatives had long warned that the government’s implicit backing of these companies would someday mean a big bill for taxpayers. Guess what? They were right.

When this crisis has settled down, Congress and the president are welcome to consider if the experience indicates the need for some precise and prudent changes in the law governing financial institutions. But it’s more likely a careful examination will prove that the biggest failures were ones of too much government, not too little.

Hey oldguy:

The republicans had 6 years to fix this stuff. Why didn’t they do it?

Can’t lay this at the Democrats door, not with that record.

womanmarine

The republicans had 6 years to fix this stuff. Why didn’t they do it?

Can’t lay this at the Democrats door, not with that record.

Dodd and Frank blocked the republicans

Facts are facts, this one falls at the feet of the dems.

Gee, they must have been pretty powerful!!

Hey, um, Oldguy -

Didja know that back in 2003 the attorneys general of ALL FIFTY STATES (red and blue) sent a letter to Bush warning him of the need to regulate the banks and lenders that were engaging subprime lending and predatory lending? In that letter, Bush was warned of the possible consequences.

Seems Bush decided to not only ignore the letter, but also enacted a Civil War-era law (1863, to be exact) to not just prevent any federal regulation, but to remove ALL legislation that some states had already passed to regulate the lenders. This was done in the name of ‘deregulation’ - remember that Republican catchword?

When Bush did that, the attorneys general of all fifty states AND the banking superintendents of ALL FIFTY STATES officially protested the president’s action…to no avail, of course.

READ THAT AGAIN - the president IGNORED the united plea of the attorneys general and banking superintendents of ALL FIFTY STATES.

So, um, NO, Oldguy - the blame for this is laid SQUARELY at the feet of the guy in the White House…and those champions of deregulation, the Republican party.

It’s all in the link below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

“You reckon this guy knows what he is talking about?”

Oldguy he is from Murdochs WSJ so his objectiveness is questioned and his theory is just a conservative talking point that hides the real reasons behind this economic meltdown. He is a true believer and Phil Gramm type so dont expect to much from him.

“blaming greed for economic dislocations is like blaming gravity for airplane crashes”

The greed line is McCains favorite- wallstreet greed.

“Wall Street traders are not more or less avaricious today than they were 10, 20 or 50 years ago.”

How about the corporate officers of the wall street companies themselves?

“Among the alleged lapses is the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which forbade the mixing of commercial and investment banking. Removing that barrier, we are told, spurred commercial banks to get into such risky investments as subprime mortgages.”

No but when the commercial and investment banks became one and the same they became to big to fail hence the bailout. Where do you find these morons Oldguy? They seem to always be pointing in the wrong direction.

“a push to expand home ownership to borrowers who once were considered too risky. Economist Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas writes that “in an attempt to increase homeownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of government.” The result was to feed the housing bubble—and to expand the number of victims when it burst.”

If they are referring to a push to stop redlining you may want to read the link in pops mcgee post above Oldguy for a more truthful and complete history of this issue.

Look Oldguy how about this scenario:
1. low interest rates make mortgages more affordable for everyone including risky mortgages.
2. These mortgages are bundled and sold as deregulated securities to banks, wall st and hedge funds foreign and domestic.
3. demand for these investments and houses causes the speculators to buy houses and investors to buy the unregulated securities, which in turns causes
4. Mortgage companies to devise more spurious mortgages. (Mortgage companies BTW are not part of the CRA as they are not FDIC insured according to pops link)
5. Someone stops to ask how can we afford this and boom the housing bubble bursts.Defaults start and smaller mortgage companies fail.
6. Lenders realize the fix they are in and credit starts drying up compunding the defaults.
7. The overleveraged banks and those with these unregulated securities start to fail and panic sets in as the worth of the bundled securities in an unknown.
8. Wall street types start denying each other credit and insurance companies who insured the unregulated securities fail as they to are overleveraged.

(BTW I have picked this up reading multiple sources including newsweek as well as links from people posting here over the past week or so.)

So when you combine Gramms deregulation of banks holding unregulated securities and greed minus good business practices this is where we end up. Then when you add in unregulated speculation the problem just compounds. Of course any good great depression scholar could have told us this would happen years ago but would we have listened now that the revisionist history types have had their way with the great depression?

Weary Willie said: “She took the 700 billion figure at it’s face value and still admitted it may not work.”

That is unmitigated honesty by Pelosi.

If your standing in front of a Mack Truck bearing down at 60 mph, you can predict the truck will swerve to miss you, but, do you jump right or left? You may jump in the same direction the truck swerves or flips. One thing is for sure, standing there and doing nothing runs a greater risk of getting run down any way, so its best to jump, even if you can’t peer into the future a few seconds before jumping.

There is a clear emergency to deal with here. It is one of those times in which direct democracy (checking the polls) is not leadership. It is one of those times the founders envisioned as requiring a republic form of government in which leaders take action to save the nation even if the public is not up to speed on what the crisis is.

These House Republicans attempting to block this bill, and a few Democrats as well, have checked the polls and calls and emails, and are willing now to sacrifice the welfare of the nation’s economic system in order to insure their reelection in 3.5 weeks.

If they prevail, they add a failed political system on top of a failed financial lending system. Two wrongs will hopefully make a right in their political calculus, apparently. Or, perhaps, they are just too uneducated and unprepared to be representatives, making them incompetent for the task at hand.

Banks are, this day failing in Iceland, Great Britain, and other countries; the cascading failure is beginning, as their Central Banks try to cope. But in America, where this crisis began, incompetence and indecision reign supreme. This is not the way to win friends and favorably influence enemies. Nor is it the way to protect and defend the interests of the American people more than 3/4 of whom, cannot even comprehend the nature of the problem.

The time for leadership is at hand. And it just may be, that when the vote is taken in the House this afternoon, America will be found wanting for such leadership largely on the Republican side of the aisle. That at least, won’t come as much of a surprise to most Americans.

I have been watching the congressional debate in the house. I do not believe the republicans will support this bill. They have said their calls have been 100 to 1 against the bailout. If 75% of the population is against it, then the dems must also be getting calls against the bill.

Again I ask, what are the dems to do? Election day is slightly more than a month away, and if the dems have to push this bill thru and it does not help the market or if another crisis arrises, the house could become republican.

DR

“There is a clear emergency to deal with here. It is one of those times in which direct democracy (checking the polls) is not leadership. It is one of those times the founders envisioned as requiring a republic form of government in which leaders take action to save the nation even if the public is not up to speed on what the crisis is.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you one who viewed the US security laws as an infringement on our rights. And now you say it is ok for representatives to ignore their constituents?

All I hear from the left is what the polls say about BHO, and now you say the polls don’t mean anything? I guess you believe constituents are “ignorant and unlearned” and don’t have the ability to understand the economy. Well, it is these constituants who pay their bills and live within in their budgets and they can’t understand why Washington is not able to do the same.

Again I say, the left has the votes to pass this bill.

I heard this morning, from one of the major pollsters, that about 80% of americans are paying attention to what is going on and that 53% of this group are definitly against a bailout.

There are also many congressional dems who are speaking against the bailout on C-span.

If this bill passes, someone will pay with his seat.

OldGuy, the polls demonstrate that the public 1) doesn’t understand the crisis and 2) don’t trust government to make the right decision. That is not a mandate to not act on the nation’s behalf.

They were elected to chart a course in the best interest of their constituents. If their constituents had the best answers, we should immediately hold a Constitutional Convention and create a Direct Democracy.

And NO. I have NEVER advocated for direct democracy at the federal level. Too much expertise is required which the general public, being a diverse base of specialized skills and areas of experience, does not have.

Voters job is to hold politicians accountable on election day for the results of government since the last election. Their job is NOT to decide federal policy and make emergency decisions on highly complex economic and financial issues. That is the politician’s job which they sought office to acquire.

OldGuy, if this bill does not pass, all but the very wealthy will pay.

OldGuy, three person’s quotes sum the situation up best:

Diane Ravitch, Historian of education, NYU, Hoover and Brookings:
I speak for a large segment of the American public in that I don’t truly understand the bailout bill.

AND

Victor H. Fazio, Attorney, former Democratic congressman:
It’s a difficult aye vote. Congress will treat it like a pay raise, everyone knows it should pass and hopes to be able to vote against it.

AND

Norman J. Ornstein, Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute:
…. headed for more very tough times economically, for more than a few months. But heading off disaster is a good step along the way.

DR

“OldGuy, the polls demonstrate that the public 1) doesn’t understand the crisis and 2) don’t trust government to make the right decision. That is not a mandate to not act on the nation’s behalf.

They were elected to chart a course in the best interest of their constituents. If their constituents had the best answers, we should immediately hold a Constitutional Convention and create a Direct Democracy.”

You are correct, that the public may not know all the details and it is simply because they do not trust government (approval ratings in single digits) that they will remember the things done this day, in November. If the public don’t trust government, why should they believe them when they cry “crisis”?

If this bill passes and there is another call for a bailout or no upward movement in the market, a price will be paid at the booth. This is human nature. I personally believe election day should be held on April 15. If it was, my point would be proved.

David:

My guess is that this is why it failed. Remember it only had to change 10 or so votes. not a good time for presidential politics.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Craig,

If that is the reason then Republicans are a bunch of no good crybabies. They would let the markets fail because they got their poor little feelings hurt. What kind of bull crap is that?

Craig, that is wishful thinking. Republicans facing constituents on Nov. 4 in light of their distrust of government is what killed this bill. Republicans would rather reflect and mirror their constituents fears in hopes of a sympathetic vote, than solve vote for emergency procedure that requires a degree of trust and courage. Ironically, these Republicans are the government which voters fear, along with Democrats.

Dow down 714 points. Global commodity trading getting hammered as global recession predictions dominate the markets. Leadership can step in and short circuit this domino effect. But, Republicans have been very anorexic in that area for a very long time, and now is no exception.

Democrats made it abundantly clear for over a week now, that if a majority of Republicans did not sign on to this Republican sponsored and crafted rescue plan, Democrats would not carry it forward. This was all up to Republicans, and the majority of them in the House would not sign on.

The ball is still in Republican’s court. They created this fiasco, they have refused now, to correct it, and they face an election in 3 weeks with this record plastered across their foreheads. What is a Republican to do but self-destruct?

Is there any question in your mind that this failure to act makes the economy the issue on Nov. 4 and that guarantees an Obama victory? Self-destruct is absolutely the appropriate word to apply to the GOP at this moment in time.

David:

Self-destruct is absolutely the appropriate word to apply to the GOP at this moment in time.

Agreed. Unfortunately though, it looks like they’ll be taking our entire country down with them.

Pelosi can’t “get the time of day” for rebuilding infrastructure in America.
I guess she forgot she runs the HOR and that the HOR is responsible for allocating that money, not the administration.

It’s time for new Ideas, not political fingerpointing!

How about they split the 700 billion between the states. Let the states charter a bank with the 1.4 billion it receives to carry out the business of that state.
Also, to guarantee the federal government doesn’t allow this mistake to happen again, we should repeal the 17th amendment and return control of the senate to the state governments.

94 democrats voted against the bill. That is about 1/3. Why didn’t Pelosi twist the arms of another 13 dems? This crisis is man made and the americans see through it. If this is so important, then, all the dems have to do is vote it in.

Something tells me the 94 dems were in danger of loosing their seats. Of course Pelosi is already making the spin for the dems, she called it the presidents bill and the dems did their part to help pass it. If it is the presidents bill, why are the dems supporting it?

I say remove Frank, Dodd, Shummer and any other dems who had anything to do with the root of this problem, and we might support some kind of help. Allowing the dems to have control of this bailout is like asking the cat to keep an eye on the mouse.

Anytime the congressmen get together in a by-partisan manner, the republicans get the shaft. Congress can’t keep SS working, and now we are supposed to believe they can responsibly control billions in the market. Part of the original bill gave 20% of profit to ACORN. A dem oganization designed to create voter fraud. Why would Barney Frank insert this into the bill?

Let the market work. I am happy about one thing, the public is taking notice about the lies presented by the left.

Oil down $11 a barrel:)

David:

I disagree. Shut Pelosi up and run the bill again. There is only a need for 13 votes. In a time of emergency, it is nto the time for crap from the Speaker. She just needs to give a speech about coming together for the good of the country and it will pass. Pelosi was the difference today.

Craig

VV:

Agreed. Unfortunately though, it looks like they’ll be taking our entire country down with them

Don’t get crazy here, just get 13 votes. Get practical.

WW, there is no substantially different counter proposal to what just failed in the House, that would have a better chance in the short time required, than the bill that just failed.

The only option going forward is that Congress get their act together, sell this plan as what it was from the beginning, a bail out of Main Street, not Wall Street, and move on from there to correct the systemic structures that caused this mess to occur, go after the cheaters who gamed the system, and throw out of office as many of the incumbents who failed to prevent this fiasco in the first place, as possible.

OldGuy, Oil down 11 per barrel is sellers anticipating a dramatic slow down in the WORLD Economy, and thus, a dramatic reduction in the demand for oil. That translates directly into unemployment, business failures, and rising bankruptcies and poverty.

Rejoice if you wish, but, oil dropping $11 per barrel is NOT good news. Additionally, it represents only one small piece of the global economic fabric and hardly compensation for a global recession facing us. Remember that exports have been offsetting slowing consumer demand here. Dropping oil prices means dropping U.S. Exports to shore up our own economic growth.

Craig, Pelosi’s comments were not causal. Republicans have balked at this proposal by their President and Treasury secretary from the beginning and most especially, the amount of the package.

The lack of votes was not due to such a frivolous reason as some Democrat making partisan statements. That goes on all the time. But, if you makes you feel better, maintain your wishful thinking. The facts stand in contradiction however.

Craig Holmes said: “Don’t get crazy here, just get 13 votes. Get practical.”

Absolutely correct. Now how to do a redo without it appearing as though they screwed up the first time to vote correctly?

“I disagree. Shut Pelosi up and run the bill again. There is only a need for 13 votes. In a time of emergency, it is nto the time for crap from the Speaker.”

Craig the bill didnt pass why bring it back up now? Although 730+ points may hurt more than the drop of 9/11 lets face it now. I heard her speech Craig and she has nothing to shut up about. In fact just the opposite, she did what needed to be done, she put the facts on the table. The cowardly republicans were supposed to vote for their parties bill after Showboat John McCain came to the rescue and got certain items inserted into the bill. The dems did all they could to expedite this bill through Congress in a bipartisan way, it was the obstructionist in the repub caucus that were more worried about re-election that killed the bill. Short term we all hurt. Long term we gain. I say lets bite the bullet now, let the market work or not and either it stands on merit or is seen for the problem it is. Sooner or later it has to come to this as the conservative repubs have shown, lets face it now.

j2t2, Pelosi DID take the opportunity to make partisan points prior to the bill’s vote. It was a STUPID thing to do in light of the importance of the bill on the floor.

That said, if Republicans voted against Main Street in order to count political coup on Nancy Pelosi, they deserve to be booted out of office. The American people need their representatives to represent THEM at this time. That goes for Pelosi and those Republicans who had the obligation to vote for this package to protect American’s jobs, credit, and ability to continue with their current standard of living.

David:

Change a very tiny part, and then give this speech.

“We are at a crossroads in American History. Our finacial system is in crisis. What you have before you is our best efforts. I want to thank those of you on both sides of the Isle who have worked so hard to bring us to this point. I especially want to thank my Republian colleges, and President Bush for his help on this bill. I urge all of us to put asside our differences and vote for the good of our country”.

Retake the votes and it should pass. The debate over “The Republicans” or “The Democrats” can be had next week. Pelosi can go back to her tired lines when this has the President’s signiture.

I really think in a vote this close the only “real” think needed is a different speech from Pelosi.

I also think a mild concession to house Republicans needs to be made so the people who change their votes can vote to the concession instead of the real reason which is that Pelosi ticked them off at the last minute.

Just for what it’s worth again, Pelosi has stated that the Democrats aren’t going over the cliff alone on this bill.
To do so would be political suicide for us…in addition to the horrendous fleecing many would suffer from.
You might want to consider that the party is truly trying to do the right thing for a great percentage of the population. If you’re so in lockstep with the Republicans, then I’m sorry for you, but am more sorry for me, and a lot of people that I know, who are really going to be hurt if the language gets altered to make the House Repubs happy.

Craig, I disagree. House Republicans did not need Pelosi to change her speech to act correctly on behalf of their constituents. What they DID need to see is the markets to drop 6% on the news of not passing this.

The market’s money comes from the American people. When the Pauson proposal was first announced, the Dow rose 500 points. On the day the rescue failed, the Dow dropped 777 points. What more do they need?

What Pelosi says or doesn’t say is so trivial compared to preventing Americans from losing life savings, jobs, and ability to borrow to keep their lives moving forward for college education and transportation to and from work.

The one truth that stands out from all of this is we do have a choice in November. McCain is a leader, as he has told us so often. After watching Obama during this crisis he is not a leader of Mccain’s quality. For this we can be thankful. Obama has shown he is more than a political leader as defined by Showboat John McCain. He has shown himself today to be as close to a Statesman as we have in this country today. We are going to need Obama’s wisdom the next few years.

janedoe:

I wasn’t talking about “The Repubicans”. I am talking about 13 members of congress. It is simply a calculation to figure out what needs to be done to change 13 votes.

Right now remember those damn republicans have the American people on their side.

I am not talking about the merits of the bill, just about how to get it passed.

All said and with time on our hands to debate philosophy, I would probably come down on the side of the Republicans in approach to this issue.

It is sort of like being in a boat that is sinking and debating what type of pump we are going to use to save the ship. I prefer the one that only needs 13 votes to pass because it will work, and we can start pumping now instead of after consensus is built around another concept.

change a few words, give a different speech and pass the bill. Then we can debate Democrats and Republicans and who is in lock step later.

Investors lost 840 Billion dollars in S&P stocks this afternoon. That is 401K investors, pension plan investors, and a host of others. Everyone is going to lose if this credit crisis is not resolved and very quickly.

Paulson is flapping his lips about how the Treasury and Fed lack the tools to fix this credit deterioration of our economy. True, but, if he had been smart about the initial proposal, he wouldn’t have to be making excuses now.

Republicans are primarily responsible for tagging this bill as a bailout of Wall Street. When in fact, from the beginning, it was a stop loss for Main Street Americans. Perhaps he has learned. Perhaps not. Perhaps Republicans will get on board. Perhaps not.

This was his and the Republican president’s baby. They failed to deliver it through their own Republicans in the House of Representatives. Those facts will never change.

j2t2, one thing is for sure especially after today. A republican president gridlocked against a Democratic Congress is not going to solve the pressing problems we all now face.

Craig, that was a pretty senseless statement.

I am not talking about the merits of the bill, just about how to get it passed.

Kind of like curing the disease but killing the patient.

Knaves, rogues and enablers, the perfect description of politics in America.

janedoe:

Kind of like curing the disease but killing the patient

Let me rephrase then.

The current bill will work. All that we need to focus on is how to get 13 votes. A bill that I would prefer would not pass as it would require a republican majority. There are not enough votes for a bill I would “prefer”.

The political disussion I think misses the point. Pelosi did something dumb that cost the bill’s passage. Ok, backtrack rerun it and get it passed. I have done dumb things myself over the years.

I disagree with much of what is being said here and on TV. Of course it needs to be said. However, a bill will pass eventually with difficulty and life will move on. That is the imporatant part.

Watch tomorrow. It will be a very different day. Pelosi also needs a night’s sleep. She looks like a wreck.

The Republican leadership came out and said they had the votes, but several changed their minds because they got their feelings hurt by Pelosi’s speech. If they are voting based on their personal feelings, and not on behalf of the American people then they are traitors and should be shot.

pops mcgee:

Probably. Pelosi should be among them. What a stupid thing to do in an emergency. Trying to score policical points in a crisis.

At least congress it earning it’s approval ratings.

“Pelosi should be among them. What a stupid thing to do in an emergency. Trying to score policical points in a crisis.”

She did nothing more than what the repubs have done, appeal to her base during campaign season. For the repubs to use this speech as an excuse to vote down this bill is reprehensible Craig and does a disservice to this country. The facts she presented were accurate and millions of people feel that the Bush administrations lack of oversight and not using tools currently available to them is part of the problem.

For the dems to associate with the Bush administration on this issue was a major risk but they did it, the repubs in Congress tried to leave them holding the Bush bag after the repubs in Congress sucked up to the Bush administration for 7+ years. Shame on them.

j2t2:

She did nothing more than what the repubs have done, appeal to her base during campaign season.

Exactly. She was speaking like a democrat instead of like the speaker of the house at a time of national crisis.

we can debate the merits of her speach an the republican reaction. In the end the fact remains that it takes 13 votes to change in order to pass.

That is 14 people that need to change. Pelosi and 13 others.

In defense of the House Republicans, they are on the side of the American public with this bill. Obviously there is a failure of leadership as americans are still unconvinced.

Bush isn’t up for reelection, but Congress is.

“In defense of the House Republicans, they are on the side of the American public with this bill. Obviously there is a failure of leadership as americans are still unconvinced.”

Of course we are unconvinced Craig how can we trust the Government after the administration crying wolf the past 7+ years.
As far as the repubs, if they have all of a sudden found their fiscal conservative hat and don’t want to saddle future generations with billions in debt why are we still in Iraq?

David Remer writes; “The market’s money comes from the American people. When the Pauson proposal was first announced, the Dow rose 500 points. On the day the rescue failed, the Dow dropped 777 points. What more do they need?”

Sorry David, you’ll never convince liberals that ordinary American’s suffer when stocks loose value. We’ve read the liberal view here for years and they content that only greedy corporations and the wealthy have an interest in owning and profiting from the stock market.

These same liberals don’t believe that by increasing the tax on dividends and capital gains, as Mr. Obama has vowed to do, that ordinary American’s will suffer either. If anyone thinks a $778 drop on the DOW is significant, they don’t understand the drop that will occur with Obama’s election as millions sell to avoid higher taxes. Selling now probably won’t help as the Obama tax plan will contain a retroactive clause to recapture the tax it would otherwise lose to ensnare those late sellers.

Many of us saw this current crisis forming months ago and that, combined with the adverse effect of an Obama presidency, caused us to move our money to a safe harbor.

Jim M, I agree with your last comment, except that it was Republicans who refused to save pension plans and 401K’s invested in the marketplace today.

The DOW is up 500, down 777, That is refered to as blackmail.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, protect my investments. Some people like to equate the loss of their investments with the destruction of America, imagine that.

Wall Street drove Main Street out of business years ago. The action is on the corporate strip these days.

We slave wagers aren’t nearly as concerned about the consequences of an economic collapse as you Bourgeoisie (I’ve used that word guite a bit today and it is appropriate). Most of us are armed and can take care of ourselves if we have to. If we have to eat cats and dogs to get by, we will. Also, bourgeoisie surburbia and rural clearcutting has created a lot of habitat for deer and other vermin.

There are probably some amoung us who would consider hunting liberals for food but, I’m not one of them. Of course, conservatives are like old shoes and have to be boiled to long.

Flash .Approximately $1.2 trillion in market value is gone after the House rejects the $700 billion bank bailout plan.

“Jim M, I agree with your last comment, except that it was Republicans who refused to save pension plans and 401K’s invested in the marketplace today.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 06:40 PM

David, how interesting. It took conservatives from both sides to defeat this horrendous bill. Merely delaying the problem is hardly a solution. The first draft by the liberals was loaded with pork, this bill eliminated much of that, and perhaps the next bill will be one that offers solutions. We’ll see, it takes a long time for liberals to refocus on what is actually good for all America. I am sure many will be hearing from their constituents.

I have to put this in here. It is on-subject, but is also a little comedic relief, which will not hurt any of us at this time.

And we thought the Nigerian scam was funny…

…Dear American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully
Minister of Treasury Paulson

Sorry….that was in my email today..

How interesting the political bigots can blame Republicans for voting this bill down when over 90 Democratics voted against it.
Where is the condemnation of the “traitors” on the Democratic side of the isle that need to be shot?

“how interesting. It took conservatives from both sides to defeat this horrendous bill.”

Before you try to get on your ideological high horse and think it had anything to do with conservatism Jim M bear in mind that those that voted against this bill were those up for re-election this cycle. Almost to a person it was a choice of me or my country and me won, go figure. So thanks go to the fact that this bill went down because an election was coming up.

janedoe, as much as I wanted to laugh, it’s too soon to be funny. In retrospect we can all look back and laugh at it, but right now it’s a an ironically grim indicator of the state of the U.S. economy.

What a great idea. Politician’s actually representing their constituent’s. I also want to commend the 95 Dems for joining in on defeating this bailout. I do feel bad for these corporation’s facing bad times, maybe they can start eating from the dollar menu or sell a couple yacht’s to get by.

andy, you and many individuals seem to be entirely unaware that these corporations are the ones insuring your cars and your homes and holding your money while you sleep at night. If they are at the point where they are “eating from the dollar menu” it probably means every individual that has been relying on this system in any meaningful way is in some deep… trouble.

These are not the people that have been selling you Ipods and 5-star coffee.

To reiterate a point I’ve made in another post, I do not think this bill will necessarily do anything to help, but many people are approaching it with the wrong attitude.

Weary Willie, this wasn’t a Democratic proposed bill. It was a Republican proposed bill.

Now, if you want, I am sure Democrats will put together their own bottom side up approach with lots of regulation and inspections and prosecutions and confiscations, and they will pass it in the house and leave it to Republican Senators or Bush to veto it, KILLING any credibility the GOP will ever have for decades.

You want to play partisan? I assure you, Democrats can, and will play that game with the GOP if they insist. Polls show the public favors the Democrats on this 2 to 1 over Republicans. You want to make it 3 to 0, or if Eric Cantor wants to make 3 to 0, with all the economic consequences of a Republican veto, Pelosi and Reid will be more than happy to oblige.

Republicans don’t realize it just yet, but they just handed the keys to the kingdom to the Democrats. And if Democrats don’t get the cooperation from the GOP on Thursday, they will use those keys in crafting their own solution giving the people what they expected and then let Republicans balk and wear the consequences for a failed economy for decades to come.

Jim M, the first draft was not Democrats. The first draft came from the Republican White House.

Man, can you never get the facts straight in your comments?

I sent my “Rogue Republican” a note of thanks tonight. If Democrats in congress are serious about nationalizing the financial sector, they certainly have the numbers to make it happen. I’m just grateful that my representative refused to help them.

Jim M, the first draft was not Democrats. The first draft came from the Republican White House.

Really? The republicans were trying to give taxpayer money to Acorn while trying to tell people the money was going to fix the economy?

Strange days, these…

No, Rhinehold. Republicans detest poor and lower middle class African American community organizers. GOP.com has a link to a NY Post article about a long relationship between ACORN and Obama, but, oddly, they never say what ACORN is or provide a link to their site. They just insinuate that ACORN is somekind of subversive communist or socialist plotting organization attempting overthrow the American government or something nefarious like that.

If Jim M’s reference to the first draft was NOT a reference to the bail out bill, I apologize for my error in interpretation of the comment. But, upon rereading his comment, it appears you Rhinehold are reading some other comment than the one I replied to.

Perhaps they figured that one of the most prosecuted vote fraud organizations who use intimidation to push a socialist agenda didn’t need that much detail?

I’ll provide a link if you need direction:

http://www.rottenacorn.com

j2t2 wrote about me, “Before you try to get on your ideological high horse and think it had anything to do with conservatism Jim M bear in mind that those that voted against this bill were those up for re-election this cycle.”

Really? All 465 representatives come up for election every two years. j2t2, I invite you to rethink your position about my ride.

David Remer wrote; “Republicans don’t realize it just yet, but they just handed the keys to the kingdom to the Democrats. And if Democrats don’t get the cooperation from the GOP on Thursday, they will use those keys in crafting their own solution giving the people what they expected and then let Republicans balk and wear the consequences for a failed economy for decades to come.”

Right David, the liberals will replace all the pork gutted from the first bill and probably much more.

http://www.rottenacorn.com
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2008 04:55 AM

Thanks for the link Rhinehold.

David Remer wrote “The White House, Senate Republicans (Shelby excluded), Democrats in the House and Senate, and moderate Republicans in the House, had a deal between them that the tax payers will reap the profits of buying discount properties off bank’s balance sheets, holding them for a time when real estate valuations rise again, and permitting tax payers (government) to reap the profits upon selling these properties. The Rogue Republicans however, will have none of that if they can help it.”

David also provided a link to the NY Times which I thought would add credibility to his claim. I read the linked article an found no such thing. What gives David?

Rhinehold and Jim M., this is from the NY Times article: “that large sums of money were misappropriated in unrelated incidents by an employee and a former employee.”

By your logic, the entire GOP is rotten to the core because of Abramoff’s activities. I think prejudice and bias against African American organizations advocating for poor and lower middle class organizations are showing in your comments.

The Republican bill was 3 pages long. It got to the Democratic HOR and became 106 pages long. Five Democratics stood in front of the cameras to announce it.
It’s as much a Republican bill as it was a “bi-partisan” bill.
It was a Democratic bi-take-it-or-leave-it bill and the Republicans and many Democratics left it because of it’s “we have to do something” poke and hope nature.

The Democratics openly admitted it wouldn’t work and insisted the Republicans be on board when it failed. They weren’t going to “be left holding the bag”!
Such courage!

David Remer writes this in response to my question about how his link to the NY Times supported his acusations;

“I think prejudice and bias against African American organizations advocating for poor and lower middle class organizations are showing in your comments.”

OK David, I understand you don’t wish to explain how the NY Times link was pertinent to your argument. That’s OK, but how do you get from my simple question, “What gives” to ascribing prejudice and bias to me?

Let me provide you with my question that perhaps would prompt the accusatory answer you gave. What in the world do “African American organizations” have to do with the proposed bail-out bill? Is the lack of funding for these organizations what is causing world-wide financial confusion and possible failure? Please explain.

Jim M, I can’t help you with your comprehension deficit. I explained, you don’t comprehend. Reiteration of the obvious is not going to be productive, as your last reply demonstrates. Thanks for trying though.

“Really? All 465 representatives come up for election every two years. j2t2, I invite you to rethink your position about my ride.”

Jim M look at those that voted against the bill and then look at those that are in tightly contested races then you will se what I am referring to.

Jim M, I can’t help you with your comprehension deficit. I explained, you don’t comprehend. Reiteration of the obvious is not going to be productive, as your last reply demonstrates. Thanks for trying though.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 01:56 PM

David, calling me prejudiced and biased against African-Americans passed the censors on this site with no problem. Now, I ask a simple question and you respond that I am unable to comprehend.

Are my questions too difficult…do I need to resort to name-calling as you just did? Naw, I’ll save myself the bother and just consider the source and pray for your recovery.

Jim M look at those that voted against the bill and then look at those that are in tightly contested races then you will se what I am referring to.
Posted by: j2t2 at September 30, 2008 03:32 PM

Nice try to cover up your mistake. Now that you know that all 465 reps are up for election every two years I suggest you do the looking up to further your education.

I would however question your logic. It appears that you are saying that voting against the bail-out is popular with the folks back home (which it is). Why then would so many of both parties vote for this bad bill and risk pissing off these very same folks. Or, are you saying only the voters in the districts where elections are close are angry about the bail-out?

Jim M, the critique was the content within your comments. Again a reading comprehension problem impedes communication. You even quoted my comment, but still don’t comprehend this?

Ah, well! Critique the Message, is the guiding principle here. If your comments want to denigrate ACORN, a many thousands of people organization, on the actions of 2 persons caught embezzling large sums, while not applying the same logic to the GOP on the actions of Sen. Stevens and Abramoff, then your comments appear to have an ulterior motive.

A distinguishing characteristic of ACORN is that it is made up of largely ethnic Americans, serving the lower middle class and poor. It certainly opens the door for speculation on the motives for attacking ACORN by a different standard than that used for the GOP.

“Nice try to cover up your mistake. Now that you know that all 465 reps are up for election every two years I suggest you do the looking up to further your education.”

Jim M my education doesn’t change the facts.

I am continually trying to further my knowledge base, that is one reason I appreciate your post here, even though I usually disagree with them.
However I am confident despite misstating it earlier that what I just said is true by and large. I know you may not like that but it is.

j2t2, there is no getting around Jim M’s comprehension of the written word problem. Jim M is not going to acknowledge research demonstrating that those who voted NAY are in districts where gerrymandering has not secured their incumbency in this election.

Try as you might, he is not going to comprehend the facts in lieu of wishful perspective of his world order. Jim M reminds me of McCain, who takes everyone of his own weaknesses and projects them on to his opponents, while at the same time constantly borrowing their strengths to claim as his own.

It’s an interesting strategy, but, not a very successful one, as McCain is learning. McCain for all his military history, failed Lincoln’s who said, you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but, you can’t fool all the people all the time.

Self-impaling Palin is learning the same lesson, as she discovers the difference between scripted public appearances and speaking from her own thought processes in public. I have to say, Palin is the faster and better learner of the McCain ticket. In 10 or 12 years, she just might be ready for high federal office, if she can find some time to get more education than McCain got.

Well Im going to tell you David if I get my way my incumbent will not be securing her re-election this time out.

As part of the gang of 100 you write about she voted against this bill. But thats about all she has done this past 2 years take orders fron the gang leader and do what she is told. She sure didnt forsee anything coming nor was she proactive in anyway. Complete party line Bush follower until just this past week. Hopefully she will be part of the record number of incumbents thrown out of office, I think the ‘30’s record of 206 should be the goal of all voters this November.
Hopefully this crisis wakes people up and we realize the first step towards changing this mess is new blood in office.

I’m hoping we could all agree to disagree on the particulars and agree on the general premice that it is government as a whole that is failing.
The solution being what j2t2 has just said:

Hopefully she will be part of the record number of incumbents thrown out of office, I think the ‘30’s record of 206 should be the goal of all voters this November.
Hopefully this crisis wakes people up and we realize the first step towards changing this mess is new blood in office.
Posted by: j2t2 at October 1, 2008 12:37 PM

Mr. Remer,
You, I’m sure, can agree with this, Yes?

I have just returned from my County Clerk’s office to aquire a copy of the ballot for this election only to be told it is not ready for distribution.
One month before the election and I am unable to get the names of the people running for office.
Federal and State level candidates are available on the internet but county and city candidates are being hidden from me until it is too late to research and disseminate the information to the voters of my county.
My intention is to vote out anyone who is incumbent to their office but without knowing who is on the ballot it makes an educated decision impossible. The attitude of government employees towards a request to get this information is my being a nuisance.
This is one of the many reasons why I consider action at the local level to be more important in the long run.
I would encourage all to suspend the bickering about trivial matters at the federal level and concentrate on your local level of government. If the local level of government works for many then a concensus of effective local governments will dictate issues to state and federal governments and not the other way around.

David Remer writes; “j2t2, there is no getting around Jim M’s comprehension of the written word problem. Jim M is not going to acknowledge research demonstrating that those who voted NAY are in districts where gerrymandering has not secured their incumbency in this election.

David offering knowledge to j2t2 is really quite funny. Supposedly gerrymandering has produced insecure incumbents which, if counted by the nay votes on this horrendous bill, numbers more than half of the house including all those on the black caucus. David, in my quote above, mentions research that proves his statement. Apparently someone was very busy in the past few days since the defeat of that bill. Would David care to present this “research” to j2t2 and the rest of us.

By logical extension of David’s remarks, the electorate in the districts of more than half the house don’t like the structure of the bail-out offered and, if true, I give them credit for using their brains rather than listening to the Washington BS.

j2t2, I suggest you carefully select those on this blog upon whom you rely for facts and information. And j2t2, you and others should know that there is a huge difference between a Republican and a Conservative. As you know, there are still conservative democrats working within that party for the good of the nation. I have occasionally been one of them.

David is probably a very nice guy who lets his politics dominate his life. So sad. A day off fishing is good for curing depression and confusion, or so I have been told by those suffering those afflictions.

Here are a few passages from Mike Huckabee’s email today for his fellow conservatives. I really love his last sentence quoting Jim Pinkerton.

“Everywhere I go I am pushing hard to protect taxpayers from the bizarre plan to have your tax dollars buy up the worst and most disastrous loans and bad debt in history. Our voice, joined with those of others, is getting through the noise and being heard.

Last night on Hannity and Colmes I told Sean that the people who burned the Thanksgiving turkey are asking us to let them prepare the Christmas dinner…no thanks! Does Congress really think that we’re so ignorant that we can’t see that pouring out $700 billion to the very people who made millions by making really bad business decisions isn’t smart? It’s like buying a Mercedes for a teenager who just wrecked the family’s old Chevy truck. It doesn’t make sense to me and based on the poll on our website it obviously doesn’t to most of our Huck PAC family either. This is why it important for us to get on the field and get our jersey’s dirty. We need you now more than ever to support not the status quo, but to find the agents of change who represent you, Main Street.

As my friend, Jim Pinkerton wrote recently, there is an Axis of Arrogance—the bipartisan group supporting the bailout, who want to take your money and fund their special interests. We must work together to unseat this Axis of Arrogance who think that your wallet is their tip jar.”

Weary the problem with the local levels, at least in my state is that in all the state senate and reps districts there are only 8 people on the ballot that are not democrat or republican. I think 4 are green and 4 are libertarian here in the spawning ground of libertarianism! On the fed level in my state there are more but not many, a couple of constitution party libertarians and greens. In my Congressional district only a repub and a dem. However for president there are 10 or 12 different parties/people running for president. Go figure. It just pains me that all these smaller parties think they can start at the top and then where you would actually consider voting for one they aren’t there.

“Apparently someone was very busy in the past few days since the defeat of that bill. Would David care to present this “research” to j2t2 and the rest of us.”

Jim M the comment was mine not David’s. I dont go state by state to research contested house seat for myself and you can rest assured I wont do it for you. Instead I rely on the news organizations that I have come to trust to be somewhat accurate. They continually update their info on house and senate seats along with the POTUS campaign. This particular piece of information that you dispute came to me, while watching MSNBC, via their political analysis following the congressional races. It included both parties and was based upon his research and analysis of the bail out vote and why it didnt pass after all the theatre and assurances that it would.

Now because I have gained a certain amount of trust in this guy I will stand by his comment and my previous comments. I do suggest that you research this issue and prove my statement wrong if you feel yourself so inclined. In lieu of that I would suggest that you watch MSNBC if your missing out on this type of analysis with your sources.
I know you like to think that this gang of 100 is all about principles and such but they are also about politics, as all politicians are. Perhaps the next vote in the house on the bail out bill will prove to be enlightning on ths issue.

The bail out bill is very political as I see it simply because public opinion is strongly against the bail out for various reasons and the lobbiest that control Congress can smell the money. Of course neither the dems or the repubs will listen to the American people as the Senate proved tonight when they added insult to injury with the pork and tax cuts that amounted to $150bil.

Time will tell about your gang of 100 and your high opinion of them. But the initial vote was based upon politics and the tally shows that. You see the dems that voted against it are in the same boat as the gang of 100. Now to clarify this issue a bit let me add the following: in addition to the politics I’m sure that it was easier for some to vote against this bill more so than others as both sides of the aisle had real concerns and different approaches to solve the problem. The need for this bill stinks and a no vote is a lot easier than a yes vote. However that being said the initial vote in the house showed a pattern that those that are in more highly contested battles for their seat in the house of representatives voted against the bill.

Hi everyone, it is nearly election time in the US. So it’s time for you to send your message to American voters by posting a photo message in the hope of a better world.

Time is running out, and it might be the last chance for you to raise your voice.

Please do not hesitate to post your message or if you did so already, just send a message to your friends to view our page or site.

Take part in making OUR world better, take action now,

Give US a hope

GIVE USA HOPE!

www.giveusahope.com

Are you confused, or wondering what Joe Biden Really meant about Barack Obama potentially being “tested” There is a simple explanation for your worries.. Ever since America has been America, every elected president in history has been “tested”. When John F. Kennedy was in office, his test came in the form of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which almost set off a nuclear war, but in the end, did not. Another example.. when George Bush was elected. very soon after Alkaida operatives, under Osama Bin Laden’s direction, flew a plan into the world trade center buildings. None of these things are Intentionally committed against the U.S.A, or the presidency for that matter, by an inside culprit, they simply happen, naturally, due to the inevitable dis-agreements, threats, economic differences, hatred, etc.. issues that every country suffers from around the World!. Every president in history, in every country has been un-intentionally “tested” by the powers from another country.. If this did not occur, obviously, there would literally be world peace, people!. This is simply what Joe Biden was conveying when he made his statement, and obviously alot of people with little or no “common political sense” understand what the Hell he meant, Omg!. Also, what Joe Biden meant when he said “It’s not going to be apparent initially; it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.” obviously, has a similar meaning; not every president in history was praised for his decision making, but eventually.. we got through it, and it was later apparent that it indeed, Was the correct thing to do!, (Just like Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves!). If after reading this, you still do not understand, or get the point, as simple as I have put it for you; then perhaps you should not be voting in the first place. Thank you for your time… and good luck!.