For those worried about this 'bailout' being used against Democrats...

[GarbagemanLB]

the Senate GOP has been onboard with the Democrats from the early stages, and this new deal is supposed to include provisions to get most of the House Republicans onboard. The Democratic leadership has stated that this needs to be bipartisan, even if the Democrats have enough votes to force it through.

Some random House GOPers might take up opposition to it and use it in local races, but the new deal being worked on is specifically designed to get the majority of the House GOP members onboard. Pelosi and Reid aren't ignorant about the political ramifications of this and they control the agenda. Just reading the reports of what happened at the White House meeting should instill confidence in their abilities (at least for this situation). They convened before the meeting, had a game plan, and made McCain look like a fool.

I also think that everyone in congress has been briefed by many experts on just how serious the situation is, and call me naive but I think (for the most part) politics will stay out of this bill as almost everyone sees it as necessary.

[girl gone mad]

1. I don't think it's a partisan issue.

Anyone who votes for the bill will face tough re-election prospects.

[lostnotforgotten]

3. Bingo - All Democrats And Republicans That Vote For This Should Get Hammered

By the voters!

[TwilightGardener]

5. No. Has it occurred to you that maybe they're right?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

69. Who is "they?"

First things first.

[TwilightGardener]

71. The Democratic Congress? Haven't heard any serious dissent from

any of them, at least not yet.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. OK.

Do you think they're right?

[TwilightGardener]

75. Yeah. I don't like any of this, but I haven't seen any really bright people

who say we should do nothing. The price tag is shocking, and there's no guarantee it will work, but it's going to cost us even if we do nothing, because there will still be pressure to bail out more companies and industries, and Wall Street will remain unconfident and the global markets shaky. At least we will get some confidence back into the market for lending purposes, and new regulations signed into law and have some oversight as to where the money goes and how it's spent.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. I say we should do nothing.

Who is on the hook?
Now? Rich Wallstreerers.
If the bill passes? Joe/Josephina taxpayer.

Why the hurry?
Rich wallstreeters want to release their debts.

Waiting will turn the pressure up on Joe/Josephina's bargaining position.

[GarbagemanLB]

7. I am guessing you are one of those people who thinks nothing should be done out of 'principle'?

Yeah, watch the legislation fail and see how the market reacts and behaves in the ensuing months.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Oh yeah, any democrat who votes for this - his democratic challenger gets my full support

in their next Primary. :thumbsup:

We will not forget this betrayal.

It's like they think we are IDIOTS. Here working class tax payer, go ahead and eat this SHIT SANDWICH (700 billion Wall Street bail-out). Really, eat it because it's delicious. :puke: :grr: :puke:

[TwilightGardener]

32. Please list all the Democrats and SMART Republicans in Congress

who are against the bailout in any form:

[ShortnFiery]

46. This bail out will put the final nail in the coffin for our great Republic. NOT passing this bill

is all important to me - Both as a tax payer and an American.

On edit: Excuse, should type "our DEMOCRATIC republic." ;)

[TwilightGardener]

51. I've said it before, we bailed out the S&L industry, and we didn't

die. We are already bailing out separate businesses, bailouts that are out of our reach in terms of regulation and oversight of our own tax dollars. I'd rather have a LEGISLATED bailout that imposes some new regulations, affords oversight, and tries to get something back for taxpayers and keeps CEO's from walking off with millions more of my dollars, than an UNREGULATED, off-the-books, under-the-table bailout where the same games can still be played with taxpayer dollars with no accountability.

[peaches2003]

70. Wonderful, but you plan on....

buying a new car, making improvements using a home equity loan, buying a new house in the future, using your credit cards, not having your bank fail, and on and on. Oh, really? Well, then think again about your opposition. The credit markets are already drying up, so you will be able to do none of the above. Plan on keeping your job? Oh, really? Well, the lack of credit has far-reaching repercussions and your boss will have no credit to keep running his business, so possibly good-bye job.

[Hamlette]

12. exactly, what this country needs is another depression to give us an FDR

everyone losing their retirement accounts, especially the baby boomers just at the time of retirement and everyone losing their homes.

And all the small businesses that go belly up because of no credit would be WONDERFUL for this country but the part I like best? The 25% unemployment that will result if we don't let them vote for this bailout.

Then, the beauty? We might get an FDR when the depression hits.

That'll show them.

VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT.

We will NOT save people one thin dime if he helps Wall Street. I'd much rather live in a 3rd world country because that'll show 'em.

[GarbagemanLB]

I hope your post is sarcasm. I really do.

[lostnotforgotten]

17. It Has Occurred To Me That we Are All Getting Ripped Off

Has it occurred to any of you?

[samsingh]

28. it's being spun as a Democratic congress

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Because people are helplessly, hopelessly stupid and fail to understand the severity of the crisis.

This bill, or something like it, HAS to pass, or the economic results of the present liquidity crisis will only deepen, and there will be many more failures of financial institutions, more failures of businesses, and thousands or even millions out of work.

[Indiana_Dem]

10. BINGO! Not to mention many lifelong retirement funds. nt

[rockymountaindem]

23. Your average internet discussion board (including this one) is usually a morass

of screwy comments and emotional rhetoric. But it makes me feel a better about things that all the posters who stand out to me and frequently make me say, "there's some thoughtful reasoning" when I read them (including you) are aware that *something* has to happen in this scenario. The "let it collapse" arguments seem to mostly be originating from the background of screaming tantrum-throwers that all too often dominate around here. That says a lot, I think.

[lostnotforgotten]

62. And Will It Be The Last - And Why Has No One Explained That Possibility?

eom

[TwilightGardener]

2. Like I said, I can't find any smart, trustworthy people in Congress or

in the business/economic world who oppose any form of bailout. At some point, when enough people are telling you that a train is coming and you should get off the tracks, you have to start thinking that maybe a train really is coming.

[girl gone mad]

39. Then you just aren't looking.

Here are a few:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/chicago-economists-lead-b_n_129599.html

"Before you go nuclear I think we need to know if there's something really bad out there they're not telling us about," said Cochrane.

Both Sapienza and Cochrane say the Bush administration is hyping the urgency with which Congress needs to act. They believe the markets can hold their own for a week or two or three and give congress time to determine whether such a big bailout is essential.

The argument you are using was also used to rush us into the Iraq war.

[TwilightGardener]

44. We're watching banks fail, BIG banks, we're watching the Chinese

getting nervous about lending us money, we're watching businesses unable to get lines of credit to operate (I have a family member who is getting laid off for this reason--the business was faltering, and no one wants to lend it money). Yeah, I think there's some urgency. Sorry, economists are essential for advice, but in the end, they offer THEORIES, and are accountable to NO ONE, unlike elected officials.

[ShortnFiery]

6. No! This is nothing less than more financial RAPE of the Middle Class. Enough!

:grr:

[TwilightGardener]

8. The middle class may start suffering when they can't get school loans, or

home loans, or when farmers can't get lines of credit to run their operations. If Congress does nothing and the Dow Jones plummets, what happens to my 401K?

[ShortnFiery]

14. It's going to happen anyway. Wall Street has already raped the taxpayer - should we give the rapist

a kiss before he walks out the door? DAMN THEM! :grr:

[TwilightGardener]

24. One of my Senators made a really good point: Wall Street IS part of Main Street--

it's impossible to totally separate the two, because so many individuals, small businesses, and local and state economies are tied up in Wall Street investments. From retirement funds to loans and lines of credit, that's how America runs and makes money. It's not necessarily in our interests to let Wall Street go down, because we'll go down too, even worse than now. Here's the link:
http://www.theindependent.com/news/x1800997175/Hagel-Congress-working-on-plan-for-a-bailout-of-all-of-America

[Trekologer]

49. You're absolutely correct

Businesses run on credit. Right now, credit-worthy businesses and individuals are finding it virtually impossibly to obtain loans right now. For businesses, it means an inability for them to invest in capital and expansion (read as no new jobs) and refinance existing debt (loss of existing jobs). If individuals cannot get loans, they cannot buy homes. If homes aren't being bought, the values of all homes goes down. A lot of Americans retirement plans are to live off of the proceeds from selling their one asset worth the most: their home.

I would like nothing but to be able to give the finger to Wall Street and let those who are responsible to go down and be left holding the bag. But the reality is that if credit dries up and the economy tanks, everyone is affected.

[TheBigotBasher]

18. I agree.

The motor industry, the car industry, the coal industry, etc were not bailed out. And the reasons the were failing was no one was buying their product. The banks want a bail out becaiuse they are no longer selling their product. Stuff that. $700 billion, $100 per person in the World or all that money to a few banks who refuse to play because THEY broke their own rules?

[Hamlette]

19. That's right by damn. The middle class DESERVE to lose their life savings.

That will be SO MUCH better than this bail out.

Especially when they lose their homes and their jobs.

That is SO much better than this "rape".

[girl gone mad]

34. Americans are already losing their jobs and homes.

Where have you been?

No one has reasonably explained why this rushed bailout is necessary.

The economists I follow are opposed to this bill.

[Hamlette]

43. What part of Krugman's analysis do you disagree with?

I can tell you how it happened, the same way it happened in the 80s with the savings and loans.

Too many people refinanced their homes at inflated values. The market allowed sub prime mortgages which is forcing them out of their homes now.

Unemployment is just a small uptick as are bankruptcies and foreclosures compared to what will happen if we don't get some money available.

Because of the housing bubble (have you priced real estate lately?) there is a credit crunch which is killing small businesses.

My guess is you have no money in the market and don't own a business, otherwise you'd be feeling this.

[girl gone mad]

53. Sorry, but Krugman has a mediocre track record on this crisis.

While he understands that our underlying fundamentals have been weak for some time, he also made several inaccurate predictions.

Anyhow, last I heard he was against the bailout.

Money will be made available with higher interest rates. If not, the government could consider making direct loans. There is no need to rush legislation through congress.

I both have money in the market and own a small business.

[FrenchieCat]

9. As I posted elsewhere......

It is clear public knowledge that it was Bush and the Republicans who got us to this point. Some Repugs who are runnings scared will try to spin it otherwise, but they lack credibility.

Americans are upset about this bill, but the big question is who are they upset with? Those who caused a need for it, or those who ended up required to support a rescue bill in order to quash a pending calamity?

I believe that when everything is said and done, Bush, Wall Street, Republicans, and Washington DC, in that order, is how the blame will be ordained. Barack Obama, not really seen as having been in Washington long enough to have contributed to this, will be the last person blamed, no matter the spin. He has made clear that he is running to clear this shit up, and wasn't part of how it got to where it ended up. He was also the one that provided clear changes to the original proposal, one that is more favorable to Main Street.

Those who attempt to vote NO on the rescue bill will need a very good back up story, with Republicans being the shakiest of ground....as a NO vote coming from there will be seen as political calculation laced with artificial outrage...by anyone with a 1/2 wit of sense. Some of them might survive, but as incumbents, I doubt it.

How do I come to this conclusion?

Because there is tangible evidence that Wall Street is going into the toilet.
Large firms like Caterpillar (equipment firm)having to pay almost twice the prior interest rate
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/09/26/2008-09-26T184715Z_01_N25321491_RTRIDST_0_CATERPILLAR-CRISIS.html

GM (auto firm) line of credit worries that show that they are in real trouble http://www.247wallst.com/2008/09/gm-gm-dives-int.html

Washington Mutual failed
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=91320&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=Business&rpc=23&videoChannel=5&sp=true

and Wechovia is in talks to sale due to a possible verge of failure.
http://gothamist.com/2008/09/27/wachovia_talks_to_citi_others_about.php

The Chinese Banks have been given directive to stop lending to American banks, unless there is a plan in place.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSPEK16693720080925

There have been many big time players stating that a rescue is not an option but a requirement to avert impending doom. CNN and folks like Warren Buffett are verifying that this is the case.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSPEK16693720080925
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/bailout_impact/index.htm?cnn=yes

In otherwords, this "crisis" is not made up, as there is verifiable proof of such, nothwithstanding the public witnessing the failure of ALL investment banks as well as the largest insurer in the country, AGI.

The people will want to vote for the ones who weren't directly responsible and if nothing else, negotiated a better position for the taxpayers.....and I think that they will do this
Remembering that Bear-Stearns was bailed out recently...as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So this ain't happening in a vacuum.

It is true that the Congressional Democrats have had their face on Television more than I would have liked....but I understand this was done to reassure the market.....as a large part of solving the crisis is re-establishing confidence, which is the real reason that congress has been publicly speaking on the progress every step of the way.

Also remember what there is this to point to, which John McCain is directly affiliated to
The U.S. Savings and Loan Crisis, named as one of the biggest bail out in US history prior to now.

Bailout date: August 1989
Amount: Estimates vary widely, but $200 billion (in 2008 dollars) is a reasonable figure.

What happened: The “S&L” debacle of the late ’80s and early ’90s was long in the making and long in the unwinding. U.S. taxpayers were first put on the hook when then President George H.W. Bush (right) signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which radically reformed the savings and loan industry and federal regulations. When the dust finally settled in 1995, more than 1,000 small lending institutions known as “savings and loans,” also called “thrifts,” had failed. Half of the federally insured thrift institutions in the United States had gone under in less than a decade, and the associated slowdown in new home construction and the financial fallout contributed to the 1990-1991 recession. The underlying causes of the S&L crisis are complex and disputed, but most scholars generally agree that high, volatile interest rates, reckless lending practices, rapid deregulation, and lax oversight paved the way for the greatest banking disaster since the Great Depression.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4470

[nickgutierrez]

30. Good point.

The Democrats should cast themselves as the responsible adults, fixing a problem that the Republicans caused. To a certain degree, the more the Republicans oppose it, the easier this framing could end up being - as long as there is a significant portion of "moderate" Republicans that come along.

[FrenchieCat]

36. That is exactly what is happening.....

Which is why those who play hardball and vote NO will be the outcast; the Corporate media will make sure of that, because for once, fortunately, they are affected by this via the parent companies, i.e., a financial collapse is not in their interest.

[girl gone mad]

42. Caterpillar was able to secure a loan this week with little trouble.

They had to pay a slightly higher interest rate.

I think you mean GM, not Ford. If GM can't raise capital, the government should considering loaning directly to them instead of continuing to prop up the ticking time bombs.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Here....

Caterpillar bond sale illustrates credit crunch

When a unit of giant manufacturer Caterpillar Inc (nyse: CAT - news - people ) went to Wall Street this week looking to borrow $1.25 billion as part of its normal financing operations, there were lots of reasons to expect the exercise would be anything but normal.

In the end, the capital raise wasn't as bruising or costly as it could have been given the shattered state of the U.S. banking system -- though it did illustrate how much the financial world has changed in the space of a few weeks as a result of the ongoing crisis.

Things didn't look propitious as Caterpillar Financial, the company's captive finance arm, entered the market. As one after another of Wall Street's biggest names fell in recent weeks, banks began hoarding cash and investors, unsure who the next victim would be, went on strike.

As these key players exited the corporate debt market, the lending pipeline narrowed dramatically. Things got so tight at one point last week, according to Caterpillar's chair and chief executive, that all lending -- even to the highest-rated corporate borrowers -- ground to a halt.

"For a day or two, all markets for medium-term notes were closed to anybody," Jim Owens told Reuters on Monday in an exclusive interview at a trade show in Las Vegas.

When Caterpillar entered the market on Tuesday, it was the first major issuer to retest the waters. A lot of people were watching -- and holding their breath.

To no one's surprise, the interest rates Caterpillar Financial was asked to pay were higher -- a lot higher. When the dust cleared, lenders had forced the company, a unit of the world's largest maker of construction and mining equipment, to pay about $15.6 million more per year to borrow the final amount than Caterpillar would have paid on the same loan just a year ago.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/09/26/2008-09-26T184715Z_01_N25321491_RTRIDST_0_CATERPILLAR-CRISIS.html


GM (GM) Dives Into Its Line Of Credit--Running On Empty
The Wall Street Journal reports that "GM's cash position has been dwindling in recent quarters. The auto maker says it needs between $11 billion and $14 billion on hand to fund day-to-day operations. As of the end of June, GM had $21 billion available, excluding $5 billion in untapped credit lines. Given the about $1.2 billion-a-month rate at which GM has been burning through cash this year, Wall Street has begun to worry about its liquidity."

But if GM needs a government handout to survive, the shares probably aren't worth buying: kind of like lending money to people in line at the welfare office.
http://www.247wallst.com/2008/09/gm-gm-dives-int.html

[girl gone mad]

68. As I suspected, you meant GM, not Ford.

Caterpillar was able to get the money at a slightly higher interest rate. Despite Forbes's RW corporatist propaganda, borrowing 500 million at less than 5% is not a terrible deal.

Also, I would still feel better about a direct loan to GM than a bank bailout that may or may not result in GM being able to secure financing.

[Curtland1015]

13. Okay people opposed to any form of bailout... what's the alternative?

There are a lot of people, VERY SMART people, people in the economic and political sector, who say we NEED to do this at least in some form or another. ...and no, not every one of them is going to make money on this deal.

I love being skeptical as much as the next lefty, but honestly, WHAT is the alternative? Wait and see? Pray?

[ShortnFiery]

16. The alternative is EXACTLY what's been preached to us since the 1980s: Market will correct itself!

"Walk the walk" you BLOATED Wall Street Robber Barons. :grr:

[lostnotforgotten]

20. Bingo - You Got It - If The Bankruptcy Bill Is Good enough For Us

Then it's good enough for these Wall Street Fat Cats!

[Indiana_Dem]

25. We can reverse the bankruptsy bill when we get D pres & congress!! nt

[lostnotforgotten]

27. Yeah Right - How About Some Land In Florida?

eom

[GarbagemanLB]

33. Do you think there is some invisible wall between Wall Street and 'main street'?

[lostnotforgotten]

60. I Think That We Are Getting Financially Raped!

eom

[TwilightGardener]

63. Well, aside from hyperbolic one-liners, do you have a cogent argument to make in reply?

[lostnotforgotten]

65. Here Is A Credible Alternative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOfYmSLW_U&eurl=http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/590-FLASH-Fed-Speaking-Out-Both-Sides-Of-Mouth.html

[Indiana_Dem]

21. and we'll be walking right off with them! nt

[ShortnFiery]

29. Sadly, it's been coming for a long time. No need to make the ultra-wealthy even more comfortable

as they take all their assets overseas for the duration.

[Indiana_Dem]

38. So I get penalized for paying all of my debt off in 5 yrs and having a savings?

I, of all people should be saying let it collapse! I could buy up things for pennies on the dollar. I won't be suffering as much as others. I don't even have a retirement worth much--just 10k. One guy I know has 80k in AIG and would lose his whole life savings---he's not in debt, he's a janitor at a local school. I would really hate to see him lose his life savings because there was no bailout. I do care for those affected around me even if I won't be AS affected.

[ShortnFiery]

50. The only people who won't be "as affected" are those who can afford to move to Paraguay

and live off of their STOLEN Booty.

Everyone else is going to HURT and hurt bad. Do you wish to give "a party" for all those companies who are going to take OUR BAILOUT tax dollars as they send ALL our jobs overseas?

[girl gone mad]

56. If he had 80k in AIG, he already lost most if not all of it. n/t

[Indiana_Dem]

72. It is a subsidiary of AIG----VALIC?nt

[Curtland1015]

22. Just like a boat about to sink, right?

Ah, it'll probably come back up on it's own...

[ShortnFiery]

35. Whenever people wanted more regulation in the markets, that's exactly what was repeated ad nauseum.

"The Markets will correct themselves ... it's an economic cycle that can not be manipulated."

Hey, it's been preached since Saint Ronnie fired the Air Traffic Controllers. Now it's time to live your LIE because we all must endure - no need to give extra money to THE THEIF as he walks out the door.

[Curtland1015]

41. Do you live in some magical universe where this wall street mess WON'T...

...come crashing down on our heads?

This screw up IS their fault. Of course it is, but standing around doing NOTHING isn't going to punish them and leave us alone. We do nothing and we're ALL screwed. Every last one of us. How is it that you think we'll be sheilded from harm if the entire economy of the country collapses? Or are you just happy to watch us all suffer just to spite the very few?

[Indiana_Dem]

45. Maybe these no-bailout people want a new currency called the Amero???

Cause that's what will happen if we do nothing.

[girl gone mad]

61. That's kind of an odd argument to make.

I would reason that printing up 700 trillion will do more damage to our currency than doing nothing will.

[ShortnFiery]

54. No, I live in the real world. I sure as shit know that Congress is NOT going to give my money to

BUSHCO. and his corporate crones. No way! I will vote against every single democrat who voted for this SCAM - in favor of their very next democratic challenger.

Remember all those high pressure salesmen ... when someone says that it must be done "right now," that's when we KNOW it's A SCAM. :(

[girl gone mad]

58. No one has made a convincing argument that this bailout:

1. Is necessary.

2. Will be effective.

[AnnetteFun]

74. I know. It all started with AIG....

We had already bailed out Fannie, Freddie and whoever else, then people started freaking out when it looked like AIG was next. Suddenly, it went from AIG to the entire economy is going to collapse if we don't do this. I still don't get it, I'll never get it, and it just seems so fundamentally wrong to keep bailing out these companies. Did you hear we also did a bailout for the auto companies (forget if it was all or just one). Where the frig is this money coming from? Maybe my simple mind cannot grasp these complex topics.

[Democat]

31. Some of us are opposed to doing it in a way that helps McCain

Democrats should make it clear that if McCain doesn't vote for it, then Obama won't vote for it. No compromise on that.

The American people are against the bailout. Republicans are good at turning anger into votes (racism, anti-gay, immigration). If Democrats let Obama support this while McCain comes out against it, then Obama is going to take a beating with voters.

This needs to be strategic. There is nothing more important in the next 40 days than winning this election. The economy can be fixed after the election if needed. If McCain wins, that means four years of destroying the economy, wars, and more. That is far worse than anything that could happen in the next 40 days.

[girl gone mad]

47. Most of the people pushing for this bailout are the ones who were telling us..

that subprime was "contained" and the outlook was rosy just a few short months ago.

[TexasObserver]

15. And Lucy really is going to let you kick the football this year, Charlie Brown.

The GOP is going to play this both ways, believe it.

[samsingh]

26. they will definitely try = and i 'm afraid that it could go against us

[ShortnFiery]

37. I'm not afraid, I'm pissed & will vote for the challenger to each democrat who votes for the SCAM.

:(

On Edit: I will vote for "the democratic" challenger come their next primary.

[GarbagemanLB]

40. Wow, what an idiotic move.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Oh, that was thoughtful. Did you attend "The McCain School of Debate."

:eyes:

[GarbagemanLB]

52. I call it like I see it.

[ShortnFiery]

55. Yes, condescending is very constructive. We clearly disagree, good day.

[GarbagemanLB]

57. You just said you would vote for the Republican over any Democrat who votes for this legislation.

I don't think many here would disagree that that is a stupid move.

[ShortnFiery]

64. No, we had a communication glitch: clarification, I'd vote them out to Democratic Challengers.

I hope that helps. No, we are in more than a bail-out crisis now and I won't vote against any democratic representative. However, I will remember and starting two years from now, I'll vote for their democratic challenger in their next Primary.

It's beyond time we wash out the CORPORATIONS FIRST democratic representatives out of our beloved party.

[GarbagemanLB]

67. Well in that case I apologize.

[ShortnFiery]

76. Apology accepted. We just disagree.

:-) :hi:

[doc03]

66. This is the Republican bailout written by Republicans

for Republicans. How about letting Wall Street bail their own sorry asses out. Put a hefty fee on stock trades, espeacialy hedge funds and short sales. Why is it only the Republican's plan making us pay the price is the only option. Will this even do any good, name one thing in the last 7 1/2 years Bush has done right?