kos: Democrats should delay vote on bailout until after the election...

[Eric J in MN]

...otherwise, Republicans can run on their opposition to the bailout.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/22/15256/2632/465/606678

Kos quotes Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini:

Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.

God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes.

Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say "No" and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress....

Kos writes:

Yet bizarrely, Democrats are rushing headlong into those boondoggle, flailing their arms in blind panic at the behest of the Bush Administration, all for a proposal that will dump a trillion dollar budget deficit on Obama's lap before he's spent a single dime on anything else.

Unlike Iraq, there's a real crisis here, that requires real governmental intervention. But like Iraq, waiting a few weeks for a better picture of the crisis to be painted would inject much needed reason into this process. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that this crisis is good for McCain. But for down-ballot Republicans desperate for a populist issue to grasp, this could be a gift from heaven.

So there's a political reason to wait five weeks until after the election for a response, which will hopefully be more persuasive to some than the obvious "good policy" reasons.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Republican strategists couldn't possibly care less about good governance.

Good? Bad? Who cares! It's all about winning.

Sending the economy up in flames is good politics to them.

[TexasObserver]

2. Democrats should require the administration and Wall St. to testify under oath.

Let us spend the next 6 weeks having hearings on the debacle created by runaway business concerns with no control from the administration or its functionaries.

THIS is our chance to make the election a referendum on the servile nature of the GOP to Wall Street.

[grasswire]

3. and get Bob Shrum off the news shows

Geez. At this point, on this issue, Patrick Buchanan is a better strategist than Bob Shrum.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[samuraiguppy]

4. Democrats must step in and save the economy.

and we cannot delay--because then it will look like we don't care. Let the repubs be the ones who do not care.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Congress could listen to testimony from people with a wide variety of opinions...

...on what to do about the economy for the next five weeks, instead of giving Bush $700 billion this week and then going on vacation until after the election.

[Duer 157099]

10. How do you know we cannot delay? n/t

[samuraiguppy]

11. trust me, if it even appears

that we don't care enough to get right on it--people will turn on us. Democrats always seem to get the blame.

We have to care--and we can't look like we are willing to set around on our hands while people are suffering. Let that be THEIR party. Not us.

[Duer 157099]

13. Can you elaborate on who is suffering -- that will be alleviated by this bailout, I mean? n/t

[samuraiguppy]

14. well to start with the banks are starting to get extremely

nervous about credit. I am a member over at the creditboards--thousands of people are arbitrarily getting the credit limits reduced and their interests rates raised.

This is just the beginning as banks start to tighten up on extending credit. It could even extend to using ATMs out of network--as banks become unwilling to extend credit even to other banks.

If the banks are in trouble--trust me--we are ALL going to feel it.

[Duer 157099]

18. Wellllll..... from what I can tell.... tightening up on credit

might have actually prevented much of this problem -- so I can't see how the opposite will help to solve it? If anything, it just promises to deepen the problem. No?

[samuraiguppy]

20. we may be facing very very severe actions that will

hurt everyone. I agree things were pretty loose in the past--zero down payments on homes. 10 percent would be reasonable. But my cousin (a mortgage broker) says that it is highly likely that they may go to requiring 20-40 percent down. These types of changes will be drastic--and yes they will hurt people.

[Selatius]

19. Congress is a body designed for deliberation and debate, not snap judgments.

Ramrodding a bill through Congress is not what Congress was created for.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Delay.

Listen to sane and sober economists. Reflect. Listen to the electorate. Wait until after the election.

And Patrick Ruffini and all who are acting in the manner he illustrates can go intercourse themselves until bloody.

[onenote]

7. bad idea. the public wants to see action now. The Democrats would be blamed for delaying it.

Is it an optimal course? No. But its the only course avaiable given that the electorate want to seem some thing change now.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Are there any polls on what the public wants?

I've seen anecdotes that the public hates the idea of a $700 billion bailout of Wall St.

[Mojorabbit]

9. I agree

Wring a boatload of concessions from them and then pass it. It WILL pass, I have no doubt about that.
If the market tanks it will pass before the Friday deadline.

[zeek 463]

15. doesn't most of the public want to see the greedy bastards fall on there ass?

I don't think giving the fat cat's money to save there own ass should be done let them take a fall. It's not like the world would end and a rich C.E.O could care less if you could pay your bill's so let them land flat on there face.

[onenote]

21. no, most of the public wants some stability restored to the economy

A lot of families have savings that they feel are at risk -- either because those savings are in mutual funds, money markets, 401Ks or simply because they are afraid banks are on the verge of failng. They want a semblance of security. No they don't want to reward the folks that created the mess, but that doesn't mean that they want the system to collapse.

[Eric J in MN]

23. Congress should have hearings on a wide variety of approaches to helping the economy.

Congress shouldn't assume that the only options are

a) Give Bush $700 billion without strings attached

OR

b) Give Bush $700 billion with strings attached.

Maybe a better approach is to help people who bought deceptive mortgages without the government giving money to banks.

[zeek 463]

26. the company I work for killed our 401 plan last year I was bent over early

let's drain the c.e.o's bank account's and forclose on there home's and auction off the foreclosed home's and then bail the rat's out at 35% interest. The only string is the public are the shareholders with the final say.

[curious one]

12. Agreed, they should drag it.

[timtom]

16. Well, damn me for a chump.

Political naif that I am.

Of course! This is one salvo of "October surprise".

Kos is right! Let's see if Pelosi and minions can handle THIS one correctly. Kucinich to introduce his plan Tuesday!

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

I already called my 2 senators (snarf! snarf!). I'm sure they will be more than eager to ....nah!

[Eric J in MN]

17. Are you saying that if Dennis Kucinich's plan passes...

...it will be more difficult for Republicans to criticize?

[timtom]

22. Not by any means.

It's just that the Democratic Congress needs to step up to the plate and swing at something. Kucinich has a plan. And I bet it's a good one.

This has nothing to do with republican criticism. They are of minor importance. All they can do is hamstring and obstruct.

This is a rallying cry to our Democratic leadership.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Personally, I don't believe there is a "crisis"...

...in the sense that there will be a total economic meltdown within a year if Congress does nothing.

Stocks may drop over the next year, but the stocks with real value will go up, again.

[dysfunctional press]

25. what an incredibly STUPID idea.

one way or another, something does have to be done QUICKLY.