Skip to main content

So Hunter has a front page post blasting the new Senate bailout bill, saying that because it includes tax cuts that the House rejected, that the bill is now "much, much worse," so much so that he believes that:

Now I want it to die a hot, flaming death. I want its ashes to be fed to goats, and the goats fed to sharks, and the sharks put on a rocket and fired into the sun.

The problem is that most of the additions to this bill are things that Democrats actually like.  Indeed, the Senate just passed the bill that is being attached to the bailout 93-2 last week.

So what is in this bill?  Let's take a look:

Title I: Energy Tax Incentives - Subtitle A: Energy Production Incentives - Part I: Renewable Energy Incentives - (Sec. 101) Extends: (1) through 2009 the tax credit for producing electricity from qualified wind facilities; and (2) through 2011 the tax credits for producing electricity from closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal or solar energy, small irrigation power, municipal solid waste, trash combustion, and qualified hydropower. Imposes a limit on such tax credit based upon investment in renewable resource facilities placed in service after 2009 in lieu of the current phaseout provisions for such credit. Expands the definitions of and rules for "open-loop biomass facility," "qualified trash combustion facility," and "nonhydroelectric dam" for purposes of such credit.

(Sec. 102) Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources.

(Sec. 103) Extends through 2014 the energy tax credit for solar energy, fuel cell, and microturbine property. Allows a new energy tax credit for combined heat and power system property. Increases to $1,500 the credit limitation for fuel cell property. Modifies energy tax credit rules to allow: (1) offsets of tax credit amounts against alternative minimum tax (AMT) liabilities; and (2) public utility property to qualify for such credit.

(Sec. 104) Extends through 2014 the tax credit for residential energy efficient property. Increases to $4,000 the maximum dollar amount of such credit for solar electric property. Allows a credit for 30% of expenditures for wind turbines used to generate electricity in a residence and for geothermal heat pumps.

(Sec. 105) Extends deferral rules for gain from sales or dispositions by qualified electric utilities made prior to January 1, 2010.

(Sec. 106) Allows a new tax credit for investment in qualified new clean renewable energy bonds.

Incentives to invest in alternative energy? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Part II: Carbon Mitigation Provisions - (Sec. 111) Increases to 30% the investment tax credit rate for power generation projects using integrated gasification combined cycle and other advanced coal-based generation technology projects. Increases the maximum credit amounts allocable for such projects to $2.55 billion.

(Sec. 112) Increases to 30% the investment tax credit rate for coal gasification projects. Increases by $250 million the aggregate credit amounts for coal gasification projects.

(Sec. 113) Extends the excise tax on coal until the earlier of January 1, 2019, or the day after the first December 31st after December 31, 2007, on which there is no balance of repayable advances made to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund and no unpaid interest on such advances.

(Sec. 114) Sets forth a special rule for refund claims of coal excise tax by certain coal producers and exporters.

(Sec. 115) Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a comprehensive review of Internal Revenue Code provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Requires the Academy to report to Congress on the results of such study not later than two years after the enactment of this Act. Authorizes appropriations.

OK, I'm not exactly sure what all this is doing, but it sounds like stuff dealing with "clean coal" or whatever.

Subtitle B: Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions - (Sec. 121) Includes cellulosic biofuel within the definition of biomass ethanol plant property for purposes of bonus depreciation.

(Sec. 122) Extends through 2009 income and excise tax credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel used as fuel. Increases the rates of such credits.

(Sec. 123) Disqualifies foreign-produced fuel that is used or sold for use outside the United States for the income and excise tax credits for alcohol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and alternative fuel production.

(Sec. 124) Allows a new tax credit for the production of qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. Defines a "qualified plug-in electric drive vehicle" as a motor vehicle weighing less than 14,000 pounds that meets certain emission standards under the Clean Air Act and that is propelled to a significant extent by an electric motor that draws electricity from a rechargeable battery.

(Sec. 125) Allows an exclusion from the heavy truck excise tax for idling reduction devices and advanced insulation used in certain heavy trucks and trailers.

(Sec. 126) Revises tax incentives for investment in the New York Liberty Zone to repeal certain additional depreciation allowances and to allow a tax credit against payroll liabilities of New York Liberty Zone governmental units (i.e., New York State, the City of New York, or any agencies or instrumentalities thereof) for expenditures involving transportation infrastructure projects in or connecting with such Zone.

(Sec. 127) Allows employees to exclude reimbursements for bicycle commuting expenses from gross income.

(Sec. 128) Extends through 2010 the tax credit for installing nonhydrogen alternative fuel refueling property. Increases the rate of the tax credit for alternative fuel refueling property expenditures from 30 to 50% and raises the dollar limit for commercial properties to $50,000.

Tax credits for electric vehicles?  Promotion of cellulosic biofuel?  Doesn't sound bad to me.

Subtitle C: Energy Conservation and Efficiency Provisions - (Sec. 141) Authorizes the issuance of qualified energy conservation bonds to finance local government conservation and greenhouse gas reduction projects. Imposes a national limitation of $3 billion on the issuance of such bonds.

(Sec. 142) Extends the tax credit for nonbusiness energy property expenditures through 2008. Includes energy-efficient biomass fuel stoves as property eligible for such tax credit.

(Sec. 143) Extends the tax deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings through 2013.

(Sec. 144) Revises the amounts allowable under the tax credit for energy efficient appliances produced after 2007 (i.e., dish washers, clothes washers, and refrigerators) and extends such credit through 2010.

(Sec. 145) Allows an accelerated 10-year recovery period for the depreciation of qualified smart electric meters and smart electric grid systems.

(Sec. 146) Extends through FY2012 the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds for qualified green building and sustainable design projects.

Energy conservation and efficiency is usually a good thing.

Title II: One-Year Extension of Temporary Provisions - Subtitle A: Extensions Primarily Affecting Individuals - (Sec. 201) Extends through 2008: (1) the election to deduct state and local sales taxes in lieu of state and local income taxes; (2) the tax deductions for qualified tuition and related expenses and for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers; (3) the exemption from withholding for interest-related and short-term capital gain dividends received from a regulated investment company; (4) tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans (IRAs) for individuals called or ordered to active military duty and for charitable purposes; (5) the election to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned income tax credit; (6) authority for use of qualified mortgage bonds to finance residences for veterans; (7) special rules and definitions relating to regulated investment companies; and (8) the tax exclusion for amounts received under qualified group legal services plans.

Subtitle B: Extensions Primarily Affecting Businesses - (Sec. 221) Extends through 2008 the tax credit for increasing research activities. Sets forth a special rule for the computation of such tax credit for taxable years in which it terminates.

Extends through 2008 other business-related tax provisions, including: (1) the tax credits for Indian employment and railroad track maintenance; (2) accelerated depreciation for qualified leasehold and restaurant improvements, for motorsports racing track facilities, and for business property on Indian reservations; (3) the expensing allowance for environmental remediation costs; (4) the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico; (5) the special rule for the tax treatment of certain payments to tax-exempt organizations by a controlled subsidiary; (6) the authority for issuance of qualified zone academy bonds; (7) tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia, including tax-exempt economic development bonds and a first-time homebuyer tax credit; (8) the economic development credit for American Samoa; (9) the special rules for charitable contributions of food and book inventories; (10) the increased tax deduction for corporate contributions of computer equipment and technology for educational purposes; (11) the special rule relating to reductions in the basis of S corporation stock for charitable contributions of property; and (12) work opportunity tax credit eligibility for Hurricane Katrina employees (through August 28, 2008).

Extends through 2009: (1) the new markets tax credit; (2) the Subpart F income exemption for active financing income; and (3) expensing of qualified film and television production costs.

Subtitle C: Other Extensions - (Sec. 251) Makes permanent the authority for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to disclose tax return information related to terrorist activities.

(Sec. 252) Makes permanent the authority for the IRS to conduct undercover operations.

(Sec. 253) Makes permanent the authority for disclosure of tax return information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for veterans benefit determinations.

(Sec. 254) Extends through 2008 the increased payment ($10.50 to $13.25 per proof gallon) of distilled spirits excise tax to the Treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

(Sec. 255) Extends through 2008 parity requirements applicable to mental health benefits offered by group health plans.

Extensions of tax credits and the like which seem to be pretty much non-offending.

Title III: Additional Tax Relief - Subtitle A: Individual Tax Relief - (Sec. 301) Allows individual taxpayers an additional standard tax deduction in 2008 for state and local real property taxes. Limits the amount of such deduction to $350 ($700 for married individuals filing a joint tax return).

(Sec. 302) Lowers in 2008 (from $10,000 to $8,500) the earned income threshold amount for determining the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

(Sec. 303) Increases the alternative minimum tax (AMT) refundable credit amount for individuals who have long-term unused minimum tax credits from prior taxable years. Abates any underpayment of tax attributable to the application of special AMT rules for the treatment of incentive stock options.

Subtitle B: Business Related Provisions - (Sec. 311) Allows attorneys a tax deduction in the current taxable year for reimbursable expenses and court costs which they pay or incur in connection with contingency fee cases.

(Sec. 312) Modifies rules relating to the expensing of film and television production costs.

Subtitle C: Modification of Penalty on Understatement of Taxpayer's Liability by Tax Return Preparer - (Sec. 321) Modifies the standards for imposing penalties on tax return preparers for understatements of tax to require: (1) substantial authority for a position with respect to an item on a tax return if such position was not disclosed with the return; and (2) a reasonable basis for a position that was disclosed with the return.

Requires tax return preparers to have a reasonable belief that a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction (a transaction having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion) will more likely than not be sustained on its merits.

Subtitle D: Extension and Expansion of Certain GO Zone Incentives - (Sec. 331) Allows taxpayers who claimed a casualty loss deduction for damage to a personal residence caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma and who subsequently received a grant as compensation for such damage to file an amended tax return to disallow the casualty loss deduction without payment of any tax penalty. Waives deadlines for starting construction for property in the Gulf Opportunity (GO) Zone eligible for bonus depreciation. Includes Colbert and Dallas Counties in Alabama within the GO Zone for purposes of tax-exempt bond financing.

Makes the child tax credit more available, alters the AMT, and a couple other things.  Again, still not seeing much which would make the original bill "much, much worse" yet.

Title IV: Revenue Provisions - (Sec. 401) Requires the inclusion in gross income for income tax purposes of employee compensation deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of a nonqualified entity when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such compensation. Defines "nonqualified entity" as any foreign corporation unless substantially all of its income is: (1) effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States; or (2) subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax. Includes certain partnerships within such definition.

(Sec. 402) Delays until 2019 the application of special rules for the worldwide allocation of interest for purposes of computing the limitation on the foreign tax credit.

(Sec. 403) Amends the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 to: (1) repeal the adjustment to the estimated tax liability of corporations with at least $1 billion in assets for the third quarter of 2012; and (2) increase the estimated tax payments of such corporations in the third quarter of 2013 by 37.75%.

So this is the bill which is supposed to make the new bailout so horrible that it should be shot into the sun with goats and sharks?  Really?  The only thing that I know is added on top of this is increasing the FDIC insurance, which isn't a bad idea, either.

And why did the House fail to pass this bill?  Not because they were opposed to the tax cuts, per se, but because they weren't all paid for.

I would suggest people know what is being added to the bill before they condemn it as the worst thing every created.

Added Note

I should note that I'm not trying to argue here that those against the bailout for it's core are wrong because of this.  If you think the core is bad and this doesn't change your mind, then fine, I respect that.  But if one is going to say that adding this on to the bailout makes it some horrible monster, it'd be nice to explain how it does that, exactly.

Added Note 2

I should note that I find the argument that adding this stuff will make the Republicans suddenly want to vote for this bill dubious myself.  Though that's rather beside the point that I'm trying to make in this diary.  I'm not particularly arguing that this is a good idea or tactic, just that it isn't this horrible thing.

Added Note 3

For those brave enough, this is the actual text of the bill being attached to the bailout, as passed by the Senate.

OK, apparently that link expires after a while.  To get to the full text go here and click "Text of Legislation" and then  "5. Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)[H.R.6049.EAS]"

Update

From the Senate bill (the bailout bill is actually going to be an amendment to the bill linked above), a part on mark-to-market.  Not exactly sure if this is axing it or not.  Perhaps someone who can read this stuff better than I can say. (I'm also looking for a link to this bill):

SEC. 132. AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND MARK-TO-MARKET ACCOUNTING.

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Securities and Exchange Commission shall have the authority under the securities laws (as such term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)) to suspend, by rule, regulation, or order, the application of Statement Number 157 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board for any issuer (as such term is defined in section 3(a)(8) of such Act) or with respect to any class or category of transaction if the Commission determines that is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors.

(b) SAVINGSPROVISION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to restrict or limit any authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission under securities laws as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.9

Update 2

I'm looking at this bill (I'm trying to get it online so people can look at it) and it says something about being an amendment to H.R. 1424.  Except that's not the bill that was suggested it would be attached to.  I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something here.

Update 3

OK, what it looks like it's doing is using an old House bill - H.R. 1424 - as a shell so that they can pass this in the Senate first and then go to the House.  The added stuff from the old bill from H.R. 6049 is attached to the end of the bailout bill which is being attached as an amendment in the nature of a substitute.  I'm about to go through that now to make sure it is the same as the above bill.

Update 4

The Senate Bill (I hope that works for everyone)

Update 5

OK, this is the breakdown of the bill:

Division A is the bailout bill.  It runs through about page 113.  It looks like the FDIC provisions are in Section 126 135 and as noted above, the "Mark-to-Market" provision is in Section 132 of that division.

Division B appears to be Division A of what was H.R. 6049, the bill that I talk about above.

Division C is what was Division B in H.R. 6049.

Originally posted to FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:56 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  mojo jarjo (503+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tk421, stiela, clonecone, Rob Humenik, MichaelPH, JWC, Mimikatz, Sylv, northsylvania, CJB, GeckoBlue, fcvaguy, Mogolori, Chi, ryeland, Phoenix Woman, steveGA, itsbenj, hester, dansac, Friar, slinkerwink, Mordecai, AlanF, David in NY, DelRPCV, dbratl, Turtle Bay, Superribbie, mndan, Powered Grace, ScientistMom in NY, alkatt, BigOkie, greenbird, Ott, Lahdee, TechBob, krwada, Byron from Denver, lysias, belle1, ablington, cookiesandmilk, John Campanelli, eeff, Duncan Idaho, zenbowl, frisco, the OTHER rasmussen, dlcox1958, Plays in Traffic, AtlantaJan, CivicServant, HighSticking, dnamj, awnm, perro amarillo, Polarmaker, jalapeno, sloanman, housesella, DemInGeorgia, khyber900, missLotus, smugbug, parker parrot, SamSinister, sarahnity, understandinglife, benheeha, djMikulec, Prairie Logic, eddieb061345, Time Waits for no Woman, highacidity, carolina stargazer, 808, SingularExistence, otto, javelina, ivote2004, chester, nargel, larryrant, Boston to Salem, sjb8888, MazeDancer, aaalb, turneresq, dchill, josephk, Ohiocrat, muggdog, Cedwyn, artebella, CocoaLove, Last Mechanic, Cardinal96, dksbook, prizmordial, indefinitelee, ChristieKeith, socratic, worldwideellen, Ludi, ekthesy, cap and gown, tidalwave1, redstateliberal, oldjohnbrown, NYC Sophia, Urizen, pat bunny, Gruvkitty, BmoreMD, casperr, elmo, sp0t, QuestionableSanity, grannyhelen, commonscribe, SamCDC, Spot Cat, NYFM, niteskolar, BerkeyBee, Neighbor2, applegal, nirsnet, mlamick, lcrp, bwintx, svotaw1992, KFlake, Vicky, tomjones, dnta, Aug6PDB, cartwrightdale, eclare, pat208, TexMex, Gowrie Gal, mrmango, paige, Bluesee, radarlady, DianeNYS, bellevie, Unit Zero, Othniel, furiousxxgeorge, mjd in florida, Lying eyes, ElaineinIN, alvernon90, kefauver, dbsf, citizenx, dewtx, Brooke In Seattle, kldave, NeuvoLiberal, Rosita, Arken, dansk47, Viceroy, uato carabau, Buffalo Girl, John DE, Phil S 33, lauramp, Joy Busey, govib, Marcus Junius Brutus, Wandering Hoo, The Raven, Daxman, MindRayge, Cory Bantic, Seeds, dave3172, Brubs, webranding, CDinBoston, soonerhq, begone, berko, ThaliaR, Waterlaw99, mbzoltan, Tin hat mafia, make a difference, Shirl In Idaho, BachFan, methodishca, blizek, Keone Michaels, Pinko Elephant, eddienic, plum, Naranjadia, maren a, Cartoon Peril, CommiePinkoScum, Truza, XStryker, sailmaker, kck, goodasgold, birdbrain64, MJ via Chicago, Rachel in Vista, DumpDoolittle, Doctor Frog, NY John, bleeding heart, max stirner, soccergrandmom, ShowMe Indie, nother lurker, Randian, DemocraticLuntz, fezzik, The Partisan Against The Clock, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, RantNRaven, lynneinfla, revgerry, Sammage, HGM MA, slksfca, andrewj54, takeahike, subav8r, MarketCapitalistPig, Tamar, dotdot, dotsright, Digger8, Cocker Mom, Cat Whisperer, dmh44, ksp, SouthernFried, leema, Robear, offgrid, gtghawaii, Alfonso Nevarez, Van Buren, DvCM, LillithMc, brianinca, Nespolo, Crisitunity, SJLeonidas, Jimdotz, Anglo, mystic, Flaw, malharden, Seneca Doane, geejay, keenekarl, ultraslacker, Vic Arpeggio, Moderation, citydem, MadAsHellMaddie, Zydekos, BasharH, Captain Nimrod, Jahiz, TomP, rmonroe, VA Breeze, sand805, 123man, Light Emitting Pickle, kafkananda, JoeW, alkalinesky, tdub, ruthhmiller, TX Freethinker, WahooMatt, NYContrarian, oolali, Baron Dave, Involuntary Exile, angel65, Countificus, puffy66, flight2q, sandav, lying mcliar, pamelabrown, Haplogroup V, thinkbridge, Jake Williams, bluesheep, tamasher, mofembot, Kathy S, KttG, Gemina13, Hawkjt, dpryan, a night owl, Uncle Irish, ConnDadFrank, mary13L, omegajew, poohsmom, Uncle Bob, msdrown, binkycat, caps lock on, Grass, briefer, AndrewMC, dzog, shortgirl, dirtdawg, Old Woman, mdprogressive, dinsea, multilee, artmartin, cybrestrike, ksduck, Nicki6772, imgstacke, Are We There Yet, Matisyahu, ManahManah, qmastertoo, eco d, a wolf raised by boys, RandomActsOfReason, Gorilla in the room, janmtairy, Partisan Progressive, h bridges, history geek, SciVo, vertexoflife, shunpike, millwx, rini6, Meng Bomin, desertlover, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, wmdrpa, Mercuriousss, siberia9, John Shade, beijingbetty, BoBo2020, Virginian in Spain, bookcat, Crookshanks, Thomas Castillo, oliver cromwell, youngst, The Liberty of Meat, jkleins, OReillysNightmare, Hope Monger, soms, sanglug, Deoliver47, Shelley99, synductive99, IDrankWhat, Mom in Maine, guyeda, notquitedelilah, zealotus, bbagley1, Losty, Calev, RadioGirl, 1 20 2009, hippodad, ck4city, Lava20, rubthorn, eclecticbrotha, flahawkfan, 57andFemale, WaitingForGodot, Muzikal203, ArthurPoet, sherijr, louisev, jfromga, FundaMental Transformation, mnleger, sydiot, davespicer, pinguin, ayanna a kazana, South Chamber Denizen, Critical Dune, stanjz, HeadnHeart, Queen Alice, BigVegan, bradreiman, CalGal47, swaminathan, seesmithrun, jsfox, BrighidG, danbury6112, Alohilani, koszul, loper2008, KroneckerD, maveg, sovery, TFinSF, Obamajority, dditt, CandyKat, politik, abbaks, superheed, LiveFreeorDier, El Ochito, on board 47, yesivotedforbush, C 1, luvsathoroughbred, That Anonymous Guy, klompendanser, chrome327, LeanneB, Melissa J, fortuna, Eddie L, Herse182, creamer, cordgrass, sfkat, NY brit expat, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, bunnyhead, mnwildfan79, JasperJohns, DrFitz, Grumpy Young Man, aggie98, Actuary4Change, cmorrison, elengul, Dems in 08, AMfromATL, marindenver, ssldenver, naviline, DudleyMason, Actbriniel, weathertom, Shelbyville Manhattan, Taya Lawrence, Rockpopple, Joy from Illinois, sickofcynicism, DemHikers, Onomastic, Cottonwood, GreenSpear, CornSyrupAwareness, ebbet, Front Toward Enemy, beebiz, RhubarbStevens, Hill Jill, Journalist Julia, Guai, evelynevvie, SharpElbows, YesBiscuit, Rebecca74, johnsbrother, sproingie, atyala, DemDad, Olon, AuroraDawn, MelSC, OhHai, Amayi, robertfrank, Moe Gamble, Mistral Wind, marilynpm

    evstatus.com - Status of the Electoral College

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:56:40 AM PDT

    •  thank you for being a voice of sanity (143+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mimikatz, GeckoBlue, hester, pletzs, mndan, alkatt, John Campanelli, dlcox1958, CivicServant, sloanman, housesella, FleetAdmiralJ, missLotus, parker parrot, djMikulec, Prairie Logic, eddieb061345, Time Waits for no Woman, ivote2004, Boston to Salem, dchill, Cardinal96, tidalwave1, redstateliberal, oldjohnbrown, Urizen, Gruvkitty, BerkeyBee, Vicky, tomjones, dnta, cartwrightdale, eclare, TexMex, Othniel, furiousxxgeorge, mjd in florida, kefauver, Brooke In Seattle, Viceroy, LNK, uato carabau, Joy Busey, Marcus Junius Brutus, Daxman, Seeds, Brubs, Keone Michaels, eddienic, Naranjadia, XStryker, max stirner, soccergrandmom, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, HGM MA, Cocker Mom, Alfonso Nevarez, dotcommodity, Anglo, Flaw, malharden, Seneca Doane, geejay, Moderation, citydem, Captain Nimrod, Jahiz, TomP, VA Breeze, sand805, Light Emitting Pickle, kafkananda, JoeW, alkalinesky, TX Freethinker, NYContrarian, ReEnergizer, flight2q, sandav, pamelabrown, thinkbridge, Gemina13, Uncle Irish, caps lock on, dirtdawg, artmartin, cybrestrike, Discipline28, ManahManah, qmastertoo, RandomActsOfReason, julibug, shunpike, Meng Bomin, wmdrpa, siberia9, beijingbetty, bookcat, soms, Shelley99, synductive99, Calev, RadioGirl, Lava20, WaitingForGodot, jfromga, FundaMental Transformation, sydiot, davespicer, HeadnHeart, Queen Alice, BrighidG, Alohilani, loper2008, KroneckerD, sovery, RethinkEverything, gramofsam1, abbaks, El Ochito, C 1, klompendanser, LeanneB, fortuna, creamer, cordgrass, sfkat, NY brit expat, Lady Libertine, mnwildfan79, grauten, Grumpy Young Man, aggie98, Surly Cracker, DemHikers, Onomastic, Cottonwood, beebiz, RhubarbStevens, Hill Jill, SharpElbows, atyala, MelSC
      •  Thank you too slinkerwink - I noticed that (43+ / 0-)

        you and I were 2 of the voices of reason last night when everyone was going all chicken little on us.

        "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain

        by fortuna on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:13:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wish there was a place (20+ / 0-)

          for us all to have rational conversations about it....

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:31:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey man . . . (10+ / 0-)

            Maybe you found a new niche for a blog!

            If you don't stop lying about me, I'm going to have to start telling the truth about you. Barack Obama

            by dbratl on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:37:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  Finally........... (9+ / 0-)

                A diary that doesn't put my gag reflexes in overdrive

                Moderation in all things-NOT

                by Julie Gulden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you. Great Diary. (23+ / 0-)

                  This provision:

                  Subtitle B: Business Related Provisions - (Sec. 311) Allows attorneys a tax deduction in the current taxable year for reimbursable expenses and court costs which they pay or incur in connection with contingency fee cases.

                  is huge for me, it reverses the Chamber of Commerce attack on attorneys who represent those without money to pay for justice.

                  •  Hunter was way off target (10+ / 0-)

                    He gets all hot and bothered about progressive amendments but doesn't worry about the real problem.

                    The bill doesn't use our money effectively to solve the crisis.

                    Buying up worthless derivatives, which this bill allows, helps bankers who fucked up but does nothing to help people holding mortgages.

                    Derivatives should not be included in the bail out.

                    "It's the planet, stupid."

                    by FishOutofWater on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is definitely not the bill. (6+ / 0-)

                      They are replacing this bill with a new one.  None of these provisions will remain.  This bill is just being used as a vehicle, so the Senate can vote on it.  Spending bills have to start in the House.

                      •  To see the draft text. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BobOak, HiBob, RandomActsOfReason

                        Go to the first page of thomas.gov site.  There is a link to the Senate version, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  It includes Staff Summaries as well.

                        •  This bill STILL SUCKS, Mark to Market (19+ / 0-)

                          is the ONLY fair method of accounting (it's the one you get to use when you go to a bank to get a loan, so that you can't claim your goldfish are worth a million dollars) and REPEALING the requirement that American Corporations must use reality to value their "assets," is THE ONLY THING STOPPING MORE ENRONS.

                          Enron invented the "profits" and "values" of thier various bullshit "entities."  They, like these banks, pulled numbers out of their asses, and reported them on earnings statements.  It is what drove their stock.  And created so much phoney "growth" that it inevitably crashed when examined closely.  That is what the Republicans want to allow by changing accounting rules.

                          They want this as a "cheap fix" so that banks magically have "new money" overnight.  So that they can declare the imaginary "future" value of all their worthless assets.  But even if this was a "temporary" good thing for a few troubled banks (by "helping" ALL Americans) it is a shitty thing to allow the rest of corporate America to resume.

                          There's no reason all the "good stuff" in this Republican Bailout bill can't be passed separately on it's own.  

                          The economic practices of the Republicans over the last two decades MUST be allowed to come to their logical conclusion.  Failure.  And the Pain of that Republican "free market" failure simply must be felt by the middle class in this country for a time.  Otherwise, the lesson is not learned, and the Conservative Dream lives on.  

                          And we are doomed to enjoy Republican rule again in four years!

                          What proponents of the Republican Bailout are saying, is that Patriotic "Progressives" are not willing to risk even a couple years of a reduction in their precious standards of living to potentially revolutionize politics in this country for years to come.  Pathetic.

                          •  No surprise... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but I'm confused here.  

                            Enron was one of the chief proponents of Mark-to-Market accounting.  It was the actual method they used to invent phony asset prices, sell those assets to themselves (through various Fastow trusts), then record the revenue from the "transaction."  Jeff Skilling was a huge proponent of MTM.

                            You're saying it's the only fair thing?

                          •  beyond "sucks" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            alizard

                            It goes like this: Foriegners to Paulson.... "If you think were going to buy 700bil of Treasuries to finance your bailout than our banks have to participate
                            END OF DISCUSSION!"

                            Hence American taxpayers will also be bailing out FOREIGN toxic CDO's on top of all their other "obligation".
                            But at least all the Dkos apologists for Bush/Paulsen's plan will be relieved that "SOMETHING" was done.

                          •  obligations: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bellevie

                            this is what is really behind Paulson's Plan:

                            1. The government's fiscal year ended yesterday
                            1. The INTEREST on the national debt this year is going to be about $1 TRILLION dollars
                            1. The Treasury is about $700 billion short of being able to pay the interest
                            1. The Paulson Plan purchases about $700 billion in toxic FOREIGN assets
                            1. The foreign banks and investors then will take that money and purchase US Treasuries
                            1. The USA does not default on its debt immediately, as is about to happen (financial Armageddon)
                            1. Foreign countries are threatening "panic selling of US debt": http://www.bloomberg.com/...
                            1. Paulson/Bush will veto any Bill that does not have this provision

                            As others here have put it, this is the mother of all margin calls on US debt.
                            With Dkos "progressives" leading the charge. lol
                            What a bunch of chumps!

                          •  Too many of you (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            recontext, alizard, VincaMajor

                            like FleetAdmiral are being distracted by the pretty colors they put in the bill.
                            (see history of Manhattan island)
                            It is an abomination.

                      •  Statement 157 mandates Fair Value Accounting (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bellevie

                        From AICPA:

                        In September of 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements." This standard defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The new rule affects over 40 existing accounting standards — including those used to value stock options (FAS 123) and derivatives (FAS 133). And, for calendar year companies, it’s scheduled for implementation beginning the first quarter of 2008.

                        Its advocates say that fair-value accounting will assist users of financial statements in obtaining a far clearer picture of the true economic state of a company.  Achieving this "clearer picture," however, is not without its difficulties.  Concepts like exit price, highest and best use, in-use and in-exchange valuation premises, principal or most advantageous market, and the perspectives of market participants...; these are just a few of the concepts that must be understood and are introduced by Statement 157.

                        This MIGHT be equivalent to Mark-To-Market, but I'm not sure at all. One thing's for sure: a lot of companies don't LIKE presenting a "far clearer picture of the true economic state of a company." BAD things can happen then.

                        On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

                        by The Lighthouse Keeper on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:10:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  worthless? (10+ / 0-)

                      Let us get something straight:  these assets are NOT worthless.  

                      They are supported by mortgages. Real people, real homes. real payments.

                      The real issue is we don't know what they are worth and we cannot know until about 2010.  In two years we will know, with much greater clarity, what these are worth.  They may be worth 20 cents on the dollar or they may be worth 90 cents on the dollar.

                      The press has done a spectacular job of characterizing the whole world of Mortgage Backed Securities as 'worthless NINJA mortgages'.

                      The Press is, as usual, clueless.

                      •  Your tone implies likely substantial (4+ / 0-)

                        worth - say 50%. Why would you assume that? And wtf is up with the emotional appeal of "Real people, real homes". Arguments with rational merits, don't need  emotional crutches. (See RW arguments.)

                      •  The derivatives the govt gets will be worthless (4+ / 0-)
                        Not all derivatives are worthless. Some are backed by mortgages. However, the credit default swaps, the "insurance" on the defaulted mortgages, cannot be paid because it's trillions of dollars we don't have.

                        Some derivatives have real value, others don't. The banks that own them have a better idea what they're worth than the government that is being set up to buy them.

                        The finance industry has the incentive of passing on their most toxic paper to the Federal government.

                        "It's the planet, stupid."

                        by FishOutofWater on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, WORTHLESS! (12+ / 0-)

                        The Credit Default Swaps are about the most rotten paper ever issued in North America.  They are, quite literally, worthless.

                        The Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO's) which used to be called Coll. Mortgage Obligs. (CMO's) are certainly not worthless on their face, but the mortgages within those instruments have to be evaluated by a third-party rating agency before the package itself can be palmed off as having anything more than dubious value.

                        It's the CDS's that are absolutely worthless and which are at the very CORE of this "crisis" we are being told exists.

                        If the banks have NO MONEY that they can lend out, how are any of them buying the failing banks?  They sure as Hell aren't buying these other banks with LOANS that they are claiming they can't make, are they?  How are any of them meeting their payroll obligations?  

                        Money is flowing into these banks every damn day.  Over 97% of us are still making our mortgage payments, still depositing our paychecks, still spending money at businesses that are making daily deposits.

                        The whole "crisis" is nothing more than a scam manufactured to get cash out of the economy to give to a bunch of bankers who screwed up and don't want to face the music.  If there's no money to loan, it's because the money is being held back.  I want the books of every one of the pigs who line up at this trough to be inspected and evaluated.

                        Kill the Bill.

                        Let the Bodies Hit the Floor!

                        Celtic Merlin
                        Carlinist

                        Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                        by Celtic Merlin on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Calm down and take a breath (5+ / 0-)

                          Boldface and Capitalizing and TEXT-SCREAMING!!!!! does not make your argument any more compelling - or valid.

                          You start by talking substance, then throw it all out the window with conspiracy talk and rabble-rousing lynch mob rhetoric.

                          Get a grip. This is precisely the kind of talk that prevents rational discussion this site.

                          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Why? I'm not a Stepford Citizen. (0+ / 0-)

                            Calm down?  So that this fleecing can happen without so much as a whimper from anybody?

                            No!

                            Boldface, italicization, and CAPITALIZING are perfectly valid means of providing emphasis, making the intent of one's comment more clear to the reader, and/or assisting the reader in understanding the thrust of one's argument for or against the topic at hand.  That's why Kos provides them for our use.  If they were not to be used, I'm sure he'd make those options unavailable.

                            Your accusation that I did any TEXT-SCREAMING!!!!! (which I infer from your example is all caps, bolded, with a bunch of exclamation points) is not valid and I reject it.

                            No amount of bolding or capitalizing COULD make an argument any more valid.  Your assumption that I intended same is an error on your part.

                            Conspiracy talk?  Oh my word!  Did I suggest such a thing as conspiracy?  Silly me for thinking and then suggesting that Corporate America would conspire to create a situation which would be to their financial advantage.  I'm certain that they'd never do such a thing.  Or bribe members of Congress.  Or lobby our elected officials to pass or defeat legislation which would be beneficial or detrimental to their financial well-being.  Is sarcasm permitted in comments?  Please provide guidance.

                            I do like, however, your idea that I threw a bunch of "rabble-rousing lynch mob rhetoric" in there.  I disagree that one must not get the rabble of this nation roused.  When roused, the rabble might become excited enough to vote or get themselves involved in the issue or contact their elected representatives.  You seem to feel that we must endeavor to keep the rabble calm, complacent, and sheep-like, for that is how they are "kept in their place".  I want the rabble roused and fighting for themselves.  

                            If you want a wholly polite and completely staid conversation away from the underclass rabble, hold a tea party in the parlour or on the veranda.  Don't forget the crumpets, the doilies, and the silver service.

                            Also, you can keep your racist accusations of "lynch mob" to yourself.  People of several races and many religious beliefs dine at my table quite regularly.  And if, perchance, you are referring to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" as your basis for accusing me of being part of a Klan-inspired activity, understand that it happens to be the title of a popular song which I was using as a metaphor for letting the unhealthy financial companies get bought out or go bankrupt - not as an invitation to a cross-burning.

                            I have a grip.  I was part of Wall St. for over 17 years.  I have walked the floor of the NYSE.  I know this industry from the inside.  My comment was intended to incite spirited discussion on the subject.  "Spirited" does not mean irrational.  You seem to conflate these thoroughly different concepts.    

                            While I have - for your visual benefit - made every attempt to keep them to an absolute minimum in this reply, if you dislike bolding, capitalization, italicization, snark, sarcasm, or the naughty words that Mom would never let you say - don't read any more of my comments as they tend to include at least one (and usually more) of those things.

                            Most Sincerely,
                            Celtic Merlin
                            Carlinist

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  It's what Obama wants (0+ / 0-)

                          so we have no choice but to support it without asking any questions that might muck things up for him!

                          "God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots."- Voltaire

                          by armenia on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:29:17 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Nonsense (7+ / 0-)

                        We would basically be making margin calls.

                        The language of the House Bill did NOT stipulate that we would be buying bundles of actual mortgages (that's a solution I would support). We would more likely be dumping money down the rathole of the derivatives market, and even if the mortgages end up doing fine, the positions purchased by Paulson may well be worthless.

                        Would you trust him with this?

                        worse yet, he may expose us to much more than $700 billion in losses.

                        This thing needs to be a hell of a lot more specific, and it needs to be implemented by someone other than Paulson.

                      •  This is the part I don't understand... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        UneasyOne, gdwtch52

                        I have read here @ dkos that ~the securities are worthless because no one want to buy them~ and I have read ~the assets are not worthless because they are backed by real people...~

                        I'm just a little guy.  I don't believe that a thing has value only if someone pays x for it.  Likewise, a thing is not worthless just because no one wants to pay x for it.

                        I don't know who to believe so, I don't believe anyone.  I'll just live on a cash basis while I can.  

                        Rich people suck.

                        Please do not take anything I say as being Authoritative, Enlightened or well thought out...

                        by StephanM on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bellevie, Viceroy, dconrad, Onomastic

                          how the rules work is that, if you have Asset X on your balance sheet, every so often you have to give it a "value" so you can show how much money and assets you have.

                          How it works now is that the value you give to Asset X has to be the value you would get for it if you sold it on the market right now, not any intrinsic value it might have (such as money you would get over time due to people paying off their mortgages).

                          The problem is that no one trusts anyone, and no one trusts these mortgages securities and thus no one wants to buy them.  As a result, the market value of those assets crash, causing companies who hold these assets to have to write off their value down to that crashed market value - even if they believe the item will be worth well more than that at maturity.

                          So this is really a matter of people having to put the market value of the asset on their balance sheet - even if that's not the real intrinsic value of the item - and that value has bottomed out because no one trusts those assets enough to buy them.

                          That's the idea behind the bailout: the government can come in and buy these items, thus giving them a proper market price that people can base the value of their assets off of.

                          Over time, the government, in theory, can sell the assets they have, again, at market values and hopefully break even or even make money.

                          The worry is that, once people actually start looking at these assets, they'll find out that they really are worthless (which they may or may not be) and then the market value of them will crash again while the government is holding them, and the government will have to sell them for a huge loss.

                          At least, that is how I'm understanding things.

                          evstatus.com - Status of the Electoral College

                          by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:43:17 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And that I think is where I lose this (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattwb, Onomastic

                            whole topic

                            The worry is that, once people actually start looking at these assets, they'll find out that they really are worthless (which they may or may not be)

                            It really seems that much of what the "market" operates upon these days is a fiction. It is bundled mortgages that no one could possibly parse and figure out what their actual physical worth is. It is other assets that may or may not actually be worth what any one particular entity is saying they are worth and that the values given  may be 300 different values given your asking 200 different entities to set them. Plus if the market "thinks" things are okay, they'll go ahead and trade these fictional quasi-valued things, but if the market "thinks" things are not okay they'll sit on them. And the "actual" value of the things may not have changed in the meantime, it's just the perception by "the market" that has changed.

                            I'm beginning to think the reason there is so much disagreement amongst knowledgeable folks who are generally in economic agreement philosophically is that this is really something that has gotten so detached from reality that it can not actually be understood anymore.

                            The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison

                            by eco d on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That last sentance makes the most sense... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            James Kresnik, eco d, Onomastic

                            I'm beginning to think the reason there is so much disagreement amongst knowledgeable folks who are generally in economic agreement philosophically is that this is really something that has gotten so detached from reality that it can not actually be understood anymore.

                            Exactly!  Perception has replaced reality.  It seems to me that everyone is basing value on price and not on worth.  According to "the rules"  something only has value if a price can be ascribed to it.  The price is based on what everyone else would be willing to pay at the time.  Unless a thing can be bought and sold, it has no worth, no value.  I find that way of thinking morally repugnant.  

                            Please do not take anything I say as being Authoritative, Enlightened or well thought out...

                            by StephanM on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:13:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What if the solution is worthless... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            alizard, eco d, Onomastic

                            I'm still reading one economist after another saying that bill still doesn't address the underlying problem and no one yet has explained how it is going to work.

                            Even Krugman who says it maybe the best that we can do under the current political conditions in Congress acknowledges that no one has adequately explained how this bill will work as a solution to the problem.

                            Meanwhile Professor Roubini is not only saying that Paulson's Tarp plan won't work, but it is leaving America open to the "Mother of all Global Bank Runs" which is occurring right now.

                            He calls it a tragic wasted opportunity that only exposes us to an even greater financial disaster... the complete collapse of our entire banking system.

                            Now everyone has an opinion on the bail out and there are plenty of conflicting experts, but Roubini has been right where most of the others have been wrong.

                            All the new additions don't alter the underlying bills approach and it sounds like "lipstick on a Pig" big time.

                          •  My problem is that no one really seems to know (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            alizard, Onomastic

                            there are lots of ideas and there are many on both sides of Paulson's plan good/Paulson's plan bad that seem reasonable, but in the end it all comes down to the problem of fictional values and no one seems to have a solution for dealing with fictional values that addresses that. Maybe a better analogy is medical. The economic crisis is an acute medical problem, and all that we are doing is proposing things to fix symptoms because we don't really have any idea what is really making us sick. But we have to do something because it's acute and it hurts. Will it become worse? We think so, and here's why we think so, but do we really know that it will? Not so much.

                            I'm in the "we have to do something" camp, but hell if i know why exactly we have to and that pisses me off. I've heard many explanations but the fact that there is so much vociferous and reasoned disagreement leads me to believe we don't really know.

                            The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison

                            by eco d on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:07:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  So adding shinola to shit (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      alizard, mcartri

                      still makes your shoes brown, but sort of muddy looking.  I think Hunter was right the first time, a goat feeding fest is in order.

                      If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?

                      by gdwtch52 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks, can't wait to tell my... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Vicky

                    conservative son-in-law who is an attorney about that.  Really, HUGE thanks!

                    Moderation in all things-NOT

                    by Julie Gulden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:22:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  That's great. (12+ / 0-)

                    But why tie it to a $700 billion dollar tax burden on the people?

                    Why do Dems always appear so inept and timid that they just can't propose and pass these laws simply because they're good laws?

                    McCain, Republican Party, Palin = Captain, Sinking Ship, Anchor.

                    by Pescadero Bill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  from a day trader's blog (8+ / 0-)

                    "Just got off the phone with my Congressman's LA. He and I speak as you can imagine quite regularly. He feels from what he is hearing that this will pass both the Senate and House. After digging deeper into the issue he stated that there are other factors besides what is being broadcasted to the public driving this decision. After talking with him I'm convince that 1. this bailout is essentially a margin call on our debt and 2. sure the rest of the world is ****ed, but we're ****ed MORE. TROW is going to make us, the US Taxpayer, eat this **** or no more buyee Treasuries."

                    So the rest of the western world is demanding that the American public be sugbjected to an equally pernicious tax load?

                    Good, tell them to stop buying our treasuries. If it really is that bad, might as well get it out of the way sooner rather than later so we can start on the austerity program to balance the budget.

                    with all of the negative implications, what is holding the dollar up?

                    OK
                    These are the final stages of the coup folks. There is a very thin line left "defending" the Constitution and the Rule of Law. We're down to a margin of 20 people manning the bulwarks.

                    how about they clue us in on what the REAL problem is so we can make an intelligent decision on whether or not to support this **** then?

                    Constitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bush, who took an OATH to protect and defend, later referred to it as "just a piece of paper."

                    Widgeon, I fear you are correct. I hope that you are wrong.

                    Garyk, the dollar is being held for ransom by the CentralBanks buying Treasuries in exchange for this margin call money that they will use to offload their toxic paper into their US Subsidiaries. This is Paulson's plan for a strong dollar and it's actually working, treasonous, but working.

                    This about sums it up: FASCISM

                    By All Means I'm In for the Fight and for the Sake of My Kids will not Quit;

                    However,
                    Can we look in the mirror for an instant with the intent that we all be more sensitive and watchful ... was there equal outrage about the Energy Task Force Secret Meetings?

                    I am totally against this bill and absolutely for transparency in this process. But here's why our elected officials won't tell us the truth.

                    They want to keep their jobs and J6P would kick them out of office if they were told the truth.

                    Americans in general don't want to be told the truth. They don't want to hear that we are:

                    Broke and insolvent as a nation.
                    Live beyond our needs and mostly on credit.
                    Need to consume less.
                    Need to recycle.
                    Need to drive less.
                    Need to waste less.
                    Need to save more.

                    Look back over the last 40 years. EVERY TIME a politician tries to tell the truth (in either party) they fail at the ballot box.

                    Other than TF and a few other places on the web as a nation we don't want to hear the truth, don't want to live within our means and don't want to do the heavy lifting required to turn this country around.

                    •  people get ready (8+ / 0-)

                      if they pass the Bailout;

                      * banks get some relief (most likely temporary) * dollar tanks, oil rises, gas prices rise to over 5$ a gallon * treasuries are sold, yields rise, mortgage rates rise (to where?) who knows maybe as high as 10% eventually * Fed cannot cut rates because of inflation pressures * National debt/Balance budget becomes huge problem.. normal income taxes must rise by 1/3rd or more * incomes are reduced further, higher mortgage rates, lower incomes, no one can buy a house, problem gets worse. * Banks need another bailout. * economy weakens dramatically

                      No Bailout;

                      * Treasury remains lender of last resort * multiple institutions fail * credit remains difficult * FDIC must be funded to cover large amounts of insured deposits * possible panic bank runs nationwide * small businesses have trouble getting loans and shrink/fail * large businesses cannot fund with commercial paper shrink/fail * only the most well funded businesses survive * unemployment rises dramatically * economic activity decreases dramatically * only pluses are dollar strengthens, commodities stay low.. FED can lower rates. * job losses overall in this scenario will severely damage the economy

                      Conclusion;

                      * if bailout is not passed... save all money in a safe. * if bailout is not passed.. count on possibly losing your job in the next 12 months

                      Government jobs are most in danger with a bailout passing.

                      Private jobs are most in danger without a bailout.

                      Basically ... we're ****ed.
                      They're gonna sell us out to WS and foreign PD's and impoverish a nation.

                      Monday I am liquidating my IRA and 401k and convert it to Euros & Swissies. Argentina, here we come.

                      Argentia's middle class was cut in half, overnight.

                      •  Yes, I think we're being softened up (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sooner, UneasyOne, gdwtch52

                        for the inevitable blow.

                        Or if you prefer, "bend over, and no KY for you".

                        Sorry, but if these people now have time to insert a myraid of addendums, and we're on our second go-round, then we have been being LIED TO as to the immediacy of this so-called crisis.

                        WHAT were these people doing behind our backs during these last two weeks? That is what I want to know...

                        Take back your media--take back your country

                        by o the umanity on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:59:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh please, (0+ / 0-)

                        Obama says everything will be fine if we all do what he says to do and support the bailout. We must stand by Obama and do as he says. I know it sounds like business as usual... but it can't be.

                        "God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots."- Voltaire

                        by armenia on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  there is a place (17+ / 0-)

            committee hearings
            public comment  period
            conference committee

            You know . . . all the review that any legislation with even a chance of being any good would normally go through.

            Then we can RICO the bastards that caused this mess, and use civil forfiture of their assets to get the money to pay for fixing it.

            And demand civil service pay scales for all employees of any "business" receiving any Federal funds (including no "bonuses" and no commissions").

            •  THANK YOU. (7+ / 0-)

              When the world and its leaders have lost their minds, it's great to grab your smoking jacket and pipe and pontificate for a while.  But there is such a thing as righteous anger, and it has a place in this or any other public forum.

              JOHN MCCAIN IS A LIAR.

              by Chris Carlson on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's class warfare... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                googieagog

                You have no idea how long I have been waiting for this.  The rich are falling and the poor don't care.  Oh we know the breaking levy floods all homes.  You got to realize though, for us poor folks, this is like watching Bill Gates and Donald Trump running around on fire.  We know we should put them out so nothing else catches fire.  However, we're laughing so hard we can't breath.

                Schadenfreude;  I didn't say it was a smart reaction, just a human one.

                Please do not take anything I say as being Authoritative, Enlightened or well thought out...

                by StephanM on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It would be one thing if it were correct (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  El Ochito, Onomastic, bluesophie

                  but, in reality, you can be sure that the finance company executives who oversaw this took their money out before the market reacted, and that they called their cronies in the halls of power and the links of golf and told them to do the same. And many of these companies are not even run by US citizens, and will do just fine on their yachts docked in the Cayman Islands. And if they didn't, then they shorted their own markets in foreign stock exchanges.

                  I recommend you listen to Obama's speech yesterday:

                  http://www.youtube.com/...

                  As Barack Obama has said, it is the families and small businesses (and schools and green entrepreneurs and college students with loans and and and) who are and will suffer the most, not "the rich".

                  The rich are not "falling". They have more today than ever.

                  As Obama has said, bitching about the next door neighbor, whose house is on fire, because he smokes in bed, is not going to save our house when the fire jumps rooftops. There is a time and a place to punish the proven guilty - remember that little thing we fight so hard for called "due process?" - I guess the right-wingers are right when they accuse those on the left for caring more for the civil rights of terrorists, than those of Americans who happen to be capitalists.

                  I'd rather see a process that:
                  a) puts out the fire that threatens our houses;
                  b) put together a reform that changes the house's construction (not, as Obama says, just putting on a paint job or putting up new curtains when your roof is crumbling or you have termites, because those things threaten the value of your home over the long haul)
                  c) find out what went wrong and who is responsible
                  d) punish the guilty.

                  In that order.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:39:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is why I say... (0+ / 0-)

                    That if perception is reality, then illusion is real magic.  Cynicism, it always talks me down...

                    ;-)

                    Please do not take anything I say as being Authoritative, Enlightened or well thought out...

                    by StephanM on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  "Then we can RICO the bastards.." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              golconda2

              Man, I want to live in your world.

              McCain, Republican Party, Palin = Captain, Sinking Ship, Anchor.

              by Pescadero Bill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:32:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  RICO (4+ / 0-)

              I love RICO cases, and have represented ordinary folk against industry greed in several.  This administration has done everything it can to support corporate fraud in order to preserve corporate profit.

              In reality, fraud does not actually help - duh - and is not favored by industry nor by men or women who seek honest profit or return.

              Bring on the RICO case -

              After we bring back a real Justice Department, and a real Executive.

              God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

              by Othniel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, yes, "rational" (5+ / 0-)

            All too often, "rational" is defined as "my position" and "irrational" is defined as "positions that disagree with me."

            Unfortunately, I've seen that here more than I like in recent days.  On multiple sides of the issue, I might add.

            Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

            by Linnaeus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:17:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What is rational about passing off (5+ / 0-)

              $700 billion dollars of US tax payer money to private interests?

              McCain, Republican Party, Palin = Captain, Sinking Ship, Anchor.

              by Pescadero Bill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My point (5+ / 0-)

                ...is that there were good arguments for and against the bailout bill on Monday (as well as bad ones) and too often the discussions descended into fingerpointing.

                That's it.

                Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

                by Linnaeus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My point being (5+ / 0-)

                  the entire situation is irrational. How can you have any argument about such an enormous bailout of an irrational financial condition?

                  I'd even look at the finger pointing as more rational then signing over $700 billion dollars in any context.

                  Further more, no one knows how this will shake out in a few months time. And it's all to coincidental to be happening now. They were working on this bailout for months behind closed doors and then just before the elections banks start showing their cards? As if Paulson wasn't in collusion with them?

                  It's at the point of being a rational criminal act and should be viewed as such.

                  McCain, Republican Party, Palin = Captain, Sinking Ship, Anchor.

                  by Pescadero Bill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And one rational response to that ... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pescadero Bill, Onomastic

                    ... might be to try and avoid slipping into paranoid conspiracy theories.  Perhaps you're right and perhaps you're wrong, but when we are currently bearing witness, unequivocal witness, to a collapse of potentially catastrophic consequences, when world markets are taking nosedives in response to our precarious position and educated progressives "in the know" like Paul Krugman are advising that this bailout just might be the necessary evil to stave off even the possibility of economic ruin ... maybe one (not the only)"rational" reaction would be to give some legitimate thought to whether this is in fact an evil we have little effective choice in.

                    One additional note, I would absolutely love for the Dems to be able to take some time with this crisis and craft a really good progressive bill with all the provisions we see as necessary, but do I want that to happen if there's a 50% chance of economic collapse, a 20% chance ... I just don't know the answer to that, and I don't think anyone can honestly answer that they do.  And maybe there's really no chance of collapse, maybe this entire thing is somehow fabricated, but there are a lot of people out there, phenomenally more versed in the intricacies of macroeconomics than you, I or really anyone here who don't seem to see it that way.

              •  Obama says it's OK (0+ / 0-)

                and I believe him.

                "God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots."- Voltaire

                by armenia on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:34:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  B. Sanders & D. Kucinich Don't Like It. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alizard

                  I believe they are correct and Obama is wrong, just like he was on his FISA cave-in. Why can't we get a Democratic nominee who is an actual Progressive? Oh, that's right, you have to be in the corporate pocket. Obama & McCain are both there.

          •  Rational conversation?? (10+ / 0-)

            What is the federal budget projection for 2009 prior to this new $700 billion dollar addition?

            Does the federal budget just get bloated from the $700 billion, or is $700 billion worth of programs slashed?

            If they're cutting some corporate taxes again, who ultimately will shoulder the burden of paying for this $700 billion dollar Wall St. bail out?

            How will it impact people's lives if federal programs have to be slashed or cut completely to accommodate $700 billion dollars new federal expenses?

            And finally; why do the Dems feel, going into an election that they can possibly sweep, that in order to get good laws passed they have to tie them to stinking republicon bills that always include tax breaks for the wealthiest among us?

            Oh, and one last thing. Do you think it's a coincidence that all this is happening right now before the election while the republicons still seem to have sway over congress?

            These questions are how I'd like to start a rational conversation.

            McCain, Republican Party, Palin = Captain, Sinking Ship, Anchor.

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  As Einstein said (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pescadero Bill, Onomastic

            A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:34:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Please go there. Don't tie up DailyKos (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alizard

            with your propaganda.  Go and do your trickle down dance on the appropriate dance floor, where you can spin to your hearts' content.

            We want to discuss truth here, we want to discuss a solution to the financial problem at which you want to throw good money after bad.  We don't want to be diverted by your spin, mushroom clouds, threats of a major depression, ...

            Go and form a site called DINOland.  

            B'bye.

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~ T.J.

            by CIndyCasella on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:24:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Chicken Littles? Here? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Akonitum

          You don't say!

          Owning a home is a success. Owning seven homes is excess.

          by kefauver on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:02:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There were Chicken Littles all over the place (8+ / 0-)

          To be fair, when the House rejected the bailout bill on Monday, there were quite a few voices saying something very close to "We're doomed!!!!!" just because that particular bill wasn't passed on that particular day.

          Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

          by Linnaeus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:15:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was more pissed off that nobody (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            had come up with a viable alternative.  And I was pissed off that my retirement is looking further and further away.

            "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain

            by fortuna on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the rub, though (6+ / 0-)

              "Viable" got so narrowly defined in the minds of some folks such that any alternative was not "viable" and therefore those who didn't like Monday's bill were somehow wanting people to starve.

              I'll be honest, I was leaning against Monday's bill, but I would have understood if it had passed.  My sense of the situation - as a financial amateur - is that no one really seems to know what the problem exactly is.  So I'm not convinced that the bill would have worked, and $700 billion would have been out the window.

              Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

              by Linnaeus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  An additional $700 billion dollar tax bill (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              altoid, KimD, googieagog, Onomastic

              won't help either.

              Retirements are so last generation.

              Me? I'm going to become a shoe maker. Mostly repairs as people will constantly want to mend their shoes rather then spend what they don't have on new ones. And I think I'll be able to do it sitting on a little stool so my back won't hurt so much when I'm well into my later years.

              McCain, Republican Party, Palin = Captain, Sinking Ship, Anchor.

              by Pescadero Bill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'll toot my own horn here (4+ / 0-)

          and say, though I'm late to this discussion, I was on this last night as well.

          My conclusion:

          Couple things may be going on here:

          1. getting end of session stuff through
          1. tying must-pass legislation to "bailout/rescue" to deter dissenters
          1. tying Senate-version must-pass legislation to "bailout/rescue" to pressure House into accepting Senate versions.

          IMO, theres a reasonable chance this isn't nefarious shenanigans.  If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, please share.

          This comment has been crossposted at AT&T: 611 Folsom St, San Francisco, CA - Room 641A.

          by ManahManah on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:25:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Voice of the special interests, more like. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, ccmask, James Kresnik

          Chicken little?  Who is hyping the depression?  Who is predicting that the sky is going to fall if we don't pass this odious bill yesterday?  Chicken little: aren't you projecting your own predilection here?

          This problem has been festering for quite a while: why the rush now, right before an election?  It's politics.  The DINOs, who signed onto the Iraq War, proving that they are not the voice of reason, but the voice of the special interests, are the same DINOs voting for this insane bill.  The Democrats, who voted NO are the same Democrats who had the judgment to vote against the Iraq War, which has killed & maimed millions and depleted our treasury to the tune of $3 trillion and counting.

          I have noticed that those of you, who are in favor of passing this bill, which is supposed to be a bail out, not an energy bill, not a tax cut for the rich, but a fix for our economy, are insulting those of us who want to come up with a better bill.

          Siglitz believes that this bill is flawed, because it is based on trickle down economics, which doesn't work, and he is not a chicken little, but a nobel prize laureate in Economics.

          Don't you dare insult the acumen of people here, who are reading the work of Economic professors, who warned us about this meltdown, and who you DINOs ignored.

          I'm sick of it.  Just sick of these games.  Sick of your think tanks, sick of your DailyKos attack diaries with your anonymous large group of Rec ghosts that pop up en masse, and your nasty insults to intimidate the true voice of reason.

          DINOs helped bring on this war, took accountability off the table, and now you want to destroy the middle class and transfer their hard earned savings to the overpayed Wall Street idiots who got us into this mess.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~ T.J.

          by CIndyCasella on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whoa dude (or dudette) ... (0+ / 0-)

            You're assuming a whole lot of crap about me that I never said.  All I was saying was that people were getting all hyped up about the tax add-on being a tax cut for the rich when, if fact, alot of the add-on would benefit the middle-class.  DO NOT put words in my mouth that aren't there because you don't know me at all, honey.

            "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain

            by fortuna on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:34:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Thank you (10+ / 0-)

        The post slamming the new tax cuts are silly

      •  Thanks to both of you. (19+ / 0-)

        I thought I was going insane.

        The Obama/Biden Inaugural -- the exact moment when the world goes from gray to colorful.

        by alkatt on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:28:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is the Voice of Sanity in WI today (45+ / 0-)

          His speech on the economy, and what he's now calling the rescue, is "Step up to the plate, Dems. Support this bill for the sake of the country".

          He is vowing that when he's Prez (so happy he stopped saying "if") he will go over the bill line by line and if it's not working for taxpayer, he'll make sure it does. Revise legislation as needed. If it's losing money he'll make sure Wall Street pays more. And he's blanketed rich guy's bows with many firey shots of ways the party is over. Including he's going to impose fees so there will be a fund "just in case" this happens again.

          Obama is either the real deal, or he's not. We either trust him, or we don't. Yes, we have to speak out for our beliefs. Yes, this may be one stupid bill. But are there any smart bills right now? There may only be trying not to destroy the economy for the next 4 months, and let the Dems clean up the insanity next year.

          Vote early if you can, reduce election day lines for others.

          by MazeDancer on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:44:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama knows the bill will pass. (4+ / 0-)

            The next story line will be:  who gets credit.

            He wants it to be democrats, because he belives this is good policy and thus good politics.

          •  Obama put one "If I'm President" in speech in WI (25+ / 0-)

            And the crowd protested like crazy. He'd been saying "when I'm President" all the way up to that. He smiled. And said "I'm superstitious", and got in that one "If I'm President". And then went on to his need for public service, we're all in this together points.

            When he's inspired by the crowd, even things you've heard ten times before sound fresh. When did a Prez since FDR ever ask us to work together and take care of each other? He even says it's going to be hard, and we have to have courage. This is not kool-aid listening, this is hearing, thankfully, a leader not spouting lies. Is he perfect, absolutely not. Does he bring some ray of hope? Yes. I know we're all in the choir, but sometimes it's good to sing a few hymns. The bailout is freight training towards us. The recession is whamming us. Got to hold on to some hope.

            Vote early if you can, reduce election day lines for others.

            by MazeDancer on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:57:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I saw that too, I just cracked up and (4+ / 0-)

              it made me think of the other current Diary with the 'start acting like a Winner' sermon.

              "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

              by Lady Libertine on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Kennedy? n/t? (7+ / 0-)

              "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -- Ed Howdershelt

              by troutwaxer on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:14:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good point. Kennedy asked famously. (0+ / 0-)

                Brain cell bailout on my part. And stopping the war took over as how we all found courage and came together once LBJ in there. history

                Vote early if you can, reduce election day lines for others.

                by MazeDancer on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:21:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I saw Obama speak too and he was reminding us (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MazeDancer, Onomastic

              what he always reminds us of, that WE are the change, the problem as I see it with this mess we are in now has more to do with absolute pure 'credibility' than anything else. After the last 8 years (and then some) of witnessing constant jaw dropping incompetence and lying of the Bush administration, not to mention the Wall Street stripping of our nations jobs sent overseas and the endless sickening greed, people in our country will never go for just about any bill. You can dress it up to make it look like the 'new new deal' but no matter what congress puts out there, the citizens are not interested in the boy crying wolf, as a matter of fact, they could care less if the wolf tears the boy into 700 billion pieces. The only thing that could really turn this around is if Bush and Cheney resigned, (restoring credibility and accountability all in one fell act) but of course that is only happening on a 'Remulack' where the Cone Heads live. Pass me that six pack.

              This is an injustice so grave and extreme that it defies words is taking place; that the greatest beneficiaries are those who are most culpable. Glen Greenwald

              by Badabing on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sobering comment last week about mood in 1929 (5+ / 0-)

                Grandfather of a Kossack had said that right after the crash, the angry country wanted Wall Street punished. That it was all about Wall Street, nothing about the rest of the country. They wanted the fat cats punished. Do nothing.

                And I was right there with them, tar & pitchfork in hand. Ready to eat gruel for years if the strip miners of our economy went down. If we didn't cleanse the economy of greed trumphs all now, when were we?

                And the Kossack's grandad said months later the anger that had demanded do nothing subsided. Breadlines, 25% unemployment
                . Made me at least start considering that my perspective was one from someone who might be fine, or knew enough rich doorsteps upon which I could throw myself. But what about tens of millions of Americans two paychecks from disaster? So maybe some houses in the Hamptons have to stand so everyone can eat.

                Tom Friedman says it's a crisis. Paul Krugman says it's a crisis. Eveyone I know on Wall Street, people with morals and heart, say it's a crisis. Obama says it's a crisis. Part of me believes it's hogwash. But guess I gotta go with something has to be done.

                Don't remember, alas, Kossack's name. But thanks to grandfather for sobering memory.

                Vote early if you can, reduce election day lines for others.

                by MazeDancer on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and by and large (0+ / 0-)

                  the great-grandsons and great-granddaughters of the people who scammed our great-grandparents are the ones who are using the Bush Administration for a second chance to scam us.

                  The problem with "letting bygones be bygones' is that it winds up biting us in the ass way too often.

                  How many of Bush's perps are people who got let off easy during the Nixon and Reagan eras?

                  I suspect that what this bill buys us is several hundred billion dollars for the Richistani ... and a Second Great Depression worse than the first, and far longer lasting.

                  Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:57:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  How about a glass of red wine? (0+ / 0-)

                "After all, enough is enough." - Jiminy Cricket

                by Onomastic on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:44:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  side by side comparisons today (4+ / 0-)

            between first McCain's "speech" followed almost immediately by Obama... wow.  

            I thought I was going schizo for a few minutes there, at the beginning of McCain's. It was like, has he kidnapped Obama's speech writers? lol. But then he went on to spout complete idiocy.

            Then, Obama, he sez he's going to vote FOR this Bill. And I was again puzzled. But then he went on to spout brilliance and... hope.

            I would love it if someone would write a Diary with side by side clips of these two today. (I dont have the chops to do it myself.)

            "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

            by Lady Libertine on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Comparing Obama to McCain (6+ / 0-)

              On FDIC increase to 250K,

              Obama (paraphrased) "Most families are fine with 100,000.  That's plenty.  But for a lot of small businesses, that's not enough to meet payroll and other needs.  This will really help them out."

              McCain (Paraphrased) "This will really help families"

              One of these candidates think most families don't have more than 100K in cash savings, the other one doesn't get it.

              Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

              by Actuary4Change on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And include Bill Clinton from Florida today. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MazeDancer

              He was pretty damn good. I think CNN has it on their videos page -- check it out.

              I still think he's pre-campaigning for Hillary in 2012, but at least he's finally getting behind BHO 100 percent in 2008.

              "McCain said he interrupted his campaign to come down to save the negotiations, most people believe he interrupted the negotiations to save his campaign."

              by DesignGuy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't believe in blind faith (8+ / 0-)

            but it seems a very sensible approach on Obama's part to say that we need to get even a flawed bill through now to deal with the immediate crisis and then there will be time later to revisit the situation if certain elements prove unsatisfactory.

            He is thinking like someone who anticipates being president and having a congress he can work with - and aren't those two pretty fair assumptions at this point?

            At any rate I much prefer his approach to some of the hysterical rants we've seen here and on other progressive blogs, by people who are either oblivious to the impact on the real economy of the banking crisis or who think that now is just the right time to try and push for a progressive nirvana.

            Good diary, too. Can we swap this for the stupid front-page one? I've recommended.

      •  Mucho mojo for FleetAdmiral and slinkerwink (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hester, Vicky, mjd in florida, venezia

        Sanity? What sanity? Is the sun over the yardarm yet?

        "After all, enough is enough." - Jiminy Cricket

        by Onomastic on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:01:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  From the tax types among us (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, mjd in florida, abbaks

        thanks  :)

        Disclosure: Proud to be the Volunteer coordinator for Indiana for WesPAC

        by ElaineinIN on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:49:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  totally agree. (0+ / 0-)

        post-rational is supposed to apply to Palin and co.,not Dkos.

      •  and you as well (0+ / 0-)

        I read your comments last night in several diaries, slinkerwink, and didn't feel like I was the only one frustrated with some of the crazy talk on DK lately.

        -7.38, -8.77 "They know you called the Gay Teen Bondage Chatline for 15 minutes last Tuesday, but what you discussed is anyone's guess." - Jon Stewart

        by CommiePinkoScum on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:09:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks. late post on my part. (0+ / 0-)

        My first response when I saw the tax break sub-headline was to freak out, perhaps ala Hunter, but when I read what the taxes were I thought `great' although I did not believe that would sweeten it for house republicans at all (it might pull in a few more house dems!)

        What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed. Harold Pinter

        by dlcox1958 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  More like mouthpiece for the Wall... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik
        ...Street, investment banking and corporate America Mafia. Read down the thread as some very real and serious objections that pertain to this heist are discussed. IMO the bill is insane...

        If the market is going to fail this bill and money will not put it off and amounts to aiding and abetting a criminal class.
         

        The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

        by Bobjack23 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks... (38+ / 0-)

      I couldn't understand the "problem" either.. All they talk about on CNBC was the AMT change and the FICA change, both of which sound reasonable.  And the AMT does impact a bunch of middle class families.  It was my understanding that there would be a fix on it, sooner or later anyway.

      Doesn't change the fact that I totally resent the need for the bail out, that I think it is a bail out, and I think it will hurt Obama's ability to do the things we want.

      However, I do have great trust in Warren Buffet, and he says something is needed.  Likewise, Krugman says we need to do something.  So as long as it is NOT the original Paulson bill... I'll not throw a fit.  And acutally, just want to get it overwith.

      •  me, too (3+ / 0-)

        this suspense is killing me, waiting for the other shoe to drop.

        •  Don't rush to give money to Bush/Paulson (0+ / 0-)

          Limit the bailout money, give the slimes $100 billion or so to tide them over, then save the rest for January 20, 2009- or hey-Bush is tired of all this "hard work", he could just resign on November 5th and let President Obama get to work for us.

      •  Why is it everyone has this trust in Buffet (6+ / 0-)

        when he has a MAJOR confict of interest here?
        I would trust Buffet if he was for a bailout that was structured like one of HIS deals, not a fricken blank check made out to Czar Paulson.

        The AMT does have to be changed to be more fair on the professional class, but attaching that needed reform to this bill is like a $20 rebate from someone that just stole all your assets via electronic fraud.

        Yes it's the core of this bill that sucks, it is the rush to give away the farm that sucks, it is the lack of any power in the tax payers hands that sucks, when it is the Worker, tax payer that is  giving the  draw with a gun to our heads, fuck that.

        •  Buffett is fairly progressive on tax policy (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JWC, BerkeyBee, Vicky, nape, pvlb, venezia, abbaks

          He has repeatedly made the point that it is insane that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does and that the California limitations on RE taxes means that he pays less in RE taxes on a swanky place in California than he pays on his place in Nebraska.  

          •  That used to impress me. (0+ / 0-)

            Then I got to thinking that if his secretary is so valuable to him, he should pay her enough to take her out of that tax bracket she is in and put her into the one where HE is.

            Of course, in a sane world, people wouldn't make as much money as Buffet does, or pay their secretaries so little in comparison.

            Sarah Palin's governing philosophy: "Choice for me, but not for thee."

            by Brooke In Seattle on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  His tax marginal tax rate is lower (0+ / 0-)

              than his secretary's because most of his income is capital gains, not because he makes more salary. I'm sure she's WELL compensated.

              "Give 'em Hell, Harry!"
              "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

              by davewill on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  who isn't conflicted? (7+ / 0-)

          Everyone has money at stake in this.  Everyone.

          What Buffet has is a history of candor combined with a generally democratic politics.

          how can i turn italics off in my signature?

          by fightcentristbias on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:05:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hello??? Buffet purchased 5 billion dollars worth (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blissing, HiBob, DarkestHour

            of Goldman shares low, then started pushing for this Paulson bill to pass (you Paulson, they guy who use to run Goldman and still owns stock in Goldman).
            He has alot riding on this bailout.

            •  sorry, i am typing too fast (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DarkestHour

              that was suppose to read: you know Paulson? The guy who use to run Goldman and still owns stock.

              How is this any different then Cheney's conflict of interest. He was the most prominent architect of the war and his company profited the Most. Now look where Halliburton's HQ is, they aren't even putting any of that blood money back into OUR economy.

              No one who can profit off of a major Treasury investment should have any say in how we spend our Treasury, period.

          •  some more than others... (0+ / 0-)

            like the millionaire's club that is Congress.  Like the Banker Paulson, like the Oil Barrons in the White House.  Like the talking heads on the Corporate Media.

        •  Yes, a man who resisted divesting in Darfur.... (4+ / 0-)

          ....until 4Q07 after his half million dollars of PetroChina reached $3+ billion.

          "This is a fight for the future. And it's a fight we must win...Obama is my candidate. And he must be our President." Hillary Clinton, DNC, August 26, 2008

          by kck on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Really..., well done! (8+ / 0-)

      Really, WWFSMD?

      by sp0t on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Folks IMHO Don't Care What This Bill Says (30+ / 0-)

      they will be against it. I don't like where we are. Never should have gotten to this point. But just saying fu*k Wall Street ain't going to cut it.

      "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

      by webranding on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, see this story in the NYT this am (8+ / 0-)

        My husband, who works for GE Public Finance has been saying this very thing for the last week and 1/2.  This is a GREAT explanation of what is going on or could happen is we do NOTHING

        www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

      •  Exactly. For all the people railing against (12+ / 0-)

        any bailout, I still have yet to hear a single person explain how doing nothing and "sticking it to Wall Street" will not also screw the rest of us over, too.

        I'm sure fifty people will respond to this comment with some nonsense about the Iraq War or other decisions rushed into by the Bush administration that have nothing to do with this bailout bill. I'm getting used to it by now. :)

        "F**k you!" John McCain. Statesman. Hero. Toddler.

        by Queen Alice on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:36:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ramp up and super-fund (5+ / 0-)

          the FHA and SBA until Wall Street proves they can act responsibly.  Not only are those entities already up and functioning, there are a bunch of people in NYC who are looking for work who have accounting experience.  Not only does it offer to credit to people who really need it, with nominal interest attached to the loans, the USA makes a small profit.

          Let the billionaires bail themselves out.  Japan didn't go down when their stock market dropped, and we won't either.

        •  We're already screwed (12+ / 0-)

          Bailing out Wall Street in this fashion is an insult to working people, fully half of whom have nothing at all invested in the stock market and who will feel nothing but pain from the credit crunch and from the bailout.

        •  here is the deal (13+ / 0-)

          if you think that this bill passing will somehow "not screw the rest of us over" you haven't been paying much attention.

          You've been screwed over.  hard.  

          If you think this bill is going to have any meaningful impact on improving your personal situation, I hope you just dropped $5billion into Goldman Sachs like Mr. Buffet.    If not, you are continuing the proud modern american tradition of voting against your only personal interests and denying reality.   Its worked out great.  By the way, I have a gas station in Charlotte I'd like to sell you.

          The demiddleclassification of american continues, with the support of much of the middle class.  Suckers.

          •  And that is why, once again Dems lose my vote. (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, but I can't get behind ANY politicians that can't step up and speak the truth.

            I'm sure Obama will win anyway, but he's not getting help from me.

            From an unemployed man with a 2-year-old who is likely looking at extensive, long-term unemployment when the markets finally do crash...thanks for nothing.

        •  Sticking It (0+ / 0-)

          That's exactly the same kind of attitude that people who opposed the Iraq war got from the people who viewed them as dirty fucking hippies.

          If you weren't for the war, you were a coddler of Saddam Hussein, an eater of babies, a traitor to America, blah, blah, blah.

          Opposing the current bailout plan isn't the same thing as wanting to stick it to Wall Street.

          But then I guess if you choose a regal nom-de-kos, it's not surprising you'd see it that way.

          •  oh, come on. (4+ / 0-)

            Look, I'm from a solidly middle class family in the Midwest, my husband's family's working class, and I work for a labor union. So please--don't try to turn this into some kind of class thing. The name is a reference to Alice in Wonderland (Through the Looking Glass) for heaven's sake.

            I support the Senate's bailout plan because I believe doing nothing is worse. And no, I don't think people are dirty hippies if they don't agree with me--I just want them to present an alternative to the bailout. You know, a logical argument--the kind that many on the left ARE capable of having.

            "F**k you!" John McCain. Statesman. Hero. Toddler.

            by Queen Alice on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:27:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Alternative (0+ / 0-)

              I wasn't the one making the claim that people opposed to the current bailout plan were for "doing nothing and 'sticking it to Wall Street.'" That was your classist remark, not mine.

              As for alternatives, a variety of options have been proposed, including one supported by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR). He outlined alternatives last week, before the bailout plan failed in the House, and dropped the names of some economists who agreed that the bailout as it stood was flawed policy.

              Se. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had a petition out last week with a set of alternate proposals.

              Other options have suggested that funding come from a fee on stock transactions rather than taxpayer dollars.

              That's not "doing nothing."

          •  Completely uncalled for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1

            The ad hominem about her user ID is way out of line.  And the less said about your self-righteous hyperbole the better.

            -7.38, -8.77 "They know you called the Gay Teen Bondage Chatline for 15 minutes last Tuesday, but what you discussed is anyone's guess." - Jon Stewart

            by CommiePinkoScum on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Less Said (0+ / 0-)

              I fail to see what's "self-righteous" about pointing out that people who opposed the failed House bailout bill aren't simply for "doing nothing and 'sticking it to Wall Street'" as the commenter alleged.

              A third of the House Democrats opposed the bill as it stood last Monday, for a variety of reasons. Somehow, I doubt that it was because any of them were praying for a major recession or stock market crash. Certainly, there are people whose remarks are along the lines of "let it all burn down," but the real hyperbole is to claim that there were no alternatives, and that anyone who opposed the deal was somehow motivated by a desire for anarchy. That's just a stupid argument to make.

              I know that I'm not exactly looking forward to seeing my already ridiculously small SEP (the self-employed equivalent to a 401K) plan total drop off on this month's statement. And if this year is any indication, I'm not going to have a lot of extra cash to sock away any time over the next few years as I approach what used to be retirement age.

        •  False dichotomy (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, Blissing, bigchin, James Kresnik

          All kinds of people here have been strongly against the bailout - and yet, wonder of wonders, some are  not proponents of "doing nothing" either. You're forgetting them, or ignoring them.

          Many of us are of the belief that some other solution, rammed through with a little less speed and opacity than the original bill, is probably the way to respond.

          There are other possibilities between "any bailout" / "this bailout bill", and "doing nothing".

          We're getting creative to get Steve Blythe elected to FL-15...

          by Rabbithead on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not saying we don't ned a bill of some sort. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, TNThorpe

          Saying that we need a bill that a) will do the right job (at least as a starting point) and b) we need a bill that has real, functional, effective, timely oversight with teeth.

          But Holy State (we have lived to learn) Endeth in Holy War. - Kipling

          by nargel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No One's Saying "Fu*k Wall Street!" (9+ / 0-)

        On the contrary, Congress has already given corporate financiers all the tax cuts/incentives they could ever pray for.  

        The government emasculated Organized Labor.  

        The government and Corporate America exposes American workers to Third World wages and keeps wages depressed by shipping jobs over seas in search of ever cheaper labor.  

        They get all the War Profits they want.  

        And, they still crashed.  WTF?

        Maybe it's time to say Wall Street should stop Fucking us, though?

        •  boil 'em in oil (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rebus, In her own Voice

          they're too dirty to fu*k . . .

          (only figuratively, of course)

        •  Organized labor (0+ / 0-)

          The government emasculated Organized Labor.  

          has done at least as much to emasculate itself through its own brand of greed.  We need to clean house in labor unions and get back to really taking care of the workers.

          "Oil and coal, it's a fungible commodity, and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's goin' and where it's not..." - Sarah Palin

          by LeanneB on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:09:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i'm saying it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik

          they knew they were playing with fire.  let it burn.  America needs a major, major reset.  i've had enough to the point of even considering leaving the country.  

          maybe a recession is just what we need to gain financial common sense again.  i'm o.k. with it.  if we hurt, we ALL hurt.  Republicans and Democrats alike.  we can go back to being just Americans and not so divided.  we will all work together in a time of sacrifice and America will be better at the end.

          I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

          by blue drop on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:56:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Recently the level of dialogue here (12+ / 0-)

        has been so sophomoric and class ridden it made me think I had gone back in time to the days in my late teens living on the Left Bank in Paris listening to heated discussions between marxists, communists, and fascists railing against the rich oligarchs, Jews, international bankers and touting the virtues of being poor and pure.

        America seems to have had a personality transplant while I wasn't looking. Whatever happened to the Horatio Alger ideal of making it rich. That used to be good?

        Today anyone who even has a money market account to worry about losing is villified as a traitor to those who don't have one. Accused of exploiting the have not's and ne'er do well's.  Envy and jealousy is abroad in the land.

        •  "Horatio Alger" was always a lie (6+ / 0-)

          based on the Great American Lie of "rugged individualism".

          No one ever succeeded all on their own, without any other assistance. No one ever has. No one ever will. That's just not the nature of reality.

          Incidentally, Mr. Alger was living a really big lie of his own, hiding in the closet.

          •  no kidding? you mean he was gay? (0+ / 0-)

            so what? social mores and constructs change. The level of assistance enabling individuals to suceed, rugged or not, has changed over the two centuries of America's existence.  It used to depend on the care and love of family and strangers. In Europe after the devastation of two world wars it turned to the largesse of government.  

            America is still lost in the limbo between the two philosophies it appears.  Ah, as the pendulum swings erratically from left to right, it usually/always returns to the centre. At least it does if the instrument is porperly balanced.

        •  It is starting to sound like USENET, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CommiePinkoScum

          and less like DK when I first came 'round here.  Those who "argue" that the system should should just crash are the worst of all.  They sound just like freepers and LGFer's with all their nonsense about "personal responsibility".

          •  what's USENET? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marsanges
          •  heh (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CommiePinkoScum

            evstatus.com - Status of the Electoral College

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:08:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Usually I enjoy your well (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard

              reasoned arguments here.  What I don't understand this time is why the fact that there is no real oversight with teeth and decent reaction times in either version is not a showstopper for you?  Let alone the fact that a handful of loyal bushies won't oversee anything properly.

              But Holy State (we have lived to learn) Endeth in Holy War. - Kipling

              by nargel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if that is directed at me, I disagree that (0+ / 0-)

                there is not oversight, and as far as i or anyone else can ascertain that oversight will not be conducted by 'loyal Bushies'.  I agree the original version was unacceptable, but that is not ancient history and as far as I am concerned sufficient safeguards have been inserted to make it the only palatable alternative to a complete freeze on credit.

                I am convinced that the future president Obama understands exactly what will need to be done when he assumes the reins of power and will slowly but surely replace both oversight, regulations and sanity to the market.  I don't see that it benefits anyone to have the democrats inherit a total breakdonwn and meltdown in the financial markets worldwide.

                The financial body in my view has been wheeled into the emergency room bleeding from every orifice and requires massive immediate transfusions of blood, which in the capital economy we live in is called money.

                There will be plenty of time later for the doctors and specialists to figure out how to prevent it ever happening again.

                I also think that this is the greates lesson in how democracy really works to present to the rest of the world trying to figure out how it is done.  I find it thrilling actually.

        •  It's not envy or jealousy. (9+ / 0-)

          It's about fairness.  This whole mess was created by people who made - at the very most charitable - incredibly unethical decisions when it came to finances of their institution.  If one wanted to be more agressive with their terminology, one could say that they defrauded alot of people abd banks in a reckless persuit of unreasonable profits.  

          And now you, me, and everyone we know is supposed to cough up a big ball of cash.  It probably has to happen in order to save the economy.  But I am not inclined to take the word of Congress or Wall Street baith on faith that they are doing the correct thing.  

          I don't think that it's particularly fair to criticize people for being more concerned about the millions of people who are not able to afford their mortages, when you are talking about giving $700B to banks.  This site used to be about the good of the country.  I always thought that meant Main Street.  Maybe I was wrong.

          There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. Distrust.

          by Demosthenes112358 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are a number of people here (4+ / 0-)

            with apparently extraordinary wealth.

            Look at some of the demographic diaries. We have lots of six-figure incomes represented here.

            Me, I've been unemployed for almost two years, as I watch more and more irresponsible behavior rewarded with great wealth.

            I don't get it, and I guess I never will. Why DO some of you deserve a six-figure (and more!) income while so many of us are dirt poor and never likely to rise to even middle-class status again, and yet when we complain about the inequities, we are the ones with the problem?

            Sarah Palin's governing philosophy: "Choice for me, but not for thee."

            by Brooke In Seattle on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:32:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I thought this site used to be about electing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CommiePinkoScum, BFSkinner

            Democrats?

            •  Electing Democrats so that they could enact (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard, rebus, word player, James Kresnik

              progressive policies that help the majority of Americans.  That would be that whole Main Street philosophy again.  But thanks for the pithy response instead of addressing what I was saying.

              There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. Distrust.

              by Demosthenes112358 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:40:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I apologise if my 'pithy comment' (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BFSkinner, atyala

                offended you but addressing the concept of fairness is way above my pay grade. It is impossible in a nation of 300 million people to be fair to every individual.  

                We oversimplify thre philosophy of majority opinion being right, because quite frequently majority opinion is wrong.

                The same goes when arguing progressive versus centrist, extreme left or right philosophies of social responsibility. There are many elements in most political philosophies i agree with and many i don't. Additionally, even after lurking around here for several years now I only know that progressive  policies is not necessary a monolithic point of view here either.

                I guess i tend to drive down the middle of the road veering left and right to avoid oncoming traffic.

                I find it easier to be logical when arguing with one person instead of 200,000 which is always the case here. Barbs come zinging in from all sides.  Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to adddress your fairness issues.

                Life's a bitch and then you die.

                •  Very republican of you. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Demosthenes112358

                  I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. -John Stuart Mill

                  by word player on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  what does that mean? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BFSkinner

                    I guess it is intended to be an insult? oh dear! I'll skulk into my corner properly chastised.

                    •  Perhaps you should take some time (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      alizard

                      in your corner and think about what "more and better Democrats" is all about. In the Reagan inspired neoconservative world we have lived in for the last 20 years I suppose you could say that "life's a bitch and then you die" is centrist, but I think you will find in the world of "more and better Democrats" it is not.  

                      I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. -John Stuart Mill

                      by word player on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:31:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  actually it is a common sentiment used in (0+ / 0-)

                        the United Kingdom to denote a rather fatalistic view of life, events in which one usually has little or no control.

                        Probably another case of the English language being the main thing that separates the British and thre Americans.

                •  What you seem to have really meant was (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alizard

                  life's a bitch and then you have to bail out morons on Wall Street who tripped on their own dicks chasing profits at the expense of the public.  

                  You decry barbs here and in your comment below but you are perfectly willing to call me and people like me envious because I have the temerity to disagree with you on an issue of major national import? You complain that you can't argue with 200,000 people but you refuse to address little ole me?  Walk your talk, m'am.

                  There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. Distrust.

                  by Demosthenes112358 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no, what i meant was 'Life's a bitch (0+ / 0-)

                    and then you die'.  That is another pithy comment frequently used by cynical old farts like me.

                    •  I don't think you understand the dynamics of this (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      alizard

                      community.  So far you have put forth only unbacked assertions and then either cried or replied with childish comments when people challenged you.  I very much encourage you to defend your positions better.  

                      Regretably I am now at my job and must leave you.  But you're not going to have a very good time on this site if this conversation is any gauge of your abiity to debate and defend your own positions.  

                      Have a great day! (I mean that, too. Not snark).

                      There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. Distrust.

                      by Demosthenes112358 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  oh really? I wan't aware there was a one way only (0+ / 0-)

                        dynamic to this site?  on the contrary I have a very good time at this site and have done now for several years.  I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'a good time'?  and what people come here for?

                        different strokes, different folks. Nice chatting with you.

                        •  usually when I allow myself the luxury (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bluesophie

                          of this kind of circular argument I drop it when it peters out, but suddenly this is different.

                          Iam watching the HBO film 'Iron Jawed Angels' about the struggle for women's right to vote, it is for background on a project we are working on to get more women involved in the voting process.

                          And suddenly I got mad!  I was born a decade after women finally got the right to vote in this country. I was born at the beginning the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe. In America the nation was devastated by the Great Depression only rescued by yet another pitiless horror of WW2, then came the Korean War, then Vietnam, the struggle continued relentlessly for women to attain equal rights and equal pay, then the Civil Rights movement and the struggles of black people for equality. America cheered Reaganomics and the end of the Cold War. It was one big party.  Except for most of the rest of the planet where American policy of Manifest Destiny kept the poor and voicless it pitiless poverty.

                          Women still fought for the Equal Rights Amendment, for equal pay.

                          So please don't lecture me on the dynamics of this site or accuse me of being childish.  The struggle continues and will do so until the day I die.  

                          •  the struggle indeed continues (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a shame to see that you've switched sides. This is your right, but I remember when you used to be a progressive.

                            I guess fear does that to a person.

                            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                            by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:04:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you must have me confused with someone else (0+ / 0-)

                            I have always been a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, a politically pragmatic Clintonesque moderate democrat. I supporteed FDR, Truamn, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and in the primaries Hillary Clinton.  I have always been a firm supporter oif the Democratic nominee no matter who he or she turned out to be.

                            I am pretty typical of a PBS, This Week rather than a Democracy Now, The Nation type social democrat.  In fact I have frequently disavowed being what many here label 'progressive' partly because I have never been able to elicit a satisfactory definition.

                            I have extremely liberal views internationally, am a globalist, a secular humanist and a universalist.  I am also a dyed in the wool contrarian who frequently takes opposing points of view for the sheer fun of it.  Don't rely on me for consistency.  

                            Is that enough labels for you?

                •  Fair to all? No. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik

                  Fair to as many as possible? Yes, bearing in mind that if an inequality absolutly must exist, said inequality should weigh on most on those most otherwise favored.

                  From those whom much has been given, much should be expected.

                  But Holy State (we have lived to learn) Endeth in Holy War. - Kipling

                  by nargel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:09:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  It seems (0+ / 0-)

              every time the DK populace gets close to supporting their candidate in a calm, rational manner, something like FISA or this bailout bill comes along and people suddenly become "disillusioned" with the candidate.  Or everyone fights amongst themselves about tangential issues.

              I'm already seeing people say "I'm so disappointed in Obama for supporting this, I am re-thinking my support".  The first one was a troll, but three others that followed weren't trolls at all.

              Like I said last night, this just seems so futile.  It's as though half of DK is trying to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

              -7.38, -8.77 "They know you called the Gay Teen Bondage Chatline for 15 minutes last Tuesday, but what you discussed is anyone's guess." - Jon Stewart

              by CommiePinkoScum on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the point behind electing Democrats (0+ / 0-)

                is to get a government that actually works for us, not simply to get somebody with a D by his name on the ballot elected.

                If you simply want your team to win and don't care what they do once they are elected, I suggest you shift your mindless enthusiasm to a local football team and leave politics to those who care how the nation is governed.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:07:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it is class based (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, rebus, James Kresnik

          Why should those without a stake in Wall Street cater to those with a stake in Wall Street? The working class has been screwed royally in every way from benefits, to job security, to education and health care.

          If things are looking Marxian again, it's because Marx got a lot right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the working class looking out for itself rather than being hypnotized by flag waving and bible thumping.

          There's nothing wrong with making it rich as long as there's a reasonably level playing field. That is not the case we have today.

          And what does it mean to have a stake in Wall Street? It means your wealth is dependent upon companies that often ship working class jobs overseas, use third world labor at slave wages, import shoddy goods, squash innovation and corner markets in order to keep prices inflated and progressive products from competing. To be invested in Wall Street is to be invested in all the corporate behavior that hurts the working class.

          How can you reconcile that with progressive politics?

          "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

          by MillieNeon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Try reading Thomas Friedman' today in NYT (0+ / 0-)

            I seem to have temporarily forgotton how to link!

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            Bingo, my ability magically appeared again!

            •  Friedman is not one of my fave writers (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard, James Kresnik

              He's not known for good scholarship or much imagination.

              I have faith in humanity. IF the system crashed, humans will find a way to band together and work things out. Not that I'm hoping for a system crash. But I just don't think the bailout bills they've come up with so far are anywhere near as good as they should be to protect the working class, many of whom do not have pensions, much less health care, etc.

              "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

              by MillieNeon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe they re intended to protect (0+ / 0-)

                only the working class. rather to prevent a total collapse of the banking system wworldwide where credit has become over the past decades the instrument that keeps the engines of commerce running.  Without that fuel the engines will stall and the plane of state will come crashing to the ground.

                Obviously there is a difference in economic and political philosophy between us. I found this specific Thomas Friedman column sensible and pragmatic.

      •  Good link (0+ / 0-)

        Not particularly new information, but synthesized in one place in easy-to-understand terms.

        Recommended reading.

        Extremism. Disease. These problems offend our common humanity. Barack Obama; Mensch in Chief

        by pvlb on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:23:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As one who has been here for a long long time (55+ / 0-)

      As one who has been here for a long long time (check my uid), I am a bit flabbergasted by the response on this site to the bailout.

      Thank you for injecting some sanity back in.

      If you need more stuff on why this is important see Bloomberg today:

      Cash-Starved Companies Scrap Dividends, Tap Credit

      or these links from Washington Monthly on how local and state governments are cutting back everywhere because they cant get credit:
      http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...

      •  I haven't been around here that long. (31+ / 0-)

        About 8 months as a member but I lurked and read for years.  I've been shocked at the rigid thinking on the bailout.  I'm not saying we all have to agree; but to not understand that Wall Street is no longer separate from our basic banking industry -- that it's all tied together because of Republican policies and certain Democrats willing to try deregulation -- has surprised me.  Totally rigid, no matter what other information has been brought forward.  

        Hey, I'm for some form of bailout, but I've tried to be open minded enough to be concerned about this particular bill:  the oversight is laughable, Paulson gets a free hand, and he has discretion for an equity stake when buying assets instead of being required.  It's watered down and I'm desperately afraid of what that will do to Obama's chances in November.  

        Just saying -- I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I've been shocked at how closed minds have been on this beloved site.  

        •  Even though we are all on the same team ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dnamj, In her own Voice, BP in NJ, atyala

          ... we are not always all on the same page, for better or for worse.

          ---

        •  Same here (22+ / 0-)

          long, long time before I registered.

          What worries me even more than the irrational lynch mob mentality about the bill, is how this site is undermining Obama - and all our down-ticket Democrats - even the most progressive ones that are consistently the best champions of our values - by blaming them for the bill, for the bill's failure, blaming those who voted against the hysterical phone calls for not voting their conscience - and now, blaming those who want to vote for this new bill.

          What worries me is how many times Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity and Rep Shelby and his rejectionist, reactionary cronies in the House, and the think tank of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes (name escapes me at the moment, Freedom something) and the wacko Ayn Rand sites have been quoted - and linked to - favorably here - not just in diaries but front page posts - merely because they oppose a bailout, too.

          Those who say "if Bush is for it, it must be wrong" say, in the same breath, "if Michelle Malkin is against it, it must be right"!!!!

          Madness.

          And very alarming. Read Naomi Klein. When people start touting authoritarian messages out of desperation, we live in dangerous times.

          This is why I have fought so avidly against the Ron Paul phenomenon on Digg and elsewhere, while progressives were egging it on, in a divide-and-conquer mentality. Young people all over the place were flocking to a dangerous, authoritarian demagogue simply because he opposed the war in Iraq.

          We must uphold reason in the midst of hysteria.

          I only wish the owner of this site would set a reasonable tone, rather than inflaming passions.

          Those who want to talk about religion have a spin-off site created by kos, Street Prophets.

          Perhaps it is time for a spin-off site for rational thinkers.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:46:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wish I could recommend a thousand times. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bethcf4p, RandomActsOfReason

            Avoid the drama, vote Obama.

            by Boston to Salem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:23:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why are opposing views (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alizard, Blissing, TNThorpe

            called hysterical, irrational, etc. When people have to resort to ad hominems, talking about rationality vs irrationality instead of the facts of their belief on an issue, I know I'm being railroaded.

            Stop with the labeling opposing views as hysterics.

            "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

            by MillieNeon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hysterical views are those that (5+ / 0-)

              call for rejection without rational analysis.

              Hysterical views are those that link to a Michelle Malkin substance-free rant, simply because its conclusion is that the bill is bad.

              Hysterical views are those that say, "All I need to know is that Bush is for it. If he is for it, I am against it".

              Hysterical views are those that say, "Let the Ba$tards burn".

              Hysterical views are NOT inherently views in opposition to the bill, or to any bailout.

              It is impossible to talk about the facts when folks respond with, "it is time for a Revolution. Fuck Reid and Pelosi", unaccompanied by any substantive argument.

              I can't speak for anyone else, but if you look at my comments in the days leading up to the vote, they were full of lengthy substantive arguments and citations. I posted links to the bill the moment Pelosi's office released it for download on the Internet - posted a CNN link hours before it was available on the .gov site.

              People more articulate and organized than me wrote extensive diaries on the subject, which I linked to and asked folks to recommend. They all sunk without a trace, as long as kos was whipping up the frenzy.

              I posted links to reasoned analysis and accessible, Q & A's for laypeople like me on McClatchy, NYTimes, CNBC and elsewhere - in each case, the response was either implying I was a Wall Street lackey, or just a rant about "FUCKING PELOSI AND FRANK SELLOUTS REVOLUTION!!!!"

              After the bill failed, when the historical revisionism began, and all those who had said, "No WALL STREET BAILOUT NO WAY" on the front page and the top linked diaries, suddenly said they weren't opposed to a bailout, just this bill, then suddenly diaries in favor appeared on the recommended list.

              Amazing how that happened, huh.

              So, forgive me if I'm tired of repeating the same substantive points today, when the diaries are full with "THE SENATE BILL SUCKS!!! PELOSI SUCKS!!! EVERYONE SUCKS!!!!" in place of thoughtful analysis.

              I'm tired, and disheartened and disappointed by the past week.

              I happen to have devoted the rest of my life to helping people use the Internet for socially constructive purposes. I have been around developing online communities and helping places like this get off the ground and build in proper self-moderation systems since before anyone here even heard of the Internet. I work with progressive campaigns to utilize new media and preach the virtues of grassroots empowerment.

              And, after this week, I'm beginning to wonder if the wisdom of crowds will prevail over the frenzy of mobs.

              So, forgive me for venting a little about the absolute talk-show O'Reilly level discourse that has dominated this site for the past week, and at how we have undermined and attacked the very progressive Democrats we are supposed to help elect - including our presidential nominee, who is personally responsible for many of the most progressive and forward-looking measures in the Senate bill.

              This is not a proud moment for the progressive movement. This is not crashing the gates; this is tearing down the battering ram.

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:50:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We go through this every time (0+ / 0-)

                With the primaries, with FISA, now with this. A few retards say outlandish things, and everyone acts like there's no more rational discussion on this site, and they add to the drama by continuously complaining about the few retards. Ignore them. Don't give them more energy.

                There's plenty of good talk on both sides of the issue going on. I'm tired of people who think rationality only means agreeing with them.

                "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                by MillieNeon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm getting tired of saying this- (0+ / 0-)

                  especially on this site--but could you please stop calling people "retards"?

                •  In this case, (0+ / 0-)

                  the outlandish things swamped the front page posts and the recommended diaries. They were the dominant meme of this site - and still are, to a great extent.

                  And it wasn't a question, really of "outlandish things" - tin foil folks are harmlessly amusing, not particularly distressing.

                  This was a concerted effort to whip up the public who swamped our representatives with phone calls. It was utilizing grass-roots energy for thoughtless, impulsive, destructive (in my opinion) purposes.

                  Or, are you going to claim that nothing we do here really makes a difference?

                  I prefer to believe it does, that grass-roots empowerment and citizen engagement matters.

                  Which is why it was so distressing to see how quickly the dynamic shifts on this site and how easy it is to manipulate participants into a mindless mob.

                  I've been around long enough to accept that there are prevailing opinions here that I disagree with. I actually welcome that - it is what makes this place different than, say, LGF, where a dissenting opinion is an automatic ban (even if at times this place becomes as intolerant of diverse opinions, at least one is free to express them, usually without even a TU).

                  This week, not only did this place behave like a talk-radio adjunct, it actually was replete with admiring citations of quotes by Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity and Tom Armey and Steve Forbes and Ron Paul and The Drudge Report and Dick Shelby, for crying out loud. There was a point where links to TNR outnumbered links to HuffPo ten to one.

                  That is disturbing. When people stop thinking and start panicking, that is not the wisdom of crowds, it is the frenzy of mobs. I hate to see that here. We're better than that.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:53:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think the reaction is hysterical (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Kresnik, bluesophie

            It's well-deserved anger.

            How can we have 45+ million without health insurance and that not merit intervention?

            How can unemployment insurance be so minimal?

            How can bankruptcy laws so clearly favor predatory financial institutions?

            I could go on, but the point is obvious. So many people I talk to feel sold down the river by the gov't and by this administration. No trust remains, and I have little willingness to be lectured by an administration that from the crimes at the Justice Dept. to those at Abu Ghraib has shown itself corrupt and politicized time and again.

            A better bill can be had. Look at Joseph Stiglitz in The Nation, for example.

            I would like to hear more about the banking crisis that addresses the new problem of market concentration now that 3 banks control 50% of the market.

            Yes, intervene to salvage mortgages and generate liquidity, but taking time to do it in increments, thoughtfully, and with maximum taxpayer protection is a lot better than handing Paulson $700,000,000,000 and a Sternly Worded Letter (TM) telling him to do the right thing.

            Henry Wallace (1944): "The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact."

            by TNThorpe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:18:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  shhhh... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TNThorpe

              suggesting that a Nobel Prize in Economics winner might have a better idea than the Bush Administration or the mob of non-economists on Capitol Hill makes you a hyserical dangerous heretic. Friedman doesn't like heretics.

              Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:15:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, Blissing, rebus, James Kresnik

          ...what would you say about the idea of Bypass Surgery instead of a bailout?  Here's something I put on an economics blog this morning:

          This pretty much sums up the ridiculousness of the pro-bailout position. The corrupted, risk-taking manipulators who created this crisis are turning to the American taxpayer and saying, "If you don't pay us hundreds of billions of dollars to protects us from losses, we're going to blow up the whole economy!"

          Gelbach is essentially acknowledging that we are being threatened by Wall St. blackmailers. He says we have no choice but to pay the ransom they are demanding or else we will end up with 25% unemployment and unrelenting misery that will last for at least 10 years. Either he is a willing accomplice to the crime or he is an economist who is utterly uninformed about economic alternatives.

          If new bailout legislation does not get passed and the stock market crashes in the next few days and most of the financial companies go bankrupt, it is simply not true that the American people would necessarily be forced to suffer through a long and miserable Great Depression II, just like in the 1930's. It is an absolute certainty that---if everything were to collapse tomorrow---Congress would be able to take action that would restore the economy to booming prosperity within a year's time.

          How might it accomplish this? Well, instead of spending $1-$2 trillion to protect rich people from the possibility of gambling losses, Congress could spend $1 trillion on creating and capitalizing a Taxpayers' Bank that would be able to provide MAIN ST. with all the loanable funds that small businesses, non-financial firms, and households might need while the financial sector is crumbling. Then, it could spend another trillion on increased government spending on infrastructure and other public INVESTMENTS.

          How could the economy possibly experience a loss of GDP when the federal government is pumping an additional $2 trillion into the economy? It simply won't matter what is happening in the private banking sector or on Wall St. Let the whole thing play out in a beautiful, creative destruction drama, where trillions of dollars in paper wealth gets written off, and a sound foundation is restored.

          At the very same time this is happening, firms in the REAL ECONOMY (located on Main St.) will be experiencing robust demand for the goods/services they produce and sell. They'd have access to all the capital they might require for investments.

          When the private banking sector has finally cleansed its books of non-performing 'assets', it will finally be in a position to lend again, and that is when Congress could re-privatize the Taxpayers' Bank, if that is what it wanted to do.

          So when Gelbach says...

          Since all sectors of our economy depend on credit availability, massive layoffs will occur if this situation lasts much longer. It would take years to recover.

          ...he is not stating the truth about choices that lie before us. He is unjustifiably assuming that Congress can do, or would do, nothing to set the economy promptly on the path of prosperity. Or could it be that he is intentionally ignoring the fact that Congress could easily prevent any recession from developing into a full-blown Depression?

          The only way it is going to be possible to FIX the fundemental problem that created this mess is if Congress performs Bypass Surgery and allows the meltdown occur, taking care of innocent victims as best they can.

      •  I am not saying its even close to perfect (6+ / 0-)

        BTW I am not saying its even close to perfect. In fact I think "shit sandwich" is the best way to put it.

        But first you put the fire out in the house, then you regulate the shit out of the house.

        •  Realistically, that's about the best we can hope (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bethcf4p, Vicky

          for.

          We don't have the progressive majorities currently to push something better through, but the trade off is that this crisis can clearly be tied to the anti-regulation crowd.

          "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace

          by John Shade on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  DKos is a diverse community (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dnamj, revgerry, Onomastic, atyala, bluesophie

        While I agree there may have been some group-thinking among the Frontpagers, DKos is a diverse community, and that is its strength. There has almost always been one diary in the Recommended list that calmly made the case for the bailout (or some version of it).

      •  As someone else who's been here since 2004 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bethcf4p, vertexoflife

        I'm not surprised at all that the arguments degenerate into flame wars, hyperbole, rating and tantrums.

        In fact, that's been the MO of message boards since they started.

        What's the problem?

        McCain is a Chode.

        by dnamj on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:15:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This story will hit home for many as well (6+ / 0-)

        Via Hilzoy, NY Times

        "Cities, states and other local governments have been effectively shut out of the bond markets for the last two weeks, raising the cost of day-to-day operations, threatening longer-term projects and dampening a broad source of jobs and stability at a time when other parts of the economy are weakening.

        The sudden loss of credit, one of the ripple effects of the current financial turmoil, is affecting local governments in all parts of the country, rich and poor alike. Washington has shelved a planned bond offering to pay for terminal expansion and parking garages already under construction at Dulles and Reagan National Airports. Billings, Mont., is struggling to come up with $70 million more for a new emergency room. And Maine has been unable to raise $50 million for highway repairs.

        "We really are in terra incognita here," said Robert O. Lenna, executive director of the Maine Municipal Bond Bank, which helps that state’s towns and school districts raise money. He said he had worked in public finance for 34 years and had never before seen credit evaporate so completely.

        Maine had already begun some of its road work when the bond markets stopped functioning, so now it is scrambling for bank loans to keep the dump trucks rolling. If money does not start flowing soon, Mr. Lenna said, Maine will have to cancel some of its road and bridge projects."

        + much, much more.  From city payrolls, to infrastructure improvements to everything else in municipal/state budgets - the credit crunch will have devastating impact if not remedied.  There is lag between expenditures and tax receipts in states and towns which are bridged through loans.  No loans = bad news.  

        This comment has been crossposted at AT&T: 611 Folsom St, San Francisco, CA - Room 641A.

        by ManahManah on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:35:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  why is aig failure related to credit crunch? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm trying to understand why the bankruptcy of AIG, etc. is related to a credit crunch.  Why has the interbank loan credit rate gone up?  I understand that the market is based on trust, but I don't understand why credit has dried up so quickly.  I'll keep scrolling down these comments, but if someone has a good explanation, I'd appreciate it. (You don't have to talk to me like a three year old.)

        I'm mostly in favor of the bailout/rescue/money giveaway because of the impact I see in the credit markets, but I don't understand why credit has dried up so quickly.

      •  it does sound like a typical (0+ / 0-)

        "disaster capitalism" scenario, doesn't it?

        Bail out the wealthy or they will force America's economy to a screeching halt, take their profits, and fly away in their private jets.

        The reason why disaster capitalism is so popular with the super-rich is that people are so easily stampeded over a cliff.

        If being a member of the herd is your definition of sanity, enjoy the trip, after all, you've volunteering to pay for it.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  McCain will take credit for your post. (n/t) (13+ / 0-)

      America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this. -- Barack Obama, the next President of our United States.

      by BasharH on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:08:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You beat me to it. I was just starting a diary (24+ / 0-)

      draft with this very same information.  I'm absolutely livid that so many people are going off not even half-cocked (a quarter-cocked?) without a clue what they're talking about.  Thank you, thank you, thank you - if I could recommend this a thousand times I would!!!!!!

      "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain

      by fortuna on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:12:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so i should just smile (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dnamj, Brooke In Seattle

      cuz their trying to give me the reach around?

    •  Reading is really over rated . . . (14+ / 0-)

      I mean seriously Fleet Admiral, Why would you want to actually read the provisions of the bill when you can get the gist of everything via the hyperbole bandied about on this site?

      If you don't stop lying about me, I'm going to have to start telling the truth about you. Barack Obama

      by dbratl on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  spoil sport! (6+ / 0-)

      What am I going to do with this torch and pitchfork now?

    •  My rec and tip (6+ / 0-)

      Is for pointing out that the nature of "tax" items isn't the real evil in this bill.

      And, I guess for allowing that there are realistic issues remaining with the plan on which the Senate will vote tonight.

      Not the least of which being that, at the center, it remains symptomatic relief, (largely for Wall Street) and does not address the core causes that led to this entire mess.

      •  It's not meant to. (4+ / 0-)

        It's meant to stop the bleeding.  We can deal with regulation when we have larger majorities after the election.  We can force what we want through the Congress that way.  In order to win the election, we need bipartisan support on the bailout, and that means accepting a less that perfect bailout bill.

        Why is that so hard to understand?

        •  Stopping the Bleeding Need Not Mean More (0+ / 0-)

          Symptomatic relief - which this bill retains as it's core feature.

          You raise regulation as the issue we can deal with after the election. Certainly, it is clearly understandable why that would be prefereable - but that misses the point I was making.
          Think of it this way:

          $700 Billion (no matter how parceled out) to address toxic assets is symptomatic relief.

          Imposing tighter regulations is a behavior modification program a doctor might advise to limit future occurences of the disease in forward months and years. (Diet, exercise or smoking cessation if you will).

          You can staunch bleeding and deal with the core diesease at the same time - and still leave the behavioral modification of regulation till after election.

    •  Thanks for the calm voice (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BerkeyBee, Vicky, revgerry, Flaw, Onomastic

      I was livid when I checked in this morning and read the panic posts.  

      All in all this may not be the perfect bill, but it's not sounding like quite the poison pill I first feared.  

      In today's climate it may be the best we can get until 2009.

    •  the REAL objection by the Dems (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dnamj, FleetAdmiralJ

      is that there are no offsets, according to the "pay as you go" plan.  Well that is true of the bailout, too, where is the $700 billion to offset the bailout?  There isn't one.  They can't afford to pay as you go anymore.

      louise 'hussein' to you! proud donor to "White Dudes for Obama" Endorsed 11/1/07 and never looked back!

      by louisev on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:52:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, in that case (5+ / 0-)

        NO bill will be anything more than a very temporary palliative measure. The Big Crash WILL come, and the economy - the WHOLE economy, not just the delusional Wall Street portion of it - will STAY crashed until all the vapor-dollars have evaporated back into the ether they were pulled from.

        We're in for bad, bad times, and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent that. So we MUST start thinking about how to ameliorate the consequences...if even that is possible any longer.

    •  One word -- "OVERSIGHT"... (8+ / 0-)

      (or the lack of it)

      An oversight board comprised of the actual people (like Paulson himself) who are supposed to be watched?

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      That strains credulity.

      Please, as Rachel Maddow would say:

      "Talk me down from this."

      "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion" - Thomas Paine

      by markthshark on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:01:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, these people are being faked out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        markthshark

        by the smoke and mirror. If the very things remain the same in the original bill and you add lipstick... how does that go again???

        May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

        by FLS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oversight... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard

          is one of the most important part of this bill and it seems no one is paying attention to it.

          It's a deal-killer as far as I'm concerned. Congress can form a committee comprised of itself. Why don't they?

          Something doesn't smell right.

          "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion" - Thomas Paine

          by markthshark on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:32:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Dump the capital gain tax cut for (5+ / 0-)

      Bushevics, and let's start there.

    •  Thanks so much for this! (4+ / 0-)

      And yay for some sane diaries making the rec list, including this one.  I may take a break from even glancing at the front page for a while, since it's all "bailout/Congress/Democrats suck(s)," all the time.

      "Oil and coal, it's a fungible commodity, and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's goin' and where it's not..." - Sarah Palin

      by LeanneB on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:04:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for the info (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      revgerry, NY brit expat

      I was very skeptical when I heard "more tax breaks for business," and had the kneejerk reaction you described.  
      But I'm all for alternative energy incentives, better access to the earned income tax credits, etc. -- so this mainly sounds good to me and is reassuring that the Dems are not just caving to the right wing.

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:04:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  another layer of lipstick on a pig (0+ / 0-)

        They amended the cosmetically modified House version of the bill (with no oversight) into a must-pass energy bill to get progressive support, then threw in a few gimmicks. The good aspects of the energy bill are unchanged.

        The Senate Democrats aren't caving to the Right, they're caving to Wall Street.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:44:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  would like to rec this diary x 10... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      revgerry

      The Christian Right is Neither...

      by Prairie Logic on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:12:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you are arguing for this pig (0+ / 0-)

      but your "Update 2" acknowledges that you have neither read it nor understand it.

      But we've got to support it . . . really we do.  We're just a ranting mob otherwise . . .

    •  NO Bill will Stop the MELT DOWN!!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Black Leather Rain

      There will be a meltdown REGARDLESS of What bIll is passed
      The CHOICE Congress and the People have to make is:

      A. will $700billion go to a select few Wall Street gambling companies

      B.  Will $700 billion go to help take care of and try to rebuild our economy after the inevitable MELT DOWN...services like heating assistance, food assistance, expended unemployment assistance....we are about to face a great depression no matter what....how we choose to use our last REAL Precious dollars will directly effect EACH and Everyone of us here on the DK fate.

      Call your senators and Representatives and CHOOSE Wisely.

      The bottom line is that there is no way to resolve our economic problems without a severe recession, and our politicians need to level with the public. As a nation, we gambled on the alluring riches of real estate and we lost. The price must be paid. Contrary to the Bush Administration rhetoric, the fundamentals of our economy are not sound. If they were, we would not be in this mess. Recessions are meant to restore balance, purge excess, and liquidate mal-investments. On that score we have a lot of work to do.

      http://www.safehaven.com/...

      Mathematically NO bailout will Help or STOP
      financial crisis/ Melt Down!
      The 'bailout' is ONLY to
      Rob the treasury of our tax dollars,  The 'bailout' is not prevent a castrophe or end the crisis.  The fiancial collaspe is inevitable, the math says so.
      What the bailout will do is take the $700 billion that could be used for social programs during the unavoidable depression and give it to millionaires from wall street.
      I Cannot believe the Dems are joining Bush is giving our "lifeboat" tax dollars to wall street thieves.
      Call congress now, no bailout!
      god help us

      Mathematics FAIL Paulson / Bernanke Bailout Plan (PDF)

      Known Facts United States non-financial private debt is $32.4 trillion dollars and household debt is $10.0 trillion as of 2Q 2008. This encompasses mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, HELOCs, commercial and industrial loans, LBO monies outstanding and all other forms of non-financial (e.g. not including margin loans and similar) debt.

      Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke have asked for a $700 billion "revolving credit line" with which to buy "troubled" assets. Congress is strongly considering giving it to Mr. Paulson with some set of conditions. The assertion has been made by both Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke that absent this credit line and absorption of these "troubled" assets, the financial markets will imminently seize and fail.

      The assertion has been made that the taxpayer will not recognize large losses and might make a profit. House prices are projected to fall by another 15-30% nationally (depending on who you ask); therefore, whatever level of stress exists in the system today far more will exist over the next few years.

      Mathematics $700 billion dollars is 2.16% of all non-financial private debt and 7% of all household debt. Provision of this credit line therefore would allow removal of a maximum of just over 2% of the current nonfinancial private debt from the banking system, assuming only US domiciled debt is included.

      If the imminent failure of the United States financial system is going to be averted by 2.16% (maximum) of the outstanding private non-financial debt being removed from the banks' hands and transferred to the taxpayer as the "responsible party", then the system is under leverage of 46.29:1.

      If, as many have projected, the actual losses to be sustained are $2.5-3 trillion in residential housing and a like amount among commercial real estate, credit cards and LBO loans, then the aggregate requirement is not $700 billion it is in the neighborhood of five to nine times what has been requested. If this is the case the aggregate requirement is double the US Federal Budget. The government cannot raise that amount.

      Conclusions Either (1) the system is not about to fail imminently OR (2) it will fail irrespective of whether this bill passes, as the actual amount required to "resolve" the problem exceeds the government's ability to finance it.

      If no failure is imminent then we are giving $700 billion to the people who caused the mess for no purpose other than enriching them. If the latter then we need the $700 billion for social programs and other spending that will become necessary as we work through a financial collapse and crisis worse than anything since the 1930s.

      EITHER WAY THIS BILL IS UNSUPPORTABLE IN ANY FORM; THE MATH DOES NOT LIE. ARE YOU PREPARED FOR A FULL PAGE AD IN USA TODAY AND/OR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL LISTING THOSE WHO CAN'T DO BASIC MATH? (PDF)

      http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.co...

      At the core of the human spirit there is a voice stronger than violence and fear - S. dianna ortiz

      by Rachel Griffiths on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:26:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great diary. I've been writing posts and a diary (4+ / 0-)

      on why the legislation is actually the dawning of a new progressive era and the modern equivalent of the British surrender at Yorktown.  This bill ends the GOP era of laissez faire economics.  

      No Democrat should oppose this bill.  The most progressive Dems are shortsighted if they think this bill won't make it easier for them to usher in a new era of regulation and populist reform.

      Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

      by khyber900 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  is it worth spending several hundred (0+ / 0-)

        billion dollars to buy off the Wall Street opposition to a regulated financial environment?

        If the US government's borrowing capability is tapped out by the bailout and Bush's mistakes, just what is it that a new era of populist reform will be implemented with?

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:52:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The front-pagers have lost me forever (3+ / 0-)

      What they've been doing has been that seriously wrong that I literally will never take their analysis seriously on these issues again.   Period.

      To examine a bill of this magnitude with its consequences for the country and to either (a) examine it through a purely political lens or (b) ignore the facts of the bill itself is unforgivable.  This is supposed to be a reality based community.

      The front-pagers are over for me.   They have jumped the shark and nuked the fridge at the same time.

      There are many diarists whose work I love and will continue to read, and today I eagerly add FleetAdmiralJ to that list.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Whatever it is... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm against it!

      "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But why do I still think the bill is looking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TNThorpe

      more and more like a pig with lipstick? It's still a pig.

    •  I appreciate your analysis, however ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alizard

      ... the bill is rotten at its core, as DeFazio and Kaptur and others not only recognize but have also offered a set of alternatives, one advantage being is that action could be taken to address the core issues - access to credit, repair of deliquent mortgages - while evaluating, via full public hearing, whether tax payer money should be committed to anything other than infrastructure building and consequent job creation.

      The following video - other than some of Lou's rhetoric - is helpful and hopefully will go viral.

      http://digg.com/...

      I have called Senator Cantwell's office, discussed the need to focus on the core issues, and urged her to lead a filibuster of the proposed legislation.  If nothing else, that will bring much more light onto what are the core issues.

      Avaricious, unaccountable gambler buddies of Paulson wanting cash should be told to spend their own in the mean time.

      Thank you

    •  Thank you for spelling it all out... (0+ / 0-)

      This bill will never be perfect, but it seems preferable to doing nothing.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. - Harry Truman

      by AuroraDawn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:36:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you forgot to mention the part about wooden arrow (0+ / 0-)

      s! how could you???

      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

      by RisingTide on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hunter is a poet, so some license needed here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, Lying eyes, elwior

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:58:25 AM PDT

  •  I don't care if the additions to the bill... (18+ / 0-)

    are any good. The underlying bill will NOT restore the economy to health.

    We the People ordained our Government to promote our General Welfare;
    If We the People want Health Care for All, Government should provide it.

    by Jimdotz on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:59:13 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the opportunity to read it (11+ / 0-)

    Rec'd for that purpose.

    No, Madame Vice President, "Godzilla vs. Megalon" is not a Supreme Court case

    by Shelbyville Manhattan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:59:14 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for providing facts... (12+ / 0-)

    it seems that too many around here simply want to say "it's a bad bill" because it has some connection to this administration.

    This is not the Paulson plan.

    Somewhere...Abraham Lincoln is smiling.

    by David Kroning on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:59:19 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for the sanity (12+ / 0-)

    tipped and rec'd.

    This is why we have a representative government, by the way.  They have the staff and the background knowledge to go through these detailed and complicated bills and vote on them accordingly.

    Mass rule is rarely a productive way to solve complicated problems.

    •  why? (0+ / 0-)

      Because the financial wizards from Fox Financial Network don't post their revealed wisdom here and to find it on DailyKos, we have to read a recycled version in a diary instead? If I want to read their 'wisdom', I'll go direct to the source.

      All the diary demonstrates is that the Shock Doctrine keeps getting used because there are always people willing to be stampeded when the right buttons are pushed.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:38:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds inoffensive (6+ / 0-)

    Except for one thing: if we're going to have to bail the kids out, we ought to at least get something we value from it.

    Make no mistake, this is not something of value.  Instead, it's reinforcing the Republican meme of "tax and spend", and making ourselves victims, yet again.  It's time to stop playing their game.

  •  This Senate bill (20+ / 0-)

    is essentially the same bunch of crap that Paulson proposed with some nice window dressing added.

    "If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist." Sen. Bernie Sanders

    by Sagebrush Bob on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:03:21 AM PDT

    •  Paulson proposing such a sack of sh*t (5+ / 0-)

      in the first place is causing this delay and panic. He should be hung and quartered.
      Maybe that was the plan all along - propose a ludicrous sack of sh*t, which will delay the process, make everyone panic, propose a fluffed up sack of sh*t, delay some more, and then, when there's literally no time left to f*ck around, ANY bill will pass.

      Sarah Palin makes me feel like anyone can be VP!

      by eswey on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:35:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand (8+ / 0-)

    If these tax cuts are "good" and something Dems want, how is that supposed to lure far right Republicans to vote YES?

  •  This existed before (20+ / 0-)

    Everything about this bill already existed before hand.  The Bailout, in all it's suckyness is being attached to the energy bill because Bill's that spend money cannot originate in the Senate.  If the Bailout goes away, this energy bill would still exist and can be voted on separately.

  •  Why add riders? (12+ / 0-)

    This is an emergency bailout plan.  Why not focus on making it a GOOD plan rather than adding little enticements to it?

    •  because for better or worse that's how the (8+ / 0-)

      legislative process works?

      Sometimes I wonder if our current Congress-critters would have tried to attach riders to the Declaration of War against Japan on December 8th....

      "Well yes, I see that the Japanese have bombed our forces... can we talk about this new convention center in my district?"

      A PBS mind in a Fox News World | -5.25/-4.72 | Obama 08!

      by Crookshanks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Definitely for worse. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, Crookshanks

        We're under the gun timewise, and now various other Congresscritters will waste time arguing about mental health parity.  Lovely.

        I don't recall who said if we didn't pass the first we'd be offered worse, but in their cynicism, they were obviously more realistic than my fragile optimism.

        Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

        by drbloodaxe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:30:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  For worse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        They're playing manipulative games in order to get the Senate to vote first, so they can put more pressure on the House.

        "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

        by joanneleon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:26:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry for repeating my reply below (0+ / 0-)

        but since both of you replied to me, I feel compelled to reply back to both of you.  (Is that obsessive compulsive?)

        I understand that riders are par for the course and that these are good riders, but it seems there are two possible approaches to tackling the failed bill:  

          1.  fix the bill so that more republicans will vote for it, or

          2.  fix the bill so that more democrats will vote for it.

        If the riders are things democrats want, then it looks like they are taking approach 2.  But, if they are going to take approach 2, why not fix the bill  so that there is more regulation on the financial institutions, more restrictions on corporate pay, more oversight and a reversal of the golden parachute, for example?

    •  Because there is leverage & these are good riders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vicky

      Riders work -- they piggyback on core provisions that the legislature and/or the executive really want. Provisions that might run into more resistance on their own, slide on through because of the strong desire to enact the core of the bill.

      Bush wants the main package. Why not use the moment to include other worthwhile provisions? If there's a provision that is really objectionable (from our side), I'd have a problem with that provision. If this moment allows the Congress to get Bush to sign good provisions into law, why not do it?

      The only reason not to do this would be if it complicates passage or Presidential signing. I'm not sure that it could get more complicated than it already was. Will anyone vote "no" just because of these riders?

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

      by FischFry on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:19:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, that's certainly the worry. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        Given that various Republicans were willing to vote no on Paulson simply because it offended their fiscally conservative principles, I can't imagine that extra riders won't lose at least a vote or two, no matter how dire the situation.

        Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

        by drbloodaxe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I understand that, but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vicky

        There are two possible approaches:  

        1.  fix the bill so that more republicans will vote for it, or
        1.  fix the bill so that more democrats will vote for it.

        If the riders are things democrats want, then it looks like they are taking approach 2.  But, if they are going to take approach 2, why not fix the bill  so that there is more regulation on the financial institutions, more restrictions on corporate pay, and a reversal of the golden parachute, for example?

      •  The light is slowly beginning to dawn (0+ / 0-)

        This is a way to stick it to BUSH!  He is on record wanting this bill so much.  Throw in things he does not want and he has to swallow them.

        Right?

  •  Great Job (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flight2q

    To be honest all of this is just a little window trimming to the Paulson plan.  But to all the folks who opposed the first bill - what did you think was going to happen?  Did you really think that the Senate was going to move to the left to get this passed?

    •  I'm not sure they didn't move to the left (6+ / 0-)

      All those tax cuts are lefty causes (well except maybe the clean coal bit).

      I'm trying to understand the mark to market thing right now, and it seems to me that while it is not only a good thing, it is absolutely necessary in the long term, it can cause severe problems in times of extreme volatility when securities may be vastly undervalued.

      It might be that the mark to market roll back is a bone they thew to the right to get some righty votes on a bill that moved left, or it might actually be a good thing.

      To be honest, I don't understand it yet.

      •  I've been going back and forth on this as well (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inverted, 4Freedom, flight2q, Jampacked

        I think the mark to market is fine as long as those valuations are real.  I just don't want us to pay over that - which would be a gift to the banks who have already declared losses based on those mark to market valuations and would reduce the chance of the Gov't getting a return on the back end.

        •  I think it's pretty clear (4+ / 0-)

          That the current market valuations of mortgage backed securities is overly pessimistic.

          The problem is that it is impossible to determine their future value with any accuracy, which is why mark to market is normally necessary (as I understand it.)  I just really want to make sure the SEC only suspends mark to market temporarily.

          I'm warming to this bill, and I'm starting to convince myself that the strategy is to pass this by playing to the left.

        •  It depends on WHO is marking to WHAT market (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inverted

          with WHAT oversight.

          So far it appears the WS firms will be self-evaluating their inventory and not adequately overseen, which presents both a financial and a moral hazard on top of the risk.

          McCain = Bush on steroids. -Pat Buchanan

          by 4Freedom on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:25:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If I understand it correctly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mary Julia, bluesophie

        it requires the brokerages/banks to mark the price of the securities (packaged mortgages and other credit) to the market price instead of holding the price higher. The new buyer is buying it at fair market value instead of an inflated price.

        This then causes the holder to take losses for the mark downs which is only fair and that was what the brokerages wanted changed.  Initially they wanted to hold the higher prices so they didn't have to take losses.  Those losses are what took out Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AIG, and Goldman Sachs.

        It is extremely refreshing to have actual data because a lot of folks either don't know where to find it or are simply satisfied letting the future of our country rest with what they hear from other uninformed posters.

        It really has made me sick and I go off site for my education because I was widowed 1 year ago and my future depends on how this turns out. Understanding what exactly is taking place and what potential impact it has for the market, my retirement accounts, and the global economy is what I am interested in.

        Thanks for taking the time to provide some good information instead of the emotional, uninformed idiocy that floats around here.  That is enough to scare the hell out of me.

        PaintyKat

        WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

        by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:56:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluesophie

          and let me add that there are good reasons a brokerage would want to inflate the value of a security over fair market value besides propping up their balance sheets.

          Let's say you own a mortgage backed security which consists of bits and pieces of dozens of loans.  Some percentage of those loans are likely to go bad, but you have no way of knowing exactly how many.  Right now the market is shell shocked so it places a high-ball estimate on defaults, and consequently low-balls the offered, free market price.  The important bit to remember is that that security is really a promise that people will give you money each month so it does have actual value which may differ from the fair market value.

          At times like these it makes some degree of sense that a brokerage would rather estimate the actual value than go by what the fair market would offer because the broker stands to make more money holding the investment than selling it.  The danger is that the brokerage inflates the value over the actual value creating a secondary bubble.

  •  McCain just said..... (11+ / 0-)

    ....he would vote on the bill. Everything else indicates he'll vote for it, but he has given himself a chance to wiggle out of it and blame Obama.  He also took credit for any taxpayer safeguards, oversight, and puppies.  

    I cannot take him another minute.  

  •  McCain speaking LIVE now on the TV (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, YesBiscuit

    get your barf bags ready

    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

    by Lady Libertine on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:05:32 AM PDT

  •  Again, a voice of reason. (5+ / 0-)

    Thanks, FAJ, for putting this in perspective.  We need a reasonable compromise bill that will pass.

    I loves me some Marxist Utopian Mush!

    by Captain Nimrod on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM PDT

  •  Facts aside: The goats and sharks line was primo. (5+ / 0-)

    F

  •  I don't understand how the green parts of this (9+ / 0-)

    are attractive to the Republican party.

    They are also tossing in mental health parity, which by itself is fine. But are they going to stop there, or will they load it up some more? How about a statement endorsing Corsican independence? It seems that all of this will have the effect of slowing things down in the House, as everyone take to the floor to bloviate on this or that, or attempt to modify it.

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:06:43 AM PDT

    •  The Republicans will sell it as a tax reduction (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkalinesky, flight2q, soms

      and try to claim that they got more for waiting a few days.  The Dems are winning this battle though.

    •  Dems had just "killed" a very similar tax bill (0+ / 0-)

      wanting offsetting revenue raisers (tax increases on high incomes or some such).  Repubs wanted the tax breaks without any offsetting revenue raisers. My understanding is that some of this stuff is important to business apart from green stuff, e.g. R&D credits, and there are also some individual breaks in the area of AMT relief, deduction of state sales tax (big deal in Texas), etc.  Plus a lot of R's like green energy too -- look at T. Boone Pickens.  So the whole thing was going to die & Dems could then be blamed for obstructing stuff like tax credits for renewable energy and some  tax breaks for military personnel.  The whole situation is very bizarre, but adding the tax provisions to the bailout bill may allow both sides to move on and declare victory.  Personally I'd rather have congress get back to the "revenue neutrality" concept where you don't cut taxes without making up the revenue elsewhere, but that's not going to happen until January, when God willing, fiscal responsibility is restored to our government.

  •  Thanks For This - Hunter's Article is Idiotic (8+ / 0-)

    Reid's move may save the renewable energy business from a complete shut down.

    Reid is trying to get around the "Blue Dogs" in the House who won't let these tax incentives pass.  

    "I can't believe that the noblest impulse of man-- his compassion for another-- can be completely dead here."

    by Daxman on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:07:37 AM PDT

  •  Hunter was upset about the change in (4+ / 0-)

    accounting rules, but that was a proposal, not a provision. At least I'm not seeing it here.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:08:46 AM PDT

  •  Can someone establish for me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Cranium, YesBiscuit

    that the Senate is going to simply glue the bill that Fleetadmiral is quoting to the bailout plan?

    I realize that reporters are sort of talking that way, using similar words to describe both bills -- the old dead one and the new one that the Senate is going to glue to the bailout plan -- but can anyone show me where a Senator actually SAYS that?

    Because otherwise I am not sure why we have any idea exactly what the Senate is doing.

  •  I'm a little confused on why there's so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Isara, flygrrl

    many other things in this "emergency" bill and why aren't some of those things on their own... I'm guessing it's to bring along the ones who don't like the bailout bill itself but will go along with.. I'll admit I don't understand this bail-out bill fully but having all these other things on there doesn't seem right..

    Be thine own palace, or the world's thy jail. John Donne (1572-1631)

    by ebbinflo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:11:14 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billlaurelMD, alkalinesky, msdrown

    the only thing that gave me pause is possible changes in accounting that would sweep this mess under the table for future years.

    Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

    by upstate NY on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:11:32 AM PDT

  •  What about capital gains? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, BigDuck, lockewasright

    Are they getting any capital gains breaks? It's not being talked about, but it's what the Rethugs really wanted.

    Obama/Biden '08 Yes We Can!

    by alkalinesky on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:12:05 AM PDT

    •  That would be the deal-breaker for me (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans want more tax cuts.  They'll use them to buy their support for this bill.  One last chance at the tax cut candy, and it's with a tax that does the most to transfer wealth from the middle class to the investor class.

  •  The actual bill hasn't been published, (5+ / 0-)

    has it?

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for linking fulltext. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, TomP

    Reading excerpts is as dangerous as not reading at all.

    Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

    by drbloodaxe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:18:12 AM PDT

  •  mark to market (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, firingbullet

    This is the new idea that scares me.  Eliminating accounting rules that say companies must value assets are market value is dangerous.  It can quickly lead to cooked books (think Enron)if no one is regulating asset values.

  •  WTF? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seemabes, Isara, firingbullet, leonard145b

    What the hell has all this energy tax crap got to do with ameliorating the fundamental problems with the Bush/Paulson Bailout?

  •  OMFG. They larded it up bigtime. (10+ / 0-)

    Why in the name of all that is holy are they shoveling in mental health issues and Hurrican Ike stuff onto a bill that should be short and sweet and laser-focused on the parts of the economy in question?

    Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

    by drbloodaxe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:20:30 AM PDT

    •  to get people to vote for it (5+ / 0-)

      evstatus.com - Status of the Electoral College

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:21:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. What else is buried in there? (2+ / 0-)

      Something like getting rid of the "mark to market" asset valuation which requires that firm balance sheets reflect current value rather than something they pull out of their butt to look good in quarterly SEC filings?  

      Do we have to worry about the provision inserted in the House bill voted on that changed the date when banks could have NO RESERVES from 2011 to LAST WEEK?

      What about the provision that allowed foreign banks to get Treasury to buy "toxic assets" of their American subsidiaries, thereby meaning that we could be bailing out BEIJING?  

      No.  I don't want Congress to do anything overnight and without review (Reid wouldn't release text of Senate bill in advance.  Why not?)  I want public hearings.  Testimony.  Evidence.  And deliberations.   Monthly financing for troubled firms until then.  

      If this isn't utterly transparent, it's still the largest transfer of public funds to private hands with no accountability in history.  That's a helluva lot of blind trust, none of which I have at this point.

      "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

      by DC Scott on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:37:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm ready to throw my hands up on the lot of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DC Scott, yoduuuh do or do not

        them.  Inanity reigns in both House and Senate.  (Hmm, I missed an s there, but it actually works just as well without it.)

        I think I'm going to throw my hat into the 'pass anything' column and go crawl back under my blankets.

        Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

        by drbloodaxe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:40:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pass nothing. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inverted, PsychoSavannah

          Monthly bailouts until a new President and a new Congress.  Three months.  We can make it until then.  

          "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

          by DC Scott on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:44:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I might be willing to try that. You might be (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DC Scott, atyala

            willing to try that.  But the vast majority of Americans aren't prepared to live with the disruption in pay and bill payments.  I've got cash on hand, I've got long term food stores, I could probably make it even though my job has gone south already.  But most folks are living hand to mouth already, and even a single missed payperiod is going to cause a lot of havok for them.

            We're already passed the ripple-on point, and the waves are going to get worse the longer we go.

            Maybe the disruption would forge a stronger country overall, but I'm only able to say I'm willing to risk my own life and livelihood, I can't make that decision for other folks.

            Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.

            by drbloodaxe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:11:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm saying finance any firm with working capital (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drbloodaxe

              needs.  Any firm, public/private, large/small.  No paychecks missed.  Perform the same function that the troubled financial institutions play.  

              The at-risk mortgage market is worth around $150 billion dollars.  Those are the mortgages backing the worthless credit default swaps.  The Administration demands $750 billion.  As I see it, we should not pay the extra $600 billion because financial institutions made worthless investments for unregulated, hypervalued credit default swaps.  Let 'em tank and government step in for liquidity purposes until Congress can pass legislation that provides short-term and long-term remedies.

              "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

              by DC Scott on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:42:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Senate rules (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DC Scott, drbloodaxe, MKinTN, flight2q

      Because, as somebody else pointed out, the Senate can't originate bills that create new spending.  It's in the Constitution.  They have to attach the bailout bill to this other stuff to allow the Senate to vote on it first, which they want to do today in order to calm the markets since the House is out of session until tomorrow.

  •  Thanks for this, FAdmJ. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenaRF, TomP

    Your very last link (Added Note 3) takes me nowhere, however.

  •  Sooo. . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, firingbullet

    Spend $700 billion on crap assets to bail out people who are stupid, rich, greedy and corrupt. . .

    "Fix" the problem by making it easier to lie about what assets are worth. . .

    And ah, these tax cuts.

    Wait, we're wasting $700 billion and cutting taxes AT THE SAME TIME?

    We're in this together you idiot. No wonder this country hasn't improved; it's filled with idiots who wave around "Dem" and "GOP" like they're baseball teams.

    by Dragonchild on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM PDT

  •  THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT FROM THE BAILOUT BILL!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ObamaLovingExDemocrat

    The sections are not even named correctly. Dude, the bailout bill is located here:

    http://financialservices.house.gov/

    Example: Section 102 is called Insurance of troubled assets, not Energy  Tax Incentive.

    TITLE I—TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM
    Sec. 101. Purchases of troubled assets.
    Sec. 102. Insurance of troubled assets.
    Sec. 103. Considerations.
    Sec. 104. Financial Stability Oversight Board.

    This does not match what is posted above. Can someone essssplain this to me?

  •  Exactly my point. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scrutinizer, PaintyKat, Vicky, TomP

    If we were going to begrudgingly accept the bailout bill, the new tax cuts don't make it "worse".

    I wonder if all those ranters on the front page actually read the thing.

    The Obama/Biden Inaugural -- the exact moment when the world goes from gray to colorful.

    by alkatt on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:27:28 AM PDT

  •  It bails out foreign banks too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, PsychoSavannah

    Which is insane.

    The best that it will do, if all goes well with it and the banks cooperate in the spirit of socialism, then it will slowly reinflate the bubble so they can unload their toxic crap at a better price.

    The economy has to stop contracting for that to work, IMO.

    We said we want change, and they gave us a handful.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:27:39 AM PDT

    •  The reason is because they got suckered into (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zane, PaintyKat, Vicky, soms

      BUYNG toxic american mortgage backed securities.

      We exported our junk to them - do you get that???

      Unfortunately they didn't understand the American propensity for credit and the mortgage market in America.

    •  The more I'm hearing about who is getting (2+ / 0-)

      this money the more it looks like at least half is going to foreign banks.

      Get a load of that.

    •  Not if we stung them with bad paper (0+ / 0-)

      We should stand behind the run away train wreck created by our elected representatives.

      PaintyKat

      WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

      by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:29:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? Did China reimburse us when (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MouseOfSuburbia

        Mattel's shitty products were recalled for lead-based paint used in the China plants??  No...because nobody forced Mattel to invest in China's manufactuing sector for thier products.

        By reverse, no "elected officials" forced foreign banks to invest in mortgage-backed securities/derivatives (that had no serious model for valuation) from our investment houses.  It's called investment risk.  Banks made ridiculously bad loans, and foreign banks took the investment risk with full knowledge that a housing bubble that was ready to burst existed in the United States (anyone who didn't know that was living under a rock).

        Where does the US Taxpayer have any say in foreign investment decisions?

        I will only support a bill that provides balance...if they're going to take the bad-paper off the bank's books, then they also have to create a way for people in foreclosure to make their mortgage solvent by renegotiating the terms.  Stem the foreclosures and reduce the amount of bad paper on the banking books.  If mortgages go from foreclosure to solvency, there will be a natural injection of credit into the system.

        "Reality proper has a way of insisting itself upon you." ~Al Gore

        by Troubled on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:30:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Needed was more oversight and process (5+ / 0-)

    which could have been provided by directing that the money should go directly to homestead mortgage relief through the FHA and small business operating expenses through the SBA.

    Since those are the two most pressing and urgent problems.

    Geeze!  

    It needed more simplicity and utilization of existing agencies' experience, processes and relationships on Main Street to keep businesses operating and keep people in their homes -- on Main Street.

    Instead -- Instead we get -- well, now I see where the Rethugs like to call these things Christmas Trees Festooned with Special Interest Pork.  What is this shit?  

    •  ? (5+ / 0-)

      have you read the bloody thing?  It had plenty of oversight

      http://politicz.wordpress.com/

      by GlowNZ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:30:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  With (8+ / 0-)

        Cox, Paulson, and Bernanke serving 3 of the 5 oversite positions, color me unimpressed.

        Obama/Biden '08 Yes We Can!

        by alkalinesky on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:39:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. And oversight at the top by top dogs (4+ / 0-)

          is not what's needed.  They'll just hand it to people who will give them a real nice song and dance about how well the money was spent, and of story.  

          What is needed is oversight at the last mile, at every single transaction.

          And we've already got organizations to provide that!  

          They're called the SBA and FHA! !

          •  You need to read the proposed bill (0+ / 0-)

            Even the bill on Monday had congressional oversight and a board of citizens in addition to the SEC, Fed, Treasury, Housing, etc.

            What does the most harm is people who haven't even read it just making the same empty assertions just to rant.

            At least the Senate is responding to constituents requests and that is how it is supposed to work.

            PaintyKat

            WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

            by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're just not getting it. (0+ / 0-)

              A single board at the top will not do  

              What the existing agencies give you is oversight and established procedure (here, I'll highlight it this time because you obviously did not read this clause)

              at the point of each transaction.

              That means each mortgage being purchased, each business continuity loan being made is scrutinized, weighed, terms are discussed, payment plans are established.

              It means that debt is not bought up wholesale in big chunks at the mortgage securities level, but rather the individual who has the credit need is being helped out as an individual.  

              The "toxic waste" restructured from the bottom up by the FHA and SBA thus becomes less toxic.

              The way it is now, they're just establishing a few czars at the top to allow the big banks to continue pulling the same crap they've been pulling since deregulation.  

      •  It has no oversight where it matters -- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inverted, Snarcalita

        Yeah, you can have a commission of 3 or 4 people at the top "overseeing" what happens as the money goes out to the 3 or 4 biggest banks.

        That's not what we need.  They'll just spend it on fancy reports compiled by their girlfriends and cousins, set up "task forces" to "study the problem", set up whole new programs within their banks which of course require new directors, VPs managers, yada yada yada yada.  

        You know how corps work when they get their hands on free cash.  They piss it away on office space and conferences abroad complete with hookers and beer.

        What's needed is REAL oversight, not this bullshit oversight of who? Bernake? Paulson?  Gimme a friggin BREAK!

        By REAL oversight, I mean the oversight of your local FHA and SBA involvement, training up new people, leveraging the relationships they already have with their own communities, their local credit unions and local banks and real estate people, the local businesses.

        FHA and SBA funding and oversight would bring the bucks to RIGHT where they need to be: keeping people in their homes and keeping businesses running, to keep people employed.

         

  •  Thank you! (6+ / 0-)

    I was in a complete outrage last night reading the AP Article.  All they said was extend tax breaks, it didn't say to who.

    Forgive many of us for being skeptical.  The Democrats in Congress haven't really held a reputation for being balsy as of late.

  •  Ooops, I was one of those who over-reacted (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Vicky, TomP, pamelabrown, soms

    Called Obama, and acted all disgusted.  I will have to call back and say . .. . never mind.

  •  MAYBE IF WE SCREAM IN ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF !!!!! (19+ / 0-)

    LIKE THE LYNCH MOB OPPONENTS OF THIS EVERY BILL WE WILL TEH WIN TEH ARGUMENT!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AND THEN WE WILL BE TEH WINNARS OF  THE CHOICEST DECK CHAIR ON TEH U.S.S. TITANIC!!!!!!#$!#!!!!

    Rational discourse is so 20th century.

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:30:59 AM PDT

  •  These are nice provisions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, firingbullet, axel000

    But they:

    a) are small potatoes compared to Universal Health Care

    b) do not affect me one bit - not being in a position to take advantage of the new tax credits - if anything, I will be penalized more under this bill because the likely increase in fees to banks for increased FDIC insurance will ultimately come out of my meager pockets.

    c) don't change the underlying premise of the bill that rewards financial speculators that made some bad decisions.

    d) still are small potatoes compared to the "joke" provisions of more regulation and more oversight. Can we trust the Senate to actually stop the Treasury from spending all $700 Billion - the requirement that Congress affirmatively votes to stop the bureaucracy from doing anything is a joke - 40 Senators can keep a program going indefinitely.

  •  Dow down 200 pts. The sky is faaaaalllliiinnnggg! (5+ / 0-)

    This sham of a bill WILL GET PASSED.

    Here's the drama, step by step:

    1. Wall Street manipulators will take the Dow down another 250-300 point.
    1. The sheeple will SCREAM and HOLLER that the world is ending.
    1. Bushie will come out of hiding, again, and say this shit is going down.
    1. Reid and a bunch of spineless Senate Dems will bend over and pass the bill.
    1. The Repugs in the Senate will pass the bill, too. And praise McLame as the savior of the world.
    1. The Dow goes up 500 points.
    1. The drama continues with the House Repugs.
    1. The Dow goes down another 500 points.
    1. Pelosi caves in (shocking!), and offers the Repugs in the House whatever the fuck they want. Just pass the damn bill!!!!
    1. The bill is passed.
    1. The Dow goes up 1,000 points.
    1. A few days pass... the economy is still a mess... unemployment is up... credit is tight... McLame is losing... Palin is out of lipstick...
    1. The Dow goes down 2,000 points.
    1. McLame suspends his brain function.
    1. The sheeple SCREAMS and HOLLERS that the world is ending.
    1. Bushie says "adios, suckers... Paraguay awaits."
    1. Wall street fat cats are fatter than ever.
    1. Obama inherits the biggest mess of an economy ever known to mankind.
    1. The sheeple SCREAMS and HOLLERS that the world is ending.
    1. The Dow goes down 100 points.
    1. The sheeple SCREAMS and HOLLERS that the world is ending.
    1. The Dow goes down 100 points.
    1. The sheeple SCREAMS and HOLLERS that the world is ending.

    ad nauseaum

    •  one day they are the little people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennifer poole, PaintyKat

      who got listened to.

      And the next day they are sheeple.

      "No way, no how, no Palin war with Russia." --KariQ

      by andrewj54 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:56:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Credit Market is frozen: Sky is falling. Now what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, PaintyKat

      Do you deny the Credit Market is frozen? Do you deny that it requires an immediate solution to unfreeze it?

      Oh and if we don't unfreeze the Credit Market, the Dow will fall more.

      •  It isn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        malharden

        frozen, but slowed down yes.....

        I am not going to be for this bill just because.  They are only removing the tax credits for CEO's.  Bullshit.  They are buying toxic stock at yesterday's prices. There is not enough that will help individuals who are homeowners or are filing for bankruptcy.  Why does this have to be a single disbursement of 700 billion?

        Finally, the FDIC can insure whatever it wants, however, it has 60 billion dollars in funds and is insuring 2 TRILLION dollars.  I'd like to see people get their money if their banks fail all at once.

        Part of this is manufactured by the market to place pressure for a bailout since it was suggested.  Noriel Roubini is an economist who has a lot to say against voting for this.  It isn't political to me at all, but I'm NOT for it as it stands today.  Oh yeah, and it has earmarks for NASCAR and Puerto Rican rum (both of which are hurting)...what kind of BS is this????? I mean, they have time to squeeze in earmarks?

        Why aren't there public hearings?

        There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

        by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:31:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I deny it..Banks are manipulating the credit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        malharden, Dems 2008

        to get what they want...and what they want is a way to absolve themselves of their bad investments.

        Yesterday, I recieved an email from Bank of America, UPPING my credit limit by $5,000 with a 3% Balance Transfer offer.  I haven't used the card in over a year, and the balance has been paid off since then.  I didn't ask them for it (nor do I intend to use it), but I don't get the logic here!

        Suddenly, they're begging me to use my open credit line.  What's that about?  How many other people got that same email!

        Supposedly, credit is supposed to be harder to get...and my husband and I are getting offers left and right!

        Something stinks!

        "Reality proper has a way of insisting itself upon you." ~Al Gore

        by Troubled on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:32:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's all a ruse! To scare the sheeple (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubled

          Some idiot says "The Credit Market is Frozen", and lots of sheeple scream and get ready for the apocalypse.

          Where is the credit frozen? Why? For how long?

          GIVE ME A FUCKING EXAMPLE, not just words.

          I also get several offers for credit cards EVERY DAY. This week no exception.

          My neighbor just bought a brand new Mazda last Monday, most of it financed. He makes about $35K a year. How come he got credit?

          Credit is frozen. BULLSHIT.

          The chicken littles just looooove to repeat the repug talking points, that's all.

          SAY NO TO THE BAILOUT!!!!

          •  You need to go and do your own research (0+ / 0-)

            If you had already done that you would have the answers.

            Until you do your input is not the least helpful.  It just reveals your ignorance and misunderstanding about the complexity of banks and the market.

            PaintyKat

            WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

            by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:42:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where is your diary on the topic? (0+ / 0-)

              If you KNOW IT ALL and UNDERSTAND IT SO WELL... why don't you educate us?

              Instead, I see you love to tell other people that they "don't understand". Hissing at others is hardly helpful, you know.

        •  Your comment shows that you don't even (0+ / 0-)

          understand the complexity and various levels of banks and who regulates them.

          You have got some homework to do.

          What are the interest rates on that offered credit line?  Likely it is really at gouge rates.

          Doubt you and hub's credit line is anywhere near the needs of a small business requiring short term loans to meet payroll because of seasonal business etc.  

          Is your account a commercial account?

          PaintyKat

          WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

          by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry...it was a 4.9% Balance Transfer..see text (0+ / 0-)

            (I am not including text about my credit line increase for privacy purposes)

            Hardly "gouge rates"...text from email as follows:

            Complete a balance transfer today, and you could make just one monthly payment.

            It's time to make things simple. Managing your finances can be a breeze when you consolidate your balances online. You could have just one monthly payment, it's the perfect opportunity to:
            Take a well-deserved vacation.
            Consolidate higher-rate bills.
            Free up money for other expenses.
            It only takes a moment to transfer balances to your Platinum Plus® MasterCard® credit card account .

            Just click to benefit from your new 4.99% promotional APR, good on qualifying Balance Transfers in two easy steps:
            Activate - Simply complete a balance transfer using Offer ID xxxx-xxxx by your statement Closing Date in November 2008 to activate this offer.
            Save More - Once activated, complete additional balance transfers using the same Offer ID and continue to save with your 4.99% promotional APR through your statement Closing Date in May 2009.Just click to open a world of new possibilities for yourself. Go to www.bankofamerica.com to transfer balances.

            (bold emphasis mine)

            I do understand the complexity of the market...I actually work in small business accounting..but I'm perplexed about this "credit crunch" and how the tee-vee is screaming that everyone's about to have a harder time getting credit...why the hell am I getting 2-3 offers by mail per day?  My husband and I have excellent credit scores, and we rarely carry credit balances..but it still begs the question of how true these "difficult to obtain credit"  and "consumers will see credit cards lowering their limits" lines are!

            Speaking from my job, I just pulled a six-figure draw from our line of credit this morning to cover payroll/fringe expenses with nothing more than a signed fax request...the money was in our account 2 hours later...our business line is at a current rate of 6%.

            "Reality proper has a way of insisting itself upon you." ~Al Gore

            by Troubled on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  i have to admit this gem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Termite, corvo

    Now I want it to die a hot, flaming death. I want its ashes to be fed to goats, and the goats fed to sharks, and the sharks put on a rocket and fired into the sun.

    made me want to go read the rest of Hunter's diary immediately... :-D

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    34 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:33:20 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, FleetAdmiralJ (6+ / 0-)

    Too much of people shooting off their mouths without thinking around here.  Usually not so true of front page stuff as of diaries, but Hunter's piece really lacked any thought.

    I mean, hate the bailout if you will, but this doesn't change it much (except it will give those who need cover to change their minds that cover).

    I view the situation now as failure of progressives to put forward a credible plan with credible support -- DeFazio et al. flunked.  So we're stuck with Dodd-Frank-Paulson v. 2.0.

    •  defazio's plan is solid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inverted

      it addresses the credit crunch and takes the decision out of Paylson's hands. It's smart thinking. Bondad wants us to treat homes as having zero value, which is silly.

      LoadedOrygun.net--Oregon's Progressive Community

      by torridjoe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kucinich on Maddow last night (0+ / 0-)

        I don't quite understand all the specifics of the bailout, and I was pretty resigned to the idea that it was the only way to go and wouldn't be that bad. Then I watched Kucinich last night as he talked about the DeFazio plan and damned if the freaky little guy didn't make sense. Now I hate the bailout idea.

        •  it's just stage 1 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          danielleny, bluesophie

          That's really one of the things to remember--the No BAILOUT plan is NOT designed to fix the entire financial crisis. What is designed to do, is allow banks to establish equity based on SOME kind of valuation of the property that underlies their securities portfolio. Right now the market value of those securities is zero, because it's unclear how much is tied up in bad mortgage debt.

          If you relax mark to mark, and let THE FDIC (not Paulson) create the valuation, then the banks will have equity to base lending on, and the credit crisis will abate some. THEN, you can address the underlying financial issues without dumping hundreds of billions of dollars down the hole, with Paulson in charge of it.

          To recap:

          *No BAILOUT is NOT a bailout bill. It is designed to stave off the most wideranging danger, a credit crunch that seizes payrolls and the like. DeFazio even called it a "financial surge," designed to buy time for the rest of the political process to take place.

          *Relaxing mark to market is a GOOD thing, if used by regulatory teams working on a case by case basis, to give the market a chance to discern SOME value in the midst of all their bad paper--value that really does exist, as physical buildings.

          LoadedOrygun.net--Oregon's Progressive Community

          by torridjoe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  and this has what to do with a credit crunch? n/t (3+ / 0-)
  •  Am I confused or are some of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaintyKat, elmo

    people who are railing against the "mark to market" change (which BTW I disapprove of) the same people who loved Defazio's plan from yesterday?  Didn't his plan call for this?  And does the Senate plan call for this because I thought it didn't?  Just trying to get some facts straight.

    "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain

    by fortuna on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:34:50 AM PDT

  •  Completely disagree with the diarist (5+ / 0-)

    There is no need to pass a $700bn plan based on a rotten core this week.  We are in political silly season with the election right ahead.  Pass a stop gap funding measure which gives Paulson his $50bn a month until end of January, and stop it there.

    That would be Oct,Nov,Dec,Jan - 5 x 50 = $250bn.  Include all the oversight Obama called for.  Do not pass it if it does not permit renegotiation of foreclosures.

    Government for the people, by the people

    by axel000 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:36:06 AM PDT

  •  I want alternative fuels (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atyala

    tax incentives to be part of the package.  That's real economy stimulation, that's jobs.  That's helping middle america and addressing the dependence on foreign oil in one shot.

    I like democratic idiot ideas.  They sound good.

  •  Fleet (14+ / 0-)

    what are you doing?  

    quit acting like a Democrat and being all factual and stuff.  Who will make phone calls if they listen to you?  Pump the outrage, man.  Don't you have a big penis?  What's wrong with you?

  •  I'm still confused why any Democrats want to give (4+ / 0-)

    Bush more power. When has he ever not abused it? From just a few years ago.

    New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

    Do we really believe this bailout will be handled any better?

    Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

    by Sacramento Dem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:37:32 AM PDT

    •  Please explain... (0+ / 0-)

      ...how Bush has more power should this bill pass.

      "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska." - Sarah Palin

      by The Termite on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IIRC the proposal (0+ / 0-)

        is for Paulson (perhaps along with Bernanke and Cox) to allocate the funds.

        Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

        by Sacramento Dem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PaintyKat

          That's correct.

          But the bill the House rejected had oversight provisions that were strict.  In fact, if you read it, you'll find that the oversight provisions were twice as voluminous as the provisions on actually dispersing the money.

          Bush appointed Paulson, but if you think anybody's going to let Bush decide how to spend $700b, you need to set down the pipe and read the bill.  Unfortunately, we need some mechanism for dispersing these funds.  That's what the Treasury does, every single day.  That's what they exist for.

          "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska." - Sarah Palin

          by The Termite on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •   Prior to this Administration I would have said (0+ / 0-)

            the same thing. My only point is that this administration has politicized everything. From off-shore oil drilling to the Justice Dept. and I don't see any reason to believe that Paulson would be any more ethical than Interior Secretary Norton or Attorney General Gonzales. I would be a whole lot more comfortable with this plan if the money were better insulated from White house influence.

            Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

            by Sacramento Dem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I love your stuff, but this is just adorable. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Termite, Inverted

            In fact, if you read it, you'll find that the oversight provisions were twice as voluminous as the provisions on actually dispersing the money.

            I'm sure the POTUS will follow the law as written and that if there are any doubts his people will gladly come up to capitol hill and testify under oath, and if there is any wrong doing his AG will fully prosecute the wrong-doers, and if they are convicted the President won't pardon them.

            Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

            by Sacramento Dem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you actually read the proposed bill (0+ / 0-)

              which RenaRF linked above, your position would be informed instead of emotionalism.

              Please read it and rely on the actual particulars to formulate your position instead of just nay saying without any information.

              It doesn't help this discussion or inform anyone else.  

              PaintyKat

              WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

              by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:53:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Our crisis in confidence is a bigger problem than (0+ / 0-)

                the current financial situation IMO. Perhaps I have been misinformed. If you can link me to the part of the legislation that gives an iron-clad guarantee that no administration officials will be able to spend one dime of this money without specific Democratic approval I would appreciate it.

                Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

                by Sacramento Dem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  rec's for the voice of reason (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenaRF, Vicky, andrewj54, Queen Alice

    "Well-behaved women seldom make history." -- Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by klompendanser on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:38:04 AM PDT

  •   No Extraordinary Power For Paulson ! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seemabes, davidincleveland

    And NO they didn't rein any of those powers in already, they just used a few cosmetics to make it look that way.

    My second hardline is the Executive Pay which is just like it was originally except for anyone foolish enough to take a new CEO position. This was never changed either no matter what they say. I know this because I Did Read The Bill.

    This is a naked power grab.

    President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

    by SmileySam on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM PDT

    •  Question: (7+ / 0-)

      Do you work with the Federal government at all??  It's an honest question on my part.  Because if you did, you'd realize that the constraints they have put in place on Paulson are quite stringent.  The oversight they have crafted through the creation of the TARP IG and its reporting requirements as well as the two separate Boards and their reporting requirements go FAR beyond oversight you will find on other programs.

      •  I used to write contruction contracts w/ gov. (0+ / 0-)

        and from what I read there is nothing to restrain Paulson from doing what he wants. Everything put in place is after the fact, after he does as he pleases they can slap his wrist....

        President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

        by SmileySam on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He gets $250 billion and if he doesn't use (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SingularExistence, RenaRF

          it as directed, he won't likely get the next $100 billion, and then the final installment if necessary.

          Hopefully, in January Obama will be in office and he will appoint his own cabinet and we will have more control.

          But the markets will not make itun til Jan if we do nothing.

          PaintyKat

          WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

          by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think a comment I made (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SingularExistence, bluesophie

          elsewhere in this thread shows the oversight.  Here it is:

          Scenario

            1.  After passage, days 1-21: Credit starts loosening, but not to pre-crisis levels where anyone could get a loan for anything at any time.  Credit-worthy businesses and individuals able to obtain credit at reasonable market rates.

            2. Days 1-whenever: Treasury purchases trouble assets.  For every $50B in assets purchased Treasury must report details for each transaction, details on valuation, and justification for purchase and pricing (sec 105) to allow for course-correction if valuation and asset purchase for the next $50B.  These reports are outside of monthly referenced below and occur for every $50B of assets purchased.

            3. Days (approx) 15-90: Oversight Boards, valuation mechanisms, internal controls set and agreed to by all parties.  Asset purchase begins.  Credit loosens further.  Markets calm somewhat, though other non-related indicator report (unemployment, inflation, etc.) will cause continued volatility.

            4. Day 60: Treasury's first report to Congress on "normal" TARP operations.  This is followed up with a briefing every 30 days thereafter. (sec. 105)

            5. Day 60: First report of Comptroller General to Congress with TARP audit information.  Occurs every 60 days thereafter (Sec. 116).

            6. Day 90: TARP IG reports to Congress.  Full second audit of TARP reported on.  Occurs quarterly thereafter (sec. 121).

          NLT April 30, 2009: Treasury present regulatory recommendations to Congress.  This does NOT preclude Congress from undertaking legislative regulatory actions independent of Treasury in any timeframe.

          You asked - this is what I see.  But what peoplew ill be paying attention to - the markets and credit - aren't the most important things that will be accomplished during those 90 days.  The valuation process, reporting process, and internal controls process will be THE most critical things to occur over that time period and will set the stage for either out-year success and NO cost to the taxpayer or out-year failure that causes the government to go after institutions for the shortfall in money.

          And there's no need to be such an ass in referencing "trained economist".  If you bothered to read the original comment to which I was replying, you will see why I emphasized that.

          And that last little closing paragraph/sentences is, of course, not directed at you.  :)  It was directed to the original commenter to which that comment replies.

          I think it shows a great deal of independent verification at 30, 60, and 90 day intervals.  30 days for the Oversight Boards (EVERY 30 days), 60 days for the Comptroller General's audits and reports (EVERY 60 days), and 90 days for the IGs additional audit and reports (EVERY 90 days).  That's a LOT.  So no matter what Treasury did or did not say on their call, the responsibility falls back to the Boards, the IG, The CG, and Congress.  If they do their job(s), this WILL have oversight.

          •  That would all work but (0+ / 0-)

            the Bill has no teeth, no power to stop anything or punish anyone in anyway.

            President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

            by SmileySam on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh and (0+ / 0-)

          it has to be after the fact.  I work with the Feds every day and have for the last 17 years.  They commonly issue concepts of operation and requests for proposals and then evaluate responses.  In this case, they don't have time for that - they simply don't.  This is partly due to the fact that the underlying assets in question are difficult for the market to value - so they won't know what they have until they get it in front of them.  All they are doing here is establishing a framework for moving forward - and I reiterate - they have placed an enormous amount of review and oversight around it for that very fact.

      •  Please listen to the conf. call in this diary (0+ / 0-)

        by Matt Stoller

        The 'Treasury boys' on the call made it clear that "the tranching is a mere formality, and the Treasury boys as much as said so. They could take the $700 billion max as soon as the bill has passed."  That was always obvious.

        And they admitted that "the exec comp provisions sound like a joke, They DO NOT affect existing contracts, they affect only contracts entered into during the two years of the authority of this program and then affect only golden parachutes."  Both of these provisions were 'concessions' sought by Democrats.  Of course, no one could have predicted this bill's 'concessions' to Democrats were farcical.  No one at all.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

        by SmileySam on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I refuse to review anything Matt Stoller suggests (0+ / 0-)

          because the last place I saw him quoted was in last weeks Globe or Inquirer.  He was the source for Cindy McCain's drug usage and abuse, stating how many pills she took a day and information he couldn't have known with any accuracy.

          It made me sick to think that he was a Democratic Karl Rove making ugly with a situation that likely could bounce back and make questions about Obama's drug usage.

          I have no interest in becoming like the
          GOP thugs that have ruined the Republican party and I see the same thing happening.

          Markos was threatening primaries for Democrats who vote for this bill.

          It sickens me to see what a little power turns these formerly upstanding men into future Karl Roves.  

          No I won't waste my time reading anything Matt
          Stoller has written or has anything to do with.

          PaintyKat

          WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

          by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And the oversight is Congressional and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RenaRF

        a board of citizens.

        I have worked with the Fed. budget and realize how far this bill goes to address the needs of citizens and the bill the House voted down on Monday.

        There were strict guidelines for salary control on any organization that does business (sells securities to the govt)do have caps and the golden parachutes are canceled for the companies who choose to do business with the govt under this rescue plan.

        The Senate tweaks make it a much stronger bill.

        Some people will care when it actually effects their lives and not until.  All of this let the other guy suffer.  Too bad if retirees lose their livelihood.  It was a risk and they made a bad investment.

        It is such a crock and the level of misinformation folks are satisfied with spreading is amazing.

        PaintyKat

        WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

        by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:01:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  cynical political crap (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, Crazy like a fox, soms

    Face it -- the number of PhD (or even MA (or even BA)) economists here is slim.

    The number of people skilled in ideological political "framing", somewhat higher to say the least.

    What lurks in people's minds is, if Financial Armageddon is nigh, then (to quote You-Know-Who) Bring It On Now.  That way Bush gets the blame, we can further blame it on Filthy Capitalist Rethugs, and Obama can ride in on a landslide and "fix it".

    Buying time, only ups the risk that the government is in full Dem control when the merde really hits the fan.  Bad bad thing.  Avoid.  

    Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

    by jimsaco on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:38:21 AM PDT

    •  As a trained economist, (20+ / 0-)

      here's the scenario you're setting up.  You're about to be attacked and you know it.  Your attacker is behind you.  You have a powerful gun.  So to defeat the attacker, you point the gun at your own heart and pull the trigger.  Letting the credit markets continue to tighten is the same thing, jimsaco.  Because money is common to pretty much all things Americans do - whether that's American businesses (large or small) as well as Americans themselves.  The financial services sector is at the center of all the money - money to lend to people, money to lend to business.  Letting credit simply contract to punish Wall Street will also cause credit to contract for totally worthy borrowers.  

      My company is a Dow 30 company.  It doesn't live in the financial services world as its primary mission.  It makes actual products and employs actual people.  It manages its expenses carefully.  All of its fundamentals are exactly what a person would point to in saying that it is a strong, healthy company.

      Yet it still relies on financial services, jimsaco.  It does what many businesses do with short term lending to cover operating expenses such as payroll for the 200K+ people it employs.  People like me.  And if the credit market tightens further, it won't discriminate between "good" and "bad" companies.  ALL companies will have this problem, and some will have to lay off people.  We already have a hiring freeze on within my company due to market concerns.

      So you can't isolate it to something as simplistic as "crap assets" and "bad actors".  The time to have addressed it in this fashion passed MONTHS ago.  Those of us who argue for some form of rescue do so on the basis of what I presented above.

      •  you need to post another diary (8+ / 0-)

        on this issue. Too many people, including front pagers, don't believe there is a real economic crisis. Can you do an aggregate of all the news on how the credit crisis affects states like Massachussetts, and now Maine, and small businesses?

        •  I'm still recovering from the last diary. :) (7+ / 0-)

          Heh.  If I have time, I've been thinking about another diary - but I have actual work I have to do before I'm going to get to it.  ;)

          •  yeah, I'm just worried about all the mass (7+ / 0-)

            hysteria going on this site. People just DON'T understand the severity of this problem, including front-pagers this morning.

            •  that isn't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RenaRF, Sad Ham

              true.  They understand the gravity of the situation.  They don't understand why the "no strings attached" approach is necessary.  Nobody has explained that.  Seriously, why?

              I understand things are critical, and, honestly, I don't care if the whole ship goes down if what is being done is just to throw a band-aid onto the problem. This is the sort of message that needs to be sent to Wall Street that the good times are numbered to hours.  You will pay for the price of your negligence and greed.  I may as well, but I AM NOT going to give you a bill drafted by economic insiders when over 250 prominent economists have suggested that the alarm raised is overly loud.

              There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

              by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm seriously not being a bitch. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PaintyKat

                But have you read all of the legislation from Monday?  As far as I can tell, that language - on the oversight - hasn't changed from the House version to the Senate version.  And I have definitely seen those as "strings".  But that's my opinion, of course.

              •  Want a list of 400 scientists who don't believe (0+ / 0-)

                in climate science or a list of 1,000 scientists who are creation scientists ?

                The vast majority of economists don't think that the alarm is being raised overly loud.

                People who say those types of things clearly don't believe that we are in a crisis that could lead to the Great Depression of 2008-2013.

                People who say those types of things clearly believe that this is another normal, minor problem, a hiccup.

                And that's not defensible.

                And 250 out of 100,000, well I will let you do the arithmetic (that's not really math to my way of thinking, but surely you can do the arithmetic on that).

                The number of economists who feel that this is a relatively minor situation, that this is an artificial crisis (rather than a real crisis) that requires an extreme solution is a small percentage.

          •  Just post your last comment as a diary. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RenaRF

            Works for me!

            John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.

            by Phoenix Woman on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are one of the few who have tried to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SingularExistence

            present a rational look at the issue though.

            If this had been called a "rescue" instead of a "bailout" I think the discussion might have proceeded a bit more rational.

            We got sidetracked with all the nonsense about fat cats and all that idiocy.

            I am really disappointed with the front page coverage.  No information other than something picked up here or there and nothing that provides any particulars that help folks understand before making a decision or staking out a position.

            All that useless ranting which starts from misinformation anyway.  Looks to me like the "progressives" have decided that no matter what the damage is to our country or the global economy, they want to make a "progressive" stand.  

            They want to be recognized and are demanding a solution that shines a light on the almighty progressives and to hell with anyone who might be suffering with this economy.

            It is really frustrating and I think it is damaging to Obama.  Obama remains cool and doesn't get involved in all the emotionalism.  So far that is really a strong suit and all the ranting just looks like trouble makers who want the world to look at them.

            It is really frustrating because my personal future depends on the outcome of this mess.  Having been widowed 2 yr ago this past Wed, everything my hub and I saved all of our lives is on the line.

            Having a personal stake makes folks educate themselves, otherwise folks seem to be using it as a power play for progressives.

            PaintyKat

            WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

            by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  There's a crisis alright (0+ / 0-)

          but handing over $700 billion won't help.  Quit acting like the people who oppose this bailout are "unrealist".  Believing that injecting a bunch of money at a small group can rescue the economy is the fairy tale.

          Grow up.

      •  so, basically, we the taxpayers, have to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inverted, Sad Ham

        take the toxic crap so banks can trust again. i guaratee they will be back to the same tricks, and the trust will be gone again. luckily, they only have until january, and the dems had better damn well do something then. there had better be some prosecutions, and all asets seized by the federal government that have been looted by these bastards.

        nowhere man/ nurse ratchett 08: mommy's little helper for a mccain stupor pick-me-up.

        by AltruisticSkeptic on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:10:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This certainly isn't risk-free, AltruisticSkeptic (6+ / 0-)

          The whole thing sucks ass.  My husband was trying to grapple with "bailout" or "no bailout" - and I told him that, in my opinion, it was like you get a call from your doctor with two options to guarantee your health.  The first is you amputate an arm.  The second is you amputate TWO arms.  Either one sucks.

          IF the Bill works correctly, the TARP IG as well as the two oversight Boards will be strenuous at the inception of TARP.  This will allow them to set clear valuation mechanisms to ensure the government pays the minimum necessary to buy the bad debt.  They will have to hold it for a period of time - which is really - again only in my opinion - why the government is the only one that can do this.  The time it will need to be held will be years, and no private investor(s) or business(es) will be able to hold that debt for such a period of time while still maintaining profitability and market viability.  After a period of time, the underlying value of the collateral - which, right now, is less than the amount owed on paper - will have (theoretically) caught up and at least represent a breakeven.  At that time, the government will buy out of it and get it off its books.  In the best case, some of the assets will have appreciated to where the government actually turns a profit when it sells it back to industry, and that profit goes solely to debt reduction.

          Markets are cyclical.  We're in an aggregate of bad downward market trends right now - which were, of course, totally predictable - but it does stand to reason that at some future point we will swing out of that and come back to some level of parity.  That's what has happened in the past, and failing financial Armageddon, I would expect it to follow suit.

          I can't underscore enough, however, how I believe that ONLY the government can hold such debt as is required to return liquidity for the period of time required.

          •  I am not an economist (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RenaRF, AltruisticSkeptic, Sad Ham

            but from several prominent economists, including Nouriel Roubini, it seems that there are alternatives.

            The bailout may be necessary, but the method of its implementation is also necessary.  Fine, buy toxic crap, but how do you value it?  Difficult, I know. But why purchase at yesterday's price what is certainly less valuable today?  That is a guarantee to screw the tax payer.  I'm sorry, I won't go for that.

            Why not have gradual disbursements quarterly?  Let the issue be reviewed again.  Force SERIOUS oversight with the threat of significant jail time for any malfeasance.  A one strike policy for all CEOs and middle managers.

            I'm seriously pissed off and it has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with the greed of the banking industry at large.

            The banking industry has been acting like those homeowners who bought homes with ARMs and can't afford them.  They took on more credit than they could cover.  Or another way of looking at it is that they are bookies without the money to pay off their bettors who guessed right.

            Handing this over without regulations in tow to force compliance so that the problem isn't repeated is necessary.  I haven't heard how that is happening at ALL.

            There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

            by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The way I read the oversight language, Inverted.. (6+ / 0-)

              TOTALLY accounted for the critical question of valuation.  I don't think it's necessary for the government to buy at paper value.  So, for example - Countrywide holds a mortgage that's $300K in principle but the market value of the underlying property is $250K.  The way I'm reading it, the government can value that at $250K and offer to purchase for that price.  Presumably Countrywide would write off the remaining $50K and forego interest payments.  That still puts them in a DECIDEDLY better position than writing off the entire $300K when it fails and they can't move the property.

              Plus, in my personal opinion - there is an added benefit that we're not necessarily discussing.  That is that the government valuation will stabilize underlying market values for some period of time.  I think it's a return to sanity we could desperately use.  AND the government seems to have the right to help homeowners themselves renegotiate inflated mortgages, which I absolutely support.

              I agree and would like to see a more gradual apportionment of the rescue funds.  right now it's $250B out of the gate (I'm sure that's because they feel that is "large enough" to shake normal credit loose) with another $100B in increments after oversight by an IG's function as well as two separate Boards, one comprised of the key players in the regulatory climate and one comprised solely of outsiders.

              I'm comfortable with the oversight - it's within Constitutional boundaries and it seems to require reports roughly every 60 days.

              •  thanks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RenaRF

                for helping elucidate that.  I do appreciate it.  I don't want to be a fear-monger. I want to be an informed-monger.

                As for the valuations, from what I've heard and read, it seems that most people are saying that they are very difficult to render AND the Government doesn't have enough people to do it.  Is this true?

                There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

                by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They ARE very difficult to render. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PaintyKat, Inverted

                  That's part of the problem in valuing the total amount of bad assets.  If done correctly, the government's valuation mechanism will keep these two things in mind:

                  1. The government will buy the assets at a value that provides the government a reasonable expectation that they will at least break even when government-held assets are disposed.
                  1. The government will buy the assets at a value that removes enough bad debt to return market liquidity AND will account for Government purchase price as the new, definitive market valuation.

                  I know - lots of if's there.  But as insane as the Bush Administration is, there is too much oversight, as I read it, to allow them to purchase assets at an inflated value to simply give a break to those who created the problem in the first place.

                  To your second question - they do NOT have enough people.  That's why they stuck in Sec. 107:

                  Section 107. Contracting Procedures.
                  Allows the Secretary to waive provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where compelling circumstances make compliance contrary to the public interest. Such waivers must be reported to Congress within 7 days. If provisions related to minority contracting are waived, the Secretary must develop alternate procedures to ensure the inclusion of minority contractors.

                  Essentially, this section allows the Treasury Secretary to go outside of normal procurement and contracting rules.  I would envision that would include bringing on notable and clean auditing companies as a body-army to help with valuation and ongoing management.  This will freak some people out - but I don't see a way around it, frankly.

                  •  aaahhh (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RenaRF

                    there is the lynchpin:

                    That's part of the problem in valuing the total amount of bad assets.  If done correctly, the government's valuation mechanism will keep these two things in mind:

                    That is a big if.

                    There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

                    by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

                      BUT.  I believe it's a situation where nothing is going to solve that short of letting the government step in and give a definitive valuation.  I can say - the Boards review and report EVERY 30 days - this includes a detailed financial account for each transaction, and also includes valuation and pricing mechanisms.  The Comptroller general consults the Boards AND conducts an audit EVERY 60 days and report sto Congress.  The TARP IG reviews transactions, the CGs audit, AND conducts an independent audit and reports to Congress EVERY 90 days.

                      That's a LOT of safeguards, Inverted, around the valuation of bad assets, which are - of course - the centerpiece of the legislation as well as the problem.  But you are correct - there's still an "if", but I think it's a distant possibility provided Congress, the Boards, the CG, and the TARP IG do their collective jobs.

                      •  RenaRF (0+ / 0-)

                        still, TO ME, sounds like saying too many stars have to align.  And the monumental task at numerous valuations sounds like it will overwhelm the system.

                        The opportunity for greed derailing this system is too great.

                        I still prefer that there were comprehensive criminal investigations, indictments of those in the know who screwed people and companies...etc.

                        I'd also prefer this were submitted as something we could vote for in November at the time of the Presidential election rather than leaving this to congress and the senate.  You are an economist, but MOST of the people in the Senate and Congress are not.  But between us and elected officials, we are not subject to the influence of lobbies.

                        There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

                        by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Oh and (3+ / 0-)

              The bill stipulates for the creation of new regulations, though it doesn't spell what those are - merely that they have to be formulated and proposed within a certain vague timeframe.  So I'm with you on this part - I would want to see a date certain and more specifics about the regulatory issues to be addressed.

              •  Don't you think that will be a part of the (0+ / 0-)

                regulations.  

                And if anything needs needs tweaking, I think enough was left lose for the next president.

                When Obama is sworn and appoints his own cabinet, they will have a Democratic congress (hopefully) and will be able to rewrite and update is they see fit.

                PaintyKat

                WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  When the bill passes which it will (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RenaRF

            Constituents are demanding redress, it will be important to watch for the actual regulations when they get published through the Congressional Printing.

            It takes some time but that is what instructs participants how to carry out the Congressional mandates.

            PaintyKat

            WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

            by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The FBI is already investigating (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AltruisticSkeptic

          The whole situation is going to be closely watched by everyone.

          Citizens and govt. will be watching.

          PaintyKat

          WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

          by PaintyKat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:15:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  correct, and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RenaRF, Inverted

        my point merely is that there are a Ton of people here who couldn't give a rat's ass about the Economics... but are Very attuned to the Politics.

        1.  Give Paulson and Bernanke sufficient standby authority to carry to 1/20/09.
        1.  Put together a "purely Dem" plan.
        1.  Put together a "purely Repub" plan.
        1.  Put both plans before "The People" next month.
        1.  Let the chips fall where they may.

        Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

        by jimsaco on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  local mill gives up attempt at reorganization, (6+ / 0-)

        will liquidate assets, close forever, thanks to: 1. collapse in housing starts = bad lumber market, 2. hey, we always gotta say this: corporate timber cut too many trees too fast; 3. problems with tightening credit market.

        In May, the company sought protection from its creditors in bankruptcy court and attempted to restructure its debt [more or less $5 million].

        In normal years, loans would have been available to make ends meet through the rough patch, Harwood said.

        But these are not ordinary times.

        The meltdown in the financial markets made it impossible for Harwood to borrow enough money because banks are no longer making and refinancing loans the way they once did, he said.

        That left Harwood with no other choice but to surrender the company to creditors.

        And, of course, shut down one of the only real employers in the north county:

        The tiny Branscomb community is feeling the loss of the mill. Business at the Branscomb Store, also owned by the Harwood family, has dropped by half, forcing a reduction in staff from six to two, said manager Darla Gettman.

        Some will say, hallelujah, the evil loggers are getting their just rewards. But that's stupid (same kind of stupid as those who think it's Wall Street fatcats who will suffer thanks to "financial crisis"): Harwood is one of the good guys. And the big corporate timber companies, who "generally have the resources to weather a crisis like this," will end up benefitting as "dozens" of small mills shut down in U.S. and Canada.

      •  So as a 'trained economist'... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musicalhair, Inverted


        ...please provide the economic scenario for the next three months if the bill passes.

        p.s. This of course, is not a reasonable request because no one who supports this bill is saying what it will achieve. And there's no change of the ways of doing business required.

        p.p.s. As a 'trained economist', please explain why only Paulson and Bernanke -- who oversaw this collapse -- were allowed to testify on this bill; no opposing opinions, no alternatives allowed.

        That, in and of itself, should raise all the red flags necessary, and is sufficient reason to oppose this bill.

        And if this bailout doesn't accomplish its goal (which of course we'll never know because 'success' hasn't been defined), what then? Another 'crisis' to be solved by another fiat in the name of 'emergency'?. More trillions given away?

        We 'untrained economists' would like to know.

        The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

        by two roads on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:37:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          two roads

          recommend you ten times for your observation but was only allowed one.

          There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

          by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Scenario. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PaintyKat, bluesophie
          1. After passage, days 1-21: Credit starts loosening, but not to pre-crisis levels where anyone could get a loan for anything at any time.  Credit-worthy businesses and individuals able to obtain credit at reasonable market rates.
          1. Days 1-whenever: Treasury purchases trouble assets.  For every $50B in assets purchased Treasury must report details for each transaction, details on valuation, and justification for purchase and pricing (sec 105) to allow for course-correction if valuation and asset purchase for the next $50B.  These reports are outside of monthly referenced below and occur for every $50B of assets purchased.
          1. Days (approx) 15-90: Oversight Boards, valuation mechanisms, internal controls set and agreed to by all parties.  Asset purchase begins.  Credit loosens further.  Markets calm somewhat, though other non-related indicator report (unemployment, inflation, etc.) will cause continued volatility.
          1. Day 60: Treasury's first report to Congress on "normal" TARP operations.  This is followed up with a briefing every 30 days thereafter. (sec. 105)
          1. Day 60: First report of Comptroller General to Congress with TARP audit information.  Occurs every 60 days thereafter (Sec. 116).
          1. Day 90: TARP IG reports to Congress.  Full second audit of TARP reported on.  Occurs quarterly thereafter (sec. 121).

          NLT April 30, 2009: Treasury present regulatory recommendations to Congress.  This does NOT preclude Congress from undertaking legislative regulatory actions independent of Treasury in any timeframe.

          You asked - this is what I see.  But what peoplew ill be paying attention to - the markets and credit - aren't the most important things that will be accomplished during those 90 days.  The valuation process, reporting process, and internal controls process will be THE most critical things to occur over that time period and will set the stage for either out-year success and NO cost to the taxpayer or out-year failure that causes the government to go after institutions for the shortfall in money.

          And there's no need to be such an ass in referencing "trained economist".  If you bothered to read the original comment to which I was replying, you will see why I emphasized that.

          •  Yours is mostly a reply... (0+ / 0-)


            ...about mechanisms, not effects (with the exception of bullet point number 1).

            But to reply to yours, point by point...

            1. You say 'Credit-worthy businesses and individuals able to obtain credit at reasonable market rates' within 3 weeks. Where in the Paulson/Bernanke testimony do you see this predicted? And how significantly different will it be 3 weeks from now if the bill fails?

            1. You note treasury purchases 'troubled assets', but leave out that the definition of a 'troubled asset' is nowhere in the bill but is left to others to decide, and includes such things as credit card debt and student loans. You note that there must be a report on valuations but leave out mention that such valuation does not need to represent true market value, and is solely dependent on the whims of those running the bailout. There is no way to challenge or counter-act purchases which represent over-valuations once they have been made.

            1. See 2, above. Plus you say 'asset purchase begins' but again leave out any mention of market-based valuation. Nor do you mention that the equity stakes achieved through warrants do not start until after $100 million (according the last I read -- this may have changed) so that each company may reap $99 million dollars without any equity given to the taxpayers. How much of the $700 billion will be given away in this manner?

            1. About mechanisms, not effects.

            1. About mechanisms, not effects.

            1. About mechanisms, not effects.

            Then you point out that Treasury makes recommendations about regulation 7 months from now, when all the money has already been spent.

            You also in your comment and previous 'I'll talk slow' diary leave out that those who created the crisis and were wrong about everything up to now, are now driving the process and are to be in full control of the $700 billion dollars at their discretion.

            And you leave unaddressed the fact that no opposing opinions or alternatives were allowed in drafting the bill.

            Why, Rena? Why? Or do you consider the expenditure of $700 billion not worthy of complete and comprehensive consideration?

            Finally, you tellingly leave the following question unanswered:

            And if this bailout doesn't accomplish its goal (which of course we'll never know because 'success' hasn't been defined), what then? Another 'crisis' to be solved by another fiat in the name of 'emergency'?. More trillions given away?


            p.s. Note that in none of my comments do I resort to name calling, as you have.

            The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

            by two roads on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:17:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Great... (0+ / 0-)
        Put in a provision for a 20% tax on the 4th quarter income of those making over a million dollars a year and 10% each year afterwards to pay for this.

        What's that you say, that'll never fly? But wait, I thought the economy was at risk.

        All I can say if the people advocating this bill would not support the above provision then things are not as bad as they say they are...

        What we do for ourselves dies with us, what we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. (Albert Pine)

        by laughingriver on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:01:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Is that a LIMIT on deductible property tax, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soms

    or just a standard deduction you can take if you don't itemize?

    You can never sink so low in life that you can't be a bad example for somebody. - My Dad.

    by briefer on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

  •  Give me my earmark and I'll support it too. (4+ / 0-)

    Just enough cash to buy a little place in St. Kitts to ride out the Greatest Depression.

    Send 'em a message:
    Withdraw $700 from the bank

    by goinsouth on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:40:41 AM PDT

  •  "I'm not particularly arguing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FleetAdmiralJ

    that this is a good idea or tactic"

    or "strategy"?  ; )

  •  "clean" coal? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    OK, I'm not exactly sure what all this is doing, but it sounds like stuff dealing with "clean coal" or whatever.

    Please describe clean coal and its implimentation.

    ........so how do i delete this bloody account or we've come on this blog by mistake....

    by firingbullet on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:41:49 AM PDT

  •  FleetAdmiralJ says "Read the Bill", but ... (4+ / 0-)
    FleetAdmiralJ says "Read the Bill" but does not provide a link to the  "bailout" bill. (only to the amendments AKA lipstick on the pig)

    There seems to be an effort to confuse people and hide the core of the bill that has been shown to be an attempt to steal money and power.

    I read the house bill. It is a license to steal.

    Show me the bill that you are offering your opinion on.

  •  I'm afraid people are being shortsighted (5+ / 0-)

    On the surface, this bill seems like a free right for bad companies.  We feel like we're being robbed to pay them off.  What people don't seem to get is, if this stuff's allowed to just go ahead and tank, it's likely to cost us all later on.  I know my investments are now going to shit.  And if anyone needs a loan at some point later, they may find themselves out of luck.

    There's a lot more to this, repercussion-wise, than just bailing out bad firms.  If that's all it was, then fine, we shouldn't pay them off.  But that's not all there is to it.

    It kind of reminds me of someone who's advised to get the timing belt on their car replaced.  They say, "No, a new timing belt would cost a hundred bucks!  I don't need that, it's still working for now, so I'll pass."    Then later the belt breaks and completely destroys their engine, so they have to buy a whole new car.  Then they're going to be yelling about "Why didn't somebody make me replace that timing belt?  It's still their fault!"

    "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

    by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM PDT

    •  No one wants to see the market fail (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      but I sold out of a lot of mine except for two stocks, because there is a lot of manipulation and danger.

      I lost money before I got out.  I lost money on two stocks I have outside the 401k.

      I didn't feel like they are playing fair.  The market is going to go up for awhile, or so they say. I am selling my other stocks, when it does.

      •  I'm just gonna try to ride it out... (0+ / 0-)

        I don't get to retire for another 30 years or so, anyway, so hopefully by then they'll be showing big profits.  But for the short term, it's a mess.  And possibly for the long term as well, if we don't do something to prop up a system that seems on the verge of collapse.  I admit that I don't know enough to say if the plan, as is, is a good one... but I do think there needs to be some kind of rescue plan in the works.  People seem so happy to see these Wall Street goofs get their comeuppance that they don't realize our fate is tied in with theirs, more than anyone would like to admit.

        "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

        by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:05:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I wondered about that; thank you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Flaw, bluesophie

    These are exactly the kind of tax credits and incentives that ordinary people need. They tie very neatly into the bailout by making it more affordable to upgrade your house so that you can actually afford to pay the heating and cooling bills. Of course, there are plenty of other desirable effects which I should not have to list, but the genius of attaching these credits to the bailout is that they extend means that ordinary people can use to lower their bills just in time for winter.

    The only way they could make this better is by appending another bill that extends Medicare to every American.

    This is a slam-dunk move by the Dem leadership. I hope they pull it off.

    No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

    by oldjohnbrown on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

  •  Healthcare is where? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, TNThorpe

    Andrews Rule #1

    If your argument is about money, make sure it is in your pocket.

    You give Paulson what? All you focused on is what "we" are getting. he gets his moey now, he spends it and "we" get a future Promise as consideration.

    She got the wheat, I got the shaft!

  •  tippd and reccd n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "No way, no how, no Palin war with Russia." --KariQ

    by andrewj54 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:46:26 AM PDT

  •  None of these tax crecits mean shit for those (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, ObamaLovingExDemocrat

    effected by the AMT.

  •  Where is the Universal Health Care? (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, DefendOurConstitution, math4barack, TNThorpe
    Hidden by:
    barath
  •  I wish we could have all the above (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, BrighidG

    Without the 700 billion debt.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:47:58 AM PDT

  •  ARGHHHHHH!!! (4+ / 0-)

    Can anyone hope to understand this enough to know whether or not to support the bailout?

    There are bits I like and bits I hate.

    However, I appreciate this diary because the tax credits (especially the energy related ones) could easily stimulate economic activity that far exceeds the  tax credit, hence increasing tax revenue overall.

    These "tax cuts" are clearly more effective than decreasing the capitol gains tax for instance, because they directly stimulate economic activity in a progressive direction, instead of feathering already opulent nests.

    But whether or not I support the underlying bailout. GAH! Who knows?

    I consider myself reasonably well informed, but I simple do not know who to trust.

    "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

    by annan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:48:08 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this diary (6+ / 0-)

    The insanity lead by frontpager after frontpager, to include Markos himself, with respect to the bailout defies reason. Its been painful to watch reckless and ridiculous alternative "progressive" plans they've been proposing.

    I've admired your courage over the past few days as you've demonstrated calm, sensible argument that whether we like it or not, the credit squeeze must be resolved, and resolved quickly.

    The coup de grace for me was Bronxist's snark diary last night that put forward a spoof progressive plan. Many jumped on it and lauded it as a brilliant alternative to what is currently on the table.

  •  Marks to market seems to perpetuate unreality; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted

    fake, false bank accounting which got us here in the first place.

    If that is true and if we aren't opening up the credit markets by buying the bad debts and offering enough money to rescue failing banks, then we aren't unfreezing the credit markets and thus a Great Depression does come. Moreover, the unethical accounting is encouraged.

    Unless we unfreeze the credit markets, we haven't scratched the itch and prevented the Great Depression. It's not the fact that the Dow went down so much Monday, it's why it went down. It went down because the Credit Markets are frozen.

    Will the Credit Markets be unfrozen by this new proposed piece of legislation?

    I haven't read anything that says that it buys the bad debts or offers sufficient money to rescue failing banks.

    If it doesn't, then the Credit Market stays frozen and the Great Depression will certainly come.

    Helping middle class America in a Great Depression is a lot harder than helping middle class America in a recession.

    That's the issue.

    •  I Think You Mean Mark-To-Model (0+ / 0-)

      Marks to market seems to perpetuate unreality

      Mark-To-Model (sometimes called Mark-To-Myth) perpetuates unreality and opacity in the system.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can I suspend mark-to-market, too? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, TAH from SLC

      If I go out and refinance my house tomorrow, can I suspend mark-to-market rules for my personal portfolio, too?

      I mean, the stocks I own may have fallen 20%, but they'll all come back - so I should be able to claim my stock assets are worth 20% more than they are, right?

      And if I did this, potential lenders would feel much better about lending to me, right?

      Maverick - a calf that has become separated from its mother. By convention, it can become the property of whichever lobbyist finds it first.

      by Minerva on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does this add another 100 billion$ to the cost? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, joanneleon

    I heard them say something added will increase the cost by another 100 billion$.

    There are plenty of reasons not to like the bill.  It doesn't matter to me whether it was passed before.

    Here are a few. I marked in bold the partd that are troublesome.

    (Sec. 402) Delays until 2019 the application of special rules for the worldwide allocation of interest for purposes of computing the limitation on the foreign tax credit.

    (Sec. 403) Amends the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 to: (1) repeal the adjustment to the estimated tax liability of corporations with at least $1 billion in assets for the third quarter of 2012; and (2) increase the estimated tax payments of such corporations in the third quarter of 2013 by 37.75%.

    Why the tax delay?  We have a deficit you know.

  •  How about amending the bill to include ... (3+ / 0-)

    accountability

    Who was responsible for creating, promoting and utilizing usury-like lending practices?

    Identify these people and seize their assets, including bonuses, pay, stocks, savings, property. Sell those assets and use that money to provide help to people losing thier homes.

    Just because the tax breaks go towards things progressives support, doesn't mean we can afford them as the bill stands. Money to run the government has to come from somewhere.

    We shouldn't be giving trillions to the rich, nor should the Democrat congress be supporting this bill. What they should be doing is taxing the hell out of the rich/corrupt that caused this mess.

    Democratic party is a misnomer. We need a new party to reflect the values of those serving in Congress that have turned into Bush lackeys. Let's call it the Capitulation party. Anyone who supports this bailout should join it.

    •  I mentioned this elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

      but I want to see a one strike policy.  If you are caught doing anything that isn't in the public interest with these funds and that can be proven, you should walk the plank.  No second chances.  That time is LONG over.

      ACCOUNTABILITY, public humiliation and teeth to enforce the rules/laws.

      There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

      by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:46:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  sucking less is still sucking (2+ / 0-)

    better to take a pass than pass on this take.

  •  It still sucks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inverted, mkor7

    because it lessens taxes on corps. and lets them decide some fake value for assets that are in the crapper now.

    Say, I want to put solar panels on my roof.  Sounds good!  But I can't afford it.  I'll tell you what...my house is currently worth $300,000...I'll pretend its worth $500,000 and YOU give me the difference now...YOU hand it over...thanks...I just got $200,000

    Oh, and if I'm wrong about my house being worth $500,000 in the future...well thanks for the money...sorry, you don't get it back.

    And Clean Coal, and switch grass...and smoke up your ass

    "Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences." --Paradise50

    by paradise50 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

  •  What does New Jersey state do for the homeowner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    to solar energy improve there home? Study that!

    What is Excel electric in Colorado NOW doing after a state referendum requred them to have to produce a certain amount of their electricity via alternative energy creation? Study that!

    ...both of those might really surprise you AND as for  TAX INCENTIVES on alternative sources of clean energy??? Quit fooling around and MAKE THAT TAX INCENTIVE OVER THE LENGTH OF TWO PRESIDENTIAL TERMS...my gosh this is home America is so fix our home right!

  •  Don't attach this to the disastrous bailout bill (2+ / 0-)

    We should be able to pass this cleanly.  Plus, it seems that it will only make things more complicated, and when that happens, it's harder for people to understand it.

    We deserve the energy tax incentives without the monstrous poison pill 700 billion bailout.  It's dishonest to attach it.

    Plus, I would think it only makes it more difficult to get it passed in the House.  If the cuts aren't paid for, Republicans and Blue Dogs will oppose it.

    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

    by joanneleon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM PDT

  •  Apparently the diaryist doesn't know Hunter's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Inverted

    writing sometimes is snarky. I love to read his funny ones like the one today.

    He is right, the bill shouldn't be passed.  Paulson has too much power.

    •  Today's diary wasn't snark (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BerkeyBee

      If you're all about accountability, fine. No one has a problem with that.

      But then don't pretend that the tax cuts are the reason you oppose the bill. Tax cuts aren't all evil. In fact, these tax cuts look pretty smart.

      It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

      by AtlantaJan on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:05:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't all snark but it made me laugh out loud (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inverted

        several times.  Do you really believe Hunter will put the bill signers on a life raft?

        He doesn't like the bill and he described what he would do with it.

        I think we need to drive a stake in the heart of the bill so it can't come back again.

        It gives Paulson unconstitutional powers and too much power.

      •  I missed the tax cuts. (0+ / 0-)

        Where are they?  If it is in what I posted, that proves it shouldn't be passed.  I just noticed a 37% tax that was delayed.

  •  What about mark-to-market rules? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agoldnyc, BerkeyBee, bflaff

    Does this new bill amend them or leave them in place?

    •  SEC eased these rules last night (0+ / 0-)

      MARK-TO-ESTIMATE

      The SEC's guidance on Tuesday, came on the last day of the third quarter for most U.S. companies, allowing them to incorporate the changes in their next round of financial statements.

      In a document on the matter, the SEC reaffirmed that management's internal assumptions can be used to measure fair value when relevant market evidence does not exist.

      U.S. accounting rule makers assume that the factors used to come up with fair values are based on an orderly transaction between willing market participants. The SEC document said that "distressed or forced liquidation sales are not orderly transactions."

      link

      •  What a good idea (0+ / 0-)

        I think I'll use mark-to-market, too: I'll just use the old value of my house (before the crash) to go out and get a loan to finance my holiday expenditures...

        I mean, my house is really worth the old price, right?

        Maverick - a calf that has become separated from its mother. By convention, it can become the property of whichever lobbyist finds it first.

        by Minerva on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  the financial talking heads (3+ / 0-)

    suggest that taking the so-called "toxic debt" out of the banking system is the only way to stabilise the system and get banks lending to each other again.

    I have no way of judging if that's correct but the sub-prime issue first exploded in July 2007 and more than a year later it seems to still be getting worse, not better, so something pretty drastic is clearly needed.

    The good news is that there will be some worthwhile assets in among the junk - many commentators are suggesting that in 5-10 years the taxpayer could well be making a profit on the 700 billion "investment". In the long run this is almost certainly a much better - or at least much less bad -use of taxpayers' money than, say, funding the war in Iraq.

    •  well comparing (0+ / 0-)

      this to the War is not realistic.  The war was immoral, illegal and tragic in loss of life and money.

      There are other economists who are saying that there is little chance the tax payers will recoup what they put in.

      There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

      by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:02:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why do they have the time to attach things (6+ / 0-)

    to this bill, but they don't have the time to make changes to provide serious oversight, limit the powers of the Treasury Secretary, make the executive compensation restrictions more meaningful (right now they are a farce) and make sure that Paulson only gets the money in small increments, and give Congress real power to release further funds (right now Treasury says they have a way to get all 700B at once if they choose).

    Why do they have time to attach completely unrelated amendments to this, yet they have no time to make the bill more fair to the taxpayer?  

    Why do they have the time to play politics by putting energy incentives into a Wall St. bailout, when they don't have time to review what economists are saying, to consider plans offered by people who predicted this crisis for years?

    Why??

    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

    by joanneleon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM PDT

  •  Why not pass all of that extra stuff (3+ / 0-)

    without robbing the taxpayers blind to pay for these banks gambling debts?

    Anything that transfers the poor's money to these elitist criminals is a no-go. Period.

    No matter how much progressive candy they stick to this lopsided piece of crap to lure you in - it is still crime on a massive scale. And it is morally wrong.

  •  What about the Paulson part? (6+ / 0-)

    I read the first 30 pages or so, and I still think he gets WAY too much power to enrich his friends, and not do anything to solve the credit crunch.

    McCain is a Chode.

    by dnamj on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM PDT

  •  My objections (5+ / 0-)

    Are not to the additional tax cuts, many of which seem worthwhile. My objection is the lack of any genuine oversight, the lack of any real equity, and the fact that this is being passed in a blind panic without any alternatives even being seriously considered. Just how many times can Bush pull this shit on us and have a Democratic congress blindly follow?
    There was much talk about adding oversight and having a real equity stake so the Govt. could concievably even make money from this long term, but from what I've seen all that was traded for half measures which still esentially allow Paulson to do whatever he wants with as much money as he can lay his hands on and guarantees no definite equity for us.
    We are certainly facing real problems here, I'd just like to see Congress deal with those problems professionally. Call some hearings, listen to some economists with a variety of points of view, have an open debate, you know, democracy.
    Instead Bush says jump and the congress says "how high?"
    If Congress had started right away by actually trying to deal with this correctly instead of ramming something down the public's throat, they might actually have a bill people could get behind now.

  •  No to Paulson (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clzwld, relentless, Crazy like a fox

    c'mon, the guy should be in jail and we're trusting anything he proposes?

    If we cannot elect this man, we don't deserve him.

    by lisastar on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:12:00 AM PDT

  •  Just because it may help some people you dislike (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BrighidG, atyala

    doesn't mean it isn't good for all.

          No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
              John Donne, Meditation XVII
              English clergyman & poet (1572 - 1631)

    People we are all connected, get over the partisan divides.  Yes we can!

  •  I just hope somebody does something soon. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minerva, Vicky, flight2q, atyala

    This is from today's Chronicle of Higher Education:

    Wachovia bank has frozen the accounts of hundreds of colleges that invest through Commonfund, leaving them unable to touch billions of dollars they depend on for salaries, campus construction, and debt payments.

    SALARIES may not be paid.  This is going to hurt real people at all levels of staff.

    "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Nespolo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM PDT

    •  part of me wonders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn

      how much of this is being manufactured to pressure this bill into passing.

      Now you suddenly have the entire MSM peddling it as necessary and telling the public they don't understand.  Gotta say, I smell something fishy.  For good reason.

      Why not offer up a mixture of toxic and preferred stock?  Let the tax payer have a chance at breaking even.

      Why not eliminate tax breaks on these companies in their entirety until they pay it all back.  I think a short term loan, owed to the government is needed.  Any high ranking official that leaves before the ship sinks should be imprisoned for life.  Nobody should get away.  Nobody.

      There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

      by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:51:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Although I'm skeptical of the Chronicle (0+ / 0-)

        since it gave away free copies of the anti-Muslim DVD Obsession, I don't think they're making up the fact that Wachovia has frozen these universities' accounts.

        "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

        by Nespolo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:29:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  700 B tips for serious discussion and study (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence, Vicky, Inverted

    versus the way too many uninformed and incurious responses to this highly complex public policy issue.  Reasonable people can have disagreements about legislation without resorting to ad hominem and offensive blathering.

    "Those dunes are to the Midwest what the Grand Canyon is to Arizona and the Yosemite is to California." - Carl Sandburg

    by Critical Dune on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:16:25 AM PDT

  •  oooh look shiny trinkets (3+ / 0-)

    sweet.

  •  Thanks for the dose of sanity (10+ / 0-)

    Friedman in today's NY Times...

    We have House members, many of whom I suspect can’t balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don’t understand, swamped them with phone calls. I appreciate the popular anger against Wall Street, but you can’t deal with this crisis this way.

    This is a credit crisis. It’s all about confidence. What you can’t see is how bank A will no longer lend to good company B or mortgage company C. Because no one is sure the other guy’s assets and collateral are worth anything, which is why the government needs to come in and put a floor under them. Otherwise, the system will be choked of credit, like a body being choked of oxygen and turning blue.

    This is not a bill to completely save the economy.  This is to deal with the credit crisis.  It sucks, but we have to do something.  In a few months when we have a new president, we can work on all the other things.  

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SingularExistence, BrighidG

      and it looks as if this is more or less the line that Obama is now taking. I don't know if it's the position that will maximise votes, but I think it's the correct one.

      I wonder if McCain will try to find a reason to oppose the bailout now that Obama is supporting it. From a purely electoral perspective he almost needs to differentiate himself from Obama and then hope he is lucky enough to come down on the winning side in terms of how people react to the decision.

      If he and Obama more or less agree on what to do then he gets no possibility of a gain that could cancel out the disasters of the past couple of weeks. And it's getting increasingly hard to see how he wins the election if nothing gets shaken up.

    •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

      This is the same crappy bill no matter what unrelated gimmes are put in it.

      "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

      by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:29:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can You say Signing Statements? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clzwld, ObamaLovingExDemocrat

    Bush will simply sign the bill into law, accompanied by his usual declaration that there are portions of the law he disagrees with and will not enforce.

    Then he will proceed to dump $700,000,000,000 of cash into the bottomless hole that is Repuglican corruption.

    There was only one recourse under the Constitution to stop the activities of this criminal, and the Congress chose to pass on it "because the votes just aren't there."

    Apparently the votes are there to bail out the Wall Street losers. The market bounce ought to last until about November 5, I think. Meanwhile the average but blessed by the knowledge they would be even worse off if not for the bailout.

    Explain why Swiss banking ginat UBS is getting, say $20B, of our American tax dollars. That's a political winner I bet.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:19 AM PDT

  •  The Mark-To-Market is an important (6+ / 0-)

    piece as it is worded.

    Keep in mind the WHOLE POINT of Paulsons plan is to buy these securities at a price that is above market value but is at or below some expected 'true value'. Krugman has been asking how that true value will be determined, and it's an excellent question, but let's assume for a moment that Pauslon does come up with a good valuation model - reverse auction, whatever. One limitation in all of this is that Treasury cannot buy anything for more than what the institution paid. The institution must either take a loss or break even to participate.

    This gives Treasury the ability to go to the institution and ask them "Do you need the cash for this asset, which we will buy at this price, or do you just need the asset valued at this price so you don't have to keep writing it down at a loss?"

    If it's the latter, he waves the suspend mark-to-market wand and it's done, and we don't have to buy the security. So, it allows Treasury to buy directly from companies without going through the market and still getting valuation properly set.

    Can it be abused by Treasury? Sure. But people are getting incredibly hung up on trust issues when there's never been any trust security in the system before. To suddenly demand a guarantee is absurd. We're getting some guarantees, and that's already a vast improvement.

    "Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor," - Mudflats.

    by johnsonwax on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:21:52 AM PDT

    •  CEO Paulson will overpay for Assets (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inverted

      You can't wish away insolvency by changing the rules half way through the game. There's little value in empty neighborhoods in Merced except to the farmer who sold it in the first place. Gas prices will stay high killing the 2-hour one-way commute.

      •  Except that we know the size of (0+ / 0-)

        the mortgage defaults. We know that we're looking at the end of the day at losses around $20B per month for lenders, after they've foreclosed and resold the property, assuming they sell the property for half of what it was originally purchased at.

        Sure, Merced is a ghost town (in part because the new UC jacked up speculation in the area) as are a number of other regions, but those are really localized. You don't see this problem uniformly across the nation. You mostly see it in areas where housing prices were soaring.

        The challenge is that even if the originator forecloses, they haven't gotten their money and they aren't getting their payments - so they're in a cash crunch until they can move that property, which isn't happening because lenders aren't lending and buyers are going to wait with a falling market. Ugly cycle.

        But Paulson doesn't need to buy up the crappy stuff - that's what the revised bills are designed to protect against (which they do a half-assed, but better than the original job of doing). He can buy out the better assets and help those lenders that aren't sitting on a pile of subprime and at least get valuation and cash flow going there. Fewer than 5% of Fannies' loan guarantees were subprime. 90% were prime fixed loans. They still got killed because of valuation. The banks that aren't sitting on bad loans are still at risk of failing, yet nobody seems to acknowledge that. Sure the ones with bad loans failed first as did the ones that were overleveraged, but BofA and Citi are going to go under eventually and they weren't the worst offenders here.

        "Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor," - Mudflats.

        by johnsonwax on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:18:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  $300 Billion in Option ARMs in CA alone (0+ / 0-)

          Most if not all will fail - that doesn't even include the walkaways in a non-recourse state; then triple that number for all the I/O loans. Foreclosures will not map out linearly, think parabolic and now you are looking at the real problem. Who's going to be the knife catcher? Who's got the money to re-purchase these assets back if the USG buys them? Re-pricing needs to happen now and there's no way not to lose money buying these assets at prices where the banks won't be insolvent.

    •  And just when do we return to recognizing... (0+ / 0-)

      ... the actual, vastly diminished value of these POS securities?

      Don't go buying any financial service industry stocks until the day after they un-suspend the rule...

      The "95% of the underlying loans are still good..." talking point of Newt Gingrich (!) is a misleading poster child.  For a lot of these securities, that's not really true - it might already be 70% or less of underlying mortgages that are still on track, and the 95% canard will only be less true tomorrow.

      And a lot of the problem is related to assets other than mortgage-backed securities -- maybe most of the problem at this point.

      Maverick - a calf that has become separated from its mother. By convention, it can become the property of whichever lobbyist finds it first.

      by Minerva on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Option ARM and I/O recasts are still to come (0+ / 0-)

        2009-2011 will be the brunt of the pain as the higher-end starts to cave. Monthly payments will jump 1.5x-2.5x the prior amount as P&I kicks in. 70-85% of option ARM's are accruing negative interest. A lot of people got loans based on a really low introductory monthly payment. They can't afford a 6% 30-year fixed even if the loan is modified. The downstream effect will be that non-foreclosed homes will lose their value. When the market for homes is 3.5x income rather than 10x then we'll know we've hit bottom and that's what these homes are worth.

        Recast schedule accelerating

  •  -1+1=0 (3+ / 0-)

    So in essence we have an unrelated bill in the Senate being attached to a slightly modified House, Paulson Plan and now the turd has turned to gold? Actually  the attachment is the other way around, but that's beside the point.

    It may be good legislative maneuvering, but it doesn't make the House, Paulson Plan any better.

    And no this doesn't mean I'm a nihilist, just that the basic premise of this diary is a non-sequitur.

    One flower is made of the whole cosmos. - Thich Nhat Hahn

    by Espumoso on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:22:10 AM PDT

  •  Help me! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ObamaLovingExDemocrat

    (Sec. 302) Lowers in 2008 (from $10,000 to $8,500) the earned income threshold amount for determining the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

    How is this a positive? that makes it harder to reach the threshold, right? If I have a $9,000 earned income, I'm now left out? Someone tell me I'm reading this wrong.

  •  this bill is still bad.... (3+ / 0-)

    if it still allow allows golden parachute like the first bill, if it allows sham oversight to monitor implementation ie the President's cabinet 'talk about the fox guarding the hens, and allow on real congress control on the release of the funds. All this energy stuff sounds good, but these are smoke and mirrors when coming down to the real issues at hand.

    Don't try to fool us again. If the bill of the original bill is unchanged VOte 'No'

    May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

    by FLS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM PDT

  •  On that last bit about mark to market (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minerva

    I said they would try and do this.

    It helps, but only slightly.  It makes banks magically solvent, but doesn't change the fact that their liquidity still sucks.

    it also means we leave mark-to-market and go to mark-to-prayer.

    Which is OK.

  •  Why are they attaching (2+ / 0-)

    energy legislation to the bailout bill?

    Don't get me wrong, I think the energy proposals are very good and desirable, but I also think they can pass on their own without having to be tacked on to "must pass" legislation.

    I'd really like to see a rule or law that says any amendments attached to legislation must be clearly related to the original bill. If that relationship cannot be established then the amendment cannot be added to the bill.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM PDT

  •  it's a money bill - it has to originate in the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daser

    House.  That is why they are using a House bill as a shell.

  •  How are the Tax cuts paid for? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daser, FightTheFuture

    That's what I wanna know?

    Laura Flanders: "You can't yell the 'sky is falling' to those on who it already fell."

    by HouTxLib on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM PDT

    •  My thoughts too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inverted

      Some tax cuts or credits may be fine, but in principle shouldn't we really start consdireing actually raising some revenue in this country to pay off our rapidly expanding national debt?

      I'm all for cutting spending where possible and eliminating wasteful spending, but I don't think just attacking the problem from that side is going to get us there.

      The people who have benefitted most from the policies of the government (the top 1-5% of income earners) are the people who can afford to help. Taxes need to be raised on the upper brackets, back close to pre-Reagan levels. That is how this should be paid for. The rich people who benefitted from this economy need to cover the bailout so that people who literally can't afford to do so aren't hurt.

    •  Magic faries come flying out of all our asses. (0+ / 0-)

      Amazingly they look a lot like Reagan and Bush, the two Worst Presidents Ever!

      You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

      by FightTheFuture on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:59:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tax cuts for the coal industry? Amt tax? (0+ / 0-)

    Now who is kidding who?  This is layers of nonsense added on top of a truly bad bill.  

    Kill the Paulson off now.

    "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

    by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:27:52 AM PDT

  •  I oppose the bill for one reason and only one (4+ / 0-)

    reason, giving an unelected public official more power than anyone in a democracy should ever have.  I understand we are in a financial crisis, but we are giving away more than we can ever get back.  I am not talking about money but the principles upon which our republic was founded.  We are watching the constitution flitter away before our very eyes.  No strict oversight, no bail out.  Personally, before reading the tax cuts I thought of those as icing on the cake of refusal.

    •  congress giveth (0+ / 0-)

      and congress gets to taketh away.

      Repeal. Don't need a veto proof majority with President Obama.

    •  Unnecessary tax cuts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      The AMT panic is more bull.  Even if you are in the range where the AMT could effect you, if you don't have excessive deductions, you won't be effected.  By advice if you are worried about the AMT - go see a good accountant who will help you plan so you don't get bitten.

      "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

      by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "the principles upon which our republic" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inverted, temptxan

      "was founded."

      Thank you, temptxan.  I can't understand arguments which basically boil down to creating the problem, then hoping someone else fixes it afterwards.

      That afterwards may never come.  See also: the loss of freedoms and protections which have come due to the War on Drugs.  

      We should be ensuring it never becomes a problem in the first place.

      Those principles you mention should be priority number one, and all else should follow from those principles.  Anything else is monstrous, because it says that those principles are not important in the first place.

  •  Bill Clinton is speaking on this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vicky, Deoliver47, BrighidG, axel000

    Now on MSNBC. He explains it well. Would that we had a real president that can talk.

  •  When I hear 'tax breaks', I involuntarily freak (0+ / 0-)

    I have to admit that I was one of those ranters, ranting about tax cuts. I guess I am so pissed off with ALL the tax cuts that have been made, primarily to those that have oh-so-much anyway, that I immediately convulse whenever I hear about another tax break.

    That seems to be the solution to every problem (or non-problem) for the Repubs - cut taxes. I, for one, am doing okay, and do not need another tax cut. I am more worried about our skyrocketing debt, the tight credit market, and all those folks that are really having a bad time and barely getting by. I actually want more taxes so our government doesn't completely collapse.

    But I did hear that the tax breaks they are considering are for businesses that support and research alternative energy sources. I'm okay with that. That is a progressive idea.

    So, please excuse any rants that I had on Hunter's diary. It's those damn Repubs who take full blame, again.

  •  So 700 Billion and Tax cuts, Even Bigger Deficits (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    relentless, two roads

    Just drown the Goverment. This is the final death neil

    Laura Flanders: "You can't yell the 'sky is falling' to those on who it already fell."

    by HouTxLib on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:32:09 AM PDT

  •  We shouldn't be attaching ANYTHING to this ... (4+ / 0-)

    it should be a CLEAN bill that deals with the problem at hand ... we can't start muddying the waters with tax cuts and incentives and WHATEVER ...

    for once, handle the problem and ONLY the problem and leave the rest for another time.

  •  More tax info (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    briefer

    Title III: Additional Tax Relief - Subtitle A: Individual Tax Relief - (Sec. 301) Allows individual taxpayers an additional standard tax deduction in 2008 for state and local real property taxes. Limits the amount of such deduction to $350 ($700 for married individuals filing a joint tax return).

    A couple in the 15% bracket will save about $105.  A 28% bracket will get $196.  I won't turn it down, but they should also take the tax off of Social Security.

    (Sec. 302) Lowers in 2008 (from $10,000 to $8,500) the earned income threshold amount for determining the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

    I guess Sec. 302 helps young families and that is GOOD, too.

    The bail out should be separate from the rest of the bill.

  •  Clinton: "BIll doesn't go far enough" (0+ / 0-)

    So why not push for a comprehensive bill?

    Laura Flanders: "You can't yell the 'sky is falling' to those on who it already fell."

    by HouTxLib on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:34:10 AM PDT

  •  Somebody tell me-- of any plan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk

    Is there credible oversight-- real checks on power

    are golden parachutes positively eliminated

    will homeowners in peril get some support

    will this directly result in serious regulation

    will someone go to jail for miscreance

    will bad banks be kept out of the loop

    will responsible banks be given participation

    till then I'm not on board. pretty energy breaks are great but so what. Obama and the new congress are going to reform energy policy soon anyway.

    "...it's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got." Sheryl Crow

    by bob zimway on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:36:38 AM PDT

    •  umm... (0+ / 0-)

      no....Paulson has the only say in disbursement.

      no...just the tax breaks on the golden parachute are not eligible....meaning, they get taxed on their parachute but the chute isn't taken away.

      nope.

      nope, hasn't even been discussed, just vaguely addressed.

      no legal teeth are available.

      nope.

      I don't know.

      AND THERE ARE NO HEARINGS ON THIS.  Like Enron and the S&L, there should be hearings and questionings of the people in charge of the Fannie Bearns and Freddie Lehmans of the world.

      There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

      by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:24:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All I know is, the minute John McCain votes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Vicky, dotcommodity, axel000

    FOR this bill, the election is over.  

    There is no way that the VP debate or the final two debates will make a huge difference on the outcome.  The only gamechanging thing occurring is tonight.  If McCain votes with Obama for this bill, and can't play any more games with this issue, the election is over.  Obama wins.  The only question is will it be a huge landslide or just a modest one.  But opposing this bill is the only effective hail mary McCain has left.

    Bringing up reverend wright won't mean shit.  People care about the economy, they don't give a fuck about rev. wright.

    Shotgun weddings and Sugar Mommas. Republican family values in 2008.

    by duha on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM PDT

    •  yep, and that is the strategy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duha, ThompsonLazyBoy, axel000

      moving bill to the Senate, FORCING McCain to take a position in favor of the bailout - then what is left of his conservative base will throw up their hands and walk away.

      This new plan makes no sense to me and have no idea why Obama and the Dems support it - other than the fact that it will accomplish the above objective.

      •  Maybe they hope the GOP house members (0+ / 0-)

        still won't budge?  

        So they end up with McCain on record voting FOR the bailout, and Obama part of a compromise/concession to the GOP in the Senate.

        McCain's vote upsets the conservative base like you said.

        The GOP rank and file still don't come around, so McCain looks even more weak and ineffectual.  No huge bill passes hamstringing Obama's presidency.  And the market stays up over the next few weeks enough so that there's no financial panic but an obvious need to have Obama win to fix the economy.

        Shotgun weddings and Sugar Mommas. Republican family values in 2008.

        by duha on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:05:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I highly suggest Kevin Drum's (0+ / 0-)

    piece last night:

    http://www.motherjones.com/...

    which talks about the old mental health bill they attached the new bill to, and the tax bills which already passed the senate but not the house.

  •  I've had enough (5+ / 0-)

    This is a great diary, and the comments...I just...

    I can't watch kossacks debate this anymore.  This is not a reality-based debate.  So many people have their feet in concrete and their hair on fire, and too few people are listening and learning.  Worse yet, these are people I admire and love.

    I'm outta this one, folks.

    "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska." - Sarah Palin

    by The Termite on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:38:59 AM PDT

    •  The only problem with your comment ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Termite, dotcommodity

      ... This is not a reality-based debate.  So many people have their feet in concrete and their hair on fire, and too few people are listening and learning is that you don't say which side of debate you're talking about. It's kind of like John McCain saying, you don't understand, Senator Obama.

      I think there are people on all sides of this discussion who fit your description, and people on all sides who don't.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All I know is that I am not an economic expert. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Termite

      That there are many ways to view this bill. That we could deliberate all day and we would still come to a dozen different conclusions. That there is too much knee-jerk reaction and not enough thoughtful consideration.

      I'm going to have to sit this one out, too.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

      by missLotus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mark to Market and Mental Health Parity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AndersOSU

    Excellent work. This is the kind of fact-based discussion that is of great service.

    My primary concern is the mark to market provision.  Not so much for the short-term effect, but for the long term consequences.

    This may allow financial institutions to balance their books in the short-term, but if it is not followed up with meaningful regulations, it will be very risky to invest in companies who use this questionable valuation method.

    However, I do not think this is a deal breaker, and I do think the alternative energy tax credits, as well as Mental Health Parity are big pluses.

    Politically, I think this makes it more of a winner.

  •  They are making it harder for Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nycjoc

    to do his promises.

    I would rather see the middle class get the tax cuts, especially the young families, rather than the Richy Riches.

     The government is us, 'the people' and to run, the government needs to have income taxes.

    Cut less taxes on those making more money and cut out mindless spending like the bail out bill.

    •  Not harder, impossible. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      relentless
    •  Obama has already gone back on his 6 principles (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      relentless

      Now how is that good?

      "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

      by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:14:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I expected Hillary would do what Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inverted

        is doing.  I had hoped Obama wouldn't be like the others.

        He rushes longheaded into everything.  

        It gets harder and harder to support our party.  The only reason I can is because of what is on the other side.

        Probably the republicans feel the same way.

        We ought to impeach them all and pick economists to replace them. Decent people like Krugman.

        •  You know this is the problem when you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TAH from SLC, bluesophie

          put people on a pedestal.

          I think Obama is going to do what he can, and believe you me, I still think he is the best candidate.

          But realize that Obama is not a saint, he's not a magical worker, not is he a healer.

          he's a heart a pragmatic. So he like all of us want to do the best thing, but sometimes you make compromises.

          If Paul Krugman thought he had the ability or temperament to be a politician he would have done so. But he is an academic because he recognizes his passion and talent elsewhere. I admire Krugman greatly but your statement of wanting to impeach everyone and replacing them with economists doesn't sounds rational.

          Economists also have their their streams of thought, and not all of them are going to agree on the right way of doing things.

          Some theories can be tested and can be analyzed through econometric analysis. But one thing that makes eocnomics different than any science is the fact that you can't control your environment.

          Don't put krugman on a pedestal. I think a lot of the problem people have is they have this view that the person they look up to is infallible in their eyes.

          When they disappoint you, you fall hard.

          Obama is the best qualified and I sincerely believe he wants to do what's right for America, but this is not a perfect world, and he can't always make everyone happy.

          •  I don't put people on a pedestal (0+ / 0-)

            I just think that Obama is being too eager to join up with the status quo.  He is running on 'change', remember?

            I haven't fallen hard.  I go by the Bible, 'Put your faith in no man.'

            No doubt, Obama has listen to people who make him believe he is doing the right thing.  

            It may be, though, these people knew for a long time just what they would say to the senators when the heist began.

            Big Money is spent by the elite in this country to get things their way. How do we know our leaders aren't being duped?

            We deposited money today. The bank put it on hold for 5 days. Real anxious for money, aren't they?

            If the businesses and banks can't trust each other, then how can we trust them?  It is a big show.

            Maybe I should have said financially minded people should be chosen for president.  Pretty speeches are nice, but we need people who can keep a lid on the banks and other businesses. We need those who aren't outsmarted by Wall Street.

    •  the middle class DOES get the tax cuts (0+ / 0-)

      the renewable bill puts efficiency improvements funding in.

      It fully funds LIHEAP again. It makes a solar roof 30% cheaper. Etc.

  •  Thanks for the data, FleetAdmiralJ, but... (5+ / 0-)

    ...I have to stand with Hunter on this one.

    I'm up to date, knowledgeable, and have lots at stake...nevertheless, it's a bad bill made worse, stuffed with so many unrelated tax exemptions and incentivesons, it no longer even resembles emergency legislation requried for a debt crisis. What's the rush to get elementary school teacher supplies tax deductible?

    The House should design a focused emergency bill to mitigate the collapse of bankrupt financial institutions and assist both the public and business in weathering this natural transition. Like nursing  from disease to health, federal efforts can rush in and assist, leaving complex tax and systemic regulatory fixes for focused hearings later. We already have systems and laws in place to manage these processes.

    The failed individuals (e.g., Paulson, Cox, Bernarke, and those at the helm of failed privates) should not be allowed to make decisions, implement the rescue, or benefit in any way, and they should be replaced ASAP.

    While we are in an intersection of business and politics, public and private, if the country comes first, people's feelings about Bush, Obama, Wall St., or wealth are irrelevant.    

    "This is a fight for the future. And it's a fight we must win...Obama is my candidate. And he must be our President." Hillary Clinton, DNC, August 26, 2008

    by kck on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM PDT

  •  Suspension of Mark to Market Accounting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubled

    ultimately will make the other portions of the bill a hoot if the section requires someone to make money ( for tax deductions) or invest money.

    Suspension of mark to market accounting means the FDIC won't know a bank is going to fail until debit cards say "canceled" on the terminal inside the grocery store. That also won't give them time to shotgun marry the failing bank to a stronger bank. Let's not forget there is a shit load of regional banks out there that are in trouble also.

    Why do I beleive this? Well suspension of Mark to Market means that banks can value loans/assets with ass grabbing numbers to maintain the minimum capital levels on paper that the FDIC requires. It assumes that Real-estate will go up as well as job growth. Lets not forget there is another 500 Billion in Credit Card securities out there also.

    What this bill represents is a high gamble kick the can down the road in the hopes that scores of banks won't fail suddenly and without warning overwhelming the FDIC. It's a faith based  bill in that it prays that housing values will go back up and job growth magically will resume as prices fall.

    If this long shot inside flush doesn't get filled, the financial system will collapse. If that happens, none of the other provisions mean shit.

    Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

    by Dburn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM PDT

    •  Which is why the big argument against this bill (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inverted, SuburbanGrrrl

      is that if they're going to do all of this to help the banks, they have to balance it with aid to the homeowners that are nearing foreclosure.

      Until the foreclosure rate drops and people start investing in solvent mortgages, banks are going to continue to accumulate "bad paper."

      The biggest problem is there is no balance to this bill.  It is all aimed at aiding the top and hoping it trickles to the bottom.  NEVER HAPPENS!  Banks will continue to lend to high-risk consumers, and the crisis will continue.

      This bill needs some regulative teeth for lending practices and appraisal practices...and a way for people to refinance bad mortgages into solvent, affordable ones WHILE taking some of the bad paper off the bank's books.  There is no balance in this bill!

      "Reality proper has a way of insisting itself upon you." ~Al Gore

      by Troubled on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You noticed this bill does nothing to stop (7+ / 0-)

        the very practices that got us into this situation.  How ridiculous is that?  While we use cash for trash we are allowing more trash to accumulate.

        "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

        by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:16:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)

        is that if they're going to do all of this to help the banks, they have to balance it with aid to the homeowners that are nearing foreclosure.

        Until the foreclosure rate drops and people start investing in solvent mortgages, banks are going to continue to accumulate "bad paper."

        There is very little that can be done to "help" homeowners nearing foreclosure. The only thing that will get us through this is home prices falling to sustainable levels (2.5-3x income based on 38% DTI and 20% down), and allowing homeowners close to foreclosure to actually be foreclosed on so they can go live in something that is affordable to them.

        •  You and I went thru this the other day!! lol (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, AndersOSU, TAH from SLC

          And while I think we came to realize we have basically the same view, I just want to clarify myself.

          All I'm saying is that if we are going to pass a bill that "bails out" banks by absorbing their "bad paper"...then the bill has to be balanced with a bailout for mortgagees in foreclosure with the opporunity to renegotiate the terms of their loan (for it's original value, no reductions)....basically eliminating "predatory" teaser rate increases and setting them up with a conventional 30 or 40 year mortgage at current mortgage rates (no reductions/no teasers).  It won't save all of them, but it will give many of them the ability to continue to make their payments, thus creating a solvent mortgage which will naturally inject credit back into the market.

          I won't support any bill that has a "bailout" for one side or the other.  Either allow the free market to re-adjust itself and we hunker down for a world of hurt for a few years...or we provide aid to both sides and hope it works.  I won't support anything that only assists the ones at the top (who made the riduculous rules that created this clusterfuck!), while abandoning the ones at the bottom (who foolishly signed deals way above their means).

          "Reality proper has a way of insisting itself upon you." ~Al Gore

          by Troubled on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Will this bill SOLVE the financial crisis? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4Freedom, leonard145b, axel000

    This question is addressed not only to the diarist.

    And this is the question that must first be answered.

  •  The Paulson plan was "teh sucks" as is said (0+ / 0-)

    around here.  Hunter just stated it a little differently.

    Of course. Naturally -- when in doubt and you have a sucky plan, make it much, much worse in order to attract a few whining, petulant House Republicans who couldn't find their asses with two hands and an ass-finding device.

    And these attachments do nothing to ameliorate the pressing problem.

    As Soros said, the Democrats simply "tweaked" the Paulson plan, and then the Republicans had to get their two cents in there too, so now:

    The rescue package as it is now constituted is an amalgam of multiple approaches. There is now a real danger that the asset purchase programme will not be fully utilised because of the onerous conditions attached to it.

    And, we need to note what Alan Blinder said about the "mark to market" issue.  It is:

    ... the worst form of accounting until you start thinking about the alternatives

    Josh has the the full video of the Princeton economist at TPM.

    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

    by bronte17 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:45:43 AM PDT

    •  Just more lipstick on the Paulson pig plan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4Freedom

      That's all this is.  Hunter stated it more harshly.  He is fed up.  I was fed up with it days ago.

      "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

      by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:08:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Trickle up??? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence, Inverted

     I am still uneasy about this. My 401k also took a big hit. My understanding is that the credit cruch in banks is being caused by theese poorly concieved funds, and until those are addressed the banks are not going to want to lend. I also understand that this will lead to more problems for  my country and I.
     If there is a consensous, that seems to be it. I've been complaining since Reagan about trickle down economics but this bill doesn't seem to be the place to fix it. I think if we keep our eye on the ball we very well could be given a mandate on November 4th to undo the Reagan revolution and begin to deal with this in a more pragmatic, bottom up fashion.
    It bothers me when CEO's get huge bailouts. It bothers me more when my net wealth drops 8-10 percent.

    •  I know,we sold dh's funds and stocks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inverted, 4Freedom

      at a loss. We even took some money out of the 401k. We will have to pay regular taxes, but wanted the security of having the money in our hands and our control.

      I have a lot of money in two stocks outside of my 401k. I plan to sell them, if the market goes up.

      The trickle down is bright yellow and is coming straight from Paulson, Bernanke and Bush's kidneys, raining down on the just and the unjust:-)

      The money will be spent and they will be back for more by January 20th.  They said, "This is step one."

      •  Exacyly! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        relentless

        This is NOT a reasonable diary.  It's more of Kossacks being sucked into Bush's trap.

        "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?" -- Dennis Kucinich

        by noofsh on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I find it funny that the 'no tax' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inverted

          and 'no welfare' crowd at the top now want something for nothing.

          McCain gave a statement today, saying people were just thinking of themselves not their country.  

          He is trying to make us feel guilty for not giving them their gubmint' check.

      •  basically (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        relentless

        the IRS collected nearly 1 trillion in taxes from individuals...this bailout means that EVERY person would have to pay DOUBLE the amount of taxes to cover the expenses of this bailout.

        I BETTER get something out of this. Even if it is the satisfaction of getting to shit on the heads of CEOs of companies that enabled this madness.

        These guys are like bookies taking bets but can't pay off those who placed bets when there is an upset.

        There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

        by Inverted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:33:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you get 30% cheaper solar roof out of it. (0+ / 0-)

          thats in the renewable energy bill added on today.

          •  Details, please dotcommodity (0+ / 0-)

            Most will have trouble paying their fuel bills this winter, a lot of good it will do to have cheaper solar roofs for those that can afford them.

            •  The more solar roofs the better (0+ / 0-)

              but it won't help people who really need a break.  

            •  it also brings back LIHEAP to pay heatingbills (0+ / 0-)

              which Bush unfunded, and the Rethugs constantly repealed. (Low Income Heating And Cooling assistence with paying bills) This brings energy efficiency measurtes back.

              IV. ENERGY CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
              Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. The bill creates a new category of tax credit
              bonds to finance State and local government initiatives designed to reduce
              greenhouse emissions. There is a national limitation of $800 million, allocated to
              States, municipalities and tribal governments. The estimated cost of this proposal is
              $276 million over 10 years.
              Extension and Modification of Credit for Energy-Efficiency Improvements to
              Existing Homes. The bill extends the tax credit for energy-efficient existing homes
              for 2009, and includes energy-efficient biomass fuel stoves as a new class of energyefficient
              property eligible for a consumer tax credit of $300. The proposal also
              clarifies the efficiency standard for water heaters. The estimated cost of this proposal
              is $827 million over 10 years.
              Extension of Energy-Efficient Buildings Deduction. Current law allows taxpayers
              to deduct the cost of energy-efficient property installed in commercial buildings. The
              amount deductible is up to $1.80 per square foot of building floor area for buildings
              achieving a 50% energy savings target. The energy savings must be accomplished
              through energy and power cost reductions for the building’s heating, cooling,
              6
              ventilation, hot water, and interior lighting systems.

              not LIHEAP, but this would bring down our carbon emisssions (and lower your natural gas costs because of lower demand) if commercial buildings did it

              This bill extends the energyefficient
              commercial buildings deduction for five years, through December 31, 2013.
              The estimated cost of this proposal is $891 million over 10 years.
              Extension of Credit for Energy-Efficiency Improvements to New Homes. Under
              current law, contractors receive a credit for the construction of energy-efficient new