Senate Passes Bailout, 74-25

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 21:42


Krugman explains that the executive branch had to originate this complex financial rescue because Congress couldn't.  And Paulson screwed it up, but something had to be done, and the bill became 'better than nothing, but not good'.

So am I for the bill? Yuk, phooey, I guess so. And I'm very angry at Paulson for putting us in this position.

What did he expect?  Paulson is a Bush administration official.  

Jim Webb pulled his usual 'I'm a populist and don't like Wall Street' line earlier in the debate, and then voted for a piece of reactionary legislation.  A bunch of Rs said no to this bailout, truly an odd bunch.  On the bright side, Dorgan, Feingold, Wyden, Tester, Cantwell, and Sanders voted no.    

And Gordon Smith voted yes, so Better Democrat top cash recipient Jeff Merkley can now make the bailout a useful tool in his race.

... Merkley's statement is below.

Matt Stoller :: Senate Passes Bailout, 74-25
"I commend Ron Wyden for standing up for taxpayers and doing what is necessary to restore accountability on Wall Street.  The easy thing to do would have been to vote yes on this bill.

"I have dedicated much of my life to advocating for consumers and I believe it is just wrong to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bailout the very Wall Street financiers who created this crisis.  This bill will allow those same executives to walk away with golden parachutes, while doing nothing to end the abuses of oversight that caused this mess or help working families who need their own economic rescue.  This proposal is badly flawed and adding a number of important unrelated items, no matter how worthy, does not fix the problems with this bailout.

"While we must act quickly to avoid further instability in the market, we must also act prudently to ensure that the medicine doesn't make the patient sicker.  Last week I laid out clear principles to address this crisis.  To protect taxpayers we should require that the government only purchase distressed assets from American companies and not foreign banks.  Second, CEOs on Wall Street who created this crisis should not be walking away with millions in their pockets.  I want a deal that provides sufficient oversight and accountability of our markets.  And we cannot ignore the suffering on Main Street, sidelining our homeowners and allowing deceptive practices to lead more families into bankruptcy.

"Like Congressman DeFazio and Senator Wyden, I am committed to the Secure Rural Schools Act and will fight each and every day for Oregon's rural communities.  Now my opponent will attack me and say I am opposed to county payments and various tax cuts, but absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

"This is what they do in Washington.  They take a bad proposal and add $150 billion of sweeteners to satisfy enough people.  This is not how to solve problems.

"The crisis on Wall Street and the need for a bailout is an indictment of the failed economic policies of Gordon Smith and George Bush.  Their philosophy resulted in unimaginable abuses and excesses on Wall Street and now Washington is making taxpayers clean up the mess.  Congress and the Administration should go back to the drawing board and come back with a proposal that prevents more economic pain for families and small businesses and meets some minimum standards to protect taxpayers and guarantee accountability on Wall Street."

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Senate Passes Bailout, 74-25 | 101 comments
Reaganaut (4.00 / 1)
Jim Webb pulled his usual 'I'm a populist and don't like Wall Street' line earlier in the debate, and then voted for a piece of reactionary legislation.

look for this to happen again and again

Yeah, he's great (4.00 / 5)
at lamenting economic inequality as he helps makes it worse.
[ Parent ]
why do they bother even saying it (4.00 / 1)
I don't get it, is it like giving confession before you go out and rob somebody? Do they really believe their cover your ass statements will coverup their vote.
[ Parent ]
Reminds me of Kerry's speech (4.00 / 2)
during the AUMF debate.

"This is a horrendous bill! Now excuse me while I vote for it."

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Do they really believe their cover your ass statements will coverup their vote.
[ Parent ]
yeah, too bad Allen didn't win (0.00 / 0)
Purity above all ... I guess we should primary Jack Reed, Boxer, Hillary and the rest.  Sort of a Democratic 'Club For Growth' approach.  
[ Parent ]
actually (0.00 / 0)
I guess we should primary Jack Reed, Boxer, Hillary and the rest.  Sort of a Democratic 'Club For Growth' approach.

It'll happen eventually over the next ten to fifteen years, or they'll move left.  It's good Webb beat Allen, two thoughts in one's head and all.

[ Parent ]
Krugman has put his credibility on the line (0.00 / 0)
If this thing turns out to be as big a stinker as some economists say, Krugman will have a lot to answer for. His support is the only reason I've been so-so on the bill. I wish we could have implemented the Swedish plan instead.

My Congresswoman Diane Watson voted against the bailout bill on Monday, we'll see what happens next. I'm sure many votes will switch as this is quickly becoming a fait accompli.

And what will happen to the credibility of these (4.00 / 1)
other economists if Krugman is right? Will Stoller, Sirota, et al. have a lot to answer for then?
[ Parent ]
right about what? (0.00 / 0)
and in what time frame?  my trouble with krguman's column is not that i disagree with the basic premise, but the alleged obviousness of certain implied arguments - nothing better could be done, the executive has to originate such a plan, etc.  don't talk down, and tell me why you think this, because it's far from obvious out of this particular context, which might be a call to simultaneously push for a different kind of congressperson, something he didn't pay attention to.  It's interesting the particular ways in which economists wade into or don't wade into politics.  

Anyway, it was clear that as politics shifted towards a more progressive and left leaning and populist bent in the u.s., the usefulness of the analyses of moderate types like krugman would decline. So that's what's happening - doesn't make him any less of a decent guy for what he has done, but it should give some caution in looking at what he says henceforth (just like it does with Obama).  

[ Parent ]
Put the blame where it belongs! (4.00 / 1)
Krugman said from the very start that buying the bad assets isn't the best idea. He didn't hide his believe that a swedish model plan would be better. It's not his fault that the Dem leadership didn't listen!

Put the blame where it belongs - and that's Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, and some other Dem VIPs. Once they started stomping for the modified Paulson plan, alternatives didn't have a serious chance anymore. Now, for me it's obvious that the Dodd group only seriously considered a modification of the Paulson plan because they wanted a bipartisan bill from the very start. Nationalization of banks would have been almost impossible to sell to the rethugs. But, on the other hand, the administration was for a rescue plan, and Paulson likely would have supported the swedish plan, too. The Dems had the votes to pass it, and a filibuster by the right side was quite unlikely. So, it's only the total lack of balls and spine that prevented a better plan from becoming official.

Not to mention the less than stellar way in selling the issue to the public. From the negatively phrased term ("bailout", my ass), to the missing facts on the necessity and the calculation, nothing has been done to ensure popular support. Not only Paulson, Bernanke and Bush, but also the Dem leaders are responsible for this becoming such a controversial, polarizing mess.

The "hold your nose" supporters, however, are not the enemy. Lots of people with superior economic knowledge are in it. Most of them spoke out for a better plan, but when this became more and more improbable, they couragously made the point that even Paulson/Dodd was better than doing nothing (the japanese example being a dire precedent). They were aware that this was an unpopular stance, but didn't chose the easy way out. This has to be respected. And remember what Chris said some days ago, a questionable statement that nevertheless passed without much criticism here (you didn't criticize this, too, doc):
"I have a word of friendly, concern troll advice to all those who lose electoral or legislative battles in a democratic system: don't talk down to the winners."

(@Chris: Sry for being such a mean bastard and preventing this fron sinking into oblivion. But I guess you knew this would come back to haunt you)

[ Parent ]
Looking at my comment in context... (0.00 / 0)
I see that I got carried away a bit and that it's not much of answer to you, doc, but more of a general rant. Should have attached it to the root. Sry, doc, my fault.
[ Parent ]
lol (0.00 / 0)
no worries.  at this point, i'm somewhere in between the hold your nose crowd and the "American politics is inherently full of imperialism and currently so oligarchic that even when I hold my nose I want to throw up" crowd.

anyway, my response was probably too aggressive, but I think it's useful to understand what Krugman is and is not.  That's mainly the point - he's an economist, an academic, a decent guy (I think...don't know him), and places a strong value in truth in advertising.  He also is pretty shrewd at times - in a good way.

So that might make him a hero to some; I'll stick with Subcomandante Marcos :)

[ Parent ]
Ok. However, my point is, this shouldn't be about Krugman... (0.00 / 0)
in the first place! He isn't the Speaker of the House, he isn't the leader of the committee, he didn't modify the Paulson bill! Now, I may be sinking to the lows of conspiracy theorists again (happens every now and then), but somehow I have the disturbing feeling that folks here pick on Krugman as a proxy for the "hold your nose" crowd. I mean, why else this sudden focus on him, even to the point that no other prominent member of the group is mentioned, not even Brad DeLong (uh, maybe many here don't recognize the name?)? And, damn, where tf is the effing outcry against Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Frank et al., the real culprits???

I guess I'm carried away again, but what I see is the usual, distracting, unhelpful, irrational infighting among liberals again that prevents a unification of forces to change the ineffictive Dem leadership. Folks, folks, folks, what happend to "united we stand, divided we fall"? Remember that good ole rally cry? Becomes more true every single day now.

[ Parent ]
eh (0.00 / 0)
sometimes you need a good fight.  :) I'd rather unite with Bernie Sanders and Burner and Donna Edwards than Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

anyway, i didn't mean to attack Krugman as a person or even as someone that's done some important things at a hard time - mainly, I was trying to say that putting him on a pedestal is a bad idea.  Apparently, I could have said it in less words :)

Where i agree with you is how conflict is settled or difference acknowledged is as important as acknowledging that difference.

[ Parent ]
Krugman believes that nationalization will occur down the road (4.00 / 3)
But he thinks this bill is necessary right now, just to stop the bleeding (my words).
[ Parent ]
Krugman should give the hell-no choir pause (4.00 / 3)
Normally, I would not be inclined to back such a bill, but Krugman has been pretty persuasive in writing about the gravity of the situation.  Many of the nation's most respected economists are terrified at the possibilities of what may happen with no government intervention.  Krugman puts it nicely:
I think that Congressional leaders know that it's a bad bill, but feel compelled to defend it, because they're (rightly) scared of the financial consequences of a second rejection. And to some extent economists like myself are in the same position; I think I called it the "hold your nose caucus."

I'll hold my nose and go for passage to get us through the next few months into an Obama administration.  Krugman has been right on about every economic issue of the past 8 years.  I'm not going to doubt him now.

[ Parent ]
I don't like these arguments, though (4.00 / 1)
it sounds like it's an argument for drafting a better bill, a democrat only one, if need be.
[ Parent ]
who will sign this better bill? n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
make the asshole veto it (0.00 / 0)
if the bailout is oh so critical, make him look like a liar by vetoing it.
[ Parent ]
um, ok. (4.00 / 1)
Forcing Bush to veto something progressive is a fine goal I suppose.

But I thought we were actually interested in achieving a good progressive goal here.

If not, if we aren't interested in actually getting something progressive signed into law, then why all of the hubbub about "a better, more progressive bill"? If we know Bush won't sign it, or if we know Bush will veto it, what are we doing? Why not just be honest and say nothing should be passed until January 2009?

[ Parent ]
it's not who will sign it (4.00 / 1)
it's who will draft it, who will push it through both houses, etc.  i think where the "pass the bailout" crowd is right is that the politics in the cognress are not going to get better in the next 45 days.  So ideally you need to have the minimum done (whatever that is in your mind...and whatever outcomes you might want.  A financial market collapse should not be the big worry - it's the long term consequences of whatever happens that should be (i.e. if the financial market collapse leads to a 10 year recession or a 2 year recession)).

and then punt until we have real progressives.  it's a potentially good strategy when you think of it - you do the minimum you have to until you get these d@#kheads out of power while it will get people pissed off that the government isn't doing anything; given the surge in populism, whatever it does will have to reflect that (and the people in Congress will more and more reflect that).  Eventually "government" might not be such a bad word anymore.

But i get ahead of myself, which usually means I'm being wildly optimistic and probably wrong :)

[ Parent ]
25 in the Senate voted against it, will it pass the House? (0.00 / 0)
Predictions?
Yes it will (4.00 / 8)

 The elites have spoken.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Barney Frank just said it's still uncertain (0.00 / 0)
But, you have a point.

[ Parent ]
Really? .. (0.00 / 0)
It is? .. Has Big Business groups like the Chamber lost their touch? .. it tells me that the Repukes fear CfG more than the Chamber .. weird
[ Parent ]
No Bail Out Act (4.00 / 1)
which is why the blogosphere is so absolutely wrong to focus in on mark-to-market and should be promoting that bill and focusing in on the RTC which is the real meat of this alternative.

Yes, the elites are steam rolling.  If they think Paulson can't spend $700B dollars in 2 weeks or 4....think again...
in a matter of 2 previous weeks he managed to spend $800B right there in bail outs.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
lol (4.00 / 1)
I'm back to agreeing with you alot Robert. :)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
You should (0.00 / 0)
ask him about his views on immigration.
[ Parent ]
hey robert (0.00 / 0)
what are your views on immigration?

:)

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
by a few votes. But yes. If it doesn't pass on Friday it will pass later.

This will pass one way or another.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
And the day after it passes... (0.00 / 0)
...look for more Republican adds nailing any Democrat who voted for it.
[ Parent ]
I am not surprised by much from DC ... (0.00 / 0)
but I will truly be shocked if it doesn't pass on Friday .. if it doesn't pass Friday .. it will mean all those Big Business groups/lobbyists have lost all clout .. and I won't believe that till I see it
[ Parent ]
we could make it not pass if we wanted to (0.00 / 0)
or at least put enough doubt in them that they might cave on something else in house/senate negotiations.  what dost thou think?
[ Parent ]
Yes but (4.00 / 1)
hopefully the "progressive" Dems  will have the good sense to vote against it and let the Republicans take up the burden for passing it.
[ Parent ]
Krugman has been foolish before (4.00 / 7)
and he'll be foolish again. he's a smart guy but not perfect, even though he says a lot of stuff progressives like. he could have played a roll in rallying opposition to this and support for a better plan. but he twittled and hummed and hawed and failed to realized there was chance to push this in a different direction.

Im not sure why, but progressives choose heros like Krugman, and then decide their words are infallible. I sat at work all day listening to the Bloomberg Radio (voice of Wall St practically) and the majority of guests said this was a stupid plan that made no sense in terms of accountability. And then they pointed to FDIC and Buffet and Europe. Meanwhile many around here kept yelling the sky was falling. The past few days has been bizzaro land.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

well (4.00 / 6)
Im not sure why, but progressives choose heros like Krugman, and then decide their words are infallible.

I know why.  Krugman showed incredibly bravery from 2000-2003 in going after Bush as a lying bastard, when no serious people would.  He deserves the credibility he's earned, and while I feel like this particular episode was a failure, he is absolutely a hero.  Infallible, no, of course not.

[ Parent ]
I hear you (4.00 / 1)
but there is also something else at work, a kind of devotion that we usually accuse republicans of. we see it with Obama and moments where the candidate is acting in just appalling ways that are strategically unnecessary and people become very defensive of him. really ignoring what hes doing that they would be very upset about if it were Newt Gingrich or someone with an R doing the same.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Or maybe we just happen to agree with him (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
the whole thing is built on power (0.00 / 0)
that's why.  as long as we give people intellectual authority (or accept it) instead of trying to find things out for ourselves or at minimum explore a number of options, that's going to remain the case.

I don't mean this in a "i'm idealistic, you have to agree with me" kind of way - i mean it in a "when you accept someone's authority and subordinate yourself or your mind, it changes the way you and they behave" kind of way.

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 1)
This is sort of a basic fact of life.  We accept certain people's authority and expertise on a variety of things without necessarily having to dig into the nitty-gritty details of everything.  It helps us organize and understand the world better.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have an open mind and formulate our own opinions, but our own opinions are undeniably influenced by those we trust and feel have some authority on a particular question or problem.  You hire a mechanic to fix your car, a plumber to fix your plumbing, an electrician to fix your electric wiring, etc.

Krugman may be right or wrong here... but the fact that people look to him to help form an opinion on something that they deem is part of his expertise is not a defect... that's common sense.

[ Parent ]
sure (4.00 / 1)
just drawing a distinction between a) help and b) word of god. and also pointing out that people's positions determine how useful they are.  Richard Clarke served a useful function, but they probably won't be on my side in about 3 years (if they are now).  Even with your allies, it's important to know when and where you disagree, and when and where they stop being your allies.  Power imbalances and an overarching respect for the person rather than the argument get in the way of that (and are simultaneously anti-democratic).  It's sort of the opposite of an ad-hominem attack.  It also raises the question of how you choose particular "experts" when the whole point of choosing one is that you don't understand the subject matter they're writing about very well.  We all face that.

I know you're not necessarily making the argument to the contrary (that we should worship Paul Krugman or anyone as a demigod), but I notice it a lot (implicitly), so I'm just taking the opportunity to respond to it here in the context of our conversation.  To put it in your terms, I'll ask my mechanic for help, but I want to know where he's coming from too and whether he's full of $hit or making sense and what the reasons are for it.  That's why I took a class on cars in high school and why one-on-one relationships are important ways to gauge honesty, trustworthiness, etc. :)

[ Parent ]
he's not a hero. (0.00 / 0)
he just did his job.  Calling him a hero is like calling Richard Clarke a hero - they're just people from the elite who were alienated by the incompetence and lies of the Bush Administration and most of all the break from "rationality", but that doesn't change their role.

But to each his own :)  I suppose Colbert just did his job too, but he's a hero of mine :)

[ Parent ]
Krugman saw the mess coming in AUGUST 2005! (0.00 / 0)
Now, that's where his credibility comes from. And he was outspoken in his criticism of Paulson/Dodd, and supported a "swedish model" plan. Wtf has he done wrong? Nothing! It's all the fault of Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, et al. They didn't have the spine to push for a better plan, and deliberately chose the less risky bipartisan approach of a modification of the original proposal instead. But where is the harsh criticism of the Dem "leadership" here? Instead, you make Krugman look like a villain. Nothing could be further from truth!!!
[ Parent ]
He recently heaped praise (4.00 / 4)
on Rubin, not knowing or caring to mention that he helped to cause the crisis.

And he was proven wrong on trade--which account for his change of position.

A great columnist and a solid progressive but moderate and sometimes wrong.

[ Parent ]
he's an academic (4.00 / 1)
he's excellent at analyzing a policy on paper, but not always so good at seeing how it'll play out in the real world.

I think the equity warrants were the part that got him on board. What he failed to realize was the fact that there was no way in hell they were going to let that go through--it's up to the Treasury secretary to determine how much equity (if any) the government gets.

Now that the actual bill has gone through, I think he realized that it didn't include what he thought it would on paper, so he's now much less enthusiastic about it.

[ Parent ]
Oh and I suppose you are? (4.00 / 4)
I'm an academic, I guess that means I must wear a tweed jacket with leather patches and dotter around my office pontificating on esoteric issues of no consequence to the real world or "how things will play" there.

Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
I've been meaning to tell you (4.00 / 2)
that your pipe smoke is annoying me.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Careful (4.00 / 1)
Or I just might break out the leather jacket with tweed patches!
[ Parent ]
Yeah, what have you academics ever done for us in the "real world"... (4.00 / 2)
Name one thing, I dare you.

I'm going to go back to my grass hut and candle now.

[ Parent ]
depends on your field (0.00 / 0)
Among my friends are an astrophysicist, an evolutionary biologist, an English scholar, and a pure mathematician.

The English scholar freely admits his specialty has no connection to the real world, only to texts. The mathematician admits that though his field is rigorous and logically consistent, it has no contact with reality.

By contrast, the biologist studies the evolution of vision by sequencing the genes of jellyfish. The astrophysicist works on instrumentation for large-scale telescopes. Both of them deal in reality.

So I don't know--you might be out of touch with reality, depending on what you do.

Economics is one of those disciplines which pretends to greater relevance to reality than it actually has. Economists' use of mathematics tends to obfuscate the fact that it isn't a science. It's a mishmash of reasoning by analogy, mathematical modeling, and pure unvarnished opinion whose practitioners are often at odds with one another.

The high regard in which economists are held has to do more with the fetishization of money in our society than anything else.

Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize should teach you that professional success in economics doesn't mean your ideas actually have to bear any relevance to real life. For an even more dramatic example, see how Myron Scholes (of the famous Black-Scholes equation) and Robert Merton--both also winners of the economics Nobel--nearly caused a global financial meltdown when their hedge fund collapsed.

Krugman is smart and often incisive. But he has a weakness for pretty schemes that look good on paper but cannot possibly be implemented in real life. His support of Edwards' health care plan was an example. There's no way something like that--a gradual phaseout of private insurers moving towards single-payer health care, which put the government in direct competition with the insurance industry--could ever work in practice. The industry would simply never tolerate that.

 

[ Parent ]
Well check Krugman's portfolio just in case (0.00 / 0)
All of them voting for this have heavily invested in the market. They are covering their assess and losses.
[ Parent ]
Why don't you check Dodd, Pelosi, Reid and Frank instead? (0.00 / 0)
Not that I think this assumption of bad faith is helpful at all, but I'm totally dumbfounded by the exclusive focus on Krugman, as if he did vote for the bill. If you want to blame someone for this, start with the folks who were decisively involved!
[ Parent ]
Pelosi had 500,000 big ones in AIG (0.00 / 0)
I bet the rest are exposed also.
[ Parent ]
Fallible (4.00 / 3)
It isn't a matter of Krugman being infallible.  The point is there are few economist out there I know and trust.  When someone posts a letter with a bunch of economists I know nothing about saying one thing and there are others saying another thing I go with those I already have some faith in.  

If I had an opinion I wanted justified I could have picked and chosen those that agreed with me.

Both Krugmand and DeLong have more or less agreed that this bill isn't great but should stop the bleeding and not cost all that much in the end.

But in the end this is all about fear.  If you are afraid Paulson will just screw us over you go one way.  If you think he is a legitimate actor you go another.  Near as I can tell, Bush's heart isn't really in it; he's just going through the motions, waiting for retirement.  That encourages me.

We'll be fine.  This bill just exchanges bonds for assets backed of similar value backed by equity.  This should at least stop the bleeding until Obama takes office.

Also, Obama believes he will win.  If he honestly thought this would hurt his presidency he wouldn't have backed it like this.  I take some solace in that as well.

[ Parent ]
"...Bush's heart isn't really in it; he's just going through the motions, waiting for retirement." (4.00 / 1)
I think that's a very good read on the situation. And why Paulson has suddenly become president of the world these last few weeks. Think about it, we haven't even heard rumors of Cheney's fingerprints on this thing!

I think they're all itching to get out of there. Except Paulson who I think doesn't want the economy to collapse on his watch. Or wants to be able to control it for his final 6 months in office. Whichever.  

[ Parent ]
Why? (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps because he actually believes something (even if that something pretty much sucks) needs to be done right now?

Is that so incomprehensible to everyone here? Does either believing we are in a crisis or being unsure of the consequences of inaction truly mean you are a piece of shit republican sellout?

Apparently it does to those who are all knowing around here.

[ Parent ]
i don't think so (4.00 / 1)
i came to oppose the first bailout, and i think voting for that would have been selling out.  I think this bailout might be a mistake, but given the way the politics has played out, i'm not sure that dragging it out longer things would get much hbetter.  At this point, I'd like the bare minimum done to keep society (not the financial markets...society) functioning and leave as many issues for later as possible because most of this Congress and the President are not to be trusted.
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
It's hard to disagree with anything you say in your comment.

But really, all I hear around here and elsewhere on teh blogs is how ambivalence as to the bailout = satanic conservatism. All of the absolute certainty about the consequences of doing nothing is driving me nuts, frankly.

[ Parent ]
consider it strategy :) (0.00 / 0)
Things I learned From My Treasury Secretary - ask for the sun, and get the moon.
[ Parent ]
Why did Feingold, Dorgan, et al (0.00 / 0)
refuse to do what's right for the country?

I don't understand (0.00 / 0)
You seem to oppose the bailout below, but here, you seem to support it.

Unless this is snark

[ Parent ]
Feingold, from Tuesday (4.00 / 1)
http://feingold.senate.gov/~fe...
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Bailout Package

September 30, 2008

"Yesterday's vote on the bailout proposal in the House of Representatives gives Congress an opportunity to address the major flaws in the proposal. We can do so and still act in an expedited manner.

"First, the negotiators should offset the cost of the proposed bailout so that taxpayers don't get saddled with it. There are plenty of proposals out there that can be considered, including asking Wall Street to bear at least some of the cost. Second, negotiators should add meaningful provisions to help families facing foreclosure. This is more than just a matter of fairness - the housing crisis is the root cause of the credit market collapse, and unless we address it, any rescue package is far less likely to work. Finally, negotiators must address the deeply flawed regulatory structure that paved the way for this crisis. The administration and others have said such reforms must wait for another day, but once a rescue package is enacted, we lose the leverage needed to enact tough reforms to get the financial sector to clean up its act, and we risk having to deal with this same mess all over again."





This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.
[ Parent ]
dear god (0.00 / 0)
why didn't this man put together a bill and get someone with more poltiical skills to push it through?  or at least try?
[ Parent ]
Putting together a GOOD bill takes time. (0.00 / 0)




This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.
[ Parent ]
that's why you do it in the year that you have leading up to the final crisis (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Michael Moore's bailout plan is pretty good (0.00 / 0)
and I believe he did it in a couple of days
[ Parent ]
Cantwell? (4.00 / 3)
She's the last senator I would have expected to vote no.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
Cantwell a pleasant surprise, Brown an unpleasant surprise.
[ Parent ]
I assume Sherrod (4.00 / 2)
was trying to do what he thought was best for the thousands of homeowners and renters going under right now in Ohio. That state's been hit especially hard. And even most especially in Cleveland.
[ Parent ]
no excuse! (0.00 / 0)
Sherrod Brown is a Wall Street stooge!  Blog commenters all know this!
[ Parent ]
Cantwell (0.00 / 0)
Her no vote may be tied in to the failure of Washington Mutual, forced by the Feds.  She may be thinking that Washington got screwed and its taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for other banks in other states.
[ Parent ]
Cantwell is more progressive than many people think (0.00 / 0)
though she's a "free trade" "pro defense" progressive courtesy of Boeing, a prereq for re-election in Washington state.  
[ Parent ]
that's a first (0.00 / 0)
Aside from environmental issues, I've never seen "Cantwell" and "progressive" in the same sentence before.

To my knowledge, Cantwell has always been pro-business.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
You've never heard her grill Ashcroft (4.00 / 1)
It was a thing of beauty, her defense of civil liberties.
[ Parent ]
Against FISA Amendment Act in July. (4.00 / 2)
but voted for PATRIOT ACT renewal.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.
[ Parent ]
She gets her money from grassroots a lot (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I spoke to Maria Cantwell last Monday about the bailout (4.00 / 3)
  While she had made no decision at that time, she was very receptive to hearing what was wrong with it. It's really gratifying when politicians actually listen.

Krugman has been heroic indeed.  And his mistake this time is he is giving credibility to some of the actors in this to act well....But it's a close call.....to lots of people.  Half the House progressive caucus voted for the House bill.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

"But it's a close call.....to lots of people" (0.00 / 0)
I think that's the best way to put it.
[ Parent ]
They planned it that way (0.00 / 0)
A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down

I just voted absentee in MO and the gambling change that was being voted yes or no had:

to limit gambling places to what we now have and those in the planning.
no limit to individual losses
more money to education

Hard to decide with those choices and a few more to muddy up the waters

Same with this bailout thing. But all could go to the taxpayers in different ways but we need more time to get them all in.

OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT and do you think we will get that? I don't.

[ Parent ]
McClatchey (4.00 / 2)
turns out the bail out is much worse than we supposed. The rule about Republicans is that they are worse than you think they are even though you have already allowed for the fact that they are worse than you think they are.
What is worse in there? (0.00 / 0)
This is all the stuff we've been talking about before. Mostly renewable energy stuff, a badly needed Amtrak reauthorization, and a one year AMT patch.
[ Parent ]
bad stuff (0.00 / 0)
McClatchy
The Senate bill also would:

   * Make permanent authority for undercover operations.

   * Make permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.

there is a lot of weird stuff in it.

[ Parent ]
Weird does not necessarily equal bad (0.00 / 0)
Do you know the background of these provisions? The second one is amibiguously worded. I have no idea really what that second one relates to.  
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
I googled Section 7608(c) which is the undercover operations they are extending and I have the impression there is nothing surprising there.  I mean, undercover agents might need to go into purchase properties, form businesses and the like in a way that the IRS would not normally be able to do.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/us...


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
um (0.00 / 0)
i'm really uncomfortable at this point with this administration and the way that it's reshaped the executive giving anyone the power to  be undercover for anything that they're involved with or that subsequent administrations will be involved with.  especially permanence.

Coming up witih perfectly reasonable  explanations for how the powers might be used wisely is what got me screwed over int he first place.  Don't trust 'em anymore.

[ Parent ]
Silver Lineing (0.00 / 0)
The good news coming out of this is that I have some faith restored in my local Senator, Debbie Stabenow.  

The Senior senator from Michigan, Levin, can kiss my behind.  He's old though.  He won't be around for much longer.  Unfortunately, he's cruzing to reelection so he won't out until the last 2 years of the Obama administration.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

So, you're all cross and cranky (4.00 / 4)
And I don't blame you.  This situation sucks pretty bad.  But I feel like all I read on this website is whining.  How could the outcome be better?  Who would we have to elect to Congress, and for President, to get a different outcome, and would that even be possible?  Do you think whining on a website is an effective way to influence the future outcomes of legislation, or are you merely indulging your emotions?

Honestly, I've been reading this site for months now, and it feels like the Mensheviks being displeased with the Bolsheviks.  You all know much better than elected representatives what should happen, yet you have very little influence.

It's not yet even clear that the Democratic candidate for the Presidency will win, but you all are already disappointed with him.  (I expect I will be too, but I never lose sight of the fact that the only possible good outcome of the presidential election is Obama winning.)

Or don't you think so?  For me, the time for fighting about details of programs should come after we get a good Democratic candidate elected.  Until or unless that happens, nothing means anything, so that's where I feel our energies should go.

But I guess that's just me.

Teeth (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, but this vote is going to have teeth.  Much like the AUMF, roughly 25% of the Senate voted against this Wall St. Bailout.  And much like Hillary Clinton today, Obama will eventually regret this vote.
[ Parent ]
Not just you (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
how the situation could be better (4.00 / 1)
1. If the Senate had allowed a roll call vote on Sanders amendment.
2. If the progressive House democrats had called Nouriel Roubini instead of William Isaac when they realized they didn't understand the bill (not blaming them, but it would have been better).
3. If someone, anyone, with a little power in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate or if Obama had taken positions that were more populist.  At least Obama was forceful in defense of his position, even if I think it was wrong.  But I agree (apparently) it was unlikely).
4. If some people were not gradually becoming convinced that this will cost nothing but may pay for itself - it involves an enormous amount of uncertainty and risk and I don't see how anyone can say it "will" pay for itself without stating the obvious - that that depends on whether people can pay back their mortgages given that their wages aren't rising or if the costs the government has to take on in paying hteir mortgages for them is made up for by an increase in the stock value of places like Goldman Sachs - which again is a strange position to be in, because now we have to root for Goldman Sachs to make money in order for the governemnt's debt to be sustainable?  I don't think so.
5. If people would acknowledge that this "Crisis" is about mass behaviora psychology amount bankers, which is the problem the bailout is intended to address.  The structural problems have gone unaddressed as far as I know (which is probably for the best.)  But some acknowledgement of that would be good and if progressives keep working on many many plans that might be good and wrangling over coming up wtih an economic stimulus package that would address things from the bottom up.
6. If people would acknowledge that the process which led to the rejection of the first bailout bill was a) good b) democratic c) needs to be evaluated for what the results were, and on that basis which political positions served what function in shaping the final bill, etc.

I'm sure there's other things, but things never get better without luck and a lot of effort.  I'm shocked that Sanders' proposal even came up but I attribute that to all the pressure that's been put on Congress by the media and by US!

[ Parent ]
How the Senate passed the bill (0.00 / 0)
Interesting insight into the different reception both candidates received when voting for the bill. Looks like McCain is quite isolated among his collegues:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...
Bill Clinton weighs in on the bill! (0.00 / 0)
And he has lots of facts and arguments at hand supporting the point that this was important for the economy and the people. Plus, he puts lots of praise on Obama along the way. Read or hear it, this is impressive:
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/...
Delivering the positive outlook that's missing here recently: (0.00 / 0)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, America has a choice. We can keep worrying about these things or we can do something about them. (Applause, cheers.) We can be fundamentally pessimistic and defeatist or we can act like Americans and say, hey, as my dear departed mother used to say, this is no hill for a stepper. (Laughter.) Listen, we can turn this country around. We can make this economy hum again. We can give the government back to ordinary citizens and not to special interests. (Applause, cheers.) We can have a future that is brighter than our glorious past -

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can.

Damn, I simply love this guy. He's the right stuff. A role model.

[ Parent ]
Feel-good bullshit (4.00 / 1)
The DJIA tripled under Clinton's watch.  That is pure bubble, that Greenspan kept inflated.  The "bailout" is all about keeping that bubble inflated past the election.  No-one really knows what's going to happen after the election. My money is on Obama continuing with the feel-good bullshit, until the dollar collapses.  Then all bets are off.
[ Parent ]
Feel good bullshit, uh huh... (0.00 / 0)
If this is your opinon, what are you doing here? I mean, this is a liberal blog, supporting bullshitting Obama. Wouldn't a pro Nader blog or a McKinney forum be more to your liking???
[ Parent ]
I had no idea.... (0.00 / 0)
...that skeptical comments about Obama were not allowed on Open Left.

Who knew?

[ Parent ]
I anticipate a post... (0.00 / 0)
...demanding that Obama be punished at the polls in November for this vote. Not a rejection of the party tout court, just a call for bullet-balloting the top of the ticket.

If the bill was as bad as advertised, simple consistency requires such a call.

And to do otherwise concedes that there were principled reasons to vote for the bill.

I don't anticipate people voting for McCain (0.00 / 0)
just because they disagree with Obama on a few issues. I may be a dreamer, but I still believe that Americans are able to chose the much lesser of two evils. Ok, I've been let down twice, but still...
[ Parent ]
um (4.00 / 2)
No, both candidates voted for the bill.
[ Parent ]
Krugman is worse than wrong (0.00 / 0)
he's spineless.
Senate Passes Bailout, 74-25 | 101 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox