I Think You Mean Mr. 19 Percent (0.00 / 0)

Of course, like Atrios, I agree that "no proposal matters as long as the plan is to surrender when Mr. 24% stamps his feet."

As noted in Quick Hits by johnduvi, ARG now has AWOL ("Pet Goat") Codpiece at 19%.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:51:22 PM UTC

Great post (4.00 / 3)

Specially deese:

That is the real key here: this is a game of political chicken set in the middle of a huge election. We have to stick to our guns in order to make sure that nothing will actually get passed under Bush (because anything that Bush will sign will suck), and that the election turns on the competing plans--philosophies, really-- to fix the housing and financial sectors.

You don't work out a deal with a fanatic--much less a lame duck fanatic with Bin Laden approval numbers. The big danger here is a big sloppy bill with all sorts of corporate-written fine print that allows both sides to claim victory.

You fight for a decent bill (from what I gather, Dodd's bill if okay, if moderate) and try to ram it through and if that fails, as it likely would, you use this issue to crush the GOP in November and to fight for progressive reform.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:56:35 PM UTC

HaHa. Love that line (0.00 / 0)

"Bin Laden approval numbers."

Very good way of putting it.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:06:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure (4.00 / 1)

the Republicans won't be forced to go along with a plan like this if the Dems stick to their guns. The sound bites would be brutal if Bush vetoes any "bailout plan", and even if congressional Reps can be shown to be blocking it. Of course they will pull out every trick to make it look like it's the Dems fault, but that might be hard to pull off if the Dems have a plan on the table. How much mileage can they get from charging that Dems ruined the bailout by mandating help for ordinary taxpayers?

If one favors a plan like Dodd's, I think the problem will come more from the usual gang of chickenshit Dems maneuvering to keep the bill from coming to a vote.

Seems to me that we need to acknowledge that something has to be done -- even if it's more a psychological need than an economic/policy one. The details probably don't matter very much except for one absolute requirement: No legal financial obligations from the government to any private entity that are not fully covered to protect the treasury.

The rest, including major points like helping mortgagees and thorough reform of the financial structure can be dealt with under a new administration. What Bushies will try to do is get irreversible subsides from government to the private sector, which will be difficult or impossible to reverse under any new regime. That's the one crucial thing that has to be prevented right now.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:02:47 PM UTC

Give kudos (4.00 / 2)

Time to get on the horn to Dodd and tell him he did something right. He seemed to like it when we applauded him for sticking up (for awhile) for the Constitution. We need to give him that warm fuzzy feeling again in the hopes of buying time. Opposition rises as time passes.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:05:06 PM UTC

Time to call the Senators and reps (4.00 / 1)

And tell them to get behind the Dodd plan.  Especially the Dems, and especially the Blue Dogs.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:23:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good move by Dodd (4.00 / 2)

 Now we just need to hope that the Dems stick to their guns here.

 I hope they realize what's at stake. This is THE opportunity to permanently discredit the Norquistism that has permeated our political culture over the last decade or so.

 The problem is that DLC types continue to infest our party at many levels, and you know they're just drooling to let the bailout happen unscathed.

 This week might very well determine if the Democratic Party retains a reason to exist. Because if the Dems capitulate here, Congress will be just vestigial. Which they've pretty much been the last eight years anyway.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:06:22 PM UTC

We are 43 days til an election of a new president (4.00 / 2)

43 DAYS!!!

What in the world, should anyone with a functioning brain, and enough spine to even stand up (to walk, not to oppose) could even think about living in fear of what Mr. 24% (or Mr. 19%?) would do?

This really is a put up or shut up moment.  700 BILLION dollars, at best - no oversight - when we have a new administration in 45 days?

Anyone who votes for this, as is, we need to take note of.  They can NEVER - never - be counted on as anything other than corporate enablers.  Even if it take 10 years, all of them - Democrats or Republicans - will be challenged and summarily unelected out of office.

---

by: JC @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:09:02 PM UTC

Dodd's Proposal Very Weak on Executive Compensation (4.00 / 2)

If I'm reading Section 17 on curbing excessive Executive Pay correctly, it's not looking very strong.

It appears to leave all limitation at the discretion of the Sec. of Treasury.  There are no caps on pay.  The Sec Treasury would have to actively enforce limits executive pay on pretty arbitrary ad hoc basis.

I know this is small potatoes money wise, but it's a HUGE issue on principle.  These outrageous pay packages must END.

If I'm reading it incorrectly, let me know.  But I hope people strongly object to that section as drafted.

---

by: henrythefifth @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 19:05:35 PM UTC

do you want the symbolic pleasure of screwing over the rich? (4.00 / 1)

or do you want their money?  how about both? wouldn't a repeal of tax cuts for the very wealthy be just as satisfying and produce more revenue?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 19:58:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A return to Eisenhower era (4.00 / 1)

income tax brackets without the loopholes would be immensely satisfying. It would also produce more revenue and quickly reduce the wealth gap in a big way. The current crisis may be our chance-of-a-lifetime for such a move to have a serious chance of passage.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:29:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stock, not salary or bonuses (0.00 / 0)

While I agree with executive compensation in general -- it clearly has got way out of control and the cycle must stop -- I'm not entirely sure how to regulate it.  I do have some ideas, though.  It seems salary should be only reasonable and potential big bucks should come from stock increases.

For example, if I owned a company and hired an executive who managed to build the company many times over, I'd have no problems paying him huge sums of money.  But if I gave that exec stock options where the purchase price was based on when he entered the company, that compensation would take care of itself.  There would be no need for big bonuses or outrageous salaries.

Most people who sit on boards of directors are executives themselves.  They have created a culture where they give each other huge bonuses, regardless of merit, which they "pay forward" which eventually comes back to themselves.  That practice must end.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 19:58:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dodd Has Set the Terms of the Debate (0.00 / 0)

It is now a buyout v a bailout which is a great place for the debate.  This bill is basically the AIG deal for whoever wants to take it.  

And the good thing about this is the only people who will take it are the ones desparate enough that they need the capital infusion b/c you know none of these companies want the govt as shareholders.  That means companies won't be tempted to dump all their bad debt on the govt just to get it off their books.

I am curious - what is the argument against the taxpayers getting a piece of these companies in exchange for taking on their bad debt?  I am serious - how do the Rs spin it b/c I can't see it?

I suppose before AIG they could have come up with an argument about govt being stockholders in pvt companies, blah, blah.  

That argument went out the window last week.

---

by: jmnyc @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 19:58:53 PM UTC

Socialism!! Socialism!! (0.00 / 0)

I am curious - what is the argument against the taxpayers getting a piece of these companies in exchange for taking on their bad debt?  I am serious - how do the Rs spin it b/c I can't see it?

Socialism!! Socialism!! Communism!!!! Socialism!!  Socialism!! Socialism!! Socialism!!  Communism!!!! Socialism!! Socialism!! Communism!!!!  Socialism!!  Socialism!! Socialism!! Socialism!!  Communism!!!! Socialism!! Socialism!! Communism!!!!  Socialism!!  Socialism!! Socialism!! Socialism!!  Communism!!!!  Socialism!! Socialism!! Communism!!!!  Socialism!!  Socialism!! Socialism!! Socialism!!  Communism!!!!  

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:05:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Little Late For That (0.00 / 0)

don't you think.  The taxpayers already own 79.9% of the largest insurer in the world and the public knows it.

If that is the best they can come up with, we are going to win this debate big time.

---

by: jmnyc @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:14:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If they go too heavy on that, (0.00 / 0)

Americans might just start wondering whether a big dose of socialism is just what the doctor ordered. American capitalism doesn't seem to work anymore, so what else is out there?

Worked in the '30s.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:33:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Krugman (0.00 / 0)

Looks like Krugman might be on board with the Dodd plan.

Very preliminary, no details - but this sounds like a big step in the right direction.
...
Very serious stuff - and a major challenge to Paulson's approach. Treasury should now be required to explain why this isn't a much, much better way to do this rescue.

This plus Obama's remarks yesterday give me hope we won't just cave in.  I'm crossing my fingers.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:02:09 PM UTC