OpenLeft Poll: Do you support this bailout?

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:11


I put a poll in the extended entry.  What do you think?

... So far the 'no's are winning with 63% of the vote.  The margin probably would have been 90% against if Krugman hadn't weighed in supporting the bill.  Better Democrat Annette Taddeo has come out against the bill.

We must protect homeowners and taxpayers. This bill fails to address the collapsing housing market, the root cause of the crisis. I do not support spending $700 billion in taxpayer money on a flawed bill. I call on Democrats in Congress and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to draft legislation that protects the people and families of South Florida.

This was also Wes Clark's attitude last week (though it may have changed).  You have to address the housing crisis at the root of the crisis.  

As for why I didn't include an 'I don't know' option, well, let's just say I wanted to push leaners.  That's how it works in Congress.
Matt Stoller :: OpenLeft Poll: Do you support this bailout?
Poll
Do you support this bailout?
Yes, I support this bailout
No, I think this bailout should be rejected

Results


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
OpenLeft Poll: Do you support this bailout? | 86 comments
I voted no (4.00 / 2)
On the condition that an actual proposal is put forth by the Democratic party.  

If no such proposal is forthcoming (What happened to progressives in the House?  Why couldn't they do something on the level of what the House Republicans did last week and blow things up with a proposal of their own?) then I would probably vote for the proposal, as close to the Dodd version as I could get.

To expound on my previous point (4.00 / 6)
The most frustrating thing to me here is that the Progressive Caucus in the House, for example.  These are supposed to be "better Democrats."  

Where was a proposal the caucus could rally around?  Why didn't one of them get off their rear and draft an alternate bill, outside of the negotiations, that they could bring to the wider Democratic caucus and publicly fight for?  There are proposals floating around in the media, economists are putting forth opinions, etc.  But how much have you heard coming from within Congress?

It's easier to find something else to say "yes" to, than it is just to say "no" to the one option that's on the table, in terms of actually moving votes.  

The House Wingnut caucus understood that well enough.  Why not the people who are supposed to be "better democrats"?

[ Parent ]
The last thing we want... (4.00 / 1)
...is a "democratic-only" bill 36 days to the election.  This thing is unpopular no matter how it's structured, let the republicans own the lion's share of the bailout... Next year, we can improve upon the plan...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
The Republicans won't own it (0.00 / 0)
It won't pass without significant Republican votes.
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (4.00 / 1)
It's just frustrating.  As I said, without something better to vote for, I'd vote for what's on the table.  Partially for the reasons you articulate, partially because I really do think we are standing on the brink here.

That being said, there's going to need to be a "democratic-only" bill at some point.  The Republicans will not vote for anything remotely reasonable.  Therefore, any reasonable response to this crisis will have to come over their wailing about it.  I understand having Republicans demagogue about it in an election season is distasteful, but it's quite the high stakes game that is being played here.

Now I'm talking myself in circles, so I think I'll just shut up and hope for the best.  

[ Parent ]
Democrats have already adopted it. (4.00 / 1)
They are the ones demanding that Republicans pass it.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Voted 'yes,' (0.00 / 0)
but I'm actually 'Joel' and can't remember the email associated with my account, so can't get my password. So talk about a grain of salt.
Vote No (4.00 / 2)
Yes there is a financial crisis.

No the bailout plan will not avert that crisis.

It's up to Congress and Wall Street to do the right thing and nationalize the failing banks.

The Dodd-Paulson bill will get the politicians past the election, at the cost of consigning this country to a Japan-like "lost decade" of prolonged depression.

Time for some reality-based policy-making.

I voted yes (4.00 / 1)
Because I accept that some action is necessary pretty soon, and I doubt that a better plan can be enacted anytime soon.

I also think there is a decent chance of the plan being improved next year, including more relief to homeowners.

i voted No (4.00 / 1)
because this bill is not different than the original Paulson plan, other than they added 107 pages of hoodwinking. no way Paulson, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, should be allowed to get away with that. If this deal fails they will come up with something else before they'll risk the DOW shedding 50%.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Yes-or-no (4.00 / 8)
It sure would be nice if you provided an I don't know option in your poll. You know, I have opinions about a lot of things. I try to base my opinions on knowledge that I've attained. However, this one stumps me. I'm not an economist and it is hard for me to judge the right-and-wrong of this bill. A lot of people are saying different things about this; many people are speaking in absolutes, and it is hard for me to grasp how so many people can be so certain of what this all amounts to. Maybe you are right, but it sure would be nice if you allowed for the possibility that some people don't know.
Oh Come On Now, (0.00 / 0)
Team Bush put forth the bill in the same way he sold the Iraq War, (go to Crooks and Liars and watch the side by Side Bush speeches for 2003 to 2008, same fear, same act nor or else).

That is all the proof I need to know that "We the People" are about to be ripped off again.

I don't doubt that something needs to be done, but this will cost close to a Trillion Dollars, and if we invested the same amount at Main Street level, we will all be better off, EXCEPT, the rich corrupt Wall Street Assholes. Tough Shite, Assholes.

And really, Roubini, Stirling Newberry, Krugman, almost all economist say this will not solve the entire problem at all, hell the Governments own economist says this may hurt more than help.

But mostly, it rewards those who deregulated the economy and allowed this to happen. And those are the people who the Republican corruption party represent. HELL NO CONGRESS!! You are CAVING to Bush with 40 days to go??

[ Parent ]
I'm tired of this Iraq analogy (0.00 / 0)
Just because the administration cried wolf and sold everyone a bill of goods when it came to Iraq, does not mean that their warnings this time - in a totally separate context - are not justified.

Here, many people are arguing that there is already objective evidence that a credit crunch exists.  

[ Parent ]
i'm curious, TP (0.00 / 0)
what do you think this bill will do? specifically, how is it going to help you, or the people in your life? you should know the answer to that before you say "yes." and why do you think "action" is "necessary?" and what part of this bill adresses the problem that requires action?

do some reading. get over your issues with lame analogies. understand what it is that you're agreeing to. this bill, like the original, will not "help" you unless you're connected to one of the few groups who are going to get their hands on the cash. and even then, don't be too sure. executives will get a piece, but i seriously doubt little shareholders, tellers, and middle mgmt will.  

[ Parent ]
My hope (0.00 / 0)
is that receiving equity in these companies will pay off for the treasury in the future and therefore anyone who has a stake in the federal government.

I am obviously conflicted over this plan. I think it's good so many people are upset and not supporting it. I think it's good because it will help hold Democrats' feet to the fire next year to enact more and better measures in terms of mortgages, bankruptcy, and credit cards because of the pressure they are now feeling.

[ Parent ]
you may not get much equity (0.00 / 0)
how much tax payers get in equity is basically up to Paulson. Congress put no requirements on Paulson. You can guess how much that might be; remember he has basically been completely against any equity requirement.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
although a new treasury secretary in an Obama administration could change those terms.
[ Parent ]
Ah yes, the secret future Obama plan (0.00 / 0)
that's the plan in which all wrongs are miraculously righted. when Dems in charge and free of Republican pressure finally do the right thing. i love that plan.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I've been doing plenty of reading (0.00 / 0)
And nevertheless, I still find it very difficult to grasp what will or will not happen, whether the bill is passed or not.

But I certainly am aware that there are smart economists, like Friedman, who argue that action is necessary now, and that this particular bill will help.

I'll repeat my own analogy from another thread: I feel like I do when a roofer scales my house and reports back about some grave problem on the chimney requiring special attention fast.  I cannot assess the problem myself, so ultimately have to decide whether he's trustworthy and competent.

[ Parent ]
Friedman? (0.00 / 0)
You mean the trickle down, free markets are god guy?  Oh jesus, I'd have more faith in something that Sarah Palin said than Friedman.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
I assume he means Thomas Friedman (0.00 / 0)
because Milton Friedman of Reaganomics fame has been dead for about a year.
[ Parent ]
Why no undecided? (4.00 / 1)
I think most people don't know.
No Deal - Way Too Late (0.00 / 0)

We are headed for disaster with or without the bailout.  The disease was not diagnosed until the problem became fatal.

There is over $62 TRILLION of bad money out there, in the form of credit default swaps.

http://www.forbes.com/home/200...

The next big wave of adjustable rate mortgages are about to turn, while there are still $1 TRILLION in outstanding subprime mortgages.

http://www.time.com/time/busin...

This will not have a happy ending no matter how you slice it!


I voted no... so far (4.00 / 1)
I haven't read the bill.  And it's hard to believe that most people voting have fully digested it.  I realize that there are times where immediate action is required, but this has become the case of the boy who cried wolf.  And since we can't know which of the times it really is critical to act in days, i'm willing to take my (our) chances and take the time to fully vet what's in front of us.

To be clear, i'm still unclear on
1. how big this crisis is for our economy as a whole (vs. a particular industry)
2. how this plan solves the crisis
3. how this plan prevents the crisis from re-occurring (i.e. fixes the problems that caused it)
4. is the best solution for the problem for our country

Until those questions are answered satisfactorily, "no" is the only reasonable vote.  

digesting it (4.00 / 2)
I read several sections of the actual bill, critically 113.

I read several nytimes articles and opinion columns. all the accountability provisions are toothless - all discretion is in Paulson's hands, he can gut every single provision.

I listened to the Treasury briefing and QnA with financial industry yesterday - a private conference call that was leaked to the internet. in it Treasury gives assurances there will be no significant cost to financials participating.

the crisis is large, but this bill is no different than Paulson's original plan. Paulson as Goldman CEO helped create the conditions of this crisis, Paulson last week bailed out Goldman Sachs to the tune of $20Billion via AIG, and totally fucked up Lehman despite warnings from colleagues. there is no reason to trust this person with anything. If anything Paulson should resign due to his Brownian incompetence.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Agreed On All Points, Except... (4.00 / 1)
comparing Paulson to Brown.  Paulson wasn't a horse man, after all.  He's a Wall Street insider.

This isn't individual incompetence.  It's institutional evil fully operationalized.

"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

[ Parent ]
Krugman saying the Dems are too weak to do a good bill (4.00 / 4)
But such a plan would have had next to no Republican votes - and the Republicans would have demagogued against it full tilt. And the Democratic leadership cannot, cannot, be seen to have sole ownership of this stuff.

So that, I think, is why it had to be done this way. I don't like it, and I don't like the plan, but I see the constraints under which Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, and Reid were operating.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

Krugman makes no sense (4.00 / 3)
the Dems drafted completely toothless accountability. That's not what the GOP was holding out for. They wanted less money spent and more tax payer protections - at least that's what they said on tv.

the Dems barely pressured the GOP to come up with a solution. If the Dems put forward a better bill and the GOP balked they could have forced the GOP to explain what would be better.

Krugman is wrong.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
really? (4.00 / 6)
Krugman, the Princeton economist with impeccable liberal credentials, is 'wrong'? 'Jerome à Paris', the leftist investment banker, again with very high credibility, is wrong?

Guess I don't have as much faith in my armchair quarterbacking skills; I will listen to Krugman and Jerome.

[ Parent ]
at this point, saying that one is a Serious Economist (0.00 / 0)
with a job at a Serious place is hardly an indication of "right-ness." indeed, looking at all the Serious People with Serious degrees in Serious subjects like economics, you know, the ones who went along with the deregulation that led to this mess, and i pretty much don't want to hear from another economist as long as i live.

enough with the celebrity worship. yes, in this case, Krugman is wrong.  

[ Parent ]
It's not celebrity worship (4.00 / 1)
Its recognizing that this is a complex issue and that there are people who actually understand this better than I do.

Paul Krugman has a long track record of caring about the things I care about and has spent his life studying this stuff. So yeah, I give his opinion a lot of weight.

Krugman has never gone along with deregulation, he has been pointing out for years what a disaster it is.

And yes, Dean Baker being against it gives me great pause, but right now I am finding Krugman and Delong more convincing.

So I voted yes.

[ Parent ]
who is arguing with Krugman's economic POV? (0.00 / 0)
nobody. I agree with Krugman's economic take on the matter. its Krugman's evaluation of the political landscape that I think is completely off. I don't see where his economic pedigree has much to do with that.

Personally I don't give a crap about dkos bloggers, thanks. I have my own leftist investment bank friend here in nyc which does fine by me. and he thinks this bill is complete shit.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Where's the "Hell No!" option? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Lefty blogs attacking the Dem. leadership (0.00 / 0)
In the middle of an election as acting in bad faith, simply sabotages the election and proves what a juvenile, irresponsible group it really is. Markos Moulitsas and Matt Stoller, "The Great Depression-  bring it on!"
What stupidity!

I'll take Warren Buffet's assessment over yours any day.

   CNN and CNNMoney.com staff
   September 28, 2008: 11:40 AM ET

   New York) -- Legendary investor Warren Buffett warned Congressional leaders Saturday night of "the biggest financial meltdown in American history" if they did not act to secure the financial system.

   Buffett, by telephone, was consulted by lawmakers who were in marathon talks on Capitol Hill to forge a deal on the administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, according to two sources.

Buffet has a dog in the race (4.00 / 2)
He just bought up assets that would be bought up by the bailhandout.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Buffett is hardly neutral (4.00 / 6)
You did notice his recent sweetheart deal with Goldman Sachs, right? The bailout is in his interests, but it doesn't follow that it's good for the rest of the country.

And I wish you well with that insistence on supporting our glorious leaders whatever happens. Myself, I prefer to actually listen to what they're saying before I swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
this is a joke right? (4.00 / 2)
with Buffet holding 10% of Goldman and billions in investments that could suffer serious damage in a market sell off. no conflict of interest there.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
So? Satan Would Have Supported The Bailout, Too (0.00 / 0)
If they'd gotten him on the phone.  And who knows more about the ways of this world than him?

Buffett, however, stands to make a bigger killing on this deal than Satan does.  That's a neat trick, IMHO.

"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

[ Parent ]
I see your Buffett (4.00 / 2)
And raise you a George Soros who opposes it.

Besides, as Krugman himself has argued convincingly in the past businessmen are not good economists.  Being able to make a lot of money doesn't mean you know how the economy works.

[ Parent ]
Amen (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes bloggers get stuck in such a ideological rut that they lose sight of the big picture in multiple ways.  Some say the Democrats should say "Hell No" for political reasons.  I suggest picking up a copy of "Profiles in Courage".

Some oppose the legislation because they think it's a gift to Wall Street when they really don't have the expertise to even comment or rely on expert opinions rendered a week ago.  They are so concerned with being "right", that they don't explore all potential consequences.  That's no solution.

Finally, Buffet may have a dog in the hunt, but he doesn't bet on losers.  He understands that doing nothing is a loser for everyone.

[ Parent ]
Doing nothing is better than this bill (0.00 / 0)
The bill is nothing but things you should not do in a financial crisis. It removed reserve requirements from banks - so insolvent banks can run indefinitely, accumulating losses. It transfers money to banks by manipulating market prices, which further distorts lending from those that really deserve it to unproductive activities. And it gives essentially unlimited discretion to Paulson, who has proved himself totally unworthy of it.

And what do we got for it? Nothing. All these reps talk about keeping ATMs going. But what does the bill do for the cascading defaults that almost took the system down 2 weeks ago? Nothing. What does the bill do about the collapse in working capital lending to ordinary companies (e.g A2/P2 paper)? Nothing. The bill spends 700,000,000,000 to increase ultimate losses and provides no meaningful protection against meltdown.

[ Parent ]
But, but... (4.00 / 1)
...it allows Wall Street to continue to pretend that it doesn't have complete excrement on its hands.

Well past the election anyway, which is as far as anyone in Washington is looking.....

[ Parent ]
Ya think (0.00 / 0)
Right now it's not passing and the DOW is almost $700 down.  Hope you don't have parents or grand parents living off of IRA's or 401k's.  Maybe you can have them move in with you.  I know my middle class retired parents are now hurting.
[ Parent ]
Mostly, Buffett knows that he has positioned himself to make lotsa cash (0.00 / 0)
when his former colleague Hank Paulson starts writing him checks frpm our account.

That's kinda the antithesis of losing...for him.  Let's face it, Buffett didn't get where he is by worrying about you.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
A qualified yes option would have helped (4.00 / 2)
But at this point, I'm basically taking Krugman and DeLong's word, and saying it seems better than the alternative.  The TED spread is really worrisome, and I don't think this is anything made up like David Sirota keeps implying.
That's where I am (4.00 / 2)
However, if Bush had two more years I'd probably switch to no.  I'm assuming Obama will be implementing the details of the plan through most of its life.  In the short term, this should prevent any major meltdown, regardless.
[ Parent ]
Bill Doesn't Address Underlining Issue (4.00 / 4)
We are still walking blindly on the edge of a cliff.  Until these financial institutions are forced to open their books to public scrutiny, the markets will not stabilize.  Ignorance is driving the fear.  We need to shine a light on the Shadow Banking Industry, instead we're throwing money at them.  As Conservatives used to say, "You can't solve this problem by throwing money at it."

Fighting for Texas families

2006,2008 Nominee for US Congress, TX 4th

Conservatives STILL Say "You can't solve this problem by throwing money at it." (0.00 / 0)
They just don't say that about THIS problem!

"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
[ Parent ]
I don't let them get away with it. (4.00 / 1)
They have no principles.  All they have is record.

•Deregulation collapsed our financial markets and drove up our home energy prices.
•Tax cuts for the Wall Street elite caused an out-of-control federal deficit.
•War with Iraq allowed Osama Bin Laden to get away with murder and helped Al Qaeda recruit more suicide bombers.
•No Child Left Behind destroyed the independence of our Independent School District.
•Free Trade shipped America jobs overseas.
•Blind support for big oil increased oil imports from 25% to 70%.

Fighting for Texas families

2006,2008 Nominee for US Congress, TX 4th

[ Parent ]
"This Bailout" being key. (4.00 / 1)
I'm ready to support a bailout. I just want the best deal we can get and I suspect we can get better.

Jeff Wegerson
You guys remember (0.00 / 0)
Al Gore, the surplus, the lock-box, the priest and the rabbi? Ok the priest and the rabbi weren't there but king George managed to squander that surplus and more on Iraq war. Now the banking industry the most unproductive sector of the capitalism wants the future surplus before it goes in any lock-box. I voted yes as though we have a choice!
I have no freakin' clue (4.00 / 1)
On the one hand, Paul Krugman says it might be a good idea -- and he's been right on almost every major economic issue the last eight years.

On the other hand, I'm not an economist, I don't know how close we are to a real crisis, and I wish we could do the Swedish model that everyone is talking about.

With the bailout number knocked down to $250 billion, it's more palatable.  But I'd like to see some real pain for the shareholders and executives in these failed companies. I would also like to see more accountability for the people who made these bad decisions and walked away (by this I mean the homeowners who took out too many HELOCs and lost hundreds of thousands when the real estate market collapsed).

I think everyone should read the Irving Housing Blog to see how this happened. Google it.

the bailout was NOT knocked down to $250 (4.00 / 1)
ok everyone, please please please read the details.

This bill starts with a $250B grant, and another $100B is instantly grantable by the president, even if the first $250B is not yet used. Further, at any time Treasury can request the last $250B (again without the first $350B used) and Congress then has 15 days to STOP it, not approve it - it is automatically approved. Then even if Congress votes a resolution to block the last $250, that is subject to a presidential veto and Congress must then win a 2/3 majority to block it.

As Treasury said on the phone to bankers yesterday "we think that's a pretty high bar for Congress."

The starting point for this deal is $750B, they will be back with a request for the other 3/4 of the annual budget in December. Thank you sir, may I have another.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
corx - 700B (0.00 / 0)
not 750B - got carried away with those 50s. :)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
corx2 - last tranch is $350B (0.00 / 0)
I can add. damn it.

anyway - you can listen to Treasury say it for themselves here:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
The ignorant masses. (4.00 / 1)
I voted no.  There is certainly no consensus among economists that it is necessary.  I will support the majority of expert opinion, and it appears mixed at best.  My own personal choice would be to accept the consequences of years of bad policy, rather than try to blunt them at the last moment.  

I'm not an economist or an expert on the housing, securities, or credit markets.  I can't become an expert in a couple weeks, and it wouldn't matter if I could.  We're just along for the ride.

The bailout illustrates a few things to me:

1.  I have absolutely no faith in our system to produce the right result.  The entire "crisis" could be a cynical calculated final fleecing of the taxpayer.  I don't trust government statistics on anything anymore - unemployment, economic growth, inflation - and I used to largely believe what the government experts told me.  I am also 100% certain that the bill, crisis or not, will be in large measure a giveaway, just because of the influence of corporate money.  I know there's little in it for me, directly, and that I only benefit from the indirect effect of supposedly averting widespread catastrophe.  If they pass it, and there's no catastrophe, economists will debate for decades whether the bailout worked.  If they don't pass it, and there is a catastrophe, they will debate whether the bailout would have averted it.  I don't know anything, and never will.

2.  This should (but won't) put an end to the Bush/Palin "regular folks" appeal.  We need to elect smart, educated leaders, because unexpected events occur and they need to make decisions on our behalf.  

3.  Conservative spin is amazing, even beyond my earlier understanding.  The storyline they are trying to create is that the crisis was casued by liberals pushing the notion that everyone should be able to own a home, rather than the truth - that deregulators and conservatives allowed corporations to push financial toxic waste on the most vulnerable.  It is truly an amazing process, rewriting history every day.  

[ Parent ]
"I wish we could do the Swedish model that everyone is talking about." (0.00 / 0)
C'mon -- take your personal proclivities somewhere else, existenz.  We've got an economy to save here!
[ Parent ]
Voted no (0.00 / 0)
Live blog? (0.00 / 0)
Is anyone live blogging the House vote? I'm at work so I can't watch.
Not enough options... (4.00 / 1)
But I voted yes because I think something needs to get done, though preferably modified from what's been proposed.  I would've liked to have seen stronger disincentives for businesses to participate.
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
I'm a qualified, unenthusiastic 'yes'. (This is the poster formerly known as 'Matt H' by the way.
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Bush says there is a crisis and we need to take immediate action or face dire consequences. That alone convinces me this is a terrible idea. Anything worth doing is worth doing without threats and fabricated urgency.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
This is the biggest problem... (0.00 / 0)
No one trusts Bush, which is, I think, the biggest reason why the blogosphere is going crazy against any kind of bailout.  He's cried wolf too many times.

This is why I suggested that Bush and Cheney resign and let Pelosi take over for a couple months. =)

[ Parent ]
No… (4.00 / 1)
...just no. Call it a reflex, but I think by now we should have learned to question any remedies initially offered up by the Bush Administration. There's no middle-ground with the Bush folks; they've either cried wolf or erred on the side of negligence for two terms-and the consequences have been grave. I think this "gentleman's bailout" was designed to hamstring a Barack Obama administration.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
I'm going with yea... (0.00 / 0)
...not because I like it, or want it, but because I do believe it is needed.

Some of made analogies to the banking collapses of the 1980's (as Congresswoman Kaptur just did on the House floor) citing that thousands of banks went down then, so it was a far worse situation.  That is very faulty logic, in that, there were thousands of banks to fail then, their are not now.  Now we have three banks dominating the landscape - massive banks are collapsing every day, here and in Europe.  Each bank that tumbles and is consolidated is a loss of competition, jobs, and consumer benefits in the market.

As banks collapse, the market suffers and people behave in a perpetual state confusion and fear.  No one knows where the bottom is, it has become a sick game of limbo.

I agree the bill is not as good as it should be, I believe there should be more regulation and accountability.  But, our leadership is awful, our caucus is divided (without regard to this issue, just in general) and thus has no power to exert.  The good liberals are thrown under the bus to make "reasonable compromises" possible, even when those compromises are just giving the Republican's the keys to the kingdom with no security patrols.

Right now, netroots activists are supporting dozens of candidates for red-to-blue changes in both the House and Senate, more than half are "more of the same", only a very small number are intelligent, honest, proud liberals.  We continue to fund and propel these halfwits forward because common wisdom suggest that a moderate Democrat is better than a Republican of any stripe.  The truth is that logic is faulty.  We are better off with wingnuts and moderate Republicans than with the Blue Dog type moderate Democrats that undermine liberalism on every major piece of legislation we try to move forward.  The kill us in the media, they hamstring us in the negotiating rooms, and the hurt us in elections as they actively hinder party building in places we need it so desperately.

Until we overcome the infrastructure advantages the Republicans have built since the late 1970s, we are doomed to be hostages of our own moderate members as they protect the Republican infrastructure day in and day out.

Btw... (0.00 / 0)
Both Obama and McCain will be voting on the bill.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/0...

litmus (0.00 / 0)
wow, what a great litmus test for determining if your candidate is a progressive or a centrist!
[ Parent ]
I completely disagree... (4.00 / 2)
But whatever.
[ Parent ]
taddeo speaks for me... (0.00 / 0)
the problem i have is not with congress putting money up to cover for wall street's irresponsibility.  not that it makes me happy, don't get me wrong.  

the problem i have is with the fact that the dems didn't try and actually get something else out of this bill (serious homeowner protections, public works funding, healthcare, etc...)  all of these things would function to sure up the economy from the 'bottom up.'  

had the dems done this, they could have sold a 'comprehensive financial recovery plan' rather than a 'wall street bailout.'  it would have been a winner for them, even if house republicans voted no, and it would have forced bush to accept a bill that he didn't like.  

Some Dems did try... (4.00 / 1)
...they got elbows thrown at them by the "Democratic Leadership" - who couldn't keep the various factions within the party on board if any such "radical ideas" were pressed for in the negotiations.

Our leaders took ownership of the problem before understanding what the problem was, they then wedged themselves into a position where they gave the power away to the opposition and had to claw back to get the concessions we did.

From Speaker and House Leader to Senate Majority Leader and Presidential Nominee, everyone ran their mouth in a fashion that put Democrats on the wrong side of this thing from the beginning.

I'm not an economist, I'm a political strategist with some understanding of business and economics.  We need to provide a hard stop on the collapse of banks, putting an end to the rapid massive consolidation of banks.  People I trust tell me this is absolutely needed and this bill will make it happen.

Politically, we need this issue to go away in one form or another.  As our leadership bungled this in every way imaginable, it went from an issue we could have (SHOULD HAVE) gained huge amounts of ground on, to an issue where we have reminded voters why they hate Congress, not one party or the other, Congress in general.  This was an opportunity to make Congress look strong and the Administration criminal, to remind the voters who the party for the people is and who the party of corrupt corporate greed is.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately I see the political legacy of this debacle as being.... (4.00 / 1)
...that for the average voter, the Democrats are now the Party of Wall Street.

What a fucking disaster.

[ Parent ]
I agree... (0.00 / 0)
...though I think this is the legacy that began with the Clinton Presidency and is celebrated by the DLC as victory.

The furthering of this image will occur regardless of the outcome of the vote on this bill, the mere posturing our leadership engaged in over the last 10 days had cemented that result.

[ Parent ]
I voted no... (4.00 / 1)
with a 'fast becoming a single-issue (bailout) voter' chaser.
I haven't voted yet, want to vote no, BUT (4.00 / 1)
I read Krugman and Delong.  Who have been right on economics, on a great many things.

The last Krugman blogpost gets to the heart of it.  Basically -

1. Something needs to be done, or there is a real risk for a meltdown.
2. This is the best that CAN be done - and does through the backdoor provide equity in the companies - given the political situation in Congress.  I.E. - we can't get a better bill, and get the support of Republicans.  And it INCLUDES the equity provisions, otherwise almost all economists would say "hell no!".

Since I don't have the technical chops to evaluation #1, I'm going to simply go with Krugman, because he's been right on things, and unpopularly right - for almost a full decade now.

On #2 above.  Krugman even agrees that this is very far from an ideal bill. So on that, we are in agreement.

The disagreement comes from - is the POLITICAL judgment correct?

Well, what are the options?

1. Pass something that freezes out the House Republicans, but gets the sign off from the Senate and House Democrats, and includes a HELL of a lot more for the middle class and working class.

The political judgment then, is that the Republicans will cut ads lambasting the Big Government Socialism of the Dems, if this is done.  And this is rendered impotent if the Republicans sign on.

I'm assuming that, if the bill loses the equity bit, Krugman, et al, will sign off.

A contrary view would be - well, the Republicans will slam this anyway, if they don't vote for it - so it's then a very short term strategy, as in 2010 the Repubs will be doing this anyway.  Why not do a better bill, and live with it BEING a democrat bill?  Isn't that what leadership is?

The other contrary view is, THIS BILL IS POLITICAL POISON.  And since most democrats WILL vote for it, it hits the democrats anyway.

Alternatively, since this is the BUSH bill, if the Democrats do this now, with Republican cover, then it reduces the impact of the poison.

At any rate, none of this impacts the fact that this bill, utterly, completely, totally, betrays progressive values.

It is a Wall Street bill, not a Main Street bill.

It rescues big firms, not protects the average home owner.

This is why, emotionally, I'm so viscerally against it.  It's a betrayal, and an obvious one, against the crusade agaisnt corruption, the broad based prosperity we want to bring to the nation, the regulation of greed, the betrayal of money for healthcare, the betrayal of money for creation of jobs by creating a 21st century infrastructure in the country.

Look at the history here.

1. Bush and Co. deregulate everything, so that the financial firms game the system with derivatives, making billions upon billions for a select few.
2. This crashes, BUT then if we hold the people responsible, we blow up the economy - the same people who created the crash, get off scot-free.  It's a gun to the head.
3. DOING the responsible thing, saving the country, means a political nightmare, AS WELL as not being able to advance any of the working man/middle class goals.  And the bad guys get away.

This sucks, upon sucks, upon sucks, for a progressive.

 

It really is hard to believe (0.00 / 0)
political activists asserting that the crisis is manufactured when nearly everyone with expertise says something needs to be done. Is this the best deal we could get, probably not but I haven't seen a better plan that can get bipartisan and presidential support. I wasn't in the negotiation room.

So I'm pissed about having to do it but I'm willing to say I support the bill.

I voted YES (4.00 / 1)
Because I could give a shit less about the politics. I don't make a lot of money and I have little to no savings. I can't afford for the company that I work for to not make payroll because they can't get financing.

So if it makes you feel good knowing that you are principaled and 'right' and this is 'just like the run up to Iraq' then good for you.

For most people, this isn't academic. It's act and stay afloat or don't act and sink.

Well, I'm recently unemployed… (0.00 / 0)
...and don't question that there's a crisis. I'm just not sure about the urgency of the bailout, no matter what that unabashed Obama-hater Paul Krugman says. This situation didn't come about overnight, so a real solution--one that has long-term benefits for the American people--probably won't be obtained that way either. And I can't shake the suspicion that the fear we're being sold seems an awful lot like Homeland Security's ill-fated orange alerts (remember them?).

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
Hello NO! (0.00 / 0)
This is just a fig leaf around the original Paulson plan.  It will only make things worse AND remove options from the Treasury.

It is poison.

House voting RIGHT now (0.00 / 0)
109-77 so far in favor of the bailout.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
Hubris (0.00 / 0)
That's what has blinded the netroots opiner's. They've been right about a lot. So they must be right about this. I mean, if a Bush administration created the framework, then it must be wrong. Right?

Why is it that anybody with any financial knowledge says something must be done? And this is better then nothing.

Ask yourself, did I come to my opinion because I understand the fundamentals of the arguments and understand economics, or did I see this through a political lens and found a rationale for the position that I wanted to take?

house.gov is crushed (0.00 / 0)
splurge dotted

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Sam Bennett (PA-15) supports the bailout (4.00 / 2)
From a media release just now:

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is a patch, not a permanent fix.  I support the bill because it meets four key criteria:

   *This is not a blank check for the Bush Administration, the plan provides for oversight and transparency as taxpayer money is spent.
   *It contains major efforts to prevent foreclosures that threaten home values, including expanded eligibility for FHA refinancing programs and loan modification.
   *It limits excessive compensation for the executives who got us into this mess.
   *Taxpayers will be protected, with financial institutions sharing the burden for losses and ensuring that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth that companies participating in the program enjoy.


holy crap this vote is close! (0.00 / 0)
138 ayes, 139 nays and 157 no votes.

HOLY CRAP!

This might be a one vote win for whoever wins.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Competing Fears (0.00 / 0)
Just an observation: most commenters, whether pro or con, seem to be driven by fear.  Fear of financial collapse, fear of being hoodwinked, fear of Bush, fear of another Iraq WMD lie; always fear.

Almost makes me feel like a cowardly conservative.

Sometimes... (0.00 / 0)
...fear is justified.  That's what makes it scary.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
oh. my. god. (0.00 / 0)
30 secs left nays up by 10.

OMG.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

OpenLeft Poll: Do you support this bailout? | 86 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox