It is and it isn't (0.00 / 0)

I'm against the bailout, but the SEC should tell the NYSE, AMEX, and OTC to shut down.  The traders are still wanting our money and are purposely doing massive sell offs to move congress further.  

---

by: Benny @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 13:52:20 PM CDT

Woo hoo! The markets are crashing. (2.00 / 2)

Great news for the public.

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 13:54:51 PM CDT

You missed Matt's point (4.00 / 2)

There is a political crisis in this country as well as a financial crisis. The rejection of the bailout shows a significant shift of political power from corporate america to the voters. The voters hated the idea of this bailout, and congress listened to them rather than to the financial industries that demanded it.

You're right, the financial downside is big. Which crisis is more important is a tough question to answer: comparing apples and oranges. To those of us who remained unconvinced that this bailout compromise would actually significantly alleviate the financial crisis, the upside for the public is a clear political victory.

---

by: Cramer @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:01:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, you missed my point (4.00 / 3)

And my point is that Matt and others here are all too cavalier about the real impact from the absence of legislation here.  

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:09:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

While I hate the CEOs and many of the provisions in the bill, there's a problem of the perfect getting in the way of the good going on here.

---

by: Werty83 @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:20:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perfect? that's ridiculous. (0.00 / 0)

Your comment's attitude is exactly why Democrats are portrayed as cowards and wimps. Boo!

Bush and his plan needed to lose.   Now, real Democrats can stand together to make this bailout actually work for the people instead of WS.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:48:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i hate these plans (0.00 / 0)

so many tangential things. nationalize the banks. keep the demands freaking simple. recapitalize the banks without risking tax payer dollars. we need to win the middle voters who are holding the line, they want responsibility without new spending programs or new taxes or any other side issues.

our goal should be a simple responsible plan to save the economy. fighting over these kinds of side issues wont accomplish that.

thats my opinion, im sticking to it.

also we need to be a lot more focused than three or four plans. we need to get behind a short list of demands.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 13:55:53 PM CDT

'Letters against were running harshly against' (4.00 / 2)

yeah ... that's a great indicator.  Matt, if the Democrats made this bill more palatable to the wingnuts and still lost, what makes you think they're not gonna move any further toward them?  Do you think Dems will want a bill that passes with their votes alone?  Not a chance.  And there NO chance they're suddenly gonna back a liberal bill for that reason and others.  Any 'new' bill is gonna look pretty much like this one.  Any bill that scum like Cantor, Bachmann and Boehner are against, I like.  Waters, Waxman, George Miller -- they're Wall Street stooges to you?  Give us a break.  This is America and in America, Wall Street wins.  If we can make the score 6-4 instead of 10-0, take it.  

---

by: Weeferdog @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 13:56:30 PM CDT

That attitude is exactly why we're at the back of the bus now (0.00 / 0)

Wall Street didn't win (big and unilaterally) until Reagan.

---

by: RapsodiaStellare @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:50:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now the ball has been lobbed into the Democrats court. (4.00 / 3)

The Republicans are defenseless from a political point of view. If (a big IF) the Democrats play this right they could produce a landslide in November. And, yes, play hardball politics with it! Kick some McBush ass now by producing a Progressive version of this legislation. Make Bush veto it before the election. Make McCain explain why he has no plan.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:01:33 PM CDT

How 'bout a derivation tax? (0.00 / 0)

(I suspect that's not the best word for it, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.)

What I'm talking about is this:  You have loans and such, and you have "derivatives" concerning the loans and such.

Can we tax THAT process?

Also can we tax the bundling of debts?  I mean the act of bundling them.

And I don't mean a huge tax.  But I figure it would be like enforcing a 0.1 cent fee on each email sent.  Spammers would go out of business.  Similarly, a small tax or fee on these acts of financial sleight-of-hand might prevent some abuses.

---

by: just john @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:03:04 PM CDT

PS: (0.00 / 0)

(And yeah, I know we can't enforce a fee on email.  It was a hypothetical, stolen from a happier reality.)

---

by: just john @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:04:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also (0.00 / 0)

Why do we have to prop up a Ponzi scheme? Can't we find a way to prop up honest working credit organizations? I know nothing, but it seems that this money could be placed in a much better place to assure the flow of credit.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:05:34 PM CDT

Language suggestion (0.00 / 0)

Instead of a speculator's tax, call it a speculator's penalty. Cuz ya know... taxes = bad. Penalty for bad behavior = good.

Daddy's got a hankerin' for some spankerin!  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

---

by: kbuck @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:09:02 PM CDT

I think in this case I agree with Paul Krugman (4.00 / 3)

That Pelosi, Obama et al at some level did the right thing at least trying to make this vote work:

Shouldn't Dems have tossed the whole Paulson approach out the window and done something completely different?... putting myself in Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi's shoes, I'd look at it this way: the Democrats could start over, with a bailout plan that is, say, centered on purchases of preferred stock and takeovers of failing firms - basically, a plan clearly focused on recapitalizing the financial sector, with nationalization where necessary. That's what the plan should have looked like.

Maybe such a plan would have passed Congress; and maybe, just maybe Bush would have signed on; Paulson is certainly desperate for a deal.

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.

...but, they tried it, and the vote didn't work. And it's now pretty clear that the Democratic leadership will have to take sole ownership of this stuff-- the Republicans won't even take responsibility for their own votes, for crying out loud. If responsibility is going to be taken, it will have to be by the Democrats.

As I see it, there are two ways they could go from here. One would be to try to retool the bill and so that it gets 20 more votes. I'm not sure this is possible; it's very likely that any change that adds 20 votes from one party would remove 20 votes from the other column. Meanwhile the resolve on both sides is very shaky and could collapse at any moment, and the Republicans are not operating in good faith such that you can assume that they won't decide to go 100% party-line against this bill at the drop of a hat if the Republican leadership doesn't like the way Pelosi looked at them one morning. It could take another week to manage those negotiations, the negotiations very possibly won't work, and the clock is ticking.

Another way out of this is to start over, stop "negotiating", and go for a plan that can pass on Democratic votes alone. 24 hours ago I would have said a strategy like this is time-wasting and unworkable, because Bush will veto anything he doesn't like and demand we go back to the Paulson plan. Thing is, though, that was before this morning's vote. We now know that Bush can't get a majority of his own party to vote for his own plan. The abandonment by his own party this morning means Bush has just lost any meaningful ability to use his veto: If Bush wants something done, he will now have to get it done through the Democrats. And that means the Democrats get to set terms.

So: What terms do, can we set? The big problem here is that the Democrats are almost as fragmented as the Republicans at this point; a "pitchfork plan" that the progressives like very probably will not have the blue dogs on board. Do we know how the blue dogs feel about the "progressive plan", if there is one? (It doesn't help if there are "a lot of alternatives", unless you pick one.) Is there some plan the Democrats could embrace that the entire Democratic caucus could agree on? Are there any shared values that the entire Democratic party has that could form the basis for such a plan?

---

by: mcc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:09:35 PM CDT

Rally around competence (4.00 / 2)

Taking preferred equity in insolvent banks, and nationalizing where necessary, has been done successfully in the past, both here and in other countries.

Responsible economists are advocating this approach.  It's Krugman's preferred approach.

Taxpayers will get their money back eventually, none of this horseshit about sending a bill to Wall Street five years from now.

And if anyone complains about "socializing the banking system," ask them how their stocks in Lehman are doing.

The only reason the bail-out bill was being considered was because Wall Street wanted taxpayer money to recapitalize, no strings attached.  Now it comes with strings, as any taxpayer will demand.

---

by: Taylor @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:24:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yup, time to stiffen up and pass a Democrats-only plan, then dare Bush to veto it. (4.00 / 6)

Now, anymore, he can't.  The bipartisan bill is dead, Bush and McCain couldn't deliver the House GOP, even though the Speaker gave them the chance and let them try.  

Now that that approach has failed, it's time to write a Democratic bill and pass it and Bush will have to either sign it, or commit himself to Hooverville forever.  He can't veto any workable plan, force a three month delay in action, and survive with any historical legitimacy with anyone anywhere.

Dems didn't want to pass a Democrats-only plan, because they were scared of how the GOP would demogogue them, and the option of a bipartisan bill was still available.  Well, that's gone now, so it is time for Democrats to actually lead.  Choose the approach that you think will really work.  Write it, pass it, enact it, and then own what happens next.  Create a good policy, and then bear responsibility for it working or not.  Every now and then, that's what political parties have to do.  You can't bunt on every pitch.

Time to actually act like the majority party that you already are, and will be formally on Nov 5th.

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:26:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep in mind (4.00 / 2)

anyone, including Bush dogs, will be stung by not supporting the next bill. This is why Pelosi, et al, should not tinker anymore with the Bush plan. Drop it and put up a good plan--but one with no bells and whistles. No bells and whistles means NO BELLS AND WHISTLES! The Repubs will us them to cover their no voting asses.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:49:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What exactly is the big win? (4.00 / 2)

Do you realize what will happen to our economy if the credit markets don't unfreeze soon?

---

by: GT @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:14:56 PM CDT

The Investment banks go under (0.00 / 0)

Because they are insolvent. Nothing could stop that but a give away. Use the Swedish model. Wipe out the stock and bond holders and recapitalize and sell the new bank.

It is is a proven model FAR FAR better than the Paulson bailout based on Japan's BAD model of how NOT to do it.

---

by: EastBayBlue @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:25:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think the problem are the investment banks? (4.00 / 2)

They no longer exist. This is MUCH much bigger than the investment banks.  

---

by: GT @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:36:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dems going defensive (4.00 / 2)

Pelosi et al are in front of the media talking about how they acted on good faith with Republicans working for the country. Which means they are taking the foolish position of defending this POS bill. This is a dead end strategy for them. This will only polarize the debate. Dems will end up owning this anyway, better for them to get on with backing a more moral bill that they can truly defend. Right not they are defending crap to win party tit for tat, and that will piss off people.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:20:40 PM CDT

and they keep talking about how they should be in recess already (0.00 / 0)

oh, so big of Congress to stick around in Washington later than they planned to fucking do their job.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:22:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why the hell do they need to go to recess anyway? (4.00 / 1)

To campaign? So people will vote for them? Hey, guess what the best way to get people to vote for you is: Do something about the fricking economic crisis. If the Democrats can actually get something passed while the Republicans flounder in division, they'll do better across the board than if they spend the next two weeks campaigning...

---

by: mcc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:53:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (0.00 / 0)

There is no question there will be intense pressure all around to move right and get the deal done.  Pressure from Treasury, the White House, the lobbyists, the Bush Dogs, and so on and the leadership will move right to get this passed unless we apply pressure, lots of pressure now.

The position as communicated quietly to the leadership from the Progressive Dems voting no and then on to the White House and Treasury:

"You say the consequences will be dire.  We control the House and Senate.  You and your leaders failed to deliver.

We will deliver a bailout without the Republicans and we will do it soon because you apparently cannot corral your side of the aisle.  But there is a price.  We will make this a Democratic Bill, but it must include the following elements...[Nationalization, dollars for homeowners, strong oversight, pay for with taxes on finance sector, and maybe a few other core progressive agenda items].

No other bill will be considered until the Obama administration.

Take it or leave it."

I am saddened that I cannot honestly say that this outcome is likely.  I expect Pelosi, Frank, Emmanuel, and Hoyer to cave.  Wish I felt otherwise.

---

by: T. Jacobsen @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:23:59 PM CDT

The size of the disaster for the GOP (4.00 / 5)

here is very obvious to the posters at the national review.  McCain now looks like a complete idiot.

This is government shutdown #2.  Good help us if there isn't another plan before the Asian Markets opn.  

Here is the best advice, and the path that I think Pelosi should take:

Pass a bill with only Democratic Votes, and have the bill moved substantially to the left.  

---

by: fladem @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:24:39 PM CDT

Public to assign blame or credit? (4.00 / 2)

So, who is getting the credit/blame for this?

House Republicans.

At least, from what I just heard on the radio, it was "House Republicans" that stopped the bill with a "few democrats" that voted against it.  This will likely be what the media more or less reports.

If you are right in that the public was so horrifically against this bill that it had to be stopped, then Republicans are going to get the credit for that, and any new bill will be even WORSE than what we had now, as it will be more Republican in nature.

I, for one, hope you are wrong, and the public sees this for what happened: a bi-partisan agreement was being worked on, McCain exploded it and then couldn't put it back together, causing the Republican support to crumble for both ideological and political reasons.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:25:10 PM CDT

the fickle american voter... (0.00 / 0)

No! No! No!!  We don't want a bailout

(stocks crash, 401K portfolios wiped out)

Why didn't you vote for this?!?!?

The blame will be laid on John McCain.. they had a deal... McCain came in, blew it up... and now, after McCain praising himself this morning for crafting the compromise... the deal blows up in his face once again.

Some leadership, John... you are supposed to be the republican leader and you failed.

Matthews is taking him to task on this as we speak...

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!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:14:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So are the publishers going to organize a simple plan of action (0.00 / 0)

or are we just going to screw around for three days going over laundry lists of why Paulson and Bush are corrupt and arguing over a laundry list of complicated plans and details, while they will pass a slightly different crap plan?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:32:26 PM CDT

4:07 est and still no coordination or call to action (0.00 / 0)

i guess we're opting for blowing this opportunity.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:06:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wall St. Crashes- Sirota and Stoller Exuberant (2.00 / 2)

Good going guys! You convinced the House Republicans to sink this thing. Wall St. is down 700 plus and sinking like a stone. You've picked some great allies! Thanks for screwing over the American people.

---

by: cmpnwtr @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:32:28 PM CDT

?? (4.00 / 3)

Methinks you overestimate the power of a post at OpenLeft. Somehow I think the list of House Republicans aware of what gets written here is very short indeed.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

---

by: KB @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:47:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a(nother) Republican failure (0.00 / 0)

why try to stick progressives with the blame?

And why are you echoing Boehner's weak-ass talking points?

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

---

by: kbuck @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:55:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Boehner indistinguishable from Sirota/Stoller/Bowers on this (4.00 / 1)

Herbert Hoover lives to fight another day.

---

by: YuedoTiko @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:06:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

victory? (4.00 / 1)

You're right that alternatives, if pushed and passed, will be much better for us all.

But I'm shocked you feel this is purely a political issue.

Maybe you didn't mean that, but it almost sounds like you think nothing bad is actually happening and/or all these collapses are actually an elaborate political ploy.

I just don't see a victory here.  

A victory will be when a good bill is passed.

Singing praise for a continuing disaster - one that will cost average people their jobs and homes - just sounds crappy, to put it kindly.

---

by: hadit @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:33:37 PM CDT

easier to read pdf: (4.00 / 1)

Progressive caucus letter

---

by: jexter @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:38:30 PM CDT

Lost jobs? (0.00 / 0)

As quoted in quick hits:

But it's not the stock market I care about, it's employment and growth. Even if this is not a catastrophe, you don't take this kind of risk with the economy. Even without a major crash, it's likely a lot of people just lost their jobs, though they don't know it yet.
...

I'm worried, maybe for nothing, but why take this kind of a chance with people's lives?

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:47:43 PM CDT

I'm not so sure, Matt... (4.00 / 1)

I think you misunderstand the public's general distaste for anything related to the government right now, including anything that deals with taxpayer dollars, and distaste for the current plan.

Let's assume that the Democrats do what you want Matt and propose a completely partisan plan which passes along partisan lines in the House and (maybe) along partisan lines in the Senate (I have no idea where Lieberman would vote).  You think the public will like that plan any better?

No. They won't because the public won't know the difference anyway. Not only that, the situation will still get worse, and Republicans will blame the "shitty" Democratic plan.

Passing a partisan plan for something like this is probably an election loser, though I suppose if you want to "save the country" so McCain can ruin it again, then that's just fine.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:50:03 PM CDT

That's why (0.00 / 0)

the next step has to be a hard core Progressive plan. If it passes, good for us. The risk will be with us, however, if the economy continues into a depression. If it is vetoed by Bush it will destroy the GOP.

This is war and it's going to get ugly and there will be political and economic casualties. I don't like it, it makes me sick, but that is where we are.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sacrifice the presidency? (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry... a McCain presidency would just roll back any progressive "win" we might get here.  This is why, particularly in an election year, something bi-partisan was needed.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:43:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is no such thing as one sided bipartisanship (0.00 / 0)

The fact that the GOP is preventing the current bipartisan bailout is all the evidence you need. Playing the GOP's game won't produce an Obama win. But I think he has been extremely shrewd to up to this point or very lucky that the Repubs killed this. If he and Pelosi had actually won this first vote in Congress he would loose the election for sure.

The public is not going to elect Obama if he actually succeeds in achieving Bush's plan while McCain looks like he was against it. That, by the way, is why McCain is hiding under a rock. He is scared shitless. He wants to be against a Bush/Democrat bailout--that actually passed. That's politics.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:11:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bullshit... (0.00 / 0)

People are now BLAMING MCCAIN for not getting his caucus to vote for it.  He (sort of) said he was going to vote for it.

This is a net negative for him and the GOP.  With the market crashing today, it looks like they really fucked up.  People aren't happy about that.

As everyone has noted, McCain was getting ready to take full credit for delivering the bi-partisan bill. McCain didn't look like he was against it.  It looked like he was for it, was going to get his caucus to vote for it, but ended up actually completely screwing him in the end.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:56:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bullshit? (0.00 / 0)

I would rather think it's a different opinion.

It's a net negative for McCain--as I said--if the Dems seize the moment. McCain is playing this purely as a political gambit and the Dems can make him pay for it.

Obama should play it politically, and I think he is, but in a more sophisticated way, and with a real, progressive plan.

Finally, I like Sirota's attempt to fashion a real remedy--which will have to be played out politically too.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 18:06:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democrat Leaders Don't Lead, They Follow the Bush Administration (0.00 / 0)

This is not a surprise. After the '06 election, these so-called Democratic Leaders followed Bush right back into the Iraq occupation. Then they followed the Bush lead to give immunity to the illegal wiretappers.

After being lied to by Bush time after time after time, these weak and noncommittal Representatives of the people take up the Bush agenda once more. This time to give billions to bailout the hustlers of Wall Street.

Today the Democratic Speaker of the House is on TV making  pleas and arguments on behalf of President Bush. The appropriate tone for the Speaker should be to lay this economic fiasco at the feet of Bush, and tell the President that the people have no confidence in a President who has repeatedly lied to them.

I have no confidence in Bush, but now I have less confidence in the leaders of the Democratic Party. The Congress has truly become the lap dog of the executive branch. The First Branch of government is on the fast track to becoming completely irrelevant. The minimal representation we have in our government is soon to be none.

---

by: Bobc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:22:44 PM CDT

Stop saying "pitchfork" ;) (0.00 / 0)

Right now the pitchforks are all in the hands of the hysterical corporate media doing the bidding of Wall St. and they want a bail out now.  All the GOP wants is for the Dems to look bad.  The Dems want to sell out Main St. to benefit their corporate masters.  There's no such thing as a pitchfork plan if you're applying that term to currently possible legislation.  

There is organizing to puts boots on the ground and in front of tv cameras to apply pressure to get the legislation you want written and passed.  If you don't have that pressure - real pitchforks - then you aren't going to get what you want.  Gotta put people in the streets.  

---

by: eRobin @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:15:36 PM CDT