A Poll on the Bailout

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 21:29


I have some questions as to what you all think about the bailout and the performance of the Democrats over the past two weeks.  If you're interested in filling out a survey on this bailout, go here.  I've got a bunch of questions for us to answer about how various leaders on our side of the aisle performed.
Matt Stoller :: A Poll on the Bailout

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

A Poll on the Bailout | 55 comments
A lot of my opinion on the bailout (4.00 / 2)
A lot of my opinion on the bailout depends on the price floor they set for these securities.  If it is relatively low then the bailout isn't so bad.  If it is high then it is.

Of course Golmansachs should do well regardless as they shorted their own assets and will now be able to benefit from selling them at a higher price as well.

They might still go under though.  If the trust of them as an institution is not repaired by this or is damaged then they will fall apart.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to [email protected]

Totally agree. The bill needed more restrictions on the Treasury (0.00 / 0)
Less money, better language insisting on paying the absolute bare minimum for these securities by defining the buyback procedures.  Make sure that that the fund was a hard destination of last resort and not just a get out of debt free card.
[ Parent ]
Unfocused rage (4.00 / 2)
I am utterly infuriated by the lack of backbone exhibited by our caucus (on this, and many other issues -- FISA comes to mind), but I have simply no idea what to do with it.

I am sure this sense of political impotence is shared by most Americans who disagreed with both this piece of legislative hogwash and the direction the country is headed in general.

I totally agree (4.00 / 2)
However, I flip back and forth on whether Democrats are simply stuck just before an election with few choices or that they are completely incompetent at politics. That said, I DAMN THEM TO HELL for not building the rhetorical framework necessary to win the debate for progressive politics. On that level, they are mostly a bunch of shallow self-interested idiots.  
[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.00 / 5)
One liberating benefit about a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress will be "no excuses" and the ability to hold them accountable without doubt.  
[ Parent ]
Not being able to hold them accountable (4.00 / 1)
is what they count on.  What power do you think you have?  

Vote for the Republican:  What do they care.  The prize for second place is still huge and will handily tide them over until it is their turn to win the first place prize.   There is little to no difference between the parties, and what differences exist are more like the characters in WWWF matches - an act to juice up the audience.

Vote third party:  Ha.  As a protest, it's fine.  As a tool to change the system, it is spitting into the wind.  I do, however, intend to vote a protest ballot, which means voting against whoever voted for this boondoggle.  Obama, McCain, Levin (D) and Knollenberg (R) are out.    

Don't vote:  Yeah, that'll show em.

I never could swallow "we don't have 60 votes" excuse.  I use to be able to choke down the Supreme Court excuse.  Now, I no longer care.  I am going to exercise what little power I have, and the devil can take the hindmost, even if it is me.  

[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 0)
Well, maybe it wasn't so much of a "lack of backbone" and more of a lack of preofessionalism and determination, but it sure was a sign of the impotence of public opinion and especially the blogosphere. Imho the problem is that the objectors never really united behind an alternative plan, and so the impact of the opposing voices was fragmented an scattered. As I wrote in another comment some days ago, "united we stand, divided we fall". This was a sobering example of countless wasted individual efforts, and not the show of energy concentrated in a focussed endeavour that would have been necessary to really have an impact. If anything can be learned from this, then it's how it can't be done.  
[ Parent ]
primary challenges not on bailout per se, but key provisions (4.00 / 2)
I'd be willing to support primary challenges not on the bailout per se, but on key conditions, like the bankruptcy provision, the broader bankruptcy bill, etc.
We should start lobbying in January 2009! (0.00 / 0)
There will be PLENTY of chances for us to make an impact.

Remember this bailout isn't going to work! Unemployment is going to continue, the real estate mortgage crisis was NOT solved, we are in deep trouble and this is just the beginning.

Personally, the only person I know whose business is flourishing is my friend who's a bankruptcy lawyer. He's so busy he can't even take a day off. He's handling 35 new cases a month and is raking in money! He can't keep up with the increasing demand.

There will be a LOT of unhappy people over the next year and President Obama and Congressional Democrats will have to lead.

They won't want to, they'll want to appoint former Treasury Secretary Mark Rubin to supervise the right-wing "we've got to cut spending" commission. But there's not much to cut really unless they want to slash defense. Discretionary spending has already been cut to the bone. Obama is going to have a hard time trying to roll back social security and medicare benefits!

In short we've been set up for Clinton part II. NO reforms because "we're broke and can't afford them." Four years of austerity "in order to reduce the deficit."

In short, Republicans get to loot the treasury for 8 years, promote the most outrageous crony capitalism and corruption, wasteful wars, and endless looting.

Then Democrats get called back into power like a hangover remedy to "take responsibility" for setting up the next BINGE!

Probably in 8 years the Republicans hope to be able to have another full treasury to loot again while we take all the pain!

But, things are MUCH worse this time. People will be VERY angry in ways they weren't in 1992. Conservatives CAUSED this crisis and we're not in an era where the Republicans are on the rise and Reaganomics has anything but a bad stink!

It's up to us to keep pushing the idea that it's CONSERVATIVE IDEAS THAT HAVE FAILED, and that we need PROGRESSIVE solutions!

That means:

1. Reform the bailout to include meaningful debt relief for homeowners and workers. We can start making MORE demands about how we should use the leverage the government now has. The bailout bill should be re-written completely and the government's role should be dramatically expanded.

Re-regulating the markets in ways not seen since the Reagan era is only the beginning.

If we're going to take this step, we take over the firms period. Forget receiving "warrants" which will never be exercised because that would mean MORE money paid to take an equity position in the firms. Many insolvent banks and equity houses are going to have to be closed and executive pay will become a major issue BUT ONLY IF WE PUSH IT!

The media isn't going to want to focus on how all the restrictions on golden parachutes are being totally ignored. But people are going to be hurting and ANGRY.

So, we can start an intense grass roots lobbying effort over this very point.

2. End the War. The war is the BIGGEST economic issue. We can start demanding a REAL end to the war in Iraq, including withdrawing ALL troops and advisers. Obama no more wants to end this war than Bush or McCain. He just wants to withdraw combat troops over the next 2 years "if conditions on the ground permit" i.e. so long as we can have a client state we can control, including air-bases and thousands of "advisers." In short "Iraqization" just like "Vietnamization" -- but this time we do it right so we "win."

But this isn't 1973 and we don't have the economic strength we had then. Well, we aren't going to be able to afford all our military adventurism starting with Iraq. We can push for total withdrawal. The Iraqis sensing their chance are going to demand it anyway. We can support their demands.

"All American advisers OUT!" Can be a powerful rallying cry.

3. Resist the "surge" in Afghanistan! Afghanistan is the Democratic Iraq. The Afghanis have resisted ALL attempts to impose a central government on them for over 150 years. Obama's Afghanistan "central front in the war on terror" is completely insane and no more likely to work than Cheney's "they'll greet us as LIBERATORS."

Afghanistan is LESS tractable than Iraq was, has fewer resources to help the people get on their feet. In short it's a Worse quagmire than Iraq could ever hope to be.

The ONLY solution would be to start bribing some of the local leaders like we did the northern tribesmen to fight the Taliban in 2003. Only problem is they're now allying themselves with the Taliban.

But, the north is no more eager to be ruled by the Taliban than they ever were. So, we could be looking at a major civil war in which America is caught in the middle.

Sound familiar? All we'd need is to bring back Paul Bremmer to make the fiasco complete!

So we're going to have to TOTALLY revise EVERYTHING we are doing about the "war on terror" starting with ending the concept that it's a "war." There is no military solution to the problem of terrorism and we need to face that problem squarely. Progressives can insist on real diplomatic solutions.

There's no reason to think that radical Islamists need to attack us if we stop putting military bases everywhere and trying to dominate them by force. As Bin Laden said of Bush's claim that "they hate us because of our freedoms" -- "in that case why didn't we attack Sweden?"

3. Reform NAFTA. Obama won't want to do this. He's already signaled to Wall Street that he's not serious about that "alarming" progressive talk he made in the spring about reforming our trade agreements to promote jobs here at home. "Protectionism costs jobs" is their mantra. We have to fight back.

But, he's going to have to do something to promote job creation and this is an area we can start grass-roots lobbying over the next 4 years.  

[ Parent ]
Blinders? Wishful thinking? (0.00 / 0)
There will be a LOT of unhappy people over the next year and President Obama and Congressional Democrats will have to lead.

Are you aware that Obama and Democratic leadership lead us right into this bailout?

[ Parent ]
I filled it out (0.00 / 0)
I have divided feelings about this bill, but I do want to primary these bastards. I'd like to primary everyone who isn't a solid progressive.
I think a distinction has to be made (4.00 / 5)
There are Democrats who aren't progressive because they lean ideologically conservative on some issues, and who often represent rather conservative districts, and there are Democrats who aren't progressive because they are beholden to corporate interests. For the latter, see, e.g., Al Wynn. Those are the ones we need to primary - who represent liberal districts but don't vote that way because of their crony corporate backers.

But guys like Chet Edwards or Gene Taylor? A primary against guys like that will just put another Republican in Congress. I don't see the opint of that at all.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 6)
another example:  Ben Nelson is far more tolerable than Joe Lieberman, even though Nelson is objectively more conservative than liberman.  We need to pick off the centrist dems in Progressive districts.
[ Parent ]
two wings to fly (0.00 / 0)
it kills me to hear someone like Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi described as "left-wing" or "hardcore liberal". please. there are districts out there that are so deeply blue they're indigo, but you'd never know it from the pastel wash in DC.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.
[ Parent ]
I tried to educate myself on the issues (0.00 / 0)
and while I think I understood both sides' arguments, I just don't get it enough to know who's right.  Ultimately, I listened to columnists and bloggers I trusted (who were split).  If it works, and you and Sirota were wrong, then Obama did great, turning the crisis into a healthy lead in the polls while prevailing in his views.

John McCain won't insure children
Bush (0.00 / 0)
I knew enough to know that Bush was wrong. And the final deal was too much like the original Bush/Paulson plan. On the other hand, it is very likely that Obama will be choosing a new Treasury Sec, which could dramatically alter the way this bailout is handled. One can only assume he had this in mind when choosing to support this flawed plan.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Obama's perspective (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, let's not forget the nature of power: it does not readily surrender itself. And Obama's actions in this case, and earlier in the summer on the FISA vote, can I think be seen as the actions of someone who is anticipating wielding the power of the presidency. He is not likely to sacrifice that power readily. It is our job to keep him in check. (Ideally, it would be the media's job, too. But they haven't had much stomach for that sort of thing over the last 8 years. Then again, iff there's a Democrat in the White House again, maybe they'll find their spine...)
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
(Ideally, it would be the media's job, too. But they haven't had much stomach for that sort of thing over the last 8 years. Then again, if there's a Democrat in the White House again, maybe they'll find their spine...)

As much as the double standard sickens me, you are right, and I hope that is the case.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Paulson (4.00 / 4)
1. As CEO of GS, he originated many of the financial instruments that are the reason for the current chaos.

2. He has spent most of the last year saying that the unfolding crisis was contained.

2. He precipitated the recent unraveling when he let Lehman go to the wall instead of working on a rescue package for them as he did with other institutions.  What would he have done had it been GS?

3. He then gets Congress and by proxy the whole country in a panic about impending financial armageddon.  I mean, hasn't he seen It's a Wonderful Life?

So I'd really like to know why, instead of calling for his immediate resignation (and say appoint Volker as a caretaker until the next administration), Obama and the Democrats handed this dangerous fool the last trillion dollars left on the taxpayer credit card?

Fundamentally the Democrats, particularly Dodd and Frank, panicked.  They are not qualified to be holding the positions of authority that they do at this critical point in the country's history.  They, and Paulson, should resign, effective immediately.  

We cannot afford to have incompetent people such as these setting policy at this point in time.

This argument (4.00 / 1)
is the best one against the bailout.

The conflict of interests with some of the players involved are really disturbing.

I think this was necessary, but I would have demanded Paulson's head as part of the deal.  

[ Parent ]
Not as educated as I should be ... (0.00 / 0)
But I voted No to supporting the bailout in this poll.  Part of my opposition is related to how hard they tried to rush it.  It felt like a false sense of urgency to some extent.

Don't know if it's worth correcting, but there's a "typo" in the poll ...
"Do you approval of the job that Nancy Pelosi"

approval rather than approve.

Do you trust Barack Obama? (0.00 / 0)
I was OK until I got to this one. What exactly does that mean? Some possibilities:

1. Do I trust him to be reliably progressive? No.

2. Do I trust him to be infuriatingly 'bipartisan' -- in the Village sense of the word -- as often as possible? Yes.

3. Do I trust that he isn't a closet terrorist sympathizer? Fuck yes.

I'm assuming you mean 1 and answering accordingly.

The question was meant (0.00 / 0)
to get everyone who took the poll to answer "no", Obama is an untrustworthy piece of crap.

That was the purpose of Matt's poll question. To obtain a result wherein he can write a frontpage post saying "After bailout, Obama is seen as 'untrustworthy'"

It is beyond obvious. To ask such a question, especially after all of the bailout questions, it is barely different that some pathetic push-poll where you inquire about a person's favorability after a bunch of questions about something unpopular.

I can't wait for this to be presented as some kind of valid, scientific poll on the front page of Open Left.  Perhaps it can follow a post wherein Sirota accuses people like Donna Edwards of "murdering democracy" by voting for the bailout bill.

[ Parent ]
Trust (4.00 / 4)
I, for one, trust him to do whatever it takes to win this election. Isn't that what us progressives always whine about? Dems not doing enough to win an election? They are not tough enough, not risky enough, not vicious enough?

Well, Obama voted for FISA and voted for the bailout, and is poised to win this election. Pretty hard-headed of him - pretty vicious - to betray progressive to win an election that WILL NOT IN ANY WAY be decided by progressives.

I never thought the means justified the ends until living under 8 years of George W Bush. I guess slaughtering a million brown people in a war of choice changed my perspective. And I could give a shit what Obama does to win - what I give a shit about is not fighting war with Iran, or Russia, or North Korea. Laws can be changed later, but lives are lost for ever. That, to me, is a true progressive value.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
I trust him (4.00 / 4)
I trust Obama, and I voted that way.  Just as important I trust Donna Edwards.  

Is Obama a perfect progressive?  No.  But I trust him, and I hope most of this community feels the same way, even if your theory is correct.

"Keep the Faith"

[ Parent ]
I supported A bailout plan, just not this one (4.00 / 6)
I believe that Dems had the leverage and obligation to push for a much better plan, and the means to whip up enough votes to pass it in both houses. They just lacked the political courage to do so, for fear of both not having enough GOP votes to cover their asses in the election (and down the line, if the plan fails to do what it was supposed to do), and of upsetting their corporate and Wall St. donors. Well, that, plus the fact that many of them just don't give a damn about the people that this bill is supposedly meant to help--Americans.

It was FISA all over again. A total cave-in and capitulation to fear, cynicism and self-interest.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

I find... (4.00 / 6)
...a great deal of the anger and blame to be misplaced.

The survey is inadequate in accounting for where the real blame should be distributed.

The leadership in both House and Senate, Blue Dogs and certain other key players deserve the blame for any failings of the bill.

As I have said previously, I do believe some form of bailout was needed.  The inability of California (the world's 5th largest economy on its own) to procure credit to prevent collapse of state services was another sign of needed action.

Was this bill good? No, it was awful - but given the choice between nothing and this bill, this bill was an easy choice.

Why did we get this bill?  Because the Blue Dogs started the process by cutting off the power of the Democratic Majority to get a good piece of legislation (regulations, oversight, housing provision, no pork/tax cut extensions, etc) by making it clear they were not going to stand with the majority.  Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and Schumer took it to the next level of failure by repeatedly elbowing their own allies and pushing the bill right instead of left.  Senator Obama certainly didn't help the process with the statements coming out of his campaign and he should have put John McCain in his place the instant he opened his mouth about being a 'savior' for this crisis.  There should have been harsh statements and 60 second tv spots of McCain and Deregulation, featuring Phil Gramm, Rick Davis, etc, the health care statement...with a rally call to restore ALL the regulation and oversight in any bill that might be put forth.

Bush and Paulson came to the Democratic Leadership hat in hand, and they responded by having the hat cleaned and a pretty flower put on it.  Chris Dodd started moving the process to the left and he got his knees kicked in by his own party (for the 2nd time this year, thanks Democrats!).

In reality, the complexity of this issue was beyond the intelligence, expertise and experience of 70% or so of House Members (regardless of party) and more than half of the Senate.  Expecting them to digest the problem, conceive solutions and cast intelligent votes on legislation is fairly foolish in this short of a time frame.

So, no I don't support primary challenges of House Members based on their vote on this bill - I will support primary challenge of any House Member who a) votes against the liberal interest, b) lacks the courage to stand up and make an argument for their position on ANY issue, before casting the vote preferably, c)  lacks integrity and honesty d) likes pride/confidence in their own liberal values (ashamed of party logos/announcements, doesn't party build, etc)

We do need to upgrade a great deal of our elected Representatives, Better Democrats everywhere.  Blaming good ones for getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop on this vote is only going to hurt us.

As long as Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader, we cannot expect to have a liberal agenda get any opportunity in that body, even with 58 seats in Democratic hands.  Pelosi, Hoyer, et al have demonstrated NO leadership in the house, the majority only functions if their is some cohesion and unity - there is none.  That is an indicator of leadership.  The Blue Dogs go to the right first because they know that is where the power is - the White House has a 20% approval rating, that is certainly not the power.

We need more liberals to be vocal and make their case in their districts, in their states, regionally and nationally to advance our agenda.  Until that happens, we will be the permanent minority in terms of legislative power.

As for the question about "trusting Senator Obama" - he did nothing to draw distrust, he was honest about his position from the beginning and held true.  That position was not at all progressive/liberal, and certainly lacked the forward thinking and power expression that I would like to see - but that isn't who we nominated.  Anyone thinking Clinton would have done better is delusional, she is extremely similar to him in this regard, they play from the center and rarely make aggressive steps in either direction - when in doubt, they step in the direction of the corporate economy.

Anyone thinking there is something in here to signal you shouldn't vote for Obama...you are misreading it.  Obama MUST win in November, get off your ass and make sure he wins and wins big.  He isn't the great liberal lion we wanted, but he is pretty damn good compared to the alternative.  We can't have a repeat of past mistakes.  If Republicans can support Sarah Palin and John McCain, how can we not support Obama and Biden?  We must get a Democrat in the White House to clear out the Bush Appointees, we must get a Democrat in the White House to make the choices of Supreme Court Justices, we must win.  There is no purity and throwing off your vote this time.  Do what you can win in.  Worry about 2010 and 2012 after Thanksgiving. Mmmkay?

Whose fault is that? .. (0.00 / 0)
Why did we get this bill?  Because the Blue Dogs started the process by cutting off the power of the Democratic Majority to get a good piece of legislation (regulations, oversight, housing provision, no pork/tax cut extensions, etc) by making it clear they were not going to stand with the majority.

I know we don't want to be like Gingrich and Delay ... but sometimes .. you gotta stick together .. and Pelosi & Co. didn't yoke the leash tighter on the Blue Dogs .. especially to ride out the rest of Bush's term .. it is obvious to me that Pelosi sucks at politics .. and can't even run her own caucus very well either .. the more I read about Hoyer .. the more I am surprised he wasn't elected Speaker to begin with .. he knows how to get people to be beholden to him .. and the like .. basically he knows how to accumulate power .. and that is not a position we want a corporate Democrat to be in

[ Parent ]
it seems like you are indicating... (4.00 / 1)
...that I don't blame Pelosi and Hoyer...where i stated fairly clearly I do - I don't blame the 150 or so House Dems who got a shit sandwich as their only option to end imminent starvation.  I said:

As long as Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader, we cannot expect to have a liberal agenda get any opportunity in that body, even with 58 seats in Democratic hands.  Pelosi, Hoyer, et al have demonstrated NO leadership in the house, the majority only functions if their is some cohesion and unity - there is none.  That is an indicator of leadership.  The Blue Dogs go to the right first because they know that is where the power is - the White House has a 20% approval rating, that is certainly not the power.

Emphasis added.

[ Parent ]
Sorry about that .. (0.00 / 0)
and you are correct
[ Parent ]
npnp (0.00 / 0)
the awesome part is that I pasted the their-there typo without noticing it, sorry to any grammar nazis feeling angst as a result.
[ Parent ]
The bill is the way it is (4.00 / 5)
because Democrats saw down the road for once.

They didn't want to vote for ANY bailout that lacked significant Republican support.  In this sense I think their primary strategy had some merit since the request was made some 30 days before a general election.  The Dems in this instance were informed at every step by the sense that this bill was both required and a trap.  NO form of this bill - progressive or otherwise - was ever going to be less than political hell.  

Their tactical mistake was not demanding the heads of Cox and Paulson.  This narrative needed a recognizable villan that Democrats could use to run against.   Had Paulson and Cox been forced to resign, responsibility for the bailout would have been obvious.  

[ Parent ]
accountability (0.00 / 0)
Yes, too little attention has been placed on the regulatory regime that the Bush administration has enacted, and Cox in particular. Biden was on the right track during the debate with his emphasis on deregulation, but he needed to have a concrete story with a villain, as you say. Maybe today's New York Times article about Cox and the SEC will get things going.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Will Support Winning Campaigns (4.00 / 7)
My answer to the most important question--should we primary Democrats--is it depends.  I supported primary challenges in the past, especially this past election cycle.  But I have become a little weary.  For every Donna Edwards, there is an Ed Fallon.  After giving to Fallon and seeing the final result, I have to admit, I was worried that I had wasted my money.  So, if we are going to primary somebody, there should be a reasonable chance that we will win.

Winning means that we should focus on incumbent Democrats that are too conservative for their district and challengers that are a good fit for the district.  Winning means we have to start earlier in the election cycle.  Winning means that the primary candidate that we are supporting has to be a good candidate (e.g., Donna Edwards), not someone who couldn't be counted on to vote for Al Gore in a close election (Ed Fallon).  Winning means that we have no litmus test based on one vote in Congress, especially one taken under some level of duress.  Winning means we need to be better organized across all the liberal blogs, so that we can concentrate our resources on races that are widely supported.

I don't want to throw money away.  I've become a little more jaded about this since the most recent primary cycle. But if it looks like we're in to win, then I'll support it.    

Looking Ahead (4.00 / 2)
Yes.  A primary challenge is in order not only on this bill but also on telecomm immunity and the Iraq War.  

Something else to plan for:  gain and maintain control of state legislatures, especially in the big electoral vote states of Texas, Florida, New York, Pennslyvania, Ohio, etc.  State legislatures are important when it comes to redistricting, both to get more Democrats into the House of Representatives as well as more progressive Democrats.  Don't forget, there's a census in 2010, too, so legislative control is crucial for reapportionment in 2011.  It will affect the 2012 election.  

Also, let's make sure we have an on-going voter education effort, especially in Bush/Blue Dog districts, so everyone knows as much as they can about the issues before election season gets underway.

About that last question? (4.00 / 1)
We should have been supporting better Dems more vigorously in primaries this cycle.  When you really take the time to dig into how much the corporatist Dem establishment has rigged congressional races for their favorites, under cover of the glare of the presidential race this cycle...well, it's downright scary how much ground they took largely unchallenged in the congressional primararies.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse with the example in my own district this cycle - but then I don't have to - there are plenty of examples of the DCCC doing all they can to interfere in primaries.  Only difference between now and, for example, what they did with Duckworth/Cegelis in 06, is that they are taking care to use side-channels so they keep their fingerprints relatively clear of the scene.

Just to set the waters boiling... (0.00 / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

At least this man has a clear viewpoint that he can articulate.
What is the Progressive answer to this?

What does the question (4.00 / 1)
"Do you trust Obama" have to do with "the bailout"?

Any reason in particular you are asking that question? Kind of reminds me of Larry Johnson.

Paranoia strikes deep (4.00 / 1)
The question's being asked because it is rather fundamental. Obama took ownership of this bailout by whipping the vote in the House. That rightly should cause us to ask what sort of economic policy we will get from him in 2009 - whether he will try to muddle through with some variant of the same failed policies of the last 30 years, or whether he'll embrace the New Deal. He gets to choose whether he wants to be FDR or Carter.

If we trust Obama then we don't need to organize to ensure he picks the FDR option. If we don't trust him then that means we do need to organize.

The problem I have with trusting politicians is it's a surrender of one's own power. We can make them change their votes. It's not easy but it is certainly possible.

[ Parent ]
The Bush Blackmail Factor (4.00 / 3)
This gross Bailout Boondoggle started with the President, the Fed Chairman and the Treasury Secretary declaring the need save the the banks or face economic 9/11. They waited until Congress on the brink of leaving Washington for campaign season. They announced the crisis to the entire world and held a gun to the head of Congress.

I believe the Bush calculus was something like this.

1.) They get up to 700 billion dollars to pass around to our cronies as the Bush presidency ends.

2.) Democrats will delayed from campaigning for at least a week.

2.) If there is a fight in Congress or if markets crash then voters may be disgusted with Washington and be discouraged from turning out to vote.

Given this starting place there was little chance that anything good could come out of the process.

I followed the debate in the press and found it really difficult to decide what I thought was the best response. People like Paul Krugman gave me the impression that the banking system was at risk.

I would have preferred for congress to hold hearings and to demand relief for mortgage holders.


I supported the bailout (4.00 / 4)
and it goes without saying that I don't support primaries against those who voted for them on those grounds.

Bottom line: there will be a large number of critical votes next year when Obama wins.  They include voting on a UHC package (which will mean forcing Obama left) and some tough votes on the budget which probably will require a tax component.  There are others: it's a long list.

This is going to sounds cynical, but the votes next year will go much further in determining if a House member deserves a primary or not.

Deciding to primary someone now based on this bill given the votes next year (if I am right) is bad politics. It is essentially to lose any leverage with members who we may need to influence next year.  

I feel like screaming (0.00 / 0)
Our lives are going to change forever.  We've been robbed, threatened with martial law.

One liberating benefit about a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress will be "no excuses" and the ability to hold them accountable without doubt.  

This is a joke, right?

Opportunity Missed (0.00 / 0)
Duke.S is close to my thinking - the Bush blackmail factor looms large here. The pattern is so clear that it should have had the Democratic members slowing down this rush to further deplete the treasury. One opportunity that was missed here involves the ideas discussed by Joseph Stiglitz in his Nation article titled A Better Bailout.

Support primary challengers? You bet. But this is only one more example of a Congress that, as a whole, is weak and noncommittal. It is one more symptom of a Congress that is on the brink of becoming irrelevant as a separate branch of government. Former Congressman Ed Markey said as much in his recent testimony before the Senate. They have lost sight of their constitutional purpose to govern the country and to be a check against the executive.

This economic crisis, which, in my opinion, is just beginning will provide many more opportunities for progressive reforms. Even the weak and noncommittal Congress will find themselves forced to govern as a body as the economy worsens.

The vote on this bill is not the only reason to support primary challengers. New members of Congress who understand the need to restore Congress' power are sorely needed.

The problems we are facing, and the economy is one of the biggest, will require an active Congress generating ideas for solutions instead of looking only to the executive branch on a crisis by crisis basis. There are many economists saying the Paulson plan will not achieve the desired result. But mix a weak Congress with a fast faltering financial market and add the Bush blackmail factor and we get bad policy.

This particular crisis is far from over, and many of us will be taking a harder look at our representaives. The hard times ahead may very well pave the way for quite a few successful primary challengers.

Matt (4.00 / 1)
if things keep going the way they are, in two or three or four months, none of us will give a damn about the bailout
long way to go (4.00 / 2)
I think that this website and other progressive activists on the internet should get better at discussing and advocating on behalf of complex policy.

I don't think you explain your position very well. I am not always sure that you know what you are talking about. Your view of the world can be very narrow. On policy I don't trust you any more than I trust the talking heads. I think you generally let your anger and passion get in the way. And finally I think that there is this sense that a 'good' progressive should follow the leader when time and time again what I see on a local level is very different than what you and other Washington folk advocate for on a national level.

For me being progressive is being local--really understanding and honestly responding to local issues in a logical, solution and results-based manner. Not sure that you understand that.

I think the progressive institutions in DC are sorely lacking-longtime compromised-and torn between being an locally effective institution like Center for Community Change and have influence and power on a national scale like....I can't even name one. (Children Defense Fund was effective once upon a time).

I agree with Lux that the national groups need to be strengthened but I am nervous that the same old junk will emerge.

There is a disconnect between local and national. I see this more in progressive policy making than in any other arena.  

did you mean "did you support this bailout?" (4.00 / 2)
as a rohrshach test? :)  it's very openended and difficult for those of us who are perennially conflict ridden and neurotic :)  

in seriousness though, was the question intended to mean the bill as passed or any bill built off paulson's proposal or the idea of a bill at all?

They could have waited for a new Congress (0.00 / 0)
furthermore, the bill that was passed was WORSE than the original bill.

So much for listening to the people.

The people spoke and the government went even further in the OPPOSITE direction!

That needs to sink in to your brains.

Nest Congress will meet at January 3rd... (0.00 / 0)
..and in the meantime, news has just come out that the economy lost 159000 jobs in September. Not to speak of all the reports about small businesses and communities being unable to get any new credit. And you still think acting on these problems can wait until next year???
Hmm...  
[ Parent ]
How many people here actually read the bill? (0.00 / 0)
From what I can tell, it's available here http://publicmarkup.org/bill/s...

FYI, I've only looked through section 109 on mortgage relief.

If you've read the bill, can you cite the sections which are screwed up? Are there any good parts of the bill which you would keep? Would that justify only "modifying" the bill as opposed to repealing it completely?

Warning, the PDF is 451 pages long (http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com/pdf/eesa_senate.pdf). Wonder what Ray Bradbury would say.

In any case, after all of this discussion, I'm still feeling uninformed.

It's the conversation, stupid (4.00 / 1)
I think too many commenters on OpenLeft have criticized Matt and Siorta for being too emotionally driven in their criticism of the bailout. I don't always agree with them either and am still very conflicted about the bill that just was passed and signed (kind of in the Krugman vein that the bill stinks but something had to be done, and quickly). But what Matt did so well was stir up conversation among the OpenLeft community that made me much more informed about the bailout and its consequences. I don't expect Matt or any other OpenLeft front-pager to be the most informed voice about every topic. He just needs to be the catalyst for the conversation that leads to building the of collective wisdom.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
Ok, ok, kudos to them.. (0.00 / 0)
for doing some great stirring. I prefer my cocktails shaken, but whatever.  
[ Parent ]
At the end of the day (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to have to become an economist to be able to figure out how my representatives should vote.  I am paying those guys in Washington to get the job done, and I am willing to trust that they are capable of it.

EXCEPT - there is absolutely no reason to think that they are.  We don't elect any of our representatives with anything like that in mind. The Senate was conceptualized by the framers as a meritocratic body - and rewarded with 6 year terms so as to ensure they provided a steadying hand over the populist House of Representatives.  But we don't elect senators with that view in mind.  

The senate revised the bill, and handed the House a revised version to vote for - and the House followed along.  That's how it SHOULD be.  But do we know with any degree of certainty that the Senators knew anything at all to be able to make qualified decisions here?  Or were they just hostage to Secty Paulson's pronouncements and the bullying of superior knowledge?

The survey asks should we be looking for challengers in 2010.  Answer - I would like to hold a merit test for all senators - they should have a masters degree or better in some field relevant to governance.  Economics, constitutional law, some scientific field, etc.  My representatives should represent the opinions of my district, and my senators should have the voice of wisdom to say - popular or no, this is what we need to do.  And when senators pull rank like that - I want to know that they have the knowledge to justify it.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



What cheeses me off these days? (0.00 / 0)
A dearth of U.S. economists offered a wealth of more reasonable solutions in the face of the Paulson "Plan" and not one of them seem to have been called upon by Washington, on both sides of the aisle (if there are indeed two sides of the aisle).

How much trouble would it have been to pull these people aside and ask them to put their collective knowledge together for the good of the country, and legislate that?

Instead of sitting on the sidelines offering advice, these are the men and women our government should have turned to for a responsible solution. Instead, we hand over our wallets to the guy holding a gun to our heads.

That's what cheeses me off these days.

Driving it home. (0.00 / 0)
Just want to add some food for thought:

In WWII, with backs against the wall, did government appointees and elected officials come together to devise a weapon of mass destruction whose use would strike so much fear into our foes that they would surrender? Did they ask lobbyists to do this? Or did they find men who were experts in physics, mathematics, etc. to come up with this weapon?

Hmmm.

We face such foes today, and passed legislation written in large part by the enemy.

[ Parent ]
Political (0.00 / 0)
The bailout bill was a terrible answer to the problem, and (except for more FDIC insurance) should NOT have been passed. The money should have been saved to bail out Main Street, because the deep recession will come regardless. I think Roubini is right that there are a bunch of banks that should not be saved. The only way out is through.

I was hoping the House Republicans would come through for us again, and the whole bailout question would get punted until the new administration, or at least after the election.

That said, we were backed into a corner, politically, and the result was probably the best that could be expected. It could have been worse: McCain voting against it.

Now, McCain can't run against us for causing the problem, nor can he run against us for the bailout.

A Poll on the Bailout | 55 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