Bush Pushes To Pass Bailout Package.... Dems Say Not So Fast

Bush urged Congress to move fast on the $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street. Democratic lawmakers urged caution, citing warrantless wiretapping as an example of what happens when a bill is passed in haste. Below is an excerpt on Bush's statement regarding the rescue plan. Underneath the excerpt is a quote from Senator Leahy, comparing Bush's urgency today with his push to pass the Patriot Act, legislation that has been criticized for giving the government enhanced powers to spy on the public.

From The Washington Post:

President Bush this morning warned lawmakers against trying to make too many changes to the proposed financial bailout legislation, saying the plan needs to be passed quickly and relatively intact to stem damage to global financial markets.

Weekend negotiations "made good headway" in crafting a bill to bolster a system weighed down by problem home mortgages, Bush said. But with proposals circulating to include provisions for homeowners in the bill or to use it to limit executive compensation, Bush cautioned that too many added provisions could impede approval of critically needed legislation.

Patrick Leahy on the bailout package:

"We will do something this week -- but if we learned anything from right after 9/11, it's that the biggest mistake is to pass anything they ask for just because it's an emergency," Leahy says.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman knows of what he speaks. He sponsored the original Patriot Act, only to feel betrayed later when the Bush administration used it to justify domestic wiretapping.

Katharine Zaleski is the Senior News Editor at HuffingtonPost.com. She can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[jojojo]

Dems damn well BETTER push back.

[Pdubya]

does pushing back constitute $700 billion with strings attached? or does it include another $200 billion for their lobbyists too?

i bet it won't include cutting the $700 billion.

meanwhile, We The People will don our red and blue capes and pretend that one of the wings of the socialist plutocracy will save us.

[tomfl78]

Under Obama we will became a socialist nation

[BBDisk]

With the government owning mortgages, we will already be a socialist nation.

[ginxy]

Nope. Bush has that covered already with his $700,000,0­00,000.00 government bailout of the private financial market.

so-cail-ism-
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

[breakingnews]

Have you been asleep for the last week??

[JoeBuck15]

From now on anyone claiming Obama is a socialist should be tied to a post, stripped down and horsewhipped as someone reads to them the details of Bush's bailout plan.

[LoyalOpposition]

Under McSame the rule will continue to be: that gains will remain private, while any losses will be paid for by the government. Wait, that's socialism BIG TIME.

[ivillage]

Seattle Times Endorses Barack Obama
http://www.sefermpost.com/sefermpost/2008/09/seattle-times-e.html

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Obama is holding a steady lead in the polls since last week 48.0-44.3 on average from Pollster website.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

[kajoloTX]

The administration's version of this bill is just another example of Republican­/corporate greed and power-grabbing. It is like Bush - Cheney and their cronies have just found one more last-minute way to rip us off and give the money to their rich corporate friends - that is, if we let it pass quickly enough!! I can't believe how underhanded this whole thing is. What I have just come to understand is the intensely crooked part of Paulson's plan called "section 8". It is like we (taxpayers) pay the bill but get no ability to view or judge what the administration does with the $700 billion. The following is quoted from another HP article about the bailout plan: "Section 8 is a singularly transformative sentence of economic policy. It transfers a significant amount of power to the Executive Branch, while walling off any avenue for oversight, and offering no guarantees in return. And if the Democrats end up content with winning a few slight concessions, they risk not putting a stop-payment on the real "blank check" - the one in which they allow the erosion of their own powers."
This plan is an outrage that must be stopped!

[boing007]

The administration's version of this bill is just another example of Republican­/corporate greed and power-grabbing. It is like Bush - Cheney and their cronies have just found one more last-minute way to rip us off and give the money to their rich corporate friends - that is, if we let it pass quickly enough!! I can't believe how underhanded this whole thing is.

I second that emotion.

[sacrebleu]

Is there an attorney in the house who could clarify this language from the draft of the Legislative Proposal for me? My own interpretation is that the Secretary would have zero accountability.

"Sec. 8 Review

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Source: NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html

[canobserv]

Yup Yup, now why would they include "Section 8" unless they thought the repubs were going to win again Hmmmmmm... I smell a rat..... I am afraid of what will happen if Obama loses and it is shown it was stolen....­i don't think people are going to take this again...

[jhwkr]

We SHOULDN'T take it again. I think that that would be the time to rise up and take a quote from Obama and say "Enough"!

[Shaddup]

Seriously, we shouldn't just roll over again.

[shystar]

No accountability is correct in a nutshell. No oversight by the congress, absolute power by the executive branch on spending the 700 billion.

[CaliTLC]

You read it right.

[Cowtippin]

I know how we can take care of this $ 700,000,00­0.00 bailout. We should have President Obama raise the taxes of the 52,000,000 people who re-elected G.W Bush in 2004 Who is with me? This is there punishment for being so dumb.

[heal57]

I'm with you. Dems must say NO NO NO to this. The repubs have screwed the people for the last time. NO NO NO!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!

[FaceYourFears]

I agree

[BBDisk]

You're underestimating ... he'll be raising taxes on just about everyone. It might not be income taxes, but when he hits the oil companies for their "windfall" profits, you can best be assured that the oil companies will recover those profits by raising prices to you and me.

[Shaddup]

Now I understand YOUR partisanship. You're working for an oil company. How much are you getting paid to spam this web-site?

[bygollymissmolly]

Ok, then you must be really mad at Ms. Palin. She imposed a "windfall profit tax" on the US oil companies in Alaska so that she could give an extra $1,200 to every man, woman and child in Alaska (the source of her high approval ratings). Because of Ms. Palin, those oil companies raised the price of oil we pay. So every time you fill up your tank, think about the fact that your money is paying for that $1,200 Alaskans received last week.

[tomfl78]

Msohio

Pres .Clinton was the one whom put all the people in homes with all the sub-prime mortgages

[kasinca]

This is not true. Most of the sub prime lending has been done under the Bush administration. Remember, Bush was appointed in 2000 and this is 2008. When does Bush get credit for his failures. You guys can't continue to blame Clinton after he has been out of office for eight years.

[BBDisk]

The aggressive subprime lending was facilitated by the Clinton administration:

From 2004:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-subprime-day-2-usat_x.htm

[research]

You GOP liars and cheats had absolute control for 6 years!

[breakingnews]

REally? Prove it........­.

[BBDisk]

Proven:

"Where did this come from? It’s not as if subprime mortgages were brand new things in 1994. They’ve existed for quite a long time, but mortgage companies didn’t offer them very often. Something had to happen to generate such a marked increase. Financial markets don’t just shift to a new lending practice without a darned good reason. For there to be a tenfold increase in subprime mortgages means that something dramatic had to happen. So what was it?

In this case, it was the Clinton administra­tion."

Read the rest here: http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/21/the-roots-of-the-subprime-mortgage-mess-have-clinton-all-over-them/

[goldiekins]

I would also be reminded of the Iraq war. We listened to THEM. Never again. Big rush to go to war and here we still are, all bogged down in a war we should never have gotten into. And here they go again, as Reagan would say, trying to bamboozle us again. I can't wait for the Democrats to win in November and get this country back on the right track. What more will it take? One disaster after another. Shame on them. None of them deserve to represent us.

[magicmary]

I think they know Obama is going to win and they want to give him a bankrupt worthless government.

[ThePeacemakers]

Don't pass anything the Bush Admin proposes.
They're out of here in January...­don't let Bush and his skull and bones friends in the financial industry continue to rob the treasury blind on the way out.

[Voltage]

Fool me once...wel­l, you know.

[tomfl78]

Hare the truth hurts

[kasinca]

That answers the question of why the republicans never face the facts and try to create their own reality. In some circles that would be know as delusional.

[jhwkr]

Kasinca, that is why they have to lie their way to winning because they wouldn't know what the truth was if it hit them between the eyes.

[Msohio]

to tomfl78---
You have told your Fannie story, so I am just waiting on your Freddie tale.

[tomfl78]

the Dem's have been in charge of Congress the since 06

[kasinca]

Tom,

There has been a Bush at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, twenty of the past twenty eight years. The GoP controlled congress most of the time Clinton was President. Are the thugs of the GoP responsible for anything or were they there just to collect tax dollars? You are a fool and everyone here can see that. Now go away like a good little troll.

[ThePeacemakers]

They still don't have the majority to override vetos.
Just ability to bring bills to votes and they shouldn't do ANYTHING the Bush Crime family proposes.

[kasinca]

There has been a Bush in the White House twenty of the past twenty eight years. The GoP has controlled the House since 1994 until 2006. Take credit where it is due.

The republicans have been pushing for deregulation since 1980. It is their deal.

[research]

No they haven't. Lieberman is an independent. Cheney is the tie breaker, and Bush will veto anything the GOP doesn't want.

The GOP doesn't have the same absolute power they had for 6 years.

In those 6 years of absolute power all they GOP did was deregulate.

[jhwkr]

Maybe you ought to do the math...The­y did not take office until January of 07! That isn't even two years yet and the Republicans have the highest level of fillibuster in that short time frame than any other Congress in history (131 THANK YOU!)