The Hill reported today: "Unlike the three-hour vote on the 2003 Medicare drug bill, House Republican leaders did not put much pressure on their rank-and-file members to back the rescue package." John Boehner, Roy Blunt and other "leaders" of the House Republicans thought they could strike a public pose as if they really cared about the credit seizure that looms over the country while secretly hoping to pin the bill's passage on Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, (and by association, Barack Obama). Republican House members would then be free to return to their home districts and run against the "Democrat" bailout. They wanted Speaker Pelosi to pass the bill without much Republican cover so they could tell their constituents that the Democrats were just "picking the taxpayers' pockets again." In 2003, when the House Republicans were in the majority and wanted to pass a sweetheart deal for their corporate benefactors in the pharmaceutical industry they had no problem "whipping" up enough votes. Just ask Billy Tauzin and Tom DeLay. But when the economy is teetering on the verge of a severe credit crisis they refuse to put in the extra effort. They wanted the bailout to pass without many Republican votes so they could blame the majority and milk it in the remaining weeks until the election.
The No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Acts were "bi-partisan"; the Medicare prescription drug bill that forbids the federal government from volume buying pharmaceuticals was "bi-partisan"; the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq was "bi-partisan." The deregulatory fervor that included the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which knocked out a pillar of the New Deal regulatory banking reforms, was also "bi-partisan."
And now we're being told that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill is a really great thing, in part, because it is "bi-partisan."
Whenever you hear the word "bi-partisan," even during the waning hours of the Bush years, it usually means something very bad is about to happen.
In principle, I do not support this bailout bill. I agree with the critical flaws in the bill that Dennis Kucinich articulated this morning on Amy Goodman's show, Democracy Now! I don't believe in a government welfare program for Wall Street swindlers who had the audacity to pump up the paper value of one of their hidden, unregulated derivatives, "credit default swaps," from $631 billion in 2001 to $62 trillion in 2008! I think some people should be indicted; some people should go to jail.
These crooks have the economy in a vise so we must give them what they want because if we don't it's going to bring "this sucker down" (to paraphrase President George W. Bush). If the government does not ease jittery stock markets by pumping fresh cash into the system and taking on Wall Street's toxic derivative sludge the ensuing credit seizure could slam the economy into a years-long depression. It would then take billions and billions of dollars to try to prime the pump. The bailout bill was a desperate attempt to keep a recession from becoming a depression.
The gap between the super rich and everybody else has grown for decades, and the ruling elites are geniuses at passing the costs of their reckless speculation onto the backs of working people. All of a sudden I hear Bush Administration mouthpieces such as the billionaire Henry Paulson, who in the past have told us that we are all on our own and we shouldn't rely on government for anything, speak about "our" financial markets as if working people have been the ones swapping "collateralized debt obligations" and "hybrid debt instruments." We now hear from the dead duck Bush regime: "All for One and One for All!" The whole damn mess would be nothing but a bad joke if the situation were not so dire. There is going to be real suffering soon among our society's most vulnerable people. Whatever Congress decides to do or not do the economy is already tanking and hurting working people across the country. I would rather see the leaders of this nation stabilize the markets at least until the Obama Administration can take over and begin the long arduous process of cleaning up after the worst president in American history. It is my hope we can seize the opportunity this crisis presents, hold President Obama's feet to the fire, and construct a new social compact in this country, a New New Deal.
Im not sure how to decode it. I think he's talking too much.
In a debt driven economy businesses and individuals need loans; banks need liquidity. But when banking institutions are unable or unwilling to provide loans it creates a credit contraction. Main Street, i.e. small businesses, students, home buyers, farmers, etc. are hit hardest.
Millions of foreclosures cost banks billions upon billions of dollars. With that many and more foreclosures just over the horizon throwing a trillion dollars at the financial sector would be an endeavour in futility. Presumably that money would be absorbed as lost revenue rather than provide liquidity.
To keep loss at a minimum stemming the tide of foreclosures makes more sense. Affordable mortgage payments allows homeowners to keep their homes. Money flowing back into the banking system builds the liquidity financial institutions need to lend money for small businesses and farmers to continue operating; students continue learning; etc. in this context everyone wins.
But a lot more must be done before the economy is robust and strong. Borrowing a trillion dollars to jump start the economy is a short-term fix with long-term consequences. Long-term solutions starts with Main Street all the way to Wall Street.
Move from there!!
We need to stop the banks from lending money to deadbeats period !!
i think its true that the demo's could hav gotten it passed by themselves....
but also the republicans could have let county come first instead of blaming nancy....
both sides should get kicked out....as much as possible...but the people will re elect those bums
an i believe that both demo's an republicans are in some way very freindly too the wall street guys who made this big mess...probably know the bankers by their first names an their children....go to their birthday parties an weddings...an would like too bail them out after the election....when their job as a senator or house rep...is safe....
both would be presidents showed no leadership with their own party.....
i support obama but would hav rather had hillary ....how does that kenndy speech go
some people see things as they are an ask why...i dream of things that never were an say..why not
i ramble...but .....
both sides need too grow up....the meany nancy an the cry babies republicans
"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you." Ben Franklin
And right now they are eating us!!
Any bets on whether Pelosi will favor calling for another vote on the bail-out bill before the Dow can go much higher?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahwz_k5JvuB8&refer=worldwide
Big difference. Big.
To fund it, increase the marginal tax rate for 2008 on people over $500,000, which should hit the fat cats who benefited. Consider the proposals to put a small tax on purchases and sales of securities.
Also consider Obama's suggestion of increasing FDIC protection, although I doubt very many people have over $100,000 in any one bank. Maybe provide some FDIC protection for money market mutual funds, although their higher returns was supposed to be a risk premium for the lack of insurance.
Banks who need more capital should get it the old-fashioned way: pay higher rates on deposits. That will immediately reward savers and help the little old ladies living on CDs. It also gives local & regional banks a chance to compete with the mega-holding companies.
I agree. The govt needs to do something. Sending $700 billion to the financial industry, however, AIN'T IT!!! What they need to do is take over the bad mortgages! This will mean that people will be able to afford their homes, the businesses will no longer have "toxic debt" on their books, and it will actually pay back the costs AT A PROFIT for the govt! If this were to occur, it would be a win-win!!! I don't think that it will happen, certainly not under bushco, but I have hopes that perhaps this will fail until after the election!
I take a back seat to no one in criticizing Republicans, but Nancy Pelosi personally screwed this one up:
(1) She called a vote NOT KNOWING IN ADVANCE, name by name, who was going to vote for, and who against, the bill. Knowing that is the Speaker's job.
(2) She delivered a PARTISAN DIATRIBE BEFORE THE VOTE. Doing that (as fun as it may have been for us) abandoned the high ground of bipartisanship, providing political cover at the most critical moment to at least a dozen Republicans who disliked the bill and, probably, all progressive women.
(3) Having lost the high ground, she ALLOWED FIVE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN TO VOTE "NO", along with several Subcommittee heads, when she should have threatened to strip them all of their chairmanships, instead. She should have threatened Dennis Kucinich (not an easy Representative to influence) with expulsion from the Party. She didn't, and they all voted "No".
When even as doctrinaire a group of right wingers as Paul Ryan, Boehner and Blunt pressed for the national interest over partisan advantage, Pelosi's failure as Speaker was all the more appalling.
We need to forgive--but remember. She gets one more shot at getting this right. I hope and expect she will. If not, the Speaker's job should go at once to someone tough enough and smart enough to get the job done: Rahm Emanuel or Barney Frank. Failing again isn't an option.
Any cost or instability for tax payers must be taken out of the hides of the people who caused this mess and have profited from these usery and insane lending practices. And I think it is important for Democrats to use language like, "taking it out of their hides" to renforce the understanding that this mess was no accident or mistake. This is a scandal perpitrated by people who knew quite well what the results would be and just thought that they could duck out before the kaka hit the air conditioner.