BREAKING NEWS: We don't have any money for anything

According to the New York Times, the House has just approved the bailout package with the pivotal tax break for toy wooden arrow producers.  The budget deficit next year will be $1.3 trillion.  The positive news is that if you own a house, there is a good chance it will retain several more percentage points of its value for a few more years.  If you don't own a house, good job on your fiscal restraint and go fuck off.

So now, of course, the economy is back on track on the the government will sell all of these mortgage-backed securities at a profit.  Just like the Iraq War was going to be funded by oil revenues. cough.cough.

Update [2008-10-3 15:11:42 by the mollusk]: Oh, by the way, here's Krugman's ringing endorsement of the plan.

For the fact is that the plan on offer is a stinker — and inexcusably so. The financial system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted down. Obviously, there weren’t: the Paulson plan was clearly drawn up in haste and confusion. And Treasury officials have yet to offer any clear explanation of how the plan is supposed to work, probably because they themselves have no idea what they’re doing. Despite this, as I said, I hope the plan passes, because otherwise we’ll probably see even worse panic in the markets. But at best, the plan will buy some time to seek a real solution to the crisis.
It brings tears to my eyes in its beauty and simplicity. Like a delicate tulip.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[Update] OK, this is really strange. Again, from Krugman.
Has the bailout already failed? OK, I know that’s premature. And I place no weight at all on the fact that the Dow plunged after the vote. But it is interesting that short-term Treasury yields are down — only 0.13% on one-month — suggesting that the flight to safety continues unabated. Against this, John Jansen reports some signs that money markets are unfreezing, slightly. We’ll learn more next week. But I have a prediction: well before January 20, Congress will be asked to vote on bailout 2.0.

Still trust Paul Krugman's judgement on this? Think he'll be for the next one too?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/has-the-bailout-already-failed/

Tags: bailout (all tags)

Comments

83 Comments

Re: BREAKING NEWS: We don't have any money

It's very liberating to be completely broke.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 09:36AM | 0 recs
A bit surprised...

Well, I was wrong, I thought the house Repubs would kill it.

Need to see the head count, who voted how.

If they were bought off by pork, then their little dog and pony show stand on principal looks as shallow as their family values...

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: A bit surprised...

It takes two to tango.  Some Dems probably changed their vote after "pressure" by House Leadership.  I wonder how those conversations went.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: A bit surprised...

Same thing, I am sure.

But, I think the Dems needed enough Repubs changing their votes to claim bicameral support.

Again, want to see how voted how.

My bet is, the southern Repubs held the line, not a lot of housing value or manufacturing jobs to lose in their districts if the credit shrinkage really would have smashed industry.

They had nothing to lose, so they could play the ideologue card all the way.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 09:45AM | 0 recs
think more political

... close races got the no votes, I'm pretty sure.

by RisingTide 2008-10-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
What price will the "assets"

to be bought at?

And will it be at all proportional to their actual market value NOW?

This is really disgusting.

by architek 2008-10-03 10:26AM | 0 recs
i think the at market provision got into the bill

not sure though... maybe you can google for it.

by RisingTide 2008-10-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
We don't have any money for anything

Get real.

by nouche1 2008-10-03 09:39AM | 0 recs
bwah, ha ha ha!

Let's hear the candidates stump speeches now!

Health care? scratch that
Education? scratch that
improve Infrastructure? scratch that
less taxes? scratch that

It's my understanding that the majority of the calls and emails congress received were against the the bailout. FYI; there were other plans presented and ignored.

by soyousay 2008-10-03 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: bwah, ha ha ha!

uh, I'm pretty sure the "less taxes" thing will still be in their stump speeches.  after all, the economy grows when taxes are reduced.  cough.cough.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
Reduce them here....

...raise them there; that always works.

by soyousay 2008-10-03 09:50AM | 0 recs
health care is FREE MONEY

sorry, that one will still be on the program.

by RisingTide 2008-10-03 09:49AM | 0 recs
I seriously doubt it...

...not without financial strings attached.

by soyousay 2008-10-03 09:51AM | 0 recs
People are really going to need it..

They won't have jobs.

That produces a lot of stress. Unrelenting stress often makes people really sick. People who have been poor their whole lives, and who live with other poor people in poor communities often have developed ways to deal with it, but people who have had better times deal with it very badly. If you have very poor people living alongside rich people that makes it even worse.

The knowledge of injustice and inequality is very bad for people's health.

They can't deal with it. That is one of the reason many people buy the GOP's line. If they start to question the lies, and start realizing that they have been lied to SO much, but they cannot do anything to stop it, it makes people very uncomfortable.

Over time, its extremely bad for people's health. They are going to have to deal with this situation or its going to destroy a whole nation's health before long.

by architek 2008-10-03 10:34AM | 0 recs
Kerry told us health care was off the table and

Obama has always been against universal/mandated health care for adults - basically nothing has changed because he doesn't have the balls to address serious problems for fear of losing his re-election campaign starting the first day he's in office.

Democrats and Obama have pushed and won $150 billions for pork! See how well that will work for them - they have lost or deserve to lose the elections because of this. I've been right all along about voting these charlatans out of office because they are all corrupted by corporate america and wall street. Bought and paid for, all of them - by this vote they have bankrupted the country - half of the money is going to overseas banks and how lovely that people who go to NASCAR will get a tax credit for their purchases at conscession stands and the likes.

Reid and Pelosi are a disgrace by caving in AGAIN to Bush! How reassuring! What leadership!  

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:03PM | 0 recs
Oh, not again from you.....

Fly back to NoQuarters and TexasDarlinks HellholeofRacistRage.com, Suzie.

It's the same old bitter from you, no matter what the subject.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:26PM | 0 recs
Truth hurts doesn't it? So your answer is to try

to exile me from this site because you do not dissension or criticism of your candidate - how very mature and democratic of you -  I've been coming here since 2001 but hadn't participated in any discussion because there was no need to - I was in agreement.

I'm not going anywhere - live with it - my 40  yrs as a staunch democrat allows me to critize the party and the nominee which changed course drastically this election cycle.  If you want to participate in an echo chamber, I would suggest you move on to dailykos.

by suzieg 2008-10-03 01:23PM | 0 recs
funny thing about kos

... my favorite diarist on there is a Republican.

Dr. David Brin -- you've heard of him?

by RisingTide 2008-10-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Kind of

It's my understanding that the majority of the calls and emails congress received were against the the bailout

Most of the early calls, the purists, the idealogues, those pissed at wall street fat cats.

According to what I heard, the business community started to weigh in, and the congress critters felt a little more on solid ground.

This deal sucks, but the Republics took the brakes off the car, and it hit a telephone poll.

Just like the handed President Clinton a boat anchor, they are handing President Obama one.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

business community started to weigh in
Well, there ya go.

I did see a congressman interviewed today; he said most of his calls were against the bill but he changed his mind and voted for it anyway.

It's an appropriate time to make a trip to the Dump. Later.

by soyousay 2008-10-03 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

But, these guys KNOW who call them, the hard cores, the ideologues. Like us?

THEY probably made some calls, found out how the business guys felt.

THOSE are the folks they need on their side in the relection, the money cats?

Is that fair? Who said this was fair?

Have fun at the dump!

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

yeah, I guess nihilism is the best response to this.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

No Nihilist I, seems to me this is pragmaticists vs Idealogues.

I figure, ANY DEAL will suck, but something had to be done.

Call me Paul Krugman, he is certainly smarter then me, maybe you too, on economic matters.

Plus, kind of depends on what side of this you stand on?

If you're young and idealistic, not a lot in your 401K and no house to depreciate, then LET THE WORLD FALL IN.

If you're like a lot of us, in business, watching credit lines tighting up, watching our 401Ks crash...you wanted something done.

My house value is holding steady, but I am in Seattle.

But, I have heard from a lot of folks that are freaked.

Be clear: this deal sucks, but I figured it was coming anyway.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

I don't get that mentality-

1- This sucks and will never work.
2- I think it should pass anyhow.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

I didn't say it wouldn't work, I don't know...

You don't know.

Fricking Paul Krugman doesn't know.

He said, SOMETHING had to be done, and he held his nose and blessed this bill.

Same here.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

don't know

Will the plan work? $700 billion in "don't know"

by soyousay 2008-10-03 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

If you're young and idealistic, not a lot in your 401K and no house to depreciate, then LET THE WORLD FALL IN.

Heh...Is this how you visualize me or are you referring to someone else?

If you're referring to me, I'm not that young, I'm a homeowner with no debt/mtg and I LIVE WITHIN MY MEANS. Therefore, I'm not worried about myself; I do worry about others though.

by soyousay 2008-10-03 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Kind of

Nah, I figured you were older, you're too damn cranky like me to be that young...(wink!)

Was figuring there are some young libertarian leaning Ideologue types who were willing to ride out the crash....

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:57PM | 0 recs
They always stand with corporate america, the

life blood of their re-election campaign - who amongst these people have principles when their cushy jobs are at stake - not with the $2,300 donnors but with the big moneyed corporations and special interest lobbies.

I'm voting against all incumbents regardless of party affiliation. No longer will I be a purist and die hard partisan - they don't listen to voters, never have and will continue to do so unless we replace them with fresh blood who has not been tainted yet!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:09PM | 0 recs
It's meaningless

"Ideologues" are part of the problem. Blind support is not helpful. If a politician talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk they don't deserve my support....or yours for that matter. IMO, Support is meaningless if you are receiving nothing more than lip service.

by soyousay 2008-10-03 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: bwah, ha ha ha!

Calls made were by a minority, and I doubt the veracity of the statements of the Congresscritters about the number pro/con.

If there was such an outcry, don't you think that there would have been a blowout in voting, not such a narrow margin.  Also, the polling numbers do not back up their statements.

sosayweall

by mydailydrunk 2008-10-03 10:23AM | 0 recs
I've just called Kennedy's office and spoke to

a real nice guy who admitted that the majority of the calls were against the bail out and especially the $150 billions in pork added to it now that the details are coming out about what is in it and it's outrageous!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I've just called Kennedy's office and spoke to

No one liked the pork, Suzie.

The Republic Idealogues who were SO against this were bought off?

So, who you voting for? McCain Palin?

They sure shone in this hour of crisis, since you seem to spend most of your time trashing the dems....

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:28PM | 0 recs
I wanted to vote for Nader but he couldn't get

on the ballot because of arcane rules in Texas - I'm going to write in his name instead -  but will not vote for either candidate who are both responsible for bankrupting the country simply to appease their wall street contributors -  

my motives are pure not partisan unlike yours which blind you to Obama selling out now that he's the nominee - don't you find yourself betrayed with his FISA vote, his about face with public campaign financing,renouncement of separation of church and state, iffy stand on abortion rights, etc...? this is not the candidate that you voted for in the primaries, this is the centrist nominee who will say anything to get the nomination and who is now backtracking as fast as he can on these positions.

The man has no principles as McCain, who voted for $150 billion in pork after running his campaign against them! They are both opportunists of the worse kind which  make them unpalatable for me to support. I want a true and consistent people first advocate and none of these two represent that for me!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: bwah, ha ha ha!

Can you provide the poll numbers you are referring to?

by soyousay 2008-10-03 12:33PM | 0 recs
At Least $1.3 trillion

FDIC and Treasury bailouts not included in your $1.3 trillion total. They've spent a $200-300 billion already on those.

Also, when the financial sector bailout has virtually no effect on the real economy, they'll probably ask for another $300-400 billion to do exactly the same thing. And Congress will approve that too.

by fairleft 2008-10-03 10:04AM | 0 recs
Obama's five-point plan to restart economy

1- Pay down the national debt by cutting all government spending.

2- Pay down the national debt by cutting all government spending.

3- Pay down the national debt by cutting all government spending.

4- Pay down the national debt by cutting all government spending.

5- Pay down the national debt by cutting all government spending.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's five-point plan to restart economy

My, you ARE cranked about this, aren't you?

Hey, how do you think this will change your daily life?

I KNOW what would have happened if my company couldn't get short-term credit: I was screwed, blued and tattoed.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's five-point plan to restart economy

My career depends upon government investment and that can dry up at any time.  Today the odds of that happening went up tremendously.  So while your business was thrown a lifeline by this bailout, my career was distinctly and negatively affected by it.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's five-point plan to restart economy

I hear you.

My girlfriend works for an NGO in health care, so I get it's going to have ramifications, I get it.

I blame the Republicans. They took the fricking brakes off the car...Yes, if we had some Dems with Cajones, maybe we would have put up a better fight.

Sorry to hear about your situation, good luck to you.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:22AM | 0 recs
Obama is a sell-out to his biggest contributor to

his campaign = Wall street! Dream on if you think he has your best interest at heart - he's proven 100% that he's no purer than all of the rest of them and he doesn't represent change but the same old, same old tired politics - he's done great damage to his image by pushing and winning the passage of this bill by basically promoting this irresponsible $150 BILLIONS in pork spending to get it through! He's complicit in bankrupting the country - SOME CHANGE!!!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:16PM | 0 recs
You are serial repeater...

Come on, I asked you nicely to fly back to NoQuarters, now SHOO SHOO...

We got the bitter, it's all you have.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING NEWS: We don't have any

We never had any money before the bailout.  I think it will be a good thing if the SEC has decided to do their job and regulate wallstreet.

by Spanky 2008-10-03 10:14AM | 0 recs
House hears mandate of the People!

subsidizes tow arrows...

by Paul Goodman 2008-10-03 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: House hears mandate of the People!

A couple of days ago, those Republicans house critters were your heroes?

Bought and paid for by some pork, eh Paul?

Looks like they shot one of those arrows into your Libertarian Idealogue butt!

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:40AM | 0 recs
I stand chastized?

Or is it blame the victim time?

by Paul Goodman 2008-10-03 10:49AM | 0 recs
To quote dave mason

There ain't no good guys...

There ain't no bad guys..

There's only you and me and we just disagree.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING NEWS

Me thinks Grover is filling up his bathtub as we speak.

by RichardFlatts 2008-10-03 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING NEWS

They handed President Obama a boat anchor.

Just like they handed President Clinton a boat anchor.

Clinton had Microsoft, Intel, and a clicking tech sector before the tech bubble burst.

If I was Obama, I would be thinking, no matter what, I am funding the Apollo Program Alternate Energy program.

Think FDR meets JFK meets Bill Clinton.

Obama will have to be good.

You don't trust Obama, I do.

It would be best for America if I turned out to be right.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING NEWS

I hope you're right because that's the only way any of this makes sense.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING NEWS

I hope he gets a mandate, I'm really closer to your take on this then you probably think, just having the credit crunch scared the CRAP out of me, so I sided with the Krugman school of thought:
Do something, cause the consequence of inaction were worse.

And, yes, read my sig line. I have never believed in ANY politician the way my mom believed in FDR?

So, all we can do is pray and give the man a little trust.

That is what I am doing? If he breaks my heart, the results will be the same as if I see around like some folks here, already bitter, already done.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:34PM | 0 recs
credit crunch scared me too

Right now I'm just at the "uh oh" stage. California going hat in hand was pretty close to my "oh shit" threshold.

by Neef 2008-10-03 12:41PM | 0 recs
This is a bipartisan mess

The Republicans were not watching.   But Dodd, Frank, Shumer, Obama, Clinton, etc. haven't called any hearings or clamped down in the last 2 years either.

Pols were pols and lined their pockets at our expense.   The banks didn't give Obama all that money for nothing.

by RichardFlatts 2008-10-10 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

Congratulations! That's exactly what the GOP wants you to believe.

But the truth is, we never have the money to do something until we choose to put the money to it. And then we have as much as we need. We didn't have any money during the Depression, but that didn't stop FDR from going ahead with the New Deal, and starting Social Security and unemployment.

The darkest hour is just before dawn.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

If this is the first step toward a Neo-New Deal, then you're probably right.  But if this week was any indication, it's just going to be more of the same.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

Why shouldn't it be the beginning of the Neo-New Deal? We're either going to invest in this country, or become a second-rate has-been. I'm betting on the former. I suspect most Americans will be on this same side once they realize that those are our only choices.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

"Why shouldn't it be the beginning of the Neo-New Deal?"

Well, it absolutely should, but we shouldn't have gone into Iraq either.  And yet, strangely, we did.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

That's what you get with the GOP.

With a Democratic administration, everything can and should change. Especially if we can get some decent majorities in Congress too.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

hope springs eternal

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 11:58AM | 0 recs
Are you nuts???? the democratic leadership has

helped to bankrupt the country by adding and passing $150 BILLION in outrageous PORK (more than what the war is costing us for a year) to make it acceptable to the republicans because it stunked to high heaven without it - what does it say that they had to result to more borrowing from China to make the bail out palatable because it was so bad?  - As democrats and ex-democrats, we should be hanging our heads in shame?

Who would believe that democrats are the instigators of $150 BILLIONS IN PORK with nothing for the middle class - how many of you have $250,000 in your bank account?

Nader has been right all along  - there is absolutely no difference between democrats and republicans - congress is corrupted to the bone!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:24PM | 0 recs
His point is still valid though

with a Dem majority, it would have passed a week earlier and 150B cheaper.

by Neef 2008-10-03 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you nuts???? the democratic leadership has

Come on suzie, lower the boom.

Tells us how Hillary would have avioded all this, I know you are dying to....

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you nuts????

I believe that our government can, should, and will come up with solutions to our many problems. Otherwise we will be relegated to second-class status on the world stage. That could very well happen, but Americans of all political pursuasions should do everything they can do prevent this from happening. It's in all of our best interest.

I'm a Democrat and do not hang my head in shame for what a Republican administration has done to bankrupt our nation. You do not sound like a Democrat at all.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 12:42PM | 0 recs
You're right, I'm no longer a democrat - I've

changed my party affiliation to independent - after the May democratic party coup and the way this primary was conducted with silence against the sexist and misogynistic attacks on Clinton, it was the last straw!

I have no regrets because of the action of the party on this bailout, especially the added $150 billions in pork. It could be understandable if it had come from republicans, because that has been their doing all along, but it's obscene being done by democrats! I'm not going to reward this foolish bailout with my vote -my vote this year will be to vote against all incumbents regardless of party affiliation and it's going to feel good! I'm so grateful that this happened before the elections therefore it will be fresh on my mind and will stop me wavering from my decision.

Forty years of being a stoic loyal democratic voter, gone! The party no longer represents my values! they have caved in to Bush on the war, on civil rights, on the budget/economic matters basically ceding to him on every occasion. It's sickening, so by leaving the party, I've saved myself a lot of aggravation and heartache/grief. I feel good about my new party affiliation and will use it to help clean out this corrupted and bought and paid for congress regardless of party affiliation. I live in Texas, so you'll be happy to learn that I have no other choice but to vote for democrats.

With age comes wisdom and idealism takes a back seat!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right, I'm no longer a democrat

If you're just against everything Democrats do, then you should just say so in the first place so we can not waste our time discussing things with you.

By the way, I was also a very strong Clinton supporter (and still am). But I'm an American and a Democrat who wants what's best for the country. I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. Our future is too important to get hung up on grudges and ideology. We need to focus on the serious work of fixing this country.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 01:12PM | 0 recs
100% in agreement about fixing the country but

i resent being called, a la Bush, unpatriotic because I see things differently from you and you profess to be a democrat by using the same talking points as republicans to sway me to your positions? You have defeated your argument by doing so!

I deeply believe that the whole congress should be voted out of office for this travesty of a bailout and added billions in pork, pushed and won by Obama, the head of the party, therefore his responsibility in the eventual bankruptcy of the country will rest on his shoulders.

The whole House could be voted out of office in November - fresh untainted blood in the house, how wonderful that would be. We would have their ears until the inevitable corruption occured but a lesson would have been taught about not listening to their constituents' needs and demands and would send a strong message that we will no longer accept being fooled to vote against our interests by the use of scare tactics. We can no longer afford them - they have to go because of their reckless votes.  

Leaving them in place will only assure more of the same and the bankruptcy of our country. Getting rid of them is patriotic, closing our eyes and ears to what is being done by democrats and republicans alike simply to win an election is not!

I do not believe that Obama is an agent of change - proof: pushing for this obscene 451 pages bailout by telling us that this will help the economy by adding $150 billions in pork simply for political expediency. That action alone scared me more than anything he has or hasn't said/done.

by suzieg 2008-10-03 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: 100% in agreement about fixing the country but

Who called you unpatriotic?
What Republican talking points have I ever repeated? I say we can do it all. I've never heard a Republican say anything remotely like that.

You want to see everyone voted out? You think a fresh new House would be wonderful and clean, and untainted by corruptions? Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy, and this election is very real.

You don't like Obama? That's fine. Is there some other Presidential candidate that you think will handle our economic crisis better? If so, you should definitely vote for them. I'm voting for the person on my ballot who I think will do the best job.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 02:47PM | 0 recs
Look back at the responses I get on this site -

I've been accused of being a republican, never being a "REAL" democrat, a member of a racist group, unpatriotic, bitter old woman and the list goes on and on and it's mostly by one person but a few have said some of the same things.

I'm really getting an education on the "new" politics by blogging here with such rabid Obama supporters and the reason why I could never be comfortable with this new, vile, you're either with us or you have to fake it to be taken seriously and in order to be given respect for my opinions but I refuse to leave after I've been a loyal reader of this site which accepted dissension for the 8 yrs I've visited simply because they want to take it over and convert it to an Obama echo chamber.

I'm seriously thinking about writing a paper about this new phenomenom where discussion/dissension from other democrats are no longer accepted and frowned upon, in such an extreme vile and insulting manner when it comes to criticism of Obama, by his supporters who resort to extreme hateful accusations and abassement of anyone who dares speak ill of their idol, something I've never seen/experienced before in 40 yrs of political activism.

I can wish for a clean congress which I'm realistic enough to know that it will never happen but I can also advocate for enough voters to do so which would send a clear message that our votes will no longer be taken for granted!

I cannot vote for Obama for many reasons but mainly because of his refusal to try to enact affordable health care and deceiving people at every turn by telling them that he will fight for universal health care when he's constantly said in the primaries that he would not do so for adults, only in his second term and only if it worked for kids, confirmed by Kerry who said health care is off the table. that's unforgivable coming from democrats - giving hope when he has none to give on that subject! He lacks political courage which makes me wonder what else he will cave in to make his point that he's bi-partisan - up to date, I'm not impressed with his sharp turn to the right on FISA and patriot bill, campaign financing, discouraging the separation between church and state, wavering on abortion, no longer wanting to tax the ultra rich and corporations, pro offshore drilling and the list keeps growing!

by suzieg 2008-10-04 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Look back at the responses I get on this site

I don't disagree with anything you say. I just don't take those people seriously. There are a bunch of idiots who say vile things and are clueless about politics, but I assume that a good portion of them are really GOP plants just trying to cause dissension among Democrats. Regardless, I'm not willing to let the GOP win under any circumstances.

I am the BIGGEST supporter of Universal Health Care and that is exactly why I do not "actively" support Obama with time, money, bumper stickers, signs, etc. I feel very strongly that I cannot stick my neck out for someone who will not support the issue that is most important to me. But, I think there's zero chance of getting UHC in a GOP administration, and some chance that an Obama administration could be shamed into it. So I'm spending my energy and time on getting some good Dems who support UHC elected to Congress. That way, I am able to stay positive about the election, and work towards important Democratic goals.

by LakersFan 2008-10-06 11:10AM | 0 recs
Look back at the responses I get on this site -

I've been accused of being a republican, never being a "REAL" democrat, a member of a racist group, unpatriotic, bitter old woman and the list goes on and on and it's mostly by one person but a few have said some of the same things.

I'm really getting an education on the "new" politics by blogging here with such rabid Obama supporters and the reason why I could never be comfortable with this new, vile, you're either with us or you have to fake it to be taken seriously and in order to be given respect for my opinions but I refuse to leave after I've been a loyal reader of this site which accepted dissension for the 8 yrs I've visited simply because they want to take it over and convert it to an Obama echo chamber.

I'm seriously thinking about writing a paper about this new phenomenom where discussion/dissension from other democrats are no longer accepted and frowned upon, in such an extreme vile and insulting manner when it comes to criticism of Obama, by his supporters who resort to extreme hateful accusations and abassement of anyone who dares speak ill of their idol, something I've never seen/experienced before in 40 yrs of political activism.

I can wish for a clean congress which I'm realistic enough to know that it will never happen but I can also advocate for enough voters to do so which would send a clear message that our votes will no longer be taken for granted!

I cannot vote for Obama for many reasons but mainly because of his refusal to try to enact affordable health care and deceiving people at every turn by telling them that he will fight for universal health care when he's constantly said in the primaries that he would not do so for adults, only in his second term and only if it worked for kids, confirmed by Kerry who said health care is off the table. that's unforgivable coming from democrats - giving hope when he has none to give on that subject! He lacks political courage which makes me wonder what else he will cave in to make his point that he's bi-partisan - up to date, I'm not impressed with his sharp turn to the right on FISA and patriot bill, campaign financing, discouraging the separation between church and state, wavering on abortion, no longer wanting to tax the ultra rich and corporations, pro offshore drilling and the list keeps growing!

by suzieg 2008-10-04 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Look back

suzieg I can appreciate where you are coming from especially if you've been watching the primaries from the beginning.

Thing is there are nice guys here who do are fine with debate. HealthCare being one of those issues.

Thing is that the folks who have stomped on polite discouse are just a lot louder. They tend to drowned out the rest of us.

Make sure to post your paper here when it's finished. I'd love to see the results.

Good luck. 12 dogs.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-10-06 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: We don't have any money for anything

After we just jacked up the deficit close to $2 trillion, you think that means Obama will instigate the Neo-New Deal when he gets into office? Reality: the passage of this bill makes spending massively to deal with the crisis in the real economy (everything but the Wall Street gambling casinos) much less likely. We still need to do that, but it becomes much more difficult; we have to somehow reduce waste on the military & financial system sectors in order to pay for at least part of New Deal II or the very real danger of becoming Weimar Republic II looms.

by fairleft 2008-10-04 03:13AM | 0 recs
I'm relieved

It sucks being "broke" by some arcane definition of money supply.

It sucks worse when states can't make payroll.

Krugman is for it, if reluctantly, that's good enough for me.

by Neef 2008-10-03 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm relieved

ok, so create a fund to provide low-interest loans to small businesses, qualifying homeowners, and green energy companies.  small businesses use the loan as collateral to leverage money from commercial credit lenders, some homeowners get a subsidized mortgage (and formerly shaky mortgages are paid off), and we sow the seeds of creating the next generation economy, starting with green energy.

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 11:56AM | 0 recs
I'm with you there

I think the CW is that this is basically a placebo, we need to use the time it buys to find some real medicine.

by Neef 2008-10-03 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you there

I don't see how you can applaud spending 5% of our entire economy on a placebo.  I'm not saying this to be mean or snarky, but I really don't understand it.  Why not buy everyone iPods instead? (ok, that was meant to be snarky).

But, really, can you explain to me why you think such an expensive placebo is good in this case?

by the mollusk 2008-10-03 12:07PM | 0 recs
Quite honestly

I applaud it because economists I trust think it is a good idea.

I don't really "get" this crisis, and I don't think I'm alone. This isn't something where I can make a rational evaluation of the options, and come up with a solid reason for a "best decision". I'm a dinosaur watching an asteroid, and it's a scary light as far as I'm concerned.

That being said, making decisions under uncertainty is part of life. You try to figure out who knows what's going on, ask THEM what they think, and if it sounds good you cheer.

I do think, while they were larding up the bailout, an ipod clause would have eased the pain somewhat =).

by Neef 2008-10-03 12:22PM | 0 recs
This is the reason why it isn't...

October 2, 2008

Not One Dime!
Why the Bailout Stinks
By MIKE WHITNEY

For nearly a year, we have been asking ourselves why the investors and foreign banks that bought up hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless mortgage-backed securities (MBS) from US investment banks have not taken legal action against these same banks or initiated a boycott of US financial products to prevent more people from getting ripped off?

Now we know the answer. It's because, behind the scenes, Henry Paulson and Co. were working out a deal to dump the whole trillion dollar mess on the US taxpayer. That's what this whole $700 billion boondoggle is all about; wiping out the massive debts that were generated in the biggest incident of fraud in history. Rep Brad Sherman explained it Wednesday night to Larry Kudlow:

"It (The bill) provides hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts to foreign investors. It provides no real control of Paulson's power. There is a critique board but not really a board that can step in and change what he does. It's a $700 billion program run by a part-time temporary employee and there is no limit on million dollar a month salaries....... It's very clear. The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. I had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American entity even a subsidiary, but at least an entity in the US, the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.

"The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset on September 20 that it can't be sold to the Treasury. Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure it can happen."

read more at counterpunch.com/whitney10022008.html/

by suzieg 2008-10-03 12:28PM | 0 recs
Is his point

that the bailout is unnecessary? I can't tell if he's saying it's necessary but poorly done, versus just unnecessary.

by Neef 2008-10-03 12:39PM | 0 recs
I Agree, mollusk. It's Not Looking Good

How much of a mess can Obama and Company clean up?

The economic question will become overwhelming. What's the point of having the political ducks in line if all the money is gone? I wish more people would worry about this.

I think you would be at home at Elaine's.

I am quite alarmed about the economic side of things, and I think politics is about to become tightly focused on the money issues very soon.

I am afraid the money problems will become very serious before the elections, and I saw this coming for months now. I don't know the answers. It's gotten to the point where China is actually warning us to avoid tariffs!

by blues 2008-10-03 12:08PM | 0 recs
RE Update

But I have a prediction: well before January 20, Congress will be asked to vote on bailout 2.0.

That would actually be my prediction, and THERE with Obama as President Elect, I pray we make a stand, and just as the Republicans love to channel the ghost of Ronnie Reagan, Democrats have the Cajones to Channel FDR?

Yeah, I know...I am an unrelenting dreamer.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: RE Update

I don't think he's going to have a choice. And that's just fine by me.

by LakersFan 2008-10-03 02:51PM | 0 recs
$2 trillion deficit cancels New Deal II

You'd think that'd be obvious, but apparently not here. 2009 is the year we hope all the money spent by this Congress and King Paulson will have some effect. It won't, of course, but that's where we have officially placed our hopes.

Maybe in 2010 we can afford to do something real.

by fairleft 2008-10-04 03:25AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads