You are NOT going to sit idly by and let a D Congresssional majority CAVE IN yet again, ARE YOU?

hell no i'm not going to vot nov. 4!!! and i'm going to chop off my arm after i finish this sentence because of this stupid hangnail!!!

If your Congress passes the $700billion bailout, then, in that event, it will confirm the only thing you are voting for is PARTY LABELS.

Obama has already said that he won't be able to do any of the things he has fashioned his campaign on if it passes, so what, exactly, is your point?

Why should I disenfranchise myself for your personal agenda?

Personally I have believed for a number of years now that the US financial house of cards was going to fall ... so, I have no problem believing that this may have been the "real deal" as far as a threat to that "card shack".

As no one really bothered to dig very far into the details to make sure if this was a real problem or simply a scare tactic by Bush and his corporate buddies it's hard to say what the answer really is.

That said, I see this as a "win / win" in terms of a start on getting the system fixed.

If this was a real threat, then the "bailout" will either address the problem and fix it, or fail to address the problem and the system will continue to fail (as I believe it should, to be replaced with a better, fairer system.)

Even if the threat was real, and the bailout fixes the problem, there is now a much better chance that the government will be forced to address the reasons behind this threat (correction ... Democrats will be forced to deal with this, with the "support" -- as in deal with this or have your asses handed to you -- of "main street". The Republicans, as was evidenced by the "cut taxes, and deregulate" counter-offered, are still incapable of understanding that unfettered capitalism does not work in the end)

I understand, and even agree with your premise jammonius, but where we part is believing that there is some "quick and easy" way to go about getting to the the ideal.

We just made one big step, and the next step MIGHT be if Obama is elected with enough Democrats in Congress and the Senate ... but even then, there are plenty of Democrats that could easily be called "Republicans", so his job is not going to be easy ... the combination of the failing corporatist feudal system, and an Obama win may be a good beginning ... we shall see.

Now, assuming Obama does win, and things do NOT look to be changing, then I will gladly join you in "wishing" for the return of the Republicans to once and for all destroy the corrupted system they've created with their stubborn ideology, and in actuality, until just recently I would have said that only Kucinich or maybe Edwards had any chance at all of being the kind of leader that might be capable of turning things around ... Obama though, has given me a little bit of hope that even if he isn't the person to do it himself, that he may be the leader that inspires others to step up and force the necessary changes.

I'm giving Obama the "last chance" ... failing that I'm right there with you.

Your lack of grasp of this matter is evident in your own "party label" rant.

Have you even READ the final draft?

Apparently you haven't or you would have noticed that the "D"s did not "cave."

You act as though they rubber stamped Bush's 3-page *solution.*

From the day they got it they were stepping up to the plate to protect our interests. There was no way they were going to give Paulsen a blank check and there was no way they were going to allow the CEOs to get off without some skin in the game.

Doing nothing was not an option. Doing nothing would have lost them my family's vote. Doing nothing would have doomed my husband's business and meant a lot of other families (those of all of his employees) would be in even worse shape.

Thanks for caring about only your worldview.

And end up with President Todd Palin?

No thanks. Our people went through too much to even GET a vote to waste it at a time like this, are you kidding me?

What business is your husband in if it will be doomed should a bailout not be passed? Thank you.

The blindness on both the right and left is astounding.

Rule of thumb. If both the far right and far left hate somthing...Ding ding ding!! We the people WIN!

I love being in the middle. Obama loves it too! Shhh! That's a secret. Just nod when Fox and McCain repeat how Obama has the most liberal voting record in Congress. Heh.

This bill is a total win for the Democratic party and it a total game changer for Wallstreet and therefore the World.

If you think the Dems caved you have cognitive problems and should see your doctor assuming you have health insurance.

Fineman's article today is titled "The Obama Presidency Begins" (first acknowleging the title is presumptious.) states the the "bailout" bill is completely in line with Obama's philosophy about government.

Bottom line is that for this moment in time Obama as leader of the Democratic party and us Dems who are so excited and engages have encouraged the Congress to be BOLD.

So actually Obama, no matter what happens in November, is the leader of a movement in American politics as significant as , and a complete destruction of Reaganomics.

I reserve the right for people who actually know the details of economic history to revise and extend my remarks.

It is obvious what the op is trying to do. This mess is in the lap of GW Bush and co. along with 12 years of Republican control. It was they who allowed this to happen through lack of regulation and greed. They are the ones responsible.

The Democrats took what the White House gave them and made it a better bill. The bail out stinks but the Democrats will make the best of it until they have control of congress with a big enough majority to block the obstructionist Republicans,

Make no mistake this is a Republican mess and the Democrats will clean it up unless you don't vote. Us not voting is the only hope the obstructionist have.

yep.

as long as i have the right to vote, i will exercise it.

DING DING DING

Excuse me but I think it was the R's that caved into the D's demands....and isn't McNasty backing it as well?

Liblaw, I humbly bow before your knowledge as one of our leaders.

But Dude! The DOW is down 300 points as of 10 AM EST. They hate this plan.

The President's 3 page document? Days of the DOW going up 300 and 400 a clip.

The Dems final plan. Oh the HORRORS!! Its *gasp* REGULATIONS!!

Oh God, must we use this one again?? OK, here goes. Wait for it.....

The Dems HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK.

Oy. You guys don't want Chocolate or Cheesecake for dessert or something? Grampy Pants, then Moose Palin, then Democratic leadership from the Congress at a time of crisis?

What do you guys want. Impeachment? Did you see the look in Bush's eyes pleading for help? Did you see the look in Nancy Pelosi's eyes when she gave it to him Sunday night?

The Republican party has been crushed in a historic way. Their place in history is sealed.

I will admit I am holding my breath until November. But the worm SEEMS to have turned.

One point for every cliche posted for the rest of the thread.

It was not something the Democrats were forced to accept, they were a part of it right along with the Republicans...and neither party, as a whole, wanted to do anything about it.

"By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. (the bold text was added by me)

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

This is a situation that can be laid directly at the feet of our government be they Democrats or Republicans.

Well I disagree with Mr Holmes. Where's your link?

never mind I found it...

jammonius stop trying to convince us not to vote for Obama. It won't work. This isn't Barack's fault. If anything it's McCain's fault. McCain and Bush pushed this. Do you not get that?

Oh sure. The Democrats did this. In the middle of an orgy of deregulation started by Regan and ramped up to insanity by a Republican dominated government during the "contract on America" days the Dems begged for a few scraps from the FatCats for low income people. THAT was the tipping point.

No wait. The Bill Clinton has be out of office how long now?

Mr. Veto and Senator Fillibuster have been locking up government for how long now?

Explain to me like I am a child HOW this financial crisis is the Democrat's fault again. Please.

Thank you!!! If we had gotten the Dem's version of this we would be much better off. Instead asshole McCain had to step in and screw it all up. This makes me hate him and want him to lose even more. Stupid neocons!!!

BTW: Obama has stated he will amend this plan when he gets into office.

This is BS no where in that article did he say "This is a situation that can be laid directly at the feet of our government be they Democrats or Republicans" yet the way you posted it would make one think that he did. Did you do that on purpose Gary?

So when McCain airdropped into Washington and the House Republicans started whining about the Dem's version of the deal, they didn't back the Democrats into a corner and make it look like they would be passing a partisan bill unless they had the support of the house republicans? Yeah. McCain basically screwed this whole thing up. I honestly wish McCain had kept his damn ass away from Washington. McCain is such in a phony, talking in the debate about how the republicans and democrats were working together, they were until your ass got there. "God save us from his help," as Barney Frank said.

busted!

I'm inclined to agree with you actually. I don't think they caved either. But their original plan was a lot better than the one they had to pass because of the house republicans and McCain. People need to elect the dem congress people as well as Obama. No one is up for reelection in my state, so it's up to you guys. There is stuff about it on this website: http://www.actblue.com/page/orangetoblue?refcode=SepSidebar

Do not vote according to "X is bad, therefore vote NOT X". In an overconstrained situation, this is fallacious reasoning. This situation is heavily overconstrained, and there is only one way to approach decisions. Lay out all the courses of action you can see, including sitting on your hands. Evaluate each "scenario" for "goodness" and the likelihood of reaching that scenario. Rank order the scenarios by their "expected goodness". Pick the topmost and act.

What the hell? You didn't understand what I meant? You think because of a bailout I want war-monger McCain in office?!? I'll give you a more well thought out response after I finish cutting my legs off so I don't trip.

I'm humbled... Yes it's a game changer alright, they wanted the whole bag of money without strings attached. Those executives who wanted their golden parachutes will find they won't open as they jump out of their wall street windows.

How is it they say, "this is just a market correction" till Wall Street learns it's not business as usual anymore. This hasn't been our market for some time now so we really don't have a dog in this hunt. You know of course thaose house Republicans still aren't happy

Exactly... jam must think we're total idiots.

Please come to Kentucky and help us get rid of Mitch...

Utilitarianism...

Only utilitarianism if you measure goodness by utility. I'm making a point about reasoning, which many people don't understand. It's a point from logic but applies here, and Republicans use it. If you have a theory, which is NOT internally consistent, you can deduce anything. "Overconstrained" is another version of "not internally consistent".

No...I said that...that's the reason why it wasn't in quotes. I'd posted that article to counter your claim that you made in Post 10:

"This mess is in the lap of GW Bush and co. along with 12 years of Republican control."

The quote was just there to demonstrate my contention that both Republicans and Democrats shared the blame for this.

PS - I notice that "This is a situation that can be laid directly at the feet of our government be they Democrats or Republicans." is bolded in your quote box but not in my original post. Do you make a habit of editing the posts of others without acknowledging the fact you are doing so? For a guy who is so upset about people being "mislead" you sure seem to do your share of it.

Yeah, I see what you're saying now.

Well, I haven't read the whole thing, but I did take notice of Sec. 110, stating, in relevant part, as follows:

13 (2) MODIFICATIONS.—In the case of a residen
14
tial mortgage loan, modifications made under para
15graph (1) may include—
16 (A) reduction in interest rates;
17 ( reduction of loan principal; and
18 © other similar modifications."

That seems to be the language allowing Obama to claim homeowners are protected. However, it is unclear to me how many homeowners are covered by that provision. Earlier in Sec 110, there's a reference to the already existing HOPE program which, as I understand it, helped precious few people, if any at all.

I haven't made note of the exact section, but I also understand the cap on Executive Compensation only applies to those who don't get their parachutes put in place prior to passage of the act.

In other words, the cap won't apply to anyone either.

I also don't have the section reference, but I understand, there's virtually no barrier to getting the full $700billion, despite lip service being paid to a need for further congressional approval.

I similarly don't have the section reference, but I gather the oversight can be completely thwarted by breaking down bailout requests to a level of under $100million, which can easily be done by setting up subsidiary companies.

In other words, virtually none of the Congressional add ons have any real teeth whatsoever.

This means, then, that YOUR D Congress has engaged in out and out deception to make it appear as if they've changed the original Paulson proposal, when, in reality, they haven't done a gotdamn thing -- except fool YOU.

Good then it's you I don't agree with....and I stand by what I said.

Ow! My ears!

Did you just make that up?

Thank you for admitting that you edit the posts of others without acknowledging those edits.

*edited to change: "it" to "those edits"

That was so you knew exactly what I was talking about. I think it was pretty obvious to everyone why it was done. Had you done so to start with there wouldn't have been any confusion would there? Or was that the purpose of your post?

You must not have too much faith in your argument if you have to lie about about what someone said. Did Obama really say he will not be able to do anything upon which he fashioned his campaign?

amazing... you summed up an 110 page document pretty quickly... maybe you should run for office.

please link that, i think it'll curb a lot of future non-debate on this.

Actually, I believe he said it MAY impact his plan. . . not so much an IF certain things get done, but WHEN.

He may be The Messiah, but he can't pull money out of his arse.

how did you get that from "amend"?

Jammonius has an agenda, and cherry-picks facts to support his bias. His vanity and arrogance prevent him from engaging in discussion, he only knows how to rant and rail. His predetermined conclusion is that all Demorats and Republicans are corrupt, and every fact he sees and reports has been run through that filter.

How anyone can draw a conclusion so quickly on a highly complex issue is beyond me. Utlimately, the bill may very well be a toothless disaster, but I don't know how anyone could possibly know that at this point. I doubt that anyone on this board has the background in business, finance, and government regulatory policy to draw a definitive conclusion. Most decidedly, that includes me. I am a a computer scientist and a mathemetician, not a financier or an economist.

So, at least for a short time, I guess that I/we are must rely on the judgement of our leaders. Am I cynical enought to believe that ALL Democrats are "bought and paid" for by Wallstreet and seek only their benefit at the expense of we in the peasantry? No. I don't even think that about ALL Republicans.

In the end, I think that in an economy that doesn't produce anything much beyond profit, interest and fees drawn against financial transactions, mutli-level Ponzi schemes (derivitives) could be undone by a credit freeze. It seems to make at least some sense to me. That the government would have to inject funds into such a system to get money flowing again seems reasonable to my meager understanding of economics and finance as well. Am I happy about it? Definitely not.

Ahhh! So you ADMIT that the original bi-parisan Discussion Draft (the one that had general consensus before Mighty McCain's Swoop-in) was much stronger and delivered a better solution THAN THE ONE THAT THE CRY-BABY HOUSE REPUBS HAD TO GO MESS UP AND DILUTE!

Thanks, I knew you'd eventually see what was really going on. No one thinks any worse of you for admitting your mistakes, either.

Hugs??

ah!
a voice of reason.
except this;

the repub party has changed almost all want to (ready for it )
"PRIVATIZE THE PROFITS AND SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES"

The irony is compelling. Here you have someone referencing the concept "pretty uickly..." in a context where your congressional majority wrote a 110 pg bill, virtually overnight, calling for expenditure of $700billion, without so much as having hearings where interested parties could present views and alternatives, let alone criticism.

Insterad, all that had to happen here was an administration with a penchant for hype and for lies told your congressional majorityy that they HAD BETTER JUMP! And your jackass congressional majority said, you guessed it,

HOW HIGH

Look, this is serious stuff. Ds had no right to act that irresponsibly. All it would have taken to recognzie that this situation requires careful thought is to have had one person in a leadership capacity have an ounce of courage or a gram leadership capacity.

Is that too much to have asked for or to have expected?

ha ha ha aha hahah!

Because McCain and the R's will do SO much better. You're mental.

You presume too much. You presume there's a difference between D/R, such that an "either/or" (which is almost always a faulty premise) gets set up. The point here is that there is no real difference. However, what actually matters is that the D party -- READ: YOUR PARTY -- has the congressional majority; and, therefore, the responsibility to act with prudence and with care.

They are not doing that. They are caving in.