So I read up a bit this morning on the bailout bill that is being voted on today. Seems like the only good thing about it is that it added in some oversight. Corporate payoffs are "capped" at half a million dollars, but any "golden parachutes" written into executive contracts remain valid. So we're paying for that.

I don't know what the HELL the democrats are doing right now. Something like 90% of people in polls are opposed to a bailout in any form, and they come out with a bill that hands millions of dollars to the executives who caused this mess? And the republicans are the ones opposing it, so now they'll look like they're standing up for the little guy while the dems hypocritically screw us all. I am just absolutely livid.

Maybe too late to call Congress, but call your Senator - this has to be stopped before these idiots have us stuck with a republican-controlled government again.

I see it as being between a rock and a hard place. The risk is that average americans will be greatly affected if the economy depresses. Retirement accounts will be wiped out, jobs will be a scarce thing among other things.
Note that Europe is also making plans similar to ours.

Keep in mind this is something that has been placed in the Democrats lap and not their doing. The bail out, although distasteful, is necessary considering the alternative. Keep in mind also, the Republicans would love for the Democrats to take the rap for this that is why the Democrats wouldn't sign on to it till Republicans did.

When you put the blame where it's deserved then you realize the Democrats did the best they could with the crap the Republicans handed them.

I agree with both posts, but I can already see the right wing and a certain segment of the progressive base who have lost all faith to turn on the Dems again.

ETA: Not that progressives who lost faith in the Dems don't have reason to feel that way. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things despite the overwhelming majority of our economic problems being the responsibility of the Republicans the Dems will get the bigger lashing. Its not fair, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.

good point...however in 2 years if this bail out does not work, the american people will not see it like that.

just to add, mcgimmick may not even VOTE on the bill and if O does and supports get ready for Mcgimmick to use this against him...this is their next plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/o...t_n_130242.html

I'm probably one of two or (at most) three people on this forum who have read the bill in its full text.

It's actually pretty reasonable.

What people don't seem to realize is that if we don't at least offer to bail out some of the faltering we allow the bigger banks to swallow them up. Bank of America now owns Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan owns Washington Mutual. As I type this Citigroup just bought Wachovia. More and more of our money is being controlled by fewer and fewer people.

No one wants this bailout but we need it.

and if it does work...

I love hypotheticals.

This is a stop gap bill to address this current situation. Once Obama gets in and we have a strong Democratic congress this bill will be history and we will have real change. This just gives the Democrats something to build on.

A bill needs to be passed now and action needs to be taken now. The banks are swallowing each other up and that hurts us more than it hurts them.

I'll say one thing about this bailout deal...they had better put some people from Congress on the oversight commitee, and not just the Bush appointees that are on it now.

Kee-rist, I hope you guys are right. Good on you, jkun to have read the whole damn thing. C-SPAN just mentioned they have all 100+ pages on their website.

Let's just hope that America is too big to fail.

This is something that is really being overlooked here. That is most certainly not a good thing and could very well cause a whole new set of problems in the long run. You think there are problems with the US media in where a handful of companies own all the TV and radio stations in the country. Just imagine when there are only a handful of banks in the country since they've all had to merge or get bought up by one that is larger or in a better position. That has to be stopped.

This is why this whole bailout situation is not simple and you can't simply say "No bailout" or "Let the companies fall". To many industries are spidered into each other.

Another thing at issue here is the value of the US dollar which is not getting any attention at all in the news. It's been falling for a long time now and that plays a big part in why things are getting more expensive.

Not enough information has been developed to form a reasoned viewpoint on whether the Economic Emergency bill is good or not good. Congress has not properly vetted or considered it. Instead, Congress has allowed itself to be railroaded into an ill-considered act.

If there's a viable alternative I haven't heard it yet...The only ones who are not in trouble are the French, go figure...

Well the Repukes talking point already is that this whole financial fiasco is the Democrats fault. I've heard "The Democrats rejected the attempts to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, a year and a half ago." at least a half dozen times this morning.

That's a lie though. Didn't the Republicans have a true majority and could pass anything they actually wanted if they had been inclined to?

Finger pointing and lukewarm mea culpas are all they have.

House Rejects $700 Billion Bailout

Thank GOD. The problem with this bill was the fact that it allowed golden parachutes. Why didn't the dems strip that out? WTF?

I'm glad they rejected it, now they'll have re write it, and we'll get more help.

They had already stripped them out.

It was the House Republicans who added them back in.

The original discussion draft had all the checks and balances.

The House Repubs needed to Pee on it -- and they needed to make sure that there was not TOO much oversight and that the ceos could continue to, you know, be CEOs.

Thanks McCain and House Repubs!

and it makes McCain look even worse...

That's just it. This has only just begun and it will be to the Democrats advantage to string it out...

The banks are already too big (that's part of why we have the problem). As they swallow each other, the problem gets worse. We need banks, but maybe this is an opportunity for small, local banks, like credit unions?

either way...if the other 94 smart dems who did not vote for this bill would have and it would have passed the rethugs would have been saying the dems bailed out wallstreet...

the rethugs are heartless and souless mofos...and the dems are spineless sob's...

the country is broken...welcome to the USA!

And the small banks will loan money from where? They'll chase rainbows and kill the leprechauns for their gold? Sell unicorn horns?

Rejecting this bill is the only thing that could have been worse than accepting this bill. This is ridiculous.

Oh, whatever. There's no real evidence that anything in particular is going to happen if you don't hand these failed corporations $700 billion. And if the "leaders" in Washington - on BOTH SIDES - were willing to stop trying to line the pockets of millionaires and billionaires, they could write a bill that would have support from voters.

The dems should NEVER have caved on golden parachutes - one of the biggest issues most voters have with the bill. It should have required the executives who caused this to have their assets seized FIRST, before any taxpayer money went out. Like Randi always says, it should focus on allowing homeowners in foreclosure to renegotiate their mortgages. There should also be economic incentives for taxpayers involved (other than the nebulous "you won't be able to get credit" - I don't care about this - I already CAN'T get credit anyway), like a price freeze on petroleum products for one year. I mean, really, what kind of suckers do they take us for? They hand billions to defunct companies, and all we get is to pay more for everything? That's freaking crazy. Especially since the $700 billion number just came out of nowhere.

And to all those who actually believe that we need to hand these thieves more money, WHY? What evidence have you seen that the economy will collapse without it? Why did hundreds of economists write a letter cautioning of the danger of doing this? You're talking about the BUSH ADMINSTRATION. Remember "weapons of mass destruction?" Are you really this much of a patsy? They're trying to steal what little money we have left after 8 years of failed policies (or succesful policies, if you're a millionaire).

The good news in all of this is that the politicians are scared. They know people are pissed, and don't want them to pass this, and a bunch of them are running for reelection. No one wants to be responsible for this. So we have a rare opportunity to actually GET something from our government, rather than just getting fleeced another time. Contact your representatives and demand that they create a bill that will benefit real human beings, and not just irresponsible rich people.

Why can’t there be a phased approach where each item is addressed separately and funded separately. With complete oversight and specifics for each point. Bill number one- We should immediately address those that would manipulate the markets or deliberately crash or cause the failure of banks or the deliberate destruction of retirement accounts to blackmail America into voting to give them relief from their troubled portfolios. Then address the home foreclosures- Bill number two. Settle that and then move on to point three, etc. Last should be any golden parachute provisions, to be specifically addressed, rejected or voted on. We can throw money specifically at every step in this recovery, without the rush to steamroll a $700 billion heist. No one trusts what the president is saying, and so far the only one’s really screaming are the insiders who directly get to line their pockets with minimal oversight. They have gotten a “no”. Now we can negotiate a series of yes votes with specific limitations and not one overspent cent.