Republicans Should Vote Against the Bailout

Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.

God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say "No" and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress. 

This creates pressure on the "change" message. If this issue is made controversial, and Obama is not the first to make it an issue, how exactly is a Washington deal backed by  Bush's Treasury Secretary "change?"

But for this to be actionable, it has to be controversial. So this can't be a few lonely voices like Coburn and DeMint. It needs to be the bulk of the Republican conference. In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.

History has shown us that "inevitable" "emergency"  legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed -- and this isn't all that popular to begin with. All the upside comes with voting against it.

A bailout may be inevitable, but so to can be the political benefit for Congressional Republicans if played correctly.

3.666665
Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Comments

Be very, very careful

Should Congress appear to be playing partisan games over the stabilization of the global financial markets the stock market could tank along with credit markets seizing up even more. We're not playing a game here. There could be severe consequenses for inaction no matter how distasteful I find huge bailouts to be. If Congressmen decided to push as much non-essential elements into the bill then they should be called out for it. But if you advocate voting against the bill for the sake of maximizing electoral success you better be willing to accept a possible economic catastrophe.

Should Congress appear to be

Should Congress appear to be playing partisan games over the stabilization of the global financial markets the stock market could tank along with credit markets seizing up even more. We're not playing a game here. There could be severe consequenses for inaction no matter how distasteful I find huge bailouts to be

I AGREE!!!

Here's the question then: The bailout has a very specific goal - to get securities off the bank balance sheets to help keep the credit system from a meltdown.

If we oppose this bailout we need to very clear to NOT appear to just opposing something "we have to do" out of knee-jerk reaction.

WE NEED A BETTER PLAN AND TOUT THE ALTERNATIVE. I dont think "do nothing" quite suffices.  The consequences of a credit meltdown go so far beyond the loss of one election (vis a new depression) that playing politics is just an awful thing to do that will backfire in many ways.

 

Wall Street over the years

Wall Street over the years has thrown its lot in with the Democrats.  Donations to Democrats has far exceeded donations to Republicans.  It seems Big Business likes Big Government.  The Republicans should give Wall Street and cheap Amsterdam the middle finger. The Republicans have a great opportunity to look like they really are fighting for the middle class by standing up against this nonsesnse.

we don’t get Boldin and don’t

we don’t get Boldin and don’t resign Chambers then I’m going to start questioning Pioli and how committed he is to this job of turning our Chiefs around book report writing | dissertations | course work

Let it go.

<!--StartFragment-->

Adopting the posture of supporting the bill to stabilize the global financial markets has risks, which are indeterminable.  We know that the market will suffer if the Government does not intervene; that is more or less a certainty.  The extent of the impending downturn is not known and cannot be assessed.

 

However, the burden on the taxpayers all pooled into one great “holding cell” for the purpose of extracting money to support the legislation unfairly makes them hostage for harms they know nothing about, could not control and are not as a class liable for.

 

Before the future of an essential feature of the economy is discarded, look to the possibility of letting the laws, and rules as play out as they stand.

 

<!--EndFragment-->

 

My opinion

Well, from what i can glean, the worst-case scenario actually is the dollar loses much of its value and the us ecomony falls into a vast depression. when the money market run caused investments in those accounts to fall below $1 for $1, and the bank-to-bank credit rate was something like 3 percent higher than what treasury charges, that is when the spectre of total meltdown appeared. Known worldwide for their splendid household skills and individual features, Russian women vary a lot from Western ones. Raised in modesty and accustomed to expend very tiny sums for the implementation of their needs they can be really called very thrifty. 

The Democrats have been on

The Democrats have been on the side of Wallstreet since 1999 when Glass Steagall was repealed. They don't want to appear on the side of Wallstreet by voting for a bailout that hurts tax payers. At least, they don't wanna be the only ones who vote for it. They wanna anunturi take the Republicans down with them.Hopefully the Republicans win and no public tax dollars are used in any rescue package. Use private sector money. Make Raines give back his $90 million for smoothing over Fannie's books to show profit and give himself big bonuses

NO TO BAILOUTS

This is socialism and conservative Republicans should not support it.  Liberals play politics, Republicans should not.  If we lose the congress, the presidency and every other aspect of federal government by doing the right thing there will be a turn over in 2 years that will result in an impeachment and it will all be returned, possibly to a BETTER GOP.

Once again, the Republicans

Once again, the Republicans vote against the worker. It was OK to give permission to grant 700 bill. to the Banks who hold the rich investors money, but when it comes to the Blue collar worker, it's always, "take a cut" - been going on since Reagan-Any working person who votes for the Republican party really needs to start asking themselves WHY ??? it certification for 70-646 , 640-822 and 70-290

 

you are absolutely correct!

the republicans as usual have shown their true colors. just hope the taxpayers should punish them come election time. the working class should always be protected at all time and not the already rich lobbyists that support the republicans. no wonder the GOP's standing among americans has shrunk to an all all-time low. these people need to re-read the past and even have their own people do some serious work like a dissertation writing perhaps just to finally get in touch with the millions of workers here in the US. Get real people!

  The Democrats have enough

 

The Democrats have enough votes to pass any bail out they want with their majority in congress. They don't need any Republican support at all. Democrats got us into this mess. They fought against regulation, transparency and they fought for dirty CEO's like Raines.It's an election year. The Democrats have been on the side of Wallstreet since 1999 when Glass Steagall was repealed. They don't want to appear on the side of Wallstreet by voting for a bailout that hurts tax payers. At least, they don't wanna be the only ones who vote for it. They wanna take the Republicans down with them.Hopefully the Republicans win and no public tax dollars are used in any rescue package. Use private sector money. Make Raines give back his $90 million for smoothing over Fannie's books to show profit and give himself big bonuses. Make Obama give back the $122,000 he has gotten in the last 3 years from Fannie Mae lobbyists.

 

( label design, stationary design and corporate logo design )

I Agree With Patrick

It makes very good strategic and political sense for Republicans to oppose this bailout.  Voters don't like hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (maybe even trillions) being used to bailout Wall Street fatcats.  Just common sense will tell you that 3/4 of the nation will be against shoring up these institutions,  especially now it looks like bailing out foreign banks is suppossed to be in the final deal.

Wall Street over the years has thrown its lot in with the Democrats.  Donations to Democrats has far exceeded donations to Republicans.  It seems Big Business likes Big Government.  The Republicans should give Wall Street the middle finger. The Republicans have a great opportunity to look like they really are fighting for the middle class by standing up against this nonsesnse.

It's a win-win for Republicans to oppose this, but I'm afraid it's going to end up like this year's Farm Bill, where everybody gets a little something to sign on.

This will be for future FI-Cons

what the 2002 Iraq AUMF vote was for the antiwar Left.  Even if the bill is a "must pass" due to the absence of any other credible alternative on the table to keep the financial markets running, no one will be taking credit for this after the immediate crisis is over.

Accept the consequences

I don't know what will happen if the bailout dies in Congress. I hope nothing bad. But if it drives global credit markets to shut down causing serious pain in the Main Street economy I hope you're willing to still stand by your opposition.

If there was anytime a case of good policy equalling good politics I think it's now. We need thoughtful, productive questioning of Paulson's plan. The next decade of U.S. economic growth may be riding on it.

there's plenty of bad with the good

Evidently the price to keep the banking system solvent is to place a whole whopping load of debt on the American taxpayer so as to increase the capital (i.e. stock price) of banks and brokerage houses.

Warren Buffett already made $3B on the rumor Bush was going to bail out the markets. (he's an Obama supporter ,BTW) The public is going to be angry their taxes enriched the Gordon Gekkos of Wall Street long after they forget why this had to be done.

If you think the Democrats in '10 and '12 aren;t going to run against this (even if they all vote for it now); then you didn;t see what happened with the Iraq War, where former supporters like Dodd, Kerry and Clinton turned on what they had previously supported.

It's not the banking system.

It's not the banking system. It's the credit supply that has to keep flowing -- flowing so Americans can "Consume," since this is the mantra preached to us by Republican / business leaders.

Connect the dots between "Warren Buffett made $3b on the rumor that Bush. . . " and "Buffett is an Obama supporter." This is mere trafficking in innuendo.

Disparaging Reuters, are we?

Nope this was not from some partisan blog or tabloid rag

http://news.yahoo.com/story//nm/20080919/bs_nm/berkshire_buffett_banks_dc

Buffett may have $3.5 billion two-day financials profit

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N), which has avoided major acquisitions in the financial sector in recent months, may have had a $3.5 billion two-day paper profit on six major banking and financial services investments.

The two-day rally in financial shares, which drove the broad S&P Financials Index (.GSPF) up 24 percent, came as the government announced sweeping measures to rescue the financial system and restore confidence in shaky markets.

Last time I checked, Warren Buffett was not a Republican, and he as of now is the biggest winner in the Hank Paulson Lottery 

nowhere did i question the

nowhere did i question the validity of the report that was cited. Buffett and anyone else who had the means to act on information being publicly disseminated would have made money. were all the traders selling short over and over on the crashing market also Obama supporters? and once again, how is Buffett's score linked to being an obama supporter? because bush = obama? that's where we're headed, right, with the strategy being advocated in this post?

typical lefty backtrack

what part of "innuendo" did you mean, then?

The statements herein were true and published in reputable journals. If they make a liberal look craven, well, is that my problem?

It's a win-win for

It's a win-win for Republicans to oppose this, but I'm afraid it's going to end up like this year's Farm Bill, where everybody gets a little something to sign on.www.citazioni-celebri.com/frases-celebres/category/frases-de-amor

Tell me again why...

... would think keeping people in their overpriced homes more important than keeping the dollars in our bank accounts sound?

You are all witnessing, my friends,

the biggest hist in history.

We are all being robbed right before our very eyes,

and all McCain can do is call for a bipartisan board made up of Buffet, Romney and Bloomberg, millionaires all, to see to it that the shaft slides into our backsides smoothly?

...nice, very nice. Now I ask you, is that presidential material or what?

ex animo

davidfarrar 

we don&rsquo;t get Boldin and

we don’t get Boldin and don’t resign Chambers then I’m going to start questioning Pioli and how committed he is to this job of turning our Chiefs around admission essay writing | admission essay | dissertations

MEND IT, DONT END IT = A WORKOUT NOT A BAILOUT

We need thoughtful, productive questioning of Paulson's plan"

ABSOLUTELY.

I am taking my own advice to suggest a better plan - "Freedom's Truth WORKOUT not a BAILOUT"

Here is how the $700 billion bailout can be mostly SELF-FINANCING. This should not be a bailout but a WORKOUT that provides liquidity but not a subsidy for the holders of these marked down assets. Solvent companies have crappy suspect assets. The value of these assets is not clearly known, nor is the liabilities involved. But the firms can offload these into a Asset Management structure, that takes these assets and holds on to them while the crisis passes. Here is how:

1. Govt purchases of distressed assets from currently solvent firms will be based on a 'consignment basis'. The Govt will pay for 40% of assumed market value, and the remainer of the payment held in reserve (or Govt gets senior notes for remainder). When the product is later sold, the original holder is given the sold value if it was anywhere from 40-100% of assessed fair market value. Above that, ie if govt sells at a profit above original assessed value, the Govt and private firms share the gains 50/50. If the Govt sells it for less than 40% of originally assessed value, Govt eats the cost. Since there is time cost of money, there can be simple rules regarding how much the Govt owes in interest on gains, and/or that can be viewed as a transaction cost.

RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO CLARITY OF THE RULES THAT PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO PLAY BY AND THERE IS NOT CLARITY OF TAXPAYER LIABILITY. THIS CAN BE PUT INTO PLACEIN THE BILL ITSELF. SOME SIMPLE RULES REGARDING HOW RESALE GAINS AND LOSSES ARE TO BE SHARED IS REQUIRED. THE ABOVE RULE WOULD IN EFFECT ENABLE ONE TRILLION IN ASSETS TO BE PURCHASED WITH ONLY $400 BILLION. THE COST IS ONE HALF AND THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION LEVEL IS MUCH GREATER. BANKS ARE ABLE TO OFFLOAD ASSETS AT 40% LEVEL AND THEN GET  A POSSIBLE "UPSIDE" RETURN LATER IF VALUE BOUNCES BACK.

2. The regulations end the 'mark-to-market' rule.

3. level 3 assets for all financial reporting institutions must be transparent and reported.

4. NO regulations on financial compensation, and NO equity stakes. The Govt should not takeover these companies.

5. Make ALL the Bush tax cuts last for another 4 years, past 2013. THIS COSTS LESS THAN THE BAILOUTS AND WILL SET THE MARKET BACK ON ITS FEET.

6. Dont muck this bill up with housing and forclosure stuff. The Dems already did a $200 billion housing bailout, we dont need another right now, save it for the next Congress.

 

 

If Republicans oppose this,

and I hope they do, they must offer an alternative, and it had better be a good one -- comprehensive and reassuring.  Newt Gingrich tried that on The Corner today (err, yesterday I guess).  I'm ready to hear more.

I think the car companies

I think the car companies should have been left to go under it's their fault they went bankrupt. Just because a family can't pay their mortgage doesnt mean the gov is coming to the rescue so why should it for any private company.

This has got to be the

This has got to be the dumbest idea ever. Face it: if the slightest hint that something like this cynical idiotic ploy got out, Democrats would demand a one for one vote, meaning that one Democrat will cast his vote just as soon as a corresponding Republican does. And if Republicans start trying to play idiotic games with the vote, all bets are off. Wall street can go suck an casino online.

Seriously, you free market wankers created this mess. You can't balme the Dems for the painful cleanup that will be required.

 

This is a compilation of

This is a compilation of approx 70 cheat sheets for Linux users. There are a grip load of commands that Linux users have at hand which can seem very daunting to a novice. This collection will make Linux just a little less of a headache to learn. thesis service | buy book report | dissertations

Good Summary at the Corner

Republicans should oppose this. Even if it ends up passing, to have the Republicans on the record vocally opposing it would help them tremendously.

Here's a good little summary in the Corner from National Review Online:

The Bailout [Yuval Levin]

Everyone should read the actual text of the proposed bailout plan the administration is sending to Congress. It’s clearly not a final version (the part about only purchasing from financial institutions headquartered in the US has already been changed, as Kathryn notes below), but it’s the essential shape of the proposal. See if you can read through the whole of it without concluding that everyone in Washington has lost their minds.

I’m not an economist, and I wouldn’t pretend to be one, but just as an observer of Washington, and as someone who has worked on the Hill and at the White House, it is simply apparent from this draft that this program will get completely out of control very quickly. It gives the Secretary of the Treasury essentially unlimited power to use $700 billion to make purchases the scope of which is defined very loosely and vaguely. It even says:

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.

Even if Hank Paulson were the all knowing god of economics, would it make sense to give this kind of power to the treasury secretary for the next two years just forty days before an election? Shall we go through our mental list of who an Obama administration (or a McCain administration for that matter) is likely to put in that post? And doesn’t it make sense to establish some kind of process for deciding how specifically to use the money? To put in place some criteria of prioritization? Some real-time oversight? Isn’t transparency crucial to the proper functioning of our modern financial system? And how is everyone in both parties suddenly satisfied that this approach is the only one that could work?

Most of us are in no position to question the view, espoused by just about every economist heard from in the past few days, that some serious action is called for and soon. But the way this is all being pushed through, and the character of the proposal itself, are deeply disconcerting.

basic principles

I am against the bailout simply because it is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out private, or even semi-private companies. It is not theirs to give.  The consequences may, or may  not, be severe.  I am genuinely sorry about that.  My investments may be decimated, but it is a price I would gladly pay for a little return of freedom and responsibility in this country.

On the matter of predictions by economists - when have economists EVER been right in their predictions?

I realize that the constitution was thrown out in the 1930's and 40's, but I have hope that some remnant of it survives.

 

basic principles etc

The problem with this scenario is there is no alternative that realitically addresses the issues occurring.  People who have dug into this matter, myself included, generally support the concept of extending a line of credit to the industry so long as the industry agress to change its ways.  With the news of the last investment banks changing their charter to become traditional banks, that has happened.  There is no more investment banking exclusive industry.  In addition, certain other pieces of legislation need to be gutted to make it at leat appear that Congress absolves itself of the responsibility of this mess.  However, that can't be done with this piece of legislation that they have to vote on today most likely.  So, I feel the Republicans can support this legislation and not give the Democrats the leg up on this issue, and then come back and make it more of an issue by trying to gut the Community Reinvestment Act.  That is the heart of this issue, although rarely discussed.  And, getting rid of the Community Reinvestment Act is a purely Republican ideological thing to do that would hilite the differences between McCain and Obama.  If they go that route, they can't be blamed for the world market meltdown that would occur if the Democrats decided to play politics and allow the Republicans to kill this measure, thereby guaranteeing Obama the presidency.

 

Yours may actually be the best course of action poilitically for

true conservatives to proceed with given the circumstances.  This crap started with the liberal idiocy of the Clintoon administration with their all-out desire to give loans to poor people who were severe credit risks of course claiming they were somehow the victims racism since ty were poeple of color.  When the economy starts slowing down and these people can't afford their loans so they all started defaulting which is what started this government-created housing bubble to burst and whose fall-out  has the banking meltdown since those corporate socialists were taking full advantage of the situation expecting big government to bail them out if things went south.

Liberal / conservative,

Liberal / conservative, liberal / conservative. Jesus - i go to sites all the time with morons punning on McCain (McShame, McSame), and over here on this side, you people have devised such cleverishnisses as Clintoon? Or was that only a typo?

Anyway -- this talking point about PPPs (poor people with pigment) bringing down the financials system does indeed make manifest the cliched notion that people will believe anything. No, no -- it had nothing to do with the institutions issuing the loans, or the mortgages that began to be traded back and forth, growing every farther removed from the original investment and point of collateral. It had nothing to do with deregulation of the financial system allowing -- encouraging -- complex financial instruments like collateralized debt obligations and credit swaps as a means of expanding the bubble ad infinitum. do you realize that at its peak, there was more credit on paper being exchanged within the system than actual monetized assets that exist in the real world? and that is the fault of some poor black and brown people who were borrowing above their means?

please - think before you recite.

the only pigment here is green

Green explains Chris Dodd and Barney Frank opposing reform when it could have fixed the system. They were bought by the folks they were supposed to oversee. And yes, some Republicans were , too

Lack of Green explains why someone earning $10/hr cannot afford the mortgage on a $200,000 house. Of course, many on the left favored relaxed lending standards. And yes, amoral businessmen made their money cranking out these politically correct loans, packaged them and sold em and ran off.

Anyone suggesting there's another pigment at work ought to leave their biases at home.

 

 

Dodd (D) as of Sunday favored

Dodd (D) as of Sunday favored Paulson bill but with reciprocity for homeowners, and with oversight provisions. Boehner (R) favored bill as proposed. Not a dem - rep dichotomy - govt in bed with the business/finance community the issue. and isn't oversight tasked to the administrative bureaucracy more than the congress?

Dodd thought his bill in July would fix Fannie and Freddie

methinks "reciprocity"= throwing cash at folks who simple don't earn enough to hold their homes.

Peddling false hope is really a sleazy thing to do, I think. But what do I know; I'm just a grizzled former real estate lawyer who actually understands the foreclosure and bankructcy process.. Maybe if I went to Harvard and was a wonderful "community activist" I could turn water into wine and let these people pay off their mortgages. Being one of those poor shlubs "on the commuter train' I can't. Neither can Chris Dodd.

 

 

dude - obama hasn't made any

dude - obama hasn't made any sort of proposal re bailouts. why do you hold doing well in school and getting into harvard, and being a community activist against the man?

dodd came across as wishy-washy on the whole issue, anyway. fannie and freddie have been runaway trains for a long time now, havent' they? don't hold dodd up as a straw man.

two things, though: 1) if you "bail out" some little guys who can show the prospect of paying forward while keeping their home, you are in effect helping to ameliorate a portion of the toxic debt poisoning the financial system. and there is more of this still to be revealed, too. keeping down foreclosers keeps some of those credit vehicles from being trash.

2) while i too get pissed off that many people overspent and acted irresponsibly, and that their actions negatively impact me (who bought at bottom end of market five years ago, 30-year fixed mortgage we could afford), i don't think these people can be herded into pens by type. it's not just lower-class people, but middle-class people who wound up going beyond their range, too. besides, everyone was encouraged to try and own a home - nuclear familes and home ownership = moral behavior. at the same time, a bubble was being created, unemployment was creeping up, and wages stagnated. hey - a lot of decent people just got caught in the squeeze - its not all greed and stupidity.

I forgot more about real estate finance

Then Dodd and Obama together ever knew.

There isn't a rational banker out there who wants to take back a house in this market from someone who has some ability to eventually get current again on their loan. But what the Left wants is to create an entitlement program for people who will never be able to afford the P&I on the house they bought. (i.e. ACORN)  This is just going to make the crisis longer and more expensive.

This is why you do not want to allow "community activists" and Georgetown celebrities to try and deal with economic problems. They don;t get the real world. Sadly, not enough Republicans did, either.

  

Democrats Caused This Crisis

And they will abuse this crisis until they get a "new deal" out of it.

Enough is enough!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&...

The New (Welfare) Deal

Right, this is "The New Welfare Deal" with the emphasis on subsidized housing for those who can't otherwise afford it. The program replaces welfare-as-we-know-it-is-dead twelve years later. Thank you, Democratic Congress.

Wow folks, what a long

Wow folks, what a long discussion.

Mike - the magniwork review and drivercure consultant.

Who has time to read...

...the volumes on this subject. I'm thankful for the comments  here - they help.  I can tell you that Middle America will demand that  one element of any solution must be to go after the pirates who plundered these org's and recover the money/golden parachute they absconded off with.  Even if its only a small fraction they must be held accountable.  And, personally, I'd like to see many of these thugs sharing a cell w/Jeff Shilling.    They were hired and paid well to be good stewards of the organizations they worked for and they violated that trust in order to enrich themselves.  DD

these "thugs" were following

these "thugs" were following the advice of fed chairman alan greenspan, who thought the new breed of debt-based financial instruments were the best thing since sliced bread. they were follwing the lead of the great deregulation movement that spawned the S & L crisis, Enron, and now this. chief archicect of whom is one Phil Gramm -- future Sec. of the Treasure under Pres. McCain.

and besides -- isn't what's being proposed what "true conservatives" really want, anyway, to starve the beast, to be able to fit fed. govt' into a bathtub? once the budget is changed to include a $1 trillion purchase of toxic debt, well, i guess ole uncle sam will be out of the welfare/education/healthcare business.

and won't everyone be happy then?

jamie Gorelick

Patrick, couldn't disagree with you more....

Pat,

I understand the desire of fellow conservatives to want "just consequences" to fall upon those who screwed up the market... I do. But in this case... it's just misplaced... Republicans need to ensure Dems don't turn the legislation into a socailized debacle... but they do need to support Paulson's efforts to recapitalize the markets.

I agree the plan needs to ensure accountability - to the taxpayer... to the people... and ultimately... result in a transparent marketplace. However, non-intervention would not have accomplished any of those goals and would have significantly undermined the US economy...

Pat... in addition to my own stuff... you might want to see what Heritage said on Friday...

Best,

Bryan

 

It already IS a socialized debacle

I'm surprised at how many actually believe Bush, Bernanke and Paulson. They created this mess back in 2002 and now they want us to let them, without any oversight, "fix" the mess they've created. Pure insanity.

The banks that gladly practiced terrible business strategies because the Fed and Greenspan encouraged them to do so in order to maintain a "healthy" economy after the attacks of 9/11 deserve to go bankrupt.

The American taxpayers should not be held accountable for this. And contrary to the hysterical pronouncements, mainstreet would not be affected if AIG and a few of the nere-do-wells were to declare bankrupcty. Its not nearly the worst case scenario.

The worst case scenario is that the government price-fixes (that is what the bail-out is essentially doing) and prevents those who have acted responsibly from picking up the pieces and acting with sane business practices to make the devalued assets available to those who didn't buy into the "my house is an ATM" phenomena of the past 10 years.

The only people who will benefit from this are Wall-Street and the government with its new found emergency powers. I'm not shocked that there are "conservatives" who like this idea.

Well, from what i can glean,

Well, from what i can glean, the worst-case scenario actually is the dollar loses much of its value and the us ecomony falls into a vast depression. when the money market run caused investments in those accounts to fall below $1 for $1, and the bank-to-bank credit rate was something like 3 percent higher than what treasury charges, that is when the spectre of total meltdown appeared.

by all means -- rushing through an overnight non-oversight bundle of half-understood legislation seems totally insane. but i do think at base that this impulse got off the ground just because worst-case scenarios really were extant.

been fun writing with people who probably won't share my views and think i'm an idiot. when i'm on the "Liberal" sites, i'm only a troll.

having inhabited both -- BEWARE the ECHO CHAMBER!

I am all in favor of not

I am all in favor of not voting for a bailout. Let the market adjust on its own. The government and the private sector should stay separated. Buying companies with no value is not in the tax payors interest. Let the smart leaders in the private sector who created this financial crisis step up to the plate and lead the country out of it. Placing the bail out in the hands of the House and Senate is like asking a carpenter and a plumber to build a rocket and send it to the moon, and by the way you only have a week to do it, and it needs to done right the first time.

Give me a break . . . . . . this bail-out is a joke being played out on the American Public!

BTW, the public knows it is a problem caused by the republican leadership and the de-regulation was passed during the period the republicans ruled the house and senate. I do hope that all the republicans vote against the bail out along with every democrat. Their will be no winners in the house and senate who support this bill in the long run. Passing legistation that spends more in one piece of legislation then five + years of fighting a war in Iraq will prove to be political suicide!

All this time the terrorists that were taking down this country lived right at home. What Bin Laden could not do, the financial sector stepped up to the plate to complete his work.

Every member of the senate and congress should resign. An incompetent administration supported by a bunch of do-nothing and corrupt members of Congress and Senate.

 

Funny

Patrick assumes there's more than one principled GOP member left in the Congress. I think the congress will agree in a "bipartisan" fashion to screw us all.

This bailout isn't a mere "hundreds of billions". It is at least 5 trillion and counting.

The AIG bailout included a provision which allows broker banks to raid their customer's accounts to raise capital. The latest proposal for 700 billion removes all oversight into any activities by Paulson or Bernanke. It is pure fascism and robbery.

Political considerations over how to stengthen the GOP should be dismissed. This last week has been a war against the American taxpayer. Keep your eyes on the ball. The next proposal will be to abandon the dollar entirely and bring on the new "Amero", that same currency that most mainstream comentators pretended was part of a whacko conspiracy thoery.

They are proceeding with the new "American Union" at an accelerated pace. The first step is to destroy the dollar and all constitutional boundaries.

Anyone remember the clause in the constitution prohibiting legislation "impairing the obligation of contracts"? The Constitution is well and truly dead. No, the GOP will not redeem itself.

 

 

Alternative Bailout.

If you accept that a bailout is fundamentally necessary, what is the most free-market approach possible? 

The best I've heard so far is to essentially force risk back onto the executives. Sure, the government will bail you the hell out. But if you're "too big to be allowed to fail" then you're fundamentally too freaking big. A monopoly is the well known case of 'too big', but the same principles apply when there's just a few players as well. The market works better with more players.

So, the top 100 executives of any company that feels "Hey, I need to be bailed out" get a box full of subpoenas, a pink slip, and their company sliced into a minimum of five chunks. The chunks end up with the bailout, the executives get cut parachute cords. Executives are overly focused on the the risk of a declining stock value, even to the point of cooking books to make a rosy picture. Well, being grilled by Congress - live on C-SPAN - brings the risk back home. 

Yes, there are companies for which this isn't a good plan. And a lot of the chunks aren't going to exist after five years. But watching Standard Oil or AT&T getting sliced up didn't lead to complete chaos. Slices would merge, be bought, drift into different directions or whatever. In other words - they were subject to market forces.

 

Subpoena, Slice, Seeya.

get our your garden hoes, laddies

if you accept that a bailout is"fundamentally necessary," than you concede that truly free markets are not workable. and if you concede that, then why in the world would you formulate a response to the situation that's "the most free-market?" wouldn't that be like saying, lets craft the best possible solution using a tool that doesn't work?

the other possibility is not conceding that a bailout if "fundamentally necessary." hey - the status quo results from the greatest expansion of "free-market" principles in our lifetime. doesn't one, as a free-marketeer, have to let this, too, run its course? even if if means the dollar is devalued, the economy shrinks for several years, a great number of people in our vaunted republic have to scrounge for food? mr. greenspan by way of ayn rand wanted to open things up to these mythically powerful market forces - let them open up, by all means. great forces, however, all expand and contract. let us be prepared to slough off the numerous layers of bourgeois excess -- SUVs, whole foods, single-family housing -- we have accumulated during these, the "free market" years.