Breaking: House Passes Bailout Package. Now What?
The House passed the bailout plan moments ago by a comfortable margin, 263 to 171. The political world exhales, and the strangest presidential campaign in recent memory takes yet another turn.
Now what?
The passage of the plan has the potential to help McCain a bit. It could rally the markets, ease everyone's sense of impending apocalypse (a bit), and allow McCain to expand the campaign beyond the economy into areas where he might have a hope of turning things around.
McCain desperately needs the conversation to get back to the question of Barack Obama's fitness to be commander in chief: Time is running out, and while McCain still holds a decided national security edge, Obama's performance amid the crisis has in a broad sense closed the "preparedness" gap between the candidates.
But on the immediate political question of which candidate, if either, will benefit, McCain's unlikely to bank any real political gains. His earlier, and higher-profile, effort to insert himself into the process was a bust. The public has clearly decided it favors Obama's handling of the crisis. And Obama has been edging into a more active role amid the evolving meltdown, calling House members to rally them behind the bailout and repeatedly demanding on the stump that Congress pass the plan.
Also key: A majority of GOPers again opposed the plan. Ninety one House Republicans voted for it, and 108 voted against, again casting doubt on McCain's ability to rally members of his own party behind a measure that he suggested was necessary to rescue the Republic from doom.
Still, predictions are basically futile. The latest news could shift the dynamic of the race (again) in unforeseen ways and send us (again) into uncertain territory as the race enters the final stretch.















What's next? I don't know but I'm sure than McCain will attack Obama for some stupid reason in no time.
October 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're in that weird situation with mcShame now. Like we were in with Hillary in the Spring. The game is over. But not for the opponent. Thus I think we can expect some pointless theatrics... so it keeps the base "cooking" and believing in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
In this case, however, it's even worse for the "other side" - due to something called "early voting."
Which makes the whole thing even more pointless for mcShame and the Dame... and all the more delicious for us.
Even the air seems more bracing! Healthier. The sun brighter. What a great Fall it's going to be!
October 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed ... I love the fall every year but this time you are right -- it's cleaner and better and nicer!
October 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's next? We all hold our breaths for one full month, cross our fingers and hope that Americans look at the overwhelming evidence that points to Obama as our next president.
Then, when the election dust settles, we all get to work to make this country better.
I hope...
http://thepajamapundit.com/
October 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
9th straight month of job loss and the entire time McCain was singing the praises of the 'fundamentals of the economy.'
No way this race goes off economic issues.
October 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg I don't buy the pundits' insistence that Americans hate this bailout. I think if you asked correctly, almost everyone would say that something needed to be done -
I really cannot gage how well people understand how completely interdependent all our financial institutions are, but I think they got a big fat lesson in the last 10 days.
I don't think there is one thing that is going to save John McLame.
October 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the bailout is like going to the dentist. A necessary evil. But we do it.
October 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate it, but I hate the idea of a run on the banks worse.
October 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as soon as it passed, the Dow went down 150 points. Weird.
October 3, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, Investors realised that it isn't a silver bullet.
October 3, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't pay attention to the Dow so much. It's a lagging indicator. Hedge funds and credit flow is where the action is - or isn't.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the market is still above where it started.
October 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're both exactly right.
October 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Might not even be related to the news.
October 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in any case, the market adage is, "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news."
October 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was a McCain strategist, I would be thinking:
"What can we do to turn the race around and put McCain in front?"
1) Stunts are out. He's overplayed that hand.
2) Issues are out, Americans only care about the economy, and they agree with Obama there.
3) Personalities are out, Obama has a reassuring, calm personality and McCain seems erratic and angry.
4) That leaves.. constant smear attacks, which are ineffective seeing as Obama has no real dirt on him which hasn't been extensively hashed and rehashed in the primaries.
Therefore, McCain is royally screwed. Quod Erat Demonstratum.
Obama victory in november.
October 3, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't throw in the towel. Smear attacks, and a lot of ads about how Obama will raise your taxes and isn't ready to be CIC. Palin will be out whipping up the base over the abortion issue. Ineffective, but it's all they got.
October 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like flogging a nag.
October 3, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying they will throw in the towel (Although.. with the michigan pullout)..
But they certainly can't win at this point.
October 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop calling it a bailout.
It is not that. It is money mittens to keep billionaire Wall St. urchins warm this winter.
October 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even all the money those billionaires have isn't enough to make up the massive losses that will affect the market without the bailout.
October 3, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is coming from someone with the same first name as you.
October 3, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why they need to stop calling it a bailout. I understand that it is needed. I was just having a little fun playing around with the notion of picking a better marketing slogan.
October 3, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that. It never ceases to amaze me that people look at this shit so shallowly.
I hate this bill, but like I said - I hate the idea of a run on the banks a whole lot worse.
And if something didn't shore up the credit base immediately, everything looked to me like a possible death spiral and I think - that's how I read Obama and the Democrats - that's how they saw it.
October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rubbish. It's a global problem that we started. To think otherwise is provincial. We had to step up to the plate, regardless.
The good news for Obama is that nothing will turn around between now and the election. McCain is toast. There's no Hollywood happy ending to this tale of economic woe, certainly not in the short term. More likely this is will play out like a European film; reality will grip us all and we will find some bittersweet meaning of economic happiness within our own means. It will be black and white.
Obama wins in a landslide unless there's a hollywood manufactured terrorist or national security incident, and even then, I like his chances of winning.
But we had to bailout or rescue or whatever you want to call it, because it was a mess of our making.
October 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clean-up costs.
October 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
October 3, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
October 3, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clusterfuck?
October 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree that most Americans hate the bailout either.
Also, the economic news will remain bad for quite some time despite today's action.
October 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is more hate that we were put in a position where we needed a bill like this.
October 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah = that's the thing I think Obama and Biden have hammered home - if it needed to be already -
The failure of our economy is the fault of the GOP. It is their failure.
October 3, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
now what?
now california is asking for seven billion dollars.
October 3, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, see http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/221684.php
October 3, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
That will be the debate going forward. Economy will still be king although McCain will try to attack McCain on his "associations", "the surge", and taxes.
October 3, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume this is Candidate McCain attacking Senator McCain?
October 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how much he flip-flops, this is an accurate statement.
October 3, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, McCain is sort of running against 2000 McCain already, and there's been signs that he's a couple cards short of a full deck...
October 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In both debates, the focus groups had absolutely no response when the topic of the surge came out of McCain's or Palin's mouth. When Obama and Biden talked about withdrawing and making Iraq responsible, big positive responses. I think this pretty reflective of the independents/undecideds out there. They would be wise to avoid the surge and focus on domestic issues.
October 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Haven't they seen the polls the last two years? Don't they remember what happened in the 2006 election?
The surge as an issue is a non-starter.
October 3, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
{{{{{{SWOON!}}}}} Who are you and if you're male, do you believe in polyandry?
Nobody ever talks about 2006 but me. It's like it never happened.
Thank you.
October 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly do! Now if we can only convince my wife...
By the way, been following you out here for many weeks, and I know you had a birthday yesterday. Hope it was a great one.
October 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi's speaking. "We have to make sure this never happens again" WTF???
Um..we had regulation in place - remember the crash of 1929?
It was the stinking republicans - Phil Gramm, John McCain and the like who rolled back those regulations and allowed this crap to happen.
So who's to say in 80 years when this tragedy has passed that greedy bastards will not roll regulation back again?
Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.
October 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In defence of the republicans (I never thought I'd say this), many key democrats were lax and permissive about the removal of regulations where they should have been actively working against it.
October 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In part this had to do with the Dixiecrats who were basically Republicans. As well as during the Clinton era, the general sense that Dems had to move to the center and become more like Repubs if they were going to be competitive.
Obama isn't as far left on economic issues as the Right would like to make him out to be, but Obama will, I believe, be unlike Clinton and institute a progressive/liberal philosophy in our country's approach to the business world and the economy.
October 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Clinton did help this whole thing along -
But the circumstances as they were when he was in office really did logically lead to the notion that the restrictions the regulations placed on us were hurting us in the global marketplace.
It made some stupid sense at the time. It was just based on a long term idea that was too optimistic.
October 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
See what happened, my dears, is George W Bush. The idea with loosening regs would have continued possibly to work for us if we had continued on the same track with the surplus Clinton piled up for us.
No one foresaw Commander CooCoo Bananas happening - no one thought Herbert Hoover was going to come back from the grave.
October 3, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, I don't think even Hoover, if he'd come back, would have done as bad as ol' W.
October 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kamatsu here's Rep. Ed Markey (MA-D) on the House floor back on 10/19/00:
"In the Commerce Committee, Democratic members worked cooperatively with the Republican majority to craft a bipartisan bill that addressed investor protection, market integrity, and competitive parity issues raised by the original Agriculture Committee version of the bill. As a result, we passed our bill with unanimous bipartisan support. Following that action, we stood ready to work with members of the Banking and Agriculture Committees to reconcile our three different versions of the bill and prepare it for House floor action. But after just a few bipartisan staff meetings, the Democratic staff was told that Democrats would henceforth be excluded from all future meetings, and that the Republican majority leader was going to take the lead in drafting the bill. What's more, we were also told the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (Phil Gramm) was invited into those negotiations--despite the fact that this bill comes within the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction over in the Senate and the Senate has not even passed a CEA bill. In fact, the Senate Agriculture Committee decided not to include the swaps provisions sought by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when the committee reported S . 2697, because these proposals were viewed as so controversial."
Dems didn't roll over, they were cut out of the process time and time again.
October 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I listened to Durbin during the Senate debate Wednesday, and he recalled a vote on an amendment in 2001 which in the words of Phil Gramm would have "destroyed the Sub Prime credit market". The Amendment lost 50-49. Durbin said, "wouldn't it have been great if we had destroyed the subprime market in 2001?"
(I am currently looking up the bill and Amendment in question)
I totally agree with your assesment. There wasn't a consensus to pushback on deregulation on the Dem side, but there were some serious attempts.
October 3, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This might be a stupid question...anyone else going to see "An American Carol" tonight? (Dinner and a movie; just doing my part to keep the ecomomy rolling)
October 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck no. Next question.
October 3, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be weird for me to point out that that pic is pretty hot?
October 3, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm holding out for "W". Should be fun.
October 3, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that is one way to spin it and I think that we will do well to push that meme. On the other hand, I expect that a month from now when the economy has gone down further since the bailout (and it will; even if this bailout package works, it will simply serve to make the decline less steep, not to turn things around altogether), the Republicans hope to run on a platform of having opposed the "failed Pelosi-democratic giveaway to Wall St fat cats."
It will be a shameless mass of nonsense propaganda, but shameless nonsense is the GOP's bread butter.
October 3, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
er "bread and butter."
October 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Australia the right blamed one of it's greatest Prime Ministers (Paul Keating) for High interest rates in his first term as treasurer directly after one of their own government's economic mismanagement caused them to skyrocket in the first place.
And we almost bought it too.
October 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought our bread and butter was voter suppression...it's hard to keep this stuff straight.
October 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but we liberals are able to consume multiple types of bread and multiple types of butter.
Too bad small-minded conservatives only have room in their little heads for one.
I for one prefer soy and linseed bread. What are other people's preferences?
October 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Nutella stuff isn't bad.
October 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think voter suppression is just the jelly you spread on top of that bread and butter. ;p
October 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Voter Suppression is your Mama's milk. Get it straight.
October 3, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might turn out to be throwing good money after bad, but I don't think there was another choice at this point. No one has any idea what these convoluted high-grade structured-credit enhanced-leveraged mortgage-based googabamumper funds are or were worth, but they will be ours now.
October 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What tipped me over into the Krugman "hold your nose and support it" camp was California's borrowing crisis. When the credit crunch is so bad that even STATES can't sell their notes, you know there really is a hell of a psychological problem in the credit markets. If that's not addressed somehow at a time when unemployment was already skyrocketing pre-crisis... I don't even want to complete that thought.
And though I don't like the added pork, this bill is still a hell of a lot better than Paulson's original draft. Especially the tax on the financial industry to pay for any taxpayer losses in reselling the purchased assets. This really shouldn't end up costing anywhere near 700 bil.
October 3, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah they do. Here's the underlying problem. Nobody wants to buy mortgage backed securities right now. That doesn't mean 100% of the mortgages in the mortgage backed securities are or will ever go into default. Right now only about 4% are in foreclosure. It also doesn't mean the actual houses backing those mortgages all burned to the ground and the land they sit on is poisoned.
If we continue to force these institutions to value mortgage backed securities based on what they can get for them right now (marked to market, about nothing with no buyers) you are basically saying that your house and your equity in your house are worth nothing because the guy down the street lost his house to foreclosure. Chances are you if you want to sell your house right now you can't. It's not because it's worth nothing it's because prospective buyers can't get a mortgage. The same goes for those mortgage backed securities.
If the government buys those mortgage backed securities for pennies on the dollar it could be a bargain for the gov. It'd also make the banks balance sheets look better for awhile. But it wouldn't solve the crisis because it wouldn't recapitalize the banks with enough money to lend.
It's not that they don't know what they're worth it's just that the market for them has collapsed along with the housing market in a vicious circle of frozen lending.
October 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I guess I should have said I don't know what they are worth . . .
October 3, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the Republican stance on the bail out.
Bailout attempt 1- Republicans: it cost to much we cant expect tax payers to pay for it.
Bailout attempt 2, with extra pork the taxpayers have to pay- Republicans: ok we change our mind.
Its crazy they say they voted against it to protect taxpayers so they made the bill even more costly to taxpayers then they vote for it.
October 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it will help McCain because it's too late: the bailout is not a success; it is the scariest result of his failed policies and his recent behavior has been anything but presidential.
October 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's next? Well, for one thing the queue is forming up.
October 3, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a loan until they can use tax money, so it's not like we're not going to be getting it back in years and years.
October 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my state of MA may be right behind Arnold. Plus, now that the financial sector has been "rescued," what's to stop GM and the rest of the automobile sector from coming to DC cap in hand?
It might have been a necessary evil, but it was a bad precedent. At the very least, the feds should demand an equity stake in any bailout wannabe. What kind of lender doesn't secure a huge loan with some kind of collateral?
October 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing can stop them from begging for bailout, but Congress can just ignore them. Given the amount of grief they're getting from some of their constituents, I doubt there is any political will to give any more handouts
October 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next? They're all going to Disneyland!
October 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please send a complain to CNBC about what just aired through the link below:
Charlie Gasparino on CNBC just went off on a rant blaming the housing crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) - this is a widely debunked racist right-wing talking point that was started by Ann Coulter of all people. While the others on the panel, who were actually financial experts, tried to argue against him he just shouted louder and louder and wouldn't let anyone speak and the piece ended. Please write to them through this link and complain about CNBC taking racist right-wing propaganda and pushing it as financial market analysis:
https://register.cnbc.com/email/EmailSupport.jsp
October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught the end of that funny exchange between him and the panel. Charlie Gasparino is always getting called out for his obvious hatred of Democrats.
October 3, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blaming CRA is laughable.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
"Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending." CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did."
October 3, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Blaming CRA is laughable."
No, it's racist...see above.
October 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pennsylvania Tracking Poll: Obama 50 (unchanged), McLame 40 (-1)
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/documents/Release_10_03.pdf
October 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
{{{{Swoon!}}}}
October 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it when you swoon!
October 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This helps McCain because the crisis was sucking all oxygen out of the room meaning there was nothing he could do to try and change the subject or launch a new attack that would have any chance at sticking.
With Brokaw moderating on Tuesday and thus picking the townhall questions you can expect a Rev. Wright question to be asked and thus will be used as the impetus by the McCain Camp to run their Rev. Wright Campaign saying "We didn't bring it up a town haller asked the question which means Americans still have questions on the matter".
I'd bet my house on the fact that there will be a Rev. Wright question on Tuesday. Brokaw's gift to his BFF McCain.
Before the Economic bill was passed, Obama could always parry and say "Same old politics and distractions when America is in a national economic meltdown", however that defense will lose a lot of impact given that the bill has been passed and the outcome is largely out of the hands of the politicians for the time being.
October 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze -
There is one overwhelming but simple fact that totally belies your entire comment:
The failure of the economy belongs entirely to the GOP and McLame is a Repug and no amount of Mavericky bullshit is going to change that.
October 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it's not as if this bill is going to solve the dire economic straits on "Main Street" (or perhaps even on Wall Street). Obama still can respond to efforts to turn campaign to personal crap with the "this isn't what Americans want to be hearing about" -- and he'll be exactly right.
October 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Rev. Wright is so damned fatal for Obama, whyohwhy haven't the the repubs thrown it out by now? They've had nothing to lose for a couple of weeks. Things can't get much worse. Where's the kryptonite we've been waiting for?
Answer: the Wright issue has been fully aired and too many Americans are tired of the Hail Mary's wrapped in kitchen sinks to care about an angry minister at this point. If Wright does come up, it'll only be confirmation from the McCain camp that the towel will be the next thing thrown.
October 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rev. Wright was already brought up during the primaries, and it was fresh and new and therefore as devastating as it was capable of being. Obama didn't go down then, I seriously doubt he'll be taken down now when and if it's rehashed. This really goes for any other already-outed "scandal" against Obama, such as Ayers, Rezko, etc. Unless McCain has something entirely new, I really don't think beating these dead horses will do him a whole lot of good.
October 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he does bring up Rev. Wright because in the current climate of REAL economic uncertainty and focus on the dire matters facing our nation e.g. Iraq, healthcare, etc., I am guessing that the Rev. Wright nonsense won't move the dial a bit.
Even if it does, there's footage of Palin having demons chased away at the alter of her church in Alaska.
Good lord. Bring it on as "they" used to say.
October 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it'll move the dial all right, just not in the direction McMoron is hoping.
October 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope to God Brokaw or McCain brings up Rev. Wright. I will watch with glee as those little squiggly line doohickey things on CNN start crashing to the floor. And then watch them go back up through the top of my TV when Obama responds by saying something like, "in the midst of a financial crisis, when the country is engaged in 2 Wars, THIS is all you got?!"
October 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can both mobilize anger about the need to have bailed out the financial markets, and cannot now be charged with having obstructed a fix. He can juxtapose McCangy's vote for the bailout with his 26-year career of voting against the interests of working and middle class people. Greg's analysis properly accounts for the volatility of the political climate, but I'm pretty optimistic of how this plays out. Also, McCain is a mistake-prone and undisciplined candidate, and Obama an incredibly disciplined one.
October 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: McCain is trading at 31.5 on Intrade.
October 3, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just call is the inverse of passing a bill.
October 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Undecided voters should look at this example of McCain's leadership and do the right thing.
And if that doesn't do the trick, try this:
October 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
See - to me this is pure leadership in a crisis
All McLame has done (and thanks Sarah for bringing this up last night) is pull the dumbest fucking stunt I've ever seen - pretendsuspending his campaign.
October 3, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that like "quasi-suspending"?
I really almost fell off my couch when she said she "quasi-caved" on the budget in Alaska. I mean, what the hell does that even mean? Hey Sarah, you are quasi-awful.
October 3, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Greg. 'Change the dynamic'? There's a better chance of a comet striking the earth at this point. The passage of a bill isn't going to make anyone rest easier on the economy all of a sudden. McCain ship has sailed, headed for the Nov. 4 iceberg. And I am LOVING it.
October 3, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I thought the Democrats wouldn't pass this thing without the majority of Republicans supporting it. What happened to that? The party just set up their Congressmembers to take a big re-election hit should this thing actually make things worse.
And what the fuck was with all that pork barrel spending? Fuckin' ARROWS? Movies? Rum? All inserted by Democrats. While we need more Democrats, certainly, we also need better Democrats!
Anyway, about the election--I seriously doubt the economy issue will be turned because things will only get worse before they get better. The passage of this bill won't automatically fix the problems that are causing nine straight months of job-loss, and certainly won't fix anything before November.
Obama all but nullified the CIC question with his debate performance. Just about every smear has been debunked by the MSM, and the third and last debate will be about, well, the economy.
But now's not the time to lean back and coast to victory--now's the time to push harder than ever! Max out your donations this month, folks (do some for me, too, since I'm living in Europe right now and don't have a checking account from which to donate). As James Carville suggested, McCain is sinking, time to throw him a gawdamn anchor!
October 3, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has to debate Obama on jobs for the next month. And it's going to have to consist of much more than "Lower taxes create more jobs", because that's been proven an utter falsehood this past year.
So what does he say? Obama wants to tax you out of your home? I can't see the majority of the voting pop buying that lie anymore.
October 3, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now - and this is totally subject to change - but right now I'd bet money there isn't going to be another debate.
October 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rev Wright, Ayers etc won't help the GOP. Those cards have been played out in the primaries. Our economy is in the toilet, we have lost almost 700,000 jobs since the start of the year, no one apart from crazy freepers give a crap about that stuff.
October 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support this move. I agree that it has to be done.
I am not sure that it will work, but we had to try.
I view this bill as more of a placebo treatment, than an actual solution. It is still all based on the trickle down principle: if we purchase a large portion of the fat cats' bad purchases, then they will trickle down the money we paid them, to the little guys.
I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. Here is why:
Why will they rush to give a lot of credit to people who can not get it now, after they have been burned with a lot of bad credit, and just have lucked out by offloading it to the government. Are there requirements in the bill that forces them to lend the money, trickle down, if you will. or are they free to opt to treat it as profit, which will improve their stock profiles and quarterly earnings reports.
I have heard a lot about limiting the golden parachutes for the CEOs, but what about their stock options rewards. Do they get to keep them. If they do, then that would tempt them to hold on to the new cash influx, improve their assets profile, and thereby boost the value of their stock options. Is there anything in the bill that prohibits them from doing that.
As for all those housing mortgages that the government will be taking ownership of. There is no way that those homes are going to return to their full market values within the next ten years.
The reason why I say that is: Supply and demand. The reason why there was a housing bubble is because too many people, who should never have been ruled financially qualified to own a home, got one, and now have left those homes empty. So you now have a situation where supply far exceeds qualified demand. On top of that, getting a morgage approved will be almost impossible. Only those with the best credit ratings will be capable of being approved, and the vast majority of those people already own homes, and if they wish to move, they will not be able to sell their current homes.
The housing market is going to be in the doldrums for at least a decade, and only those with impeccable credit rating will have any chance to get a mortgage.
I support the bill, because we had to give it a try, and maybe it will provide a modest placebo boost to the economy, but that is the best we can hope for. It is not going to change the dynamics of supply and demand, and we are stuck with far more houses on the market, compared to the qualified demand numbers.
October 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a placebo - you are just right.
It's partly a matter of perception, liam - the markets operate on perception, actually - that's all they have.
October 3, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we have the names and districts of those 108 cowardly Republicants please?
October 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill was a bandaid, and it's probably just going to prevent a colossal disaster.
The economy is the number 1 issue, and even without this bill, it's still going to be the number 1 issue. McCain doesn't have any tricks left, as far as I can see. He can't pick another snazzy shiny object as Veep, he can't "suspend" his campaign, he can't jet back into Washington to talk a lot on his Blackberry and ignore Obama...what can he do? Call for a commission to solve the problem? Already done.
So to get attention away from the economy, he's going to have to bring up Wright, Ayers, and Rezko, and question Obama's judgment. It's late, at this point, to do this, but he's got nothing else left.
I watched the debate last night on CNN with the sound off, and alternating between the debate and "Children of Men" (thinking to myself through the whole movie that if McCain wins, this is what our future might look like). Anyway, I'd turn back to CNN, and look at the squiggly lines. They were regularly positive when Biden spoke, and neutral or slightly positive when Palin spoke. Anyone else notice anything like that?
October 3, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo - we won the election last night.
:)
I'm not going to gloat until the morning after the election and the headlines come out, but I'm not the slightest bit nervous anymore.
October 3, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
hOPE SO. I admit, I've got that curiously deflated feeling I had after Obama swamped Wisconsin during the primaries.
Then again, things got pretty exciting shortly after that with Rev. Wright...
October 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was listening on NPR instead of watching on the t.v., so I have no idea where the squiggly lines moved when anyone spoke.
October 3, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what the topic was at the beginning, but there were pronounced gender differences in the squiggly lines, with men approving of what Palin said, and women disapproving. The opposite appeared for Biden (again, this was just in the beginning): women approved of what Biden was saying, and men disapproved.
But by about 9:45 or 9:50, Biden appeared to be getting consistently higher approvals from both men and women than Palin was.
I couldn't bear to watch the debate with the sound on. I just couldn't.
October 3, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Men were thinking with their 3rd legs, and the women were thinking, don't you dare go near my husband/boyfriend!
October 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - Go read the snap polls from last night - scroll down.
Charles fucking Krauthammer handed the election to Obama in his stupid column today.
He said: we won.
Biden won that debate in polls by huge margins - much larger than the Obama-McLame debate.
October 3, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know, Tena. I was just commenting on the pronounced gender differences evident in the first half hour or so.
October 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now what?
The public overwhelmingly holds Bush and republicans responsible for the economic turmoil.
Because of McCain's dramatics, he tied this bailout onto his back, so when it failed to get passed, McCain was blamed.
Some republicans hold McCain responsible for supporting this bill, and they see it as another reminder of the maverick's voting record.
And now that the bill has passed, his surrogates aren't even suggesting that McCain saved the day. The bailout and the economy has become a loser for McCain.
October 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"his surrogates aren't even suggesting that McCain saved the day."
Not yet they're not. Instead, they're pow-wowing how to blame the dems for the bill McSnarly swooped in to save, the same one he voted for, then called a disaster.
Don't be surprised if McCain begins to call the bailout the "Bush-Obama bailout bill."
And it may work. Notwithstanding the hair-on-fire media blitz, I think a significant number of voters will use this bill as a litmus test. It shouldn't affect the presidential race, but could adversely some House races.
October 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we PLEASE get links to votes on the house site on articles?
October 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see we spend a Trillion dollars to free up the credit markets and all will be OK. So in order to do this smart people with bad paper sell it back to us and then they put our money back to work any place in the world they choose.
So now after having made a series of bad deals that they got bailed out on now they are going to do the same thing again so we can bail them out again? I think not.
Credit is going to be must harder to get and more expensive. People that have saved in the past are finally going to get some return. Jobs are going to be slim to non existent.
So here we are we have already spent a Trillion dollars that should have been spent on bridges, energy research and recovery You Obama people believe in the Tooth Fairy. Whoever wins the election will have their Visa card revoked. The common taxpayer will be getting a raise alright. A raise in their tax burden. If you are looking for a better life from the government it doesn't work that way unless your already rich.
Get off your asses and fend for yourselves. If you are looking for happy days being here again just because some ego driven politician says so you folks are truly dumb as you sound.
October 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bailout attempt 1- Republicans: it cost to much we cant expect tax payers to pay for it.
Bailout attempt 2, with extra pork the taxpayers have to pay- Republicans: ok we change our mind.
Its crazy they say they voted against it to protect taxpayers so they made the bill even more costly to taxpayers then they vote for it."
This billions bailout is going to come back to haunt the Dems - the McCain folks will make sure of that.
Captain of the Titanic: "Did we hit an iceberg?"
"Sir, I think it hit us..."
Either way we're sunk.
October 3, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
now what mcsame will be on tv saying its his idea and attacking it at the same time oh he is doing that already as shown on the daily show
October 3, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our political dynamics reflect the "splitting the baby in two" episode in the bible that demonstrated the wisdom of King Solomon.
Everyone knows the story. Two women want the baby. Solomon says fine, slice the baby in two and give half to each. One says yes, the other says no. Solomon knows that the real mother wouldn't allow the baby to die, and awards it her.
(Seinfeld also spoofed this in one episode where Neuman plays judge between Elaine and Kramer, both who claim ownership to a bycicle).
This underscores another truth in human relations: the party that cares the least controls the relationship. This is why Democrats have had trouble standing up to Republicans. The financial crisis illustrates this dynamic.
The Republicans created this economic disaster, really 30 years ago when they embraced 'supply side' economics, which has never worked, except in very rare, very brief, tactical situations. In fact, most every epic disaster in history, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the onset of the Great Depression (triggering the rise of Hitler, WWII and the Holocaust) was caused by some version of 'supply side' economic policies.
Supply-side always fails. Why? Because 2/3rds of the economy is based upon consumption, i.e. demand. When resources are shifted over to the supply-side of the ledger, demand contracts and with it the economy. But before that happens, the people who are now without money, borrow from those who now have too much money as a bridge to maintain their life styles for their family until better times come. When the bridge falls short of reaching the other shore, the economic collapse kicks in, only much faster and takes the financial system with it.
Despite this history of persistent folly, the Republicans subject the country to these policies. Why? Because, like the mother who wants to split the baby, they really don't care what happens to "Joe Sixpack" or main street. Their constituency walked off with all the loot, and will do just fine, thank you very much, come what may.
Now you have the Democrats, rescuing Republican economic policy from going into the abyss. Why? It's not because they liked those policies. It's because Democrats do care about what happens to every day, Joe Sixpack, Americans when those policies go into the abyss.
The Republicans in the house voted AGAINST salvaging the worst effects from THEIR economic policy. Why? Because they don't care about what happens to the country and the people in it. Yeah, they were willing to spend a trillion dollars on Iraq because their constituents were making hay there, but they're not willing to rescue America.
He or she that cares the least, controls the relationship. That's true in love and romance, and it's true in politics.
The history of the Democrats caving into Republicans, even when they are a majority are subject to this capitol fact.
Time and time again, Bush and/or the Republicans have held the nation or its soldiers hostage in order to get the policies they want passed through congress.
Solomon would be rolling his eyes at this.
October 3, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink