Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

Why are the democrats not putting this to a vote. They have plenty of House and Senate support to pass it (even without McCain and the House republicans)?

If Obama/Reid/Pelosi is right and we are facing the worst economic crisis since the depression if it isn't passed, why wait for those "stubborn" house republicans?

There is some interesting talk out there about how this is the classic prisoner's dilemma. Basically, this bill needs to pass. But it is unpopular with the public, so no one wants to be on record as voting for it. So, most every politician want the following: For the bill to pass but to have voted against it. But, of course, if everyone votes that way, then it won't pass.

Google prisoners dilemma and bailout bill. I am sure you can find a better summary of the situation than my ham-handed attempt.

The whole thing is a facinating view of applied game theory.

On some level, since Democrats have the votes, I wonder why they don't write and vote on a bill for which they would be willing to take the political heat. Instead of using $700 billion of taxpayer money, loan the money to the agency that will give it out, and pay back the loan with a temporary 0.25% tax on securities trades that will automatically expire after the loan is payed back with interest. People have speculated that such an approach would pay back the loan in 5-6 years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

idk if you can blame it on the democrats.

More republicans voted against it than democrats. more democrats voted for it than republicans.

i think you have to blame it on this groundswell of public opinion you've been talking about.

To the contrary. I'm not blaming Democrats. I'm saying that the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves if they truly wanted this to pass, yet they failed to pass it with a pretty solid majority of the House. They had enough votes to pass this bill without getting a single Republican vote.

I would note that the backlash against earmarks has been pretty heavy of late. I'm guessing that the $25B earmark to the auto industry didn't help ease those concerns in the House.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think you have to blame it on this groundswell of public opinion you've been talking about.

Yep, unfortunatly the public sees it as a "giveaway" to banks but don't realize if they fail, they are going to suffer pretty damned badly. They just don't realize what their anger has done.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

1. Im shutting down my campaign to go make sure that the deal that ccomes through is one that we like, and passes and is good for the people

2. they work 24hours / day over the weekend negotiating

3. They come up with a deal that has bi-partisan support (dont make me get the quotes)

4. Deal fails 2-1 on the GOP side.

Where do you see the falsehood?

As Bob Schieffer said that prior to the last bill, only FOUR Republicans raised their hands when Paulson asked who was going to vote for the Bill. This is quite a bit more than 4 GOP votes for the new bill.

[Flasch186]

just to help you out MBBF

The spin is that Pelosi's speech was so partisan that it killed the GOP support. Pelosi trumped McCain.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As Bob Schieffer said that prior to the last bill, only FOUR Republicans raised their hands when Paulson asked who was going to vote for the Bill. This is quite a bit more than 4 GOP votes for the new bill.

Paulson had a roomfull of all the GOP members?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

just to help you out MBBF

The spin is that Pelosi's speech was so partisan that it killed the GOP support. Pelosi trumped McCain.

I need to read her speech. The GOP congressmen seem pretty ticked about it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

just to help you out MBBF

The spin is that Pelosi's speech was so partisan that it killed the GOP support. Pelosi trumped McCain.

I had not heard that. My comments had nothing to do with that. I'm certainly not a fan of Pelosi, but I'll leave that for a Pelosi thread.

Regardless, it doesn't matter how many GOP members she did or didn't irritate. Her own party did not even fall in line behind her. This vote certainly is a power check for the Democratic leadership. They said they had a bi-partisan agreement in place. From the looks of the vote, there wasn't even a partisan agreement in place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

She's certainly not going to make any more stupid statements than her VP opponent on the Dem side.

It's quite possible that Palin's made more stupid statements in the 4 weeks she's been in the limelight than Biden has made in his almost 3 decades of service at the federal level.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I had not heard that. My comments had nothing to do with that. I'm certainly not a fan of Pelosi, but I'll leave that for a Pelosi thread.

Regardless, it doesn't matter how many GOP members she did or didn't irritate. Her own party did not even fall in line behind her. This vote certainly is a power check for the Democratic leadership. They said they had a bi-partisan agreement in place. From the looks of the vote, there wasn't even a partisan agreement in place.

95 dems voted against it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's quite possible that Palin's made more stupid statements in the 4 weeks she's been in the limelight than Biden has made in his almost 3 decades of service at the federal level.

Now THAT is false. She may do some good work given a few years, but Biden has her covered overall. Given the chance, she may chase him down.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, unfortunatly the public sees it as a "giveaway" to banks but don't realize if they fail, they are going to suffer pretty damned badly. They just don't realize what their anger has done.

yeah. both of my parents are economists (dad has a phd) and they're really worried (as am i) that people are not seeing the full picture

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Regardless, it doesn't matter how many GOP members he did or didn't irritate. His own party did not even fall in line behind him. This vote certainly is a power check for the McCain. They said they had a bi-partisan agreement in place. From the looks of the vote, there wasn't even a partisan agreement in place.

My fix of your quote is equally right and evidence over the past 10 days are spot on with the events. You may not be wrong since it's your opinion but mine is equally right.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Regardless, it doesn't matter how many GOP members she did or didn't irritate. Her own party did not even fall in line behind her. This vote certainly is a power check for the Democratic leadership. They said they had a bi-partisan agreement in place. From the looks of the vote, there wasn't even a partisan agreement in place.

I don't think you understand the politics behind this. There was no way the democrats were going to force this through without republican support. It would have made them far, far too vulnerable.

You can criticize the dems for not just forcing it through, but I think that's unfair given the situation. Of the five major parties involved (executive, senate repubs, senate dems, house repubs, house dems), the house repubs were the only ones not on board. They have to take the bulk of the blame if this situation blows up due to inaction.

[Galaxy]

I wish Bloomberg had run. I think, if he did, would have a real opportunity to steal the show right now.

[Flasch186]

Dems are saying they brought more "yeah" votes than planned and that the reason it was that number was in conjunction with the planned amount from the GOP.

I assume that this is assumed to be worked out behind the scenes and the actual vote is just a stamp so.

GOP strategists are saying that this is 'devastating' to McCain because the economy drags on and the ideology of the GOP got us into this mess and now the GOP wont let us fix it. - CNBC

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

GOP strategists are saying that this is 'devastating' to McCain because the economy drags on and the ideology of the GOP got us into this mess and now the GOP wont let us fix it. - CNBC

Interesting. I wonder if the GOP congressmen don't much care about this since McCain has trashed them in his attempt to become a change candidate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

I don't think you understand the politics behind this. There was no way the democrats were going to force this through without republican support. It would have made them far, far too vulnerable.

You can criticize the dems for not just forcing it through, but I think that's unfair given the situation. Of the five major parties involved (executive, senate repubs, senate dems, house repubs, house dems), the house repubs were the only ones not on board. They have to take the bulk of the blame if this situation blows up due to inaction.

You've obviously missed my point. I certainly understand exactly that. I stated that both sides were saving their own ass. My only point was that if they truly wanted to pass it, the Democrats certainly could have done that without any GOP support. They knew it was a flawed bill. I haven't blamed anyone. I said the Dems have to look at their own party if they want to assess blame since they couldn't muster support within their own party.

As I stated before, this has far more to do with the general public voicing their concerns. There's no one to blame. It's a lousy bill that didn't pass and I'm glad both sides saw that.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

very quickly so as not to waste too much of my time showing stuff that you'll throw in the trash:
...

I won't bother throwing anything in the trash. I'm actually happy that you produced something that you could believe supported your position. I had begun to wonder.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Interesting. I wonder if the GOP congressmen don't much care about this since McCain has trashed them in his attempt to become a change candidate.

I think has more to do with them just not wanting their name on this bill. This is going to be wildly unpopular among Republican rank-and-file, and there is only few weeks before their elections. A lame-duck congress would pass this in a blink.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Interesting. I wonder if the GOP congressmen don't much care about this since McCain has trashed them in his attempt to become a change candidate.

If this gets much messier, the GOP may want to throw this election and let someone else dig out of this hole. I'm guessing that the challenger is going to have a great shot at getting elected in 2012 no matter who ends up in the White House.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah. both of my parents are economists (dad has a phd) and they're really worried (as am i) that people are not seeing the full picture

When have they ever?

[GrantDawg]

Barney Franks: "The Republicans are saying that someone hurt their feelings, and so they are punishing the country by not passing this bill? Tell you what, give me the twelve names that changed their vote, and I'll talk uncharacteristically nice to them."

[JPhillips]

The Pelosi was too mean argument is ridiculous. Vote for or against the bill, but don't try and blame your decision on a speech almost no one heard.

Again, when did Republicans become such pussies?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah. both of my parents are economists (dad has a phd) and they're really worried (as am i) that people are not seeing the full picture

I don't suppose you'd like to give us their thoughts in a 3ish paragraph nutshell? QS put it perfectly either in this thread or the recession thread- (paraphrasing) we're all pretty intelligent people if we're arguing over the nuance of politics, but the entire economy is so big, it's hard to get your head around so there's no concept as to whether any number of forms of bailouts are a good idea or not.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If this gets much messier, the GOP may want to throw this election and let someone else dig out of this hole. I'm guessing that the challenger is going to have a great shot at getting elected in 2012 no matter who ends up in the White House.

Reminds me of a political comic I saw during the primary where the Democrats realize how screwed up things are and decide they don't want the job, so they all drop out. The Republicans now realize they might win and that terrifies them so they call out the Democrats for being unpatriotic and abandoning America.

The other thing to consider is how much worse can things get? Things are bound to be better in 4 years than they are now (I sure as hell hope so), no matter who is in charge. If so, the incumbent may be able to coast to re-election a la Reagan in 84.

[GrantDawg]

CNN is playing Pelosi comments. Yeah. She basically said this was all the White House's fault, and the party is over. Very bi-partisan.

[Passacaglia]

fivethirtyeight.com notes that of the 38 incumbents in close races, the vote was 30-8 against, and pretty much among the others.

[JPhillips]

It reads pretty tepid to me, but I haven't heard the delivery.

"Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration's failed economic policies--policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.

That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol.

As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.
Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.

It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.

It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.

Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.

Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.

So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:

This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.

The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public's participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.

The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.

With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.

This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation's economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package--a robust, job creating bill--that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.

Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a New Direction to a better future."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't suppose you'd like to give us their thoughts in a 3ish paragraph nutshell? QS put it perfectly either in this thread or the recession thread- (paraphrasing) we're all pretty intelligent people if we're arguing over the nuance of politics, but the entire economy is so big, it's hard to get your head around so there's no concept as to whether any number of forms of bailouts are a good idea or not.

SI

talk to me after dinner tonight and i'll have more of a coherent thought fresh off their lips.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You've obviously missed my point. I certainly understand exactly that. I stated that both sides were saving their own ass. My only point was that if they truly wanted to pass it, the Democrats certainly could have done that without any GOP support. They knew it was a flawed bill. I haven't blamed anyone. I said the Dems have to look at their own party if they want to assess blame since they couldn't muster support within their own party.

*shurg* Saying the dems didn't vote for it because its a flawed bill and that they couldn't muster support with their own party I think reveals that you don't understand the politics of the bill and why it failed.

[DaddyTorgo]

not to play thread-police, but shouldn't the economic posts be in the recession thread?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It reads pretty tepid to me, but I haven't heard the delivery.

That wasn't her speech. She doesn't address herself when speaking I'm pretty sure.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

not to play thread-police, but shouldn't the economic posts be in the recession thread?

not when it effects the race so much, IMO.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

not when it effects the race so much, IMO.

Yeah, this is more about the political fallout. The direct financials are the other thread.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think Pelosi's speech was a very good idea, but since when did Republicans take over as the party of whiners? They should be voting on whether or not the bill is good for the country. If Pelosi's speech really did affect their vote, then that's pretty sad. What happened to the tough, take no prisoners Republican party that we've seen since 1994?

People talk about Republicans abandoning their conservative principles, but now it seems like they've abandoned their testicles too.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think Pelosi's speech was a very good idea, but since when did Republicans take over as the party of whiners? They should be voting on whether or not the bill is good for the country. If Pelosi's speech really did affect their vote, then that's pretty sad. What happened to the tough, take no prisoners Republican party that we've seen since 1994?

That's been gone for a long time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That wasn't her speech. She doesn't address herself when speaking I'm pretty sure.

As far as I can tell that's the main portion of her remarks. Maybe there was an intro that wasn't included, but that's certainly the bulk of what she said.

[Marc Vaughan]

Well from what I've seen on google finance ...

Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. SOV -69.06% 1.72B
National City Corporation NCC -58.22% 1.20B
Genworth Financial, Inc. GNW -40.91% 2.08B
Fifth Third Bancorp FITB -38.12% 5.78B

Now bearing in mind the last banks to post drops like that folded within days its looking like it'll be a lively few days unless some sort of rescue plan is passed promptly.

[Flasch186]

awful awful timing to have a Jewish holiday

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think Pelosi's speech was a very good idea, but since when did Republicans take over as the party of whiners? They should be voting on whether or not the bill is good for the country.

Sorry, but that's too much for my cynical self to let pass. Good for the country? Congresscritters? Are you f'ing kidding me?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Well from what I've seen on google finance ...

Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. SOV -69.06% 1.72B
National City Corporation NCC -58.22% 1.20B
Genworth Financial, Inc. GNW -40.91% 2.08B
Fifth Third Bancorp FITB -38.12% 5.78B

Now bearing in mind the last banks to post drops like that folded within days its looking like it'll be a lively few days unless some sort of rescue plan is passed promptly.

I was just reading about National City (since it owns my mortgage), and they were saying that this was ridiculous. They are not as deep in the sub-prime as Wamu, and that they were still fluid. Of course, now the stock has lost half its value, either someone will swoop in and swallow it, or people will get scared and pull their money, and they will fail.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Sorry, but that's too much for my cynical self to let pass. Good for the country? Congresscritters? Are you f'ing kidding me?

Well sure, but they could at least fake it. I'm just surprised that they've taken the whiner approach. This is not the party of Karl Rove anymore.

[SirFozzie]

They're out Democrat-ing the Democrats. This is bad for McCain, not only because Economics is something he's getting killed on being in the news for.. but...

http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...845325,00.html

But the candidate with the most riding on Monday's vote is McCain, who backed the concerns of conservatives in the House over the initial agreement. "John McCain stood up for House Republicans," said Representative Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican who was involved in early negotiations. "He stood up to the Administration. John McCain vastly improved this bill."

But if a majority of the House Republicans don't vote for the measure, McCain could lose political face. "If McCain cannot persuade them, it is hard to portray him as a leader," said Clyde Wilcox, a political science professor at Georgetown University.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I was just reading about National City (since it owns my mortgage), and they were saying that this was ridiculous. They are not as deep in the sub-prime as Wamu, and that they were still fluid. Of course, now the stock has lost half its value, either someone will swoop in and swallow it, or people will get scared and pull their money, and they will fail.

I heard exactly the same about WaMu just before it went down ... bah now I'm spreading 'fear' just like the media, but to be honest I think most of the recent bank 'failures' have been failures of confidence not of the banks themselves.

All it takes now is the rating agencies looking at the share price drops and downgrading those banks (as happened with WaMu) and hey presto, instant failures/cheap purchases for the surviving banks ...

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As far as I can tell that's the main portion of her remarks. Maybe there was an intro that wasn't included, but that's certainly the bulk of what she said.

She ad-libbed.

Most Emailed News Stories

Among the remarks Pelosi made on the floor that were not included in the prepared text:

"When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around ... and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. ..."

"... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos."

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

She ad-libbed.

Most Emailed News Stories

Yeah, that was the part they played on CNN and pissed the GOP off.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That wasn't her speech. She doesn't address herself when speaking I'm pretty sure.

She did this time...

YouTube - Dems for Bailout: Pelosi #1 "anything goes mentality"

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah. both of my parents are economists (dad has a phd) and they're really worried (as am i) that people are not seeing the full picture

What IS the full picture? I'm an economics light weight...I go to work and get a paycheck. I have no stock invested in any mortgage or financial institution, I don't have a mortgage, I don't work for a mortgage or financial institution, so I'm not sure where "I" fall into all of this.

I'm having a hard time of: "Separating the chaff from the whey?" or however that saying goes, to put it simply.

If it's only going to be hard for a year or two (if there is no bailout), then I say, "F" em, too bad. If this will indeed cause millions of jobs to be lost, then let's get this bailout rolling.

If you or anyone could point me to a link or something that explains this mess in laymans terms (without the politics), that would be awesome.

[Flasch186]

Millions of Jobs lost
Millions of homes in Foreclosure
More bad assets on the books everywhere
Small business failings left and right as credit becomes unavailable
Major business failings on a lesser scale but prominent as theyll be unable to get new debt or refinance old

Basically an entire seizure of the engine.

Pain on a scale we havnt seen in our generation.

IMO, w/ the bailout as its stated, if implemented as I see it, the engine will slow to a crawl and standards will rise but the engine will be able to be restarted. W/o it you'll suffer pain and a lot of it, until someone comes up with an FDR like way of starting the economy again (with the world economy as a little help).

the above is only my opinion.