WARNING: This stuff is a little bit above my pay grade, but I hope you'll indulge my thinking out loud:
1. It's highly likely that some sort of bill will pass the Congress. What kind of bill, I don't know. But the Dow is liable to act as something of a thermostat. The lower the Dow goes, affecting people's 401Ks, the more banks that fail, the less unpopular the bailout becomes, and the more of those swing district congressmen will flip over to support the package.
2. Now, if the Dow is rational, it ought to recognize all of this. What were the chances as of this morning that the 110th Congress was going to pass some sort of bailout bill before it adjourned? 90 percent, I'm guessing? What are the chances now? Higher than you'd think because of the thermostat effect I described above -- perhaps 75 percent. So if a 15 percent reduction in the probability of the bailout passing was worth 600 points on the Dow (and granted, that 15 percent number is plucked out of thin air), what would a complete failure to pass the bailout translate into? A 4000 point loss?
3. Yes, the Democrats absolutely have the Republicans by the short and curlies. An LA Times/Bloomberg poll released last week revealed that 32 percent of persons blame Wall Street for the financial crisis -- generally conceived of as a Republican institution -- and 26 percent blame the Bush Administration. Just 11 percent blame Congress. The worse the economy gets, the more of a hole the Republicans have to dig themselves out of.
4. Having said all of the above, the schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this, and not just those in the investor class. I tend to see this more as a failure of our democracy than a reaffirmation of it. The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- voted overwhelmingly for this measure.
9.29.2008
More Bailout Thoughts
@ 4:33 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
447 comments
FIRST !
great post Nate
DOW DOWN 21% YTD
I tend to agree with Nate. This failure to pass a BRS package was shameful. When did this become a game of chicken for Pelosi? I have a very hard time she didn't know how many votes she had on her side.
"Failure of democracy" is exactly right. And I agree that Congress can't go home. Even tomorrow, during Rosh Hashanah there are going to be some serious meetings, and every Jewish legislator will have their Blackberry set on vibrate.
We pay these guys, and if they take their ball and go home there's going to be hell to pay. Anyone who leaves Washington is going to need a new job come January. Good luck in THAT market.
what are the new polls coming out today ?
Ras state numbers @ 6 P.M. ET(VA, FL, ???????)
CNN ?
any other ???
Great to know that Dennis Kucinich doesn't need credit. Wonder if he knows what schadenfreude means!
imho -- apparently they didn't do that pre-vote-count they usually do on votes (according to CNN right after the vote) so maybe Pelosi didn't know.
"But the Dow is liable to act as something of a thermostat"
This. People who voted against the bailout now have cover to vote for it (see what happened the first time I voted no? how much your retirement went down? we have to do this!)
I think the terms of the bailout will be significantly stricter now - including hard limits on CEO pay (e.g. any company that takes money cant pay their CEO > 400K for the next 3 yrs), possibly a securities tax sooner (3 yrs instead of 5).
Holy shit the Republicans are ASSHOLES!
A woman hurts their feelings so they vote against the bailout!!
WTF!
INSANE!!!!
No blank checks for Wall Street.
A good post, and you've described economic expectations well. I wonder if the house has figured out it out yet. Wall Street clearly factored the effects of the plan on the open this morning. The markets were jittery, unsure whether it would be enough, and low and behold, the Dow nose dives within 2 hours of trading. This was warning sign number 1 - Hey you on Capitol Hill, the markets have already factored this deal into their expectations - DO NOT hit them with a shock. Oh, look what happened. 777 points later and the the global economy is looking as healthy as a White Castle burger.
It's basic economics. It's called Adaptive Expectations. Make a song and dance about it, fine, but do not dissappoint the market, becasue the market never comes in 2nd place.
Nate... you are awesome, but wouldn't the congressmen retiring this year be *less* likely to be neutral arbiters, because they never again have to face public outrage/opinion?
It is not as linear as your point No. 2 implies. If, for example, you are about to board a flight and you are informed that there is a 20% chance the plane will fall you will probably stay in the gate because you will be sensible to this risk. It doesnt mean that you will see a constant rate of refusal to board the plane for every 5% you increase the accident chance. I think the stock exchange works in a similar way, once there is only a 75% chance of the bailout passing, investors feel its not worth the risk.
IMHO, I imagine the situation was still pretty fluid when they went to a vote. And it's possible that Republicans told their whips they'd pretend they were going to vote yea just to try and make Pelosi look like an idiot. Everything they've done so far has been about grandstanding and breast-beating. Either they come around soon or the Dems will come out as heroes.
"No blank checks for Wall Street."
Then no paychecks for Main Street.
The Democrats and their ally in the White House cannot control their own emembers. Obama has shown ZERO leadersip on this.
In times of crisis people will not turn to an inexpereinced former community organizer who would rather debate than work ona solution as their President.
This is very bad for the Democrat Party and for Obama as well.
The Dems ARE the party of Wall Street. Where do you think the place is? Cincinnati????
Kathleen -
If Pelosi didn't know, then the calculus of this vote runs much stronger towards not passing it than I think. But to not know seems a dereliction, though. That is hard for me to beleive about a life long pol.
@ Deadpixel
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Somewhere in the silence of Capitol Hill, you can hear a Republican COngressman getting his diaper changed...
I want Obama to win this thing as much as the next guy, but when it comes to 'who's the bigges a-hole in today's game', the hands-down winner is Pelosi.
It was reckless and irresponsible of her to poison this bill the way she did. Yes, the Republicans acted like babies when they took their marbles home with them, but it should never have come to that.
She is an embarrassment to Congress and should step down as Speaker or be forced out by her party.
Nate... you are awesome, but wouldn't the congressmen retiring this year be *less* likely to be neutral arbiters, because they never again have to face public outrage/opinion?
Wha? No. The ones who are running are not neutral because they have to listen to their constituients, not to economists and experts.
If panic sets in, by the time Congress reconvenes on Thursday, it may be too late. If it's not too late, then the price tag will have increased dramatically. Without taking sides, I will simply say that today's events may be one of the greatest failures of leadership in the history of this nation.
Despicable, absolutely despicable...
Economy-shmeconomy!
What Americans want is a WAR HERO, someone who has faught for this great Christian country like John Sydney McCain.
America will not trust an inexperienced muslim black man with 2 wars and a country in a moral crisis.
This proud Marine who has faught in at least 2 wars is voting for a true Christian warrior hero.
NOBAMA 08!
MARINE SOLDIERS FOR SARAH PALLEN!
Inkstain, no more "privatize the profit and socialize the loss".
I don't mind going down as long as Wall Street goes down with me. There's a lot of real anger out there at the mismanagement, and as far as this Dem is concerned, the people who voted against the bailout are heroes.
"The Dems ARE the party of Wall Street. Where do you think the place is? Cincinnati????"
Scoreboard.
petekent-
Noone reads your posts (they are so baseless and factless), you might have a better time over at Freerepublic with the other true believers.
tomorrow is tuesday !!!!
O M F G !!
we all know what's going to happen tomorrow & wednesday
MORE M E L T D O W N !!!
I don't know if it fair to say that those congressmen who are retiring can be "described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good". I can think of a number of situations (this may or may not be one of them) in which a retiring congressmen might vote against the public good, and instead vote for what will bring him personal wealth and fortune, with no fear of reprisals. I'm not saying this is typical. I'm just saying we shouldn't draw conclusions about which way a congressman might vote, simply because they are retiring.
"Inkstain, no more "privatize the profit and socialize the loss"."
That's not what this is. The fact that you would even use that line shows you don't really understand what is happening here. That's okay, it was my first reaction, too. Take some time to learn.
The businesses the government will be bailing out will be taking severe losses. There is no "socialization of losses."
"I don't mind going down as long as Wall Street goes down with me. "
Then please gtfo of my economy, because I make no such choice.
Good bye superpower status!
Hail China!
Lots of good Ras polls at six - all were battlegrounds.
I am really going to miss this election - it has been the wildest in modern history!
Nate:
Nate:
"A lot of people are going to be hurt by this, and not just those in the investor class. "
So what you;re saying is that the INVESTOR CLASS should have free reign to grab whatever they can for years - and then when THEIR business decisions fail, the LOWER and MIDDLE CLASSES should have to foot the bills while the INVESTOR CLASS walks away with most of the goods?
Do you REALLY want to defend that position? That - in short - the INVESTOR CLASS can do whatever they like to the economy and that the ULTIMATE PRICE of bankruptcy is their ACE IN THE HOLE when it comes time to make them pay for their shortsightedness?
That's some moral/ethical system you're defending there.
petekent is one of the smartest guys here
Pelosi is going to get the blame for this.
That cannot be good for Obama.
What is worse for him is that he is really nowehre to be seen. No fingerprints anywhere.
The Invisible Man Indeed!
This is not the year for Obama's brand of anti-leadersip. He is going to lose over this, Professor Obama is.
James, no blank checks for Wall Street but what about the companies like Deere and Target that have bonds that were rated triple A on their balance sheets that they need to operate? All this bill was was a way to buy these assets at a significant discount so those that held these (and everybody does) could continue to operate. I am fed up, it will take a miracle for me to ever vote for a republican again.
One of them (and I am going to research who it was) said "we're going to call Paulson's bluff"- well you sure did that you gang of fools.
Neutral arbiters??? That depends entirely on where they're going after they leave office. How much you want to bet that a lot of those retiring congressmen aim to take lobbying jobs for the people they just voted to bail out?
I'd personally prefer to see Congress completely scrap Paulson's proposal and start over from scratch in an effort to write a bill that will actually help those who really need help and give the the taxpayers a controlling stake in those companies. Buyout, not bailout.
Anyone read about how Sweden dealt with a similar problem? That might be the way to go here.
Fred,
you got your wish from yesterday.
Are you happy?
"So what you;re saying is that the INVESTOR CLASS should have free reign to grab whatever they can for years - and then when THEIR business decisions fail, the LOWER and MIDDLE CLASSES should have to foot the bills while the INVESTOR CLASS walks away with most of the goods?"
What you don't seem to understand is that when the investor class fails, the lower and middle class take it in the shorts. This will be much worse for them than for the investors.
Tyler, I don't think there's any such thing as too late. If anything, it might force them to create a bill that actually turns away from the markets and towards economic security. One that would piss Wall Street off, but get so much popular support that it would pass anyway.
The question is whether the populace is finally sick enough of having the boot of big business on our throats to throw them off. Probably not, but wouldn't it be nice to throw all the pundits and trolls off, too. I'm sick of them myself.
It was reckless and irresponsible of her to poison this bill the way she did. Yes, the Republicans acted like babies when they took their marbles home with them, but it should never have come to that.
She is an embarrassment to Congress and should step down as Speaker or be forced out by her party.
from the transcripts of her speech that I've read, she said absolutely bugger all. The Reps are using it as an excuse, and it's a piss-poor one.
He:
This is not a Christian country. Stop trying to inject religion into politics.
And Obama is not Muslim, although it wouldn't matter anyway if he were.
Try to be a little open minded.
I agree Nate. This was a failure of democracy. Too many Reps lacked the moral courage to vote for the least bad of bad options. We can only hope that things don't unwind too badly on Wall St before a new bill can be put together.
"Anyone read about how Sweden dealt with a similar problem? That might be the way to go here."
It's basically the same way we are proposing, with the addition that they took partial ownership in the businesses they were bailing out. I'd love to do this.
They ended up losing virtually nothing, possibly profiting a little, depending on how you account it.
"Your economy", Inkstain?
I guess you're on the side of the guys who wanted to pass a bill with no oversight provisions that would have chosen a number yanked out of thin air to prop up a bunch of economic imbeciles who would have come back for another handout six months down the road?
No bailout. If they're such economic geniuses, they can save themselves without begging me for a handout.
@"he"
there is no "SARAH PALLEN" running for vice president
her name is "Sarah Palin"
I have no idea whether this is awful or insignificant in terms of the economy--I've had a hard time reconciling the Bush Administration's "OMG GIVE US MONEY NOW OR OH NOESSS!!111!" attitude with sensible economic governance, given their sky is falling legacy *cough PATRIOT ACT cough*, but maybe not passing this version of the bailout is a big problem after all. But I do know that it's fun watching some people try to spin this as a loss for Obama. Uh, no--this is a HUGE, HUGE loss for McCain--first because it means the economy will remain front and center, and every day that happens is a disaster for him, and second because it means his ridiculous John Wayne crap of last week accomplished precisely nothing.
This is a total disaster for the McCain campaign, which hardly had a margin for error to begin with.
"The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- ..."
OR, perhaps they can be described as those who already have their lobbyist bed already feathered for them."
Screw the schadenfreude, and the scolding by the way. The Republicans deserve every bit of what they are about to receive, and then some.
Let's hope that Obama will get up off the couch and call this for what it is: A failure of responsibility, courage, and leadership on the part of the Republican Party in general, and John McCain in particular.
60% of the Democrats voted for this bill. 30% of the Republicans did, and as a result it failed. McCain was nowhere to be seen, except at a campaign rally in Ohio taking credit for a bill that did not pass.
McCain's claims to "leadership" lie shattered, and Obama should say so in direct terms. He is a grandstanding grandfather who couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag, and cannot be trusted in a crisis.
It's time for Obama to calmly but firmly remind everyone what "Country First" really means. He ought to get on the phone and round up another 50 Democratic votes, and pass the bill.
Then he should stand up and say that it's not a bill he particularly likes, to put it mildly, but sometimes you have to do things you don't like.
@GayIthacan
simple question - what drugs are you on and where can I get some?
Because your rant against Nate just then was completely nonsensical, it had nothing to do with his actual sentence.
When is Palin going to pull out of the debate because of the market crashing? Countdown: 3...2...1..
Oh goody! McCain's about to make a speech!
Can't wait to hear this!
It is stunning to me how several here are exulting over the fall of the US as a Super Power and the ascendancy of China. You actually like that idea, you Daily Kos types don't you? Obama will only acclerate the trend. The people will sense it and reject him.
This is America -- we can do anything! (line is from Mccain's speeck at RNC. What did obama say again?)
"I guess you're on the side of the guys who wanted to pass a bill with no oversight provisions that would have chosen a number yanked out of thin air to prop up a bunch of economic imbeciles who would have come back for another handout six months down the road?"
Of course not. There's no need to use strawmen to advance your (bad) point.
"No bailout. If they're such economic geniuses, they can save themselves without begging me for a handout."
Okay. Don't come crying when Main Street's paychecks don't come because the commercial paper market seized up.
This is seriously scary. One of the major problems with the so-called bailout is that people don't understand that this isn't about bailing out Wall Street anymore. This is about what happens if Wall Street collapses and what it will do to the rest of the country. There are 117 banks on the FDIC "watch list."
Someone needs to paint Americans a picture of what will happen if credit disappears and there is widespread bank failure-- if you work for a small or mid-sized company you might not get paid. Think your grocery bill is big now? Just wait. Need to buy a car or a house or ANYTHING in the next few years and want to use credit to buy it? Think again. Do your kids need student loans for college? Forget it.
If congress does nothing we could be facing YEARS of hardship as a country. The bailout is not an ideal solution but wihtout it things could be far, far worse.
I do think congresscritters that are about to step down are a good barometer-- they can vote without worries about how it will impact their chances of getting re-elected.
I was with you until your very last sentence, in saying that the retiring Reps were the most neutral toward the public good, and that their overwhelming support is a signal.
I whole-heartedly disagree with you. I would say the reps in the swing districts are the most neutral arbiters of the public good, because they seem the most responsive to their constituents.
I think the retirees are so bought and paid for, this is their parting gift going out the door.
as a conservative bailouts are just too much to take in
:-(
but i don't mind a personal bailout
:-)
i'm looking to buy a new property before x'mas to add to my collection
What you don't seem to understand is that when the investor class fails, the lower and middle class take it in the shorts. This will be much worse for them than for the investors.
WTF is the "investor class"? Does it include people who have a middle-class lifestyle but are saving scrupulously for retirement with a (""|Roth) 401(k)/IRA. What about SBOs with a SEP?
"If all Democrats had voted for it, it would have passed."
NOBODY wanted to vote for this bill. It's simply a lesser of two evils. The democratic leadership and Republican leadership both promised they'd do their best to get half their caucuses to vote YES. The Democrats successed in strongarming two thirds of their members, the Republican leadership, who all voted YES, failed to convince their rank and file to support it. The Republican leadership failed, depite McCain's supposed attempts to whip them for votes. The Republicans failed.
Again, nobody wants this passed, but it's better than the alternative....which is the utter failure of American capitalism.
"'ve had a hard time reconciling the Bush Administration's "OMG GIVE US MONEY NOW OR OH NOESSS!!111!" attitude with sensible economic governance, given their sky is falling legacy *cough PATRIOT ACT cough*, but maybe not passing this version of the bailout is a big problem after all."
That was my first reaction, too. The Bush administration had no credibility to cry crisis.
So I read a lot of stuff from a lot of independent economists. Trust me, Bush will come out of this as the boy who cried wolf and he will be judged even more harshly than before, because no one listened to him when a real crisis hit.
@HE
"This proud Marine who has faught in at least 2 wars..."
You can't remember an exact amount?
"MARINE SOLDIERS FOR SARAH PALLEN!"
Marines are MARINES and MARINES ONLY, NOT SOLDIERS you farking freeper tool...
"he" is on crack
"WTF is the "investor class"?"
People who do not work for a living, but instead derive their entire income from capital gains.
Okay. Don't come crying when Main Street's paychecks don't come because the commercial paper market seized up.
Yeah, but your plan is asking an arsonist to come and help put out your house fire.
As for me not getting a paycheck, well, I've lived with the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction for 60 years and I'll live with it some more.
i get some good money from capital gains
its easy to make money in the market
@PeteKent
Judging from your enlightening comments, am I to understand that the sky is green and the grass is blue in your world?
I hate to break it to you, but this albatross will be hung around the necks of the GOP and McCain for their little stunt.
Contrary to the jibes made folks like you, Obama is NOT the messiah. It is not his responsibility to ride in on a horse and save the day. Only McCain has the arrogance and hubris to think that highly of himself (and only Republicans seem dumb enough to believe it).
Obama has played a quiet role - one befitting his position as a sitting senator running for president - behind the scenes and doesn't need to shout it to the heavens. Unlike little Johnny McCain, he acts like an adult.
People who do not work for a living, but instead derive their entire income from capital gains.
Shadow- I always just called them "Rich". :-P
"MARINE SOLDIERS FOR SARAH PALLEN!"
Soldiers are the Army Branch, moron. You constantly pretending to be in the military day after day gets old. You're a liar, and not even a good liar.
Barney Frank pwns GOP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/frank-because-somebody-hu_n_130328.html
"Yeah, but your plan is asking an arsonist to come and help put out your house fire."
Please. Spare me. That's a ridiculous analogy. Your plan is to cry that the fire department's fire safety plan didn't work, so we shouldn't call them to put out the fire at all.
The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- voted overwhelmingly for this measure.
SAY WHAT?
If these guys were going out to pasture somewhere--joining monasteries, say...--then maybe. But hell, most of them are going off to various corporate sinecures where they'll be available to help corporations fellate those in Congress as they'd like to be fellated (for large fees and benefits). If anything, they're the group least tied to the public good/interest.
Now, SOME of them might be legitimately interested in the public good--but they'd be the ones who'd actively shown that in their careers so far.
The logic here is simply atrocious, Nate. There are any number of reasons that a departing Congresscritter might be screwing over the public, rather than voting in some high ethical position. As in, oh crap, how do I make sure that me and mine are sufficiently buffered from the depression that's hovering on the horizon? About the only thing that's clear is that they're no longer acting in a way where their actions can be "punished" by the voters.
"he" is on crack
"he" manages to catch some of you every time by deliberate misspelling and misstatements. Amazing how many fall for it.
InkStain:
"What you don't seem to understand is that when the investor class fails, the lower and middle class take it in the shorts. This will be much worse for them than for the investors."
Trust me - I know the economics. I'm a former Objectivist - so this argument isn't off my radar.
My point is that ALL PArtiES should pay - and in DIRECT PROPORTION to their potential GAIN from the transactions.
To claim that we have to give in to the demands of the people who brought this on in the first place (using other people's money) because to NOT do so would 'hurt everyone' is simply ludicrous.
That would be handing an economic blank check over to the INVESTOR class and saying "We know that you hold alll the cards. Just don't grab TOO MUCH of the spoils. Please leave some for us."
The financial institutions that made these decisions should be PERMITTED TO PAY THE ECONOMIC PRICE for their errors - and those who chose to invest in them should claim their FDIC protection money and look around for more secure financial institutions next time.
And the politicians who let this happen should be summarily hounded out of Washington.
Just my .02 worth.
"I whole-heartedly disagree with you. I would say the reps in the swing districts are the most neutral arbiters of the public good, because they seem the most responsive to their constituents."
Really? I think that logic is insane. The average American has absolutely no understanding of the macroeconomy whatsoever.
The GOP is playing politics with our economy-- blaming Pelosi's speech?!?? That only works if you haven't read the speech. It had one line at the very beginning about how Bush's policies helped to create this mess, the rest wasn't about blaiming anyone, it was bi-partisan "let's clean up this mess" stuff. It actually had a line about the importance of the free market for pete's sake.
Once again the GOP is betting on the ignorance of American people. They're worried about how this makes their party looks, not about how to help a historical financial crisis.
McCain looks incredibly powerless right now-- he can't even lead within his own party.
Inkstain, your response analogy goes off the charts into Cloud Cuckoo Land. Your imaginary fire department's safety plan consisted of three guys, a 12-year old Dalmation, a latter with three rungs on it and a promise of water next Tuesday.
I'm not giving the Three Stooges $700 billion dollars to put out house fires, unless they're held to account if they f**k up.
If we're handing out $700 billion on a promise, I'd like some first. Where's my bailout? :D
""he" manages to catch some of you every time by deliberate misspelling and misstatements. Amazing how many fall for it."
I know but I still like calling him a "farking freeper tool".
Of the 23 Republican representatives from President Bush's home state and Senator McCain's home state, 23 politiciansthat one would think McCain and Bush know pretty well, 20 voted against the plan that Bush and McCain supported. THAT is leadership?
Oh, and as to schadenfreude--that's enjoying the pain or discomfort, the suffering--of another. It's hardly that when what we're looking at is our own suffering (real or imminent), as well. I think the term doesn't apply when it's best seen in terms of "screw you; if we're going down with the ship (here in steerage), you assholes are going too. Damned if we'll lower lifeboats which will be filled by the upper crust..."
":If we're handing out $700 billion on a promise, I'd like some first. Where's my bailout? :D"
That was your bailout. You were too blinded by class conflict and a poor understanding of macroeconomics to notice.
Democracy doesn't equal free markets.
It is true that this is a challenge to the Congress to get it right, but that doesn't mean that the Democrats need to pass a money transfer to foolish financial institutions to resolve a problem created by de-regulation.
The real failure in democracy would be the wholesale looting of the Treasury for the rich. When the Congress get the financiers that caused this thing by the short hairs, and not the other way around, then it will be something to wholeheartedly support.
The Administration absolutely screwed this up by only talking about 700 billion so that the masses think that it is costing the taxpayers that much. In reality over the long run this fund should make money and if it doesn't the losses will be spread over the financial industry. The Congress didn't help by not getting the record straight. Pelosi should have leaned on her voters for a larger margin for error. When did she start trusting the Republicans.
This doesn't have to be a war between Wall Street and the rest of the country. It shouldn't be that way.
The republican insurance scam is merely a way to keep profits in the private sector and have the government absorb larger losses.
History will not adjudge today as a good day for the country.
That was my first reaction, too. The Bush administration had no credibility to cry crisis.
So I read a lot of stuff from a lot of independent economists. Trust me, Bush will come out of this as the boy who cried wolf and he will be judged even more harshly than before, because no one listened to him when a real crisis hit.
Fair enough, Ink...I'm no economist, so you may well be right. But on the very limited front of the presidential election, this is a nightmare scenario for McCain.
It does seem likely that an alternative will be passed, however, so some portions of this bailout will probably survive...though far too late to help McCain.
shadowguidex:
"People who do not work for a living, but instead derive their entire income from capital gains."
You're wrong - you forgot dividends and rents.
Chris Matthews Blames Bailout Crash On McCain's Failed Leadership
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/matthews-on-mccains-faile_n_130309.html
Barney Frank pwns GOP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/frank-because-somebody-hu_n_130328.html
owned.
Yes, failure of leadership. Maybe our system can't handle it -- the parliamentary system is looking better all the time.
Happy to see so many of you rejoicing at the failure -- I guess you don't use credit cards or have any lines of credit for business.
PeteKent says:
"This is America -- we can do anything!"
Clearly!
Only in America can the most capitalist CEOs who have been pushing for less regulation and government interference reveal themselves to be socialists that want the government to bail them out in their darkest hour.
it seems now we might get a second vote tomorrow, regardless of the holiday.
hopefully it happens.
at this point i really think it will be the dems that will step to the plate and force the bill through.
Obama should give a strong speech to reccomend this.
You were too blinded by class conflict....
Well, after the upper class kicked my eye out, it's not been too easy to see. I'm planning on saving my other eye. Calling me a socialist ain't an insult to me.
ogre: AMEN.
lat night Petekent was trying to score political points and claiming that the Dems were prefering to wash the economy down the pan to score stupid political points. Tonight the House republicans shot down the deal for ideology reasons and then Boenher's "Our feelings are more important than an economic meltdown" speech, which enraged the Dems that had bent backwards for this deal and fucked any hope of a deal bing salvaged, in an attempt to score points. And Heres Petekent exulting over a situation that Clark Kent would have trouble dealing with, because he thinks the other party might look bad in a situation that revolves in his own head.
Fuck you petekent. I hope you enjoy explaining to your grandchildren how you were really against the situation you are cheering about now.
"The GOP is playing politics with our economy-- blaming Pelosi's speech?!?? That only works if you haven't read the speech."
I watched her speech. She took what was a bipartisan, carefully crafted bill, and made it impossible for conservative Republicans to swallow. She lost ALL credibility as a leader.
She needs to leave.
There is no way this is Nancy Pelosi's fault!
She promised 140 votes from Democrats, and the Democratic leadership got 141 votes.
The Republicans promised 74 votes to match, and they got 61.
So the Republicans started off with a much lower bar, then failed to meet that bar. The Democrats started off with a much higher bar and then slightly exceeded that bar.
This is a Democratic failure? Nobody short of a far-Right Winger bent on finding whatever hair-splitting factor they can get to avoid an electoral slaughter this November would suggest that.
The whole "This is Pelos's fault" arugment makes me laugh. Just like I laughed when I found out John McCain had picked Sarah Palin for V.P. The Right is losing this election, and they make all kinds of arguments that they think are going to work but time will show that they're not going to work. You can't put lipstick on a pig...
soundlab - the text of the speech is online. Could you please cut and paste the offending passages?
PeteKent, did you cry and run away with your toys when Pelosi said bad things about your party like the other Republicons? I guess country comes second for the Repubs!
What a stupid excuse for voting no. What a bunch of cry babies. What is the repub party two years old or something?
That excuse is going to work real well with the American public: "sorry, we had to vote no because nasty Mrs. Pelosi called me names. Sorry the stock market crashed. Sorry about your retirement and your jobs and school loans. We just were so hurt by her mean talk."
That is a great strategy to run on.
She lost ALL credibility as a leader.
She needs to leave.
Bush lost all credibility as a leader too, but you don't see him getting impeached.
It's the will of the people that's killing this bail-out. Make the bill more appealing to the people and it'll pass.
I've already told my congressperson this. You want my support? Stop the foreclosures by giving homeowners enough assistance so that they can pay their outrageous mortgages for at least a few months. Then, during that time, renegotiate the mortgage terms so that the businesses eat the loss in the long term. I would support this bill because instead of throwing taxpayer money at the corporations we can throw taxpayer money at the taxpayers so that the corporations can get their incomes back.
I'd also grudgingly accept injecting the money into business in return for a share if the business becomes profitable. It would also have to include renegotiating the mortgages of the little people so that they can afford their homes. I don't see any incentive for a collapsing business to become profitable if its profits end up going to the government, so I see the latter as a more important issue.
"Well, after the upper class kicked my eye out, it's not been too easy to see. I'm planning on saving my other eye. Calling me a socialist ain't an insult to me."
Fortunately, once the rest of America realizes what will happen to them, you will be in the extreme minority.
This is the government's chance to save the economy and extract a pound of flesh from these people at the same time. It needs not be an either/or.
Oops!
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/29/oops.html
Now is the time for Obama to fly to Washington and have a meeting of the House Democrats. Tell the 40% that they need to get on board and pass the legislation. Not because they like it, but because it's necessary not just for the country but also it will show the country that the Democratic Party is serious.
If he does that, it'll be a grand slam, and McCain will be left with 35% of the vote.
An appeal to ignore PeteKent:
I don't think he can help all that idiotic posting (try googling him).
Judging by the vast majority of his posts here and elsewhere (not all, some are good), he has OCD and engages in his ritual chants in a desparate attempt to ward off the electoral "disaster" his mind knows is coming.
Sorry, Inkstain, you Cash for Trash guys have already tried that. "Pass this bailout bill, or your kid gets it!"
You just don't have a gun big enough. Your problem is that people see this bill for what it really is - they get off, and we pay for it.
I today the day that America jumped the shark?
Everyone remember this day.
Nate,
Your analysis is spot on.
I was up far to late last night reviewing the terms of the proposed bill. We are fortunate that the proposed bill failed, because it almost certainly would have been a disaster for taxpayers.
The proposed bill would have given incentive to investors to offer up the most junior tranches of mortgage backed securities, because those are the securities in the most trouble. In most securitizations, the junior tranches are not entitled to ANY cash flow UNLESS the senior tranches receive all of the cash flow they are entitled to receive. In all likelihood, the assets the Treasury would have purchased would have generated little or no return for the taxpayers.
The proposed bill gave incentives for the market to dump the trash, which would have wasted taxpayers' money, and would not have given the rescue entity any leverage to address the problems with the underlying mortgages in a rational manner.
It is now time for a proposal which will have the rescue entity purchase ALL of the interest in any particular asset pool. This would permit the rescue entity to dissolve the trust or special purpose entity which holds the underlying mortgages.
This is important, because as long as the mortgages remain in the trust or SPE, the trustee and servicer cannot deal with defaulting mortgages in a manner consistent with the current values of the underlying real estate.
The securitization model cannot deal with situations of financial stress, such as declining real estate values, since the securitization cannot make changes to the underlying assets without approval of the interest holders. Even then, there are regulations which also may prevent re-writing a mortgage to a monthly payment which reflects the decreased value of the underlying real estate.
We need a rescue plan, and it must be able to address the concerns of BOTH the markets AND the people stuck with mortgages which they cannot repay.
Y'all should check out last week's H.4.1 from the Fed.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/
In the week ending last Wednesday, the Fed added over $200 billion credit to the markets. $68B to broker/dealers (now that Morgan and Goldman can apply), $22B to backstop money market funds, $32B "other credit"?, and $76B in "other assets", which I think is currency swaps with other central banks. They got most of this from a "supplementary financing account", meaning they borrowed it from the US Treasury (which printed bonds to pay for it).
And overlooked with the big vote, this morning the Fed announced a further $50B expansion of the TAF facility, and a whopping $330B increase in foreign swaps. Essentially, they've convinced foreign central banks to help provide dollar liquidity, because the Fed's balance sheet is too strained to do the job.
I'm pretty sure something will be put together and passed in the next few days. But Thursday's data release should be interesting.
"Your problem is that people see this bill for what it really is - they get off, and we pay for it."
Either way we pay for it. On the one hand we pay for it but the economy can slowly recover. The other hand, we still pay by watching our economy circle the drain.
"You just don't have a gun big enough. Your problem is that people see this bill for what it really is - they get off, and we pay for it.
"
Lol, nobody who saw my savings account or credit rating would ever accuse me of being part of a Wall Street conspiracy.
The lines are drawn. Time will tell who is correct.
even the washpost ridicules the notion that the memebers of the house punished the notion because they were offended by pelosi's speech.
come on.
the narrative in all outlets is a failure of the gop leadership to deliver.
the schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious.
I can't say I'm crazy about self-righteous bailout supporters, either.
Anyhow, I'm for a bailout - but I'm strongly against this bailout, which was - even with Dem modifications - still basically a handout to Wall Street.
Right now, I've got a pile of questions about this bailout, and there's nobody who is willing to answer them. Nobody's even trying to explain to the American people how it would work - why we should expect our $700B to fix the problem of keeping the credit markets from freezing up.
And nobody's explained why this all has to be done NOW NOW NOW. I'll give the House Republicans credit for stalling the attempted stampede, anyway.
So now it's time for the Dems to decide what sort of bailout they'd get behind - screw the GOP; leave them out of this. And have it bail out Main Street and Elm Street - not just Wall Street. Let's see that 'second stimulus,' let's toss in the SCHIP expansion, let's tax the rich to pay for it all.
If saving the economy is important to Bush, he won't veto it. And I bet the Senate Repubs don't try to filibuster anyway - that would be sticking their necks out too far.
But killing THIS bailout was a Good Thing.
inkstain - Fair enough. We'll leave it at that.
"I watched her speech. She took what was a bipartisan, carefully crafted bill, and made it impossible for conservative Republicans to swallow. She lost ALL credibility as a leader."
Excuse me, but she made a speech - she didn't re-write the bill. The bill was still a "carefully crafted bill". I'm not saying that her speech wasn't inflamitory(though I think it was aimed at the President more than anyone), but to scuttle the bill for that reason and risk a credit disaster is foolish and selfish. Period.
"Wall Street, large corporations and their lobbyists own the Federal Government and both parties, and (therefore) they always win."
--Glenn Greenwald
Don't lose hope yet, all ye partisan hacks!
Relax, the Republicans did NOT vote against this bill because of Nancy Pelosi's speech. Nothing she said went above and beyond the normal partisan posturing that occurs in the House.
The Republicans never had the votes they promised to begin with - that's what it ultimately comes down to. They promised 75 votes but they never had 75 votes. If Nancy Pelosi never made that comment they would have pinned this on something else Democrats did.
If there's anything I learned from being a progressive person who saw my party lose a lot of seats in 2002 and 2004 after Republicans wielded a lot of dishonest rhetoric about terrorism, it's that anything that the public will percieve as a "whine" or weep doesn't score political points - it hurts you. Complaining about Nancy Pelosi's speech is a LOSING rhetorical strategy and is going to hurt Republicans in congress. Answer this: who controls Republican votes - Nancy Pelosi, or the Republicans? Who controls who YOU vote for - you, or one of your ideological opponents?
Politico-McCain takes credit for bill before it loses
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.html
The political dynamic seems very odd here. On the one hand, we are told that many reps voted against the bailout because they didn't think it was popular. On the other hand, fingers are being desperately pointed right and left in order to avoid blame for turning down an "unpopular" bill.
At any rate, I find the GOP reaction of blaming Pelosi for some boilerplate, innocuous speech to be ridiculous and embarrassing. Barney Frank had it right in his response. I have many issues with Pelosi's leadership - I would hardly consider myself a fan - but blaming that speech for a "no" vote is pathetic.
I think that if something that approaches the bill that went before the House today passes then its political death for the GOP this year. It might not be popular at the moment, but if it gets passed and gets a favourable response on Wall Street, then the GOP is, at least in the short term, going to look silly.
Now is the time for Obama to fly to Washington and have a meeting of the House Democrats. Tell the 40% that they need to get on board and pass the legislation. Not because they like it, but because it's necessary not just for the country but also it will show the country that the Democratic Party is serious.
If he does that, it'll be a grand slam, and McCain will be left with 35% of the vote.
Nope. Now is the time for Obama to do exactly what he is doing, which is staying in touch, keeping quiet about the bailout, and campaigning away. Obama is going to win this because he's acting like a President, not a drunken buffoon who's likely to propose putting Paulson and Cox in the Thunderdome for a fight to the death for his next "maverick" move.
I cannot believe what finger-pointing whiners the Repugnicans are being. A few well-deserved harsh words of truth from the speaker and you take your marbles and go home? Poor babies.
We had a good bill with oversight and ownership, making the best of a bad situation, and just because...
::sputter fume::
The bailout deal is in effect the coup by the banking class. The unelected Goldman Sachs official is to be given an arbitrary sum of our money to do what exactly with it? I laugh when I hear that this is the failure of democracy! I thought that the democracy meant that the representatives vote in line with their constituents. Well, the constituents have spoken and they are overwhelmingly against this deal which is going to give billions to companies that gambled their money away. This comment reminds me of that by Rumsfeld, how the "old" Europe is represented by countries where the government listens to public opinion, whereas the bold "new" Europe is the part in which the Government goes against 90% of its populace.
As for the economic impact of the bailout, please google Nouriel Roubini or Joseph Stiglitz, for the economic side of things, or simply read a letter by Denis Kucinich for a social side.
deadpixel said...
Politico-McCain takes credit for bill before it loses
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.html
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :-(
Nate:
Yes, the Democrats absolutely have the Republicans by the short and curlies. An LA Times/Bloomberg poll released last week revealed that 32 percent of persons blame Wall Street for the financial crisis -- generally conceived of as a Republican institution -- and 26 percent blame the Bush Administration. Just 11 percent blame Congress.
I agree that in the short term, that's true, but I suspect many Republican politicians are already writing off this election as a loss. The politics of this so far look to me much more like congressional Republicans distancing themselves from the Bush Administration's plan so that during the hard times that are likely even if something does pass, they can try to recover by blaming the Democrats without ever admitting that the policies they favored helped produce the crisis.
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I know enough to believe that some action must be taken, but that doesn't mean that any action is automatically good. The proposed bill is quite a bit better than Paulson's original blank check, but still not great. I'd rather see something structured more like the S&L bailout or the actions that are occurring in a number of other countries, where government action involves more taking partial ownership and less giving insolvent companies the benefit of taking distressed assets off their hands while getting little in return. But since that appears not to be politically possible, it's probably better to have a plan that's worse but not completely awful for now, that can potentially be improved by the next administration.
Is everyone comfortable with their Mandarin language skills?
its a shame on all of us conservatives
that we cry when a women like Nancy speaks
Somehow, I feel like PeteSpent is maybe last on that list...
Well, after McCain´s effort to take a bit of the credit before he knew that the bill would fail, I am 100% sure that Obama will win in a total landslide with close to 400 EV, maybe even above, it depends on Texas.
But I am afraid Obama will inherit a total disaster. I HOPE today´s crash hasn´t destroyed too much money, and I HOPE that a 2nd version of the bill passes very quickly. I am sure people will realize the correlation between getting something done and collapsing markets. So I agree with Nate that the next bill will be greeted with more acceptance - I really, really hope it´s not too late.
Republicans will of course try to take the credit for that 2nd bill. But they will probably be losing that spin war. I don´t know what changes the bill needs to undergo to make it acceptable to the low-information voters that voted these Republican Congressmen into office (elimination of capital gains tax???).
It looks as if the Republican Party is doomed to fall apart into several smaller pieces. Hard-core libertarians, moderates, neo-cons, evangelicals. The abyss between the Bush-government and the House is just too big. The Demcorats aren´t quite innocent in this, of course. But the fact that a majority of Demcorats voted FOR the bill will help them. Nevertheless, it IS a failure of Democracy, I sadly agree with Nate. I dont know... Obama must be the only politician with positive approval ratings now, with Congress and executive branch at historic lows. I think Obama HAS to get into the ring now... at least to get democrats on board.
Wait wait wait...
I thought the majority of democrats voted for the bailout while the majority of republicans voted against it.
I was watching the stream on fox news and thats what the numbers were showing. Did Foxnews have boggus info up?
Does anyone have the numbers?
some republicans lost there balls
:-(
bailout must pass !
its going to get nasty
Btw, McCain´s speech - McCain is wearing a retiree tie.
"Is everyone comfortable with their Mandarin language skills?"
I'm working on my French at the moment.
The Chinese would love to trade economies. Their problems are much deeper than ours. And if we go down, they go down.
Even in this speech, McCain can't bring himself to use the words "middle class"
Final tally: 228 no, 205 yes.
95 Democrats voted “no.”
133 Republicans voted “no.”
140 Democrats voted “yes.”
65 Republicans voted “yes.
The problem with analyses offerd by people like James is that it leaves out what happens if there is no bailout plan passed. Thank goodness that didn't pass, why let our money pay off these wall street types is fine as a philosophy, except what happens now. That really is cutting off your nose top spite your face.
President McCain is speaking !
its over :-(
Country or Party first Republicans? O wait, it's only a slogan that you put on signs to get votes. Same with support the troops...but don't give them healthcare or body armor.
I sick and tired of this partisan political bullshit.
Let's cut the insults, OK? It is possible that pro-bailout people are just looking for a rich-guy handout, or that anti-bailout people have no understanding of economics, but I tend to think that these accusations do not help the debate. Let's just pretend that we are all grown-ups arguing about what is best for the country - and let's all be clear of our own definitions of what that means. Me, I care about the median.
What I don't see anybody talking about is the opportunity cost. No, I don't mean health care or energy or whatever; I mean, what if we spend $700000000000 now and then get hit with another big crisis a year from now? This may be the biggest crisis in 50 years, but that is no reason to think it's not just the first half of the biggest crisis in 100 years. If the banks end up collapsing anyway, we could really regret spending all our dough propping them up.
On the other hand, if we spent the $350000000000 on a cruder stimulus (I favor a $1000 "tax loan" to each taxpayer, payable at 0% interest over the next two years in taxes, with the loan forgiven if you use it to pay off an underwater mortgage or if you lose your job) it's much harder to see where we would end up regretting that so much later. Since that kind of less-targeted action would be the prescription for any future shock too.
The people that say this pelosi's fault are not paying attention. This bill is initiated by bush/paulson, and worked out over the week with the understanding that pelosi will whip up 120+ vote on the democratic side, while rep leadership have to whip up 100 votes. At the end of the votes, pelosi delivered 140 votes while rep can't get over 65 votes or less then 1/3 of total, that is with bush/mccain pushing.. talk about lack of leadership. And the talking point from rep is beyond stupid, because pelosi hurted their feeling with the speech, they are going to punish the whole market/country. One small silver lining, the msm on general have been hammering the rep for this EPIC FAIL this afternoon. And it is on them. They wanted the cake ( vote against the bill) and eat it too ( have it pass on without their vote). I really do hope they get hammered in the polls too when market fall another 5-10 % in the next 2 days.
@Soundlab1407 said...
I watched her speech. She took what was a bipartisan, carefully crafted bill, and made it impossible for conservative Republicans to swallow. She lost ALL credibility as a leader.
She needs to leave.
I understand that you are an Obama supporter. Thanks for being one of the few who can demonstrate a balanced view. It refreshes my trust in people.
inkstain,
so I take it you're considering Quebec area for 2015?
Montreal is absolutely fantastic.
And the Rasmussen polls?
Real Joe said...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.html
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :-(
Real Joe, what your candidate does is no reflection on you for giving your honest support to him. It gives more credit to you than him. So don't worry about it man. You can still raise your head high.
Does this mean the VP debate is going to be called off?
"so I take it you're considering Quebec area for 2015?
Montreal is absolutely fantastic."
I'm trying to convince my wife. She prefers the West Coast, something near the Pacific.
I hope the coming recession doesn't effect immigration laws :(
With the Republicans in open revolt, maybe this is the time for Dennis Kucinich to bring up impeachment again.
Seriously, the mortgage situation needs to be sorted, and one way to do so is to spread the risk and take the long view that recovery is ahead and the asset values will be restored from current depressed values. Tom Hartmann has pointed out that FDR did this and it worked out.
I marvel that the Democrats are in the position of supporting a Bush request while his own party is in open revolt.
My personal bias is to discount any statement that comes out of the mouth of any senior member of the Bush administration on any subject as propaganda, designed to extend the draining of the US Treasury. The more urgently and repeatedly the statement is made, the more I discount the truth of it.
Congress has the charter and the responsibility to oversee the authorization of expenditures. The bill that failed basically abrogated that responsibility and placed it in the hands of the Treasury Secretary, who only reports to a lame duck president with a bad history of dealing with facts. True conservatives were rightly outraged, and it's about time.
Obama needs to step up with a better bill if he's going to get involved. He's already laid out his principles. Perhaps he needs to sell the need by clarifying the issues and pointing out the benefits of previous Democratic actions.
darÃo said...
And the Rasmussen polls?
NC Obama +2
Ink,
I keep hearing this and even though I can believe it on some level - it doesn't make me feel much better...
johnny said...
Does this mean the VP debate is going to be called off?
Good idea
Country first !
McCain just made some wise comments. No blame or finger pointing. Just said that failing to pass the bill hurt average Americans and that all parties need to get back to work to find a solution.
NO questions allowed form reporters who obviously wanted to ask about whatever the Democratic leadership had said.
(Off-topic)
Interesting Live Science article:
Survey Says: Polls Have Problems
(discusses cell phone polling also)
+no more "privatize the profit and socialize the loss"."
The businesses the government will be bailing out will be taking severe losses. There is no "socialization of losses."+
Inky, there will be quite a bit of socialization of losses. Any time folks who should lose 100% as a consequence of their risk not panning out, but only lose 75-80% (with the govt taking the rest), that's socialization of losses. We're subverting the markets.
Nonetheless, the bailout must be done. The republicans failure to vote for it, while showing an admirably consistent faith in the markets, is divorced from reality.
The dems should wait four days, then not allow any republicans to vote for the economic rescue plan, but pass it with only democratic votes.
It would serve 'em right.
Obama needs to step up with a better bill if he's going to get involved.
Truer words were never spoken. If he comes back with Paulson's Plunder II it will probably be voted down by an even larger margin.
i really hope the dems -with obama's stated support- take the lead in this, tighten up a couple of screws in the bill (CEO pays and parachutes, more equities coming the taxpayer way) and force the bill through, with or without republicans support.
and then let them explain the voters why they where willing to sacrifice the economy for pure partisan reasons.
at this point i think anyone voting for is semi-immune from damage, because it is (or at least it can be easily sold as) a necessary measure.
we might actually be at the point where voting against might sit bad with most electors
FloridaGOP said...
McCain just made some wise comments. No blame or finger pointing. Just said that failing to pass the bill hurt average Americans and that all parties need to get back to work to find a solution.
Best words out if his mouth all week.
any new polls coming out except the Ras state polls-6 ET
" I keep hearing this and even though I can believe it on some level - it doesn't make me feel much better..."
It makes me feel a lot better. The entire world economy runs through the United States. If we go down, they all go down. If it's within the entire world's power to keep us afloat, they will.
We're the national version of the troubled banks, too big to fail :)
"I watched her speech. She took what was a bipartisan, carefully crafted bill, and made it impossible for conservative Republicans to swallow. She lost ALL credibility as a leader."
So you REALLY think people honestly voted against the bill solely because of Pelosi's speech? That would be the most rancid example of partisan politics that I've ever seen. What's in the bill text is what matters, not what Pelosi says.
McCain is 100% back
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY !
Ink, I've heard it's very hard to get into Canadia on an ex-pat basis... is that true? Cuba on the other hand.... haha. :(
when is the CNN polls coming out ?
(Note on opportunity cost: you can argue that a bailout makes future problems less likely. That's true, if the future problems are credit crunches for American consumers and businesses. The opposite of true, if the future problems are credit crunches for the national debt.)
"Inky, there will be quite a bit of socialization of losses. Any time folks who should lose 100% as a consequence of their risk not panning out, but only lose 75-80% (with the govt taking the rest), that's socialization of losses. We're subverting the markets."
But the thing is, these assets wouldn't lose 100% if the market had the time to wait and work them out.
canada: you need to follow the immigration laws
That VP debate.... the only necessary preparation is to actually read the failed bailout proposal and an understanding of the economy. I think Palin may very well fail to accomplish the latter. The debate will be a disaster for her because this all is just completely "above her paygrade".
Thanks Ink. I know all of this... I think I just need to stay away from the news for a while...
Canada immigration
have a look here
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp
"Ink, I've heard it's very hard to get into Canadia on an ex-pat basis... is that true? Cuba on the other hand.... haha. :("
Canada is very easy to get into, one of the easiest in the world, if you qualify as a "skilled worker," which almost anybody with a college degree and a command of English can do.
Nate: to say that people who don't face voters are the most neutral arbiters of the public good may or may not be true; it's also irrelevant. What matters is whether they're right.
To say that people who don't face voters are the BEST arbiters of the public good would be to say that dictatorship, of some sort or other, is the best form of government. Least voters = most public interest.
Seriously, Nate, is that where you want to go with this? And if not, hadn't you best reconsider your entire premise?
i want new polls
where the fu** are they ?
inkstain,
Montreal is actually a bit more temperate in terms of weather. And the people are wonderful.
The women are gorgeous. Period.
The Pacific Northwest is actually pretty beautiful I've heard. Banff is supposed to be gorgeous.
January 19, 2001: $10,587.59
September 29, 2008: $10,365.45
The DJIA is now *lower* than when George W. Bush took office.
And this is even without adjusting for inflation. Factor that in, and it's about a 2500 point difference.
Here is the article by one of the few economists who talked about the pending crisis years ago, who talked against the former Chairman and his interest cutting nonsense. In short he believes that the bailout is very poorly done, and proposes several superior solutions that have been tested in the past cases of similar crises:
http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253783/is_purchasing_700_billion_of_toxic_assets_the_best_way_to_recapitalize_the_financial_system_no_it_is_rather_a_disgrace_and_rip-off_benefitting_only_the_shareholders_and_unsecured_creditors_of_banks
And now for some good news.
North Carolina goes BLUE.
Rasmussen surprised us recently with O +2, but was it an outlier?
Evidently not because we now have confermation PPP also gives O +2.
Those are the most recent two polls folks, and both top rate pollsters.
Anyone betting agains Indiana following as soon as we get some decent polls for it? Not me.
Ohio, Florida? Who knows? and increasingly who cares?
"and then let them explain the voters why they where willing to sacrifice the economy for pure partisan reasons"
Exactly. Make a few nominal changes, put it up for revote. If the stock market has dropped a bit more, public opinion will swing and enough Reps will come over to get it through.
Unfortunately, what the American people as a whole want matters a lot here, since they can take all of the House's jobs away in five weeks. However on the whole I am of the opinion that the average American is not smart or well-informed enough to be able to decide what is best for them on matters like this.
vanessa
are you into women ?
good for you..LOL
Looks to me like a majority of the House Dems voted in favor and a majority of the House GOP voted against. No way is Pelosi going to bear the brunt. Her party supported the bill.
Nate's analysis is correct that those who are not up for reelection are more likely to vote "their conscience" than their party. That's been well established in work by Gary Jacobson (UCSD) and others in the past. Incumbency effects are significant.
Let's also keep in mind that the House GOP are the most conservative of the 4 parties in the Congress (counting both House and Senate GOP and Dems separately). They were the most recalcitrant in this deal. But most of them also come from districts in which they have relatively safe seats. brought about in part by gerrymandering in the state legislatures. So it's not like most of them were "at risk" of electoral defeat in November if they voted one way or the other, but it's probably true that their constituencies on the whole would instinctively oppose granting such power to the federal government (Treasury) over the marketplace. Thus, in opposing the bailout bill, the House GOP conservatives were responding to their constituencies. That's what representation is all about.
OTOH, Senate GOP have larger and more diverse constituencies, and therefore have to encompass "larger interests" in deciding how to vote. This is, in fact, exactly what James Madison and the other Federalists envisioned.
InkStain said...
" I keep hearing this and even though I can believe it on some level - it doesn't make me feel much better..."
It makes me feel a lot better. The entire world economy runs through the United States. If we go down, they all go down. If it's within the entire world's power to keep us afloat, they will.
We're the national version of the troubled banks, too big to fail :)
That is true but you have just used up all your lives. They will give you just enough to keep you on life support while they start restructuring their economics and then hit you with a take it or leave it deal that pulls their assets out of wall street for good.
If the US is no longer seen as a safe place for your money because the market here behaved like a bunch of addicts at a coke party. then the momey won't be put into the US. Case closed, and sadly for all concerned.
Real Joe said...
Final tally: 228 no, 205 yes.
95 Democrats voted “no.”
133 Republicans voted “no.”
140 Democrats voted “yes.”
65 Republicans voted “yes.
Ouch...
Intrade
Obama - 61.2
McCain - 38.5
30 minutes until 6PM!!!!
@Inkstain
Last I checked you also need at least $15,000 in readily-accessible savings before they let you in, on the theory that you need to support yourself for 6 months without a job.
Given the state of many Americans having a negative-savings rate... that'll disqualify several million potential ex-pats.
McCain:
"Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.
so much for no-finger-pointing, wise comments...
I hate to admit this, but I still don't understand just what this bill will do.
If it does nothing more than fails to hold anyone responsible for handling $700 billion, gives the Wall Street investors a lot of cash, & fails to fix the problem caused by a butt-load of crummy housing loans -- then it deserved to fail.
If it actually does address these problems, then voting this down is a disaster. But none of the folks involved have taken the time to explain this to the rest of us outside of the Beltway.
And sorry, after 8 years of the Shrub's incompetence I don't trust the government to do the right thing by default any more. Further, McCain failed to contribute anything more than adding confusion by calling a meeting -- & doing nothing. That's the reason Obama is staying far away from this & obvious to anyone paying attention.
Geoff
"That is true but you have just used up all your lives. They will give you just enough to keep you on life support while they start restructuring their economics and then hit you with a take it or leave it deal that pulls their assets out of wall street for good."
Well, that's probably true. But we did that to ourselves with years of borrowing.
"If the US is no longer seen as a safe place for your money because the market here behaved like a bunch of addicts at a coke party. then the momey won't be put into the US. Case closed, and sadly for all concerned."
Fortunately or unfortunately, where else is the money going to go? This isn't isolated to us.
republicans & dems are both responsible for the vote failure
JJ, it reminds me of a nasty joke.
Q: "What's more astonishing than an economy that's too big to fail?"
A: "An economy that's too big to save."
dominoid73 said...
Intrade
Obama - 61.2
McCain - 38.5
30 minutes until 6PM!!!!
what happens at 6 ??
"Last I checked you also need at least $15,000 in readily-accessible savings before they let you in, on the theory that you need to support yourself for 6 months without a job."
That's correct. Well, closer to $12k in American dollars. (Or you can have a job waiting for you, but that's trickier because that process takes about six months, and most employers won't wait that long.)
That's the only thing keeping me from being there right now. I'm in the process of clearing all my debts and saving that up. I'm on pace to get the process started by the end of 2011, and it takes about two years to go through the process, so I'm planning to be there by 2013.
InkStain said...
Fortunately or unfortunately, where else is the money going to go? This isn't isolated to us.
Agreed, and that's a very scary question.
It may flow to the Asian markets as they have sorted themselves out after their Big collapses a decade ago, but that's pure speculation on my part.
this is too funny--McCain comes out says it is all Obama's fault and then says not to point fingers. huh?
jj said...
"bunch of addicts at a coke party"
HAHA! Don't forgot about hookers ... Wall St loves em.
liberals are planing to move to Canada
good luck(i mean it..LOL)
i will call the Canadian Border force let them know you guys are coming....HA HA
inkstain,
if you're moving somewhere, why canada? Why not somewhere a tad more exotic?
Let's face it. This bill failed due to the Republicans ... they can take the credit or blame for that. Spin does not change the numbers.
Hey Nate, does the trend adjustment include a notion of gains requiring more "energy" as you move above 50%? There are a lot of fixed votes now and a linear model of momentum would seem to overstate its later effect.
@Real Joe
Rasmussen releases new Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania polls.
I'm not saying that will affect Intrade. I just can't wait.
"I hate to admit this, but I still don't understand just what this bill will do.
"
Simple answer:
All of the America economy runs on credit. For example, when a business has to pay out its payroll, it may or may not have the cash on hand. If it doesn't, it takes out a shortterm loan. If it has the cash too early, it loans it out shortterm, rather than let it sit around.
At the center of all this credit is major banks. The banks made a mistake and bought a ton of assets based on housing that is now impossible to get fair value for, and don't have enough cash to loan each other or anyone else money. They need to sell these assets in order to free up money to loan to other people, but no one can buy them because they can't get any cash either. The whole system has seized up.
Only the government has the cash to buy these assets and unstick the system.
"McCain:
"Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
LOL, what a dumbass.
Oh well, by this point his candidacy is a joke anyway.
inkstain said:
"...$15,000... ...That's correct. Well, closer to $12k in American dollars. (Or you can have a job waiting for you, but that's trickier because that process takes about six months, and most employers won't wait that long.)"
if it's 15,000 canadian it would it be around $14,500 american, and by the time you get there, if it keeps going like this it will be closer to 20,000 than to 12,000.
oh, and british columbia is fantastic.
JJ, it reminds me of a nasty joke.
Q: "What's more astonishing than an economy that's too big to fail?"
A: "An economy that's too big to save."
Ouch. :S
don't panic said...
McCain:
"Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.
so much for no-finger-pointing, wise comments...
Please tell me he didn't say that?
Chris Matthews Blames Bailout Crash On McCain's Failed Leadership
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/matthews-on-mccains-faile_n_130309.html
GOP Strategist Ed Rollins: Failure Of Bailout Will Hurt McCain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/rollins-mccain-mishandled_n_130336.html
Post a Comment