Krugman is making GOOD SENSE on KO - Dems should write a bill they believe in...

[polichick]

I agree.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Sadly. I Think They Believed In This One

Very, very sad.

[polichick]

6. No they didn't - they were working backward, from a piece of shit bill...

Now they can come at it very differently.

[msallied]

11. The question is, will it pass through the Senate?

[polichick]

12. I don't know - but they'll get votes in Nov, and that will help our majority.

[Barack_America]

18. Do you think the Republicans would try to filibuster it?

I really doubt it. It would be political suicide, IMO.

[msallied]

21. Oh it would definitely be a disaster if they did.

Not even sure they'd get enough votes for a filibuster.

The way I see it is like this: The Republicans lost home field advantage when they voted down this bill and were left holding the bag. Now the Democrats have the leverage to craft a better bill. If the Repukes vote it down AGAIN, then the GOP is truly finished. And I think they know it.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. I Had An Email Exchange With Barney Frank A Month Ago

He was adamantly against our government taking control in of companies in return for bailing them out.

[polichick]

27. There must be a lot of different approaches to this - I really hope they do it THEIR way.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Only One Way Has Been Shown To Actually Work

The Swedish plan, which I endorse. The downside - to those in the financial industries - is that the government takes a pound of flesh in return for bailing 'em out. But they have no choice.

[krkaufman]

51. But that "downside" is relative. It's only a downside in the way a prison sentence ...

... is a downside to a car thief.

From what I understand, the downside of which you speak, the pound of flesh, is an important part of the mechanism, as it provides the incentive for companies to avoid the need to seek a government bailout. As the US bailout legislation is being written, banks will be beating down the door for their piece of the government handouts.

I really don't understand why the Democrats aren't forcing the proven Swedish plan down Bush's throat.

[LaPera]

2. Krugman is is excellent....I do hope he becomes a regular on Olbermann's Count Down.

[Morgan Wick]

32. He isn't at this point?

He's been showing up on Countdown a lot lately.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Thats what I said and now they could get that through the house

the only problem would be the Senate since we don't have the votes.

[TheDonkey]

4. *ding ding ding* why compromise. Write a democratic bill and sell it to America

rethugs have no political capital they'll have to give in.

[polichick]

7. Exactly!

[Barack_America]

14. Yep. I was actually thinking of this today.

I feel kinda "smrat" now that Krugman has said it too.

If the opinion polls continue to show increasing support for the bailout, I say go for it. (Wall Street is obviously going to continue to tank until something's done)

[adamuu]

45. Yeah. It came to me earlier today too. I'm glad Krugmann stole my idea^H^H^H^H^H came up with this

n/t

[krkaufman]

52. And even if the Republicans didn't agree with the bill ...

... they'd be happy to provide the minimum number of votes necessary to help a unilateral bill go through. The Republicans would be more than happy, in my opinion, to step back from any decision-making on the rescue, so that they can use it against the Democrats in future elections.

[msallied]

5. They have the leverage to do so now.

With the market tanking and McCain looking like the grandstanding prick he is, Republicans have lost whatever sway they had left.

[polichick]

9. I hope Dems run with it!

[LaPera]

8. The great Paul Krugman is always excellent-I do hope he becomes a regular on Olbermann's Count Down.

[polichick]

17. He does seem to be appearing more - I enjoy him too.

[Barack_America]

10. Go Left, young man.

I agree too.

And, if you think about it, the Republicans don't have good cover on this issue. They've been talking about wanting the bill to do more for Main Street. Well, wouldn't mortgage and bankruptcy protections do just that? The Dems need to call them out. With the way Wall Street will look tomorrow and the mounting support for the bailout as a result, many Republicans have no choice but to vote for it.

[polichick]

20. Maybe we should be contacting our Dem Congresscritters!

[babylonsister]

13. Matthew Yglesias agrees...

Matthew Yglesias: The Math-now start writing a progressive bill


http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/the_ ...

The Math»

Given that the House GOP didn’t deliver the 80 (or whatever) votes that Democrats were making substantive concessions in order to achieve, now I really don’t see why the Democratic leadership doesn’t tear this thing up and start writing a progressive bill. Not only might that produce a good outcome in the end, but it also seems to me like the thing that would be most likely to convince recalcitrant House Republicans to get with the program in order to preempt something more left-wing.

[msallied]

15. Their balls are against the wall here.

I do not see how the GOP will be able to play more politics and win. Sure, Dems... write another bill and get the fucker passed before shit REALLY hits the fan. Ugh, this is making me sick.

[Bread and Circus]

19. That's why I said earlier this is a great opportunity for Obama.

[polichick]

25. He should craft it himself. heh heh

[ClarkUSA]

22. Funny, he favored the bill prior to the vote and said Democrats could always rewrite it later.

Guess he's making lemonade out of lemons after the fact. :shrug:

[polichick]

24. He was focusing on what to do NOW - I think the defeat is a blessing...

Responding to the WH hype in a rush was not smart imo.

[ClarkUSA]

28. I disagree but there has to be a move soon before the economy moves into a serious recession.

The bill was not a bad deal for taxpayers. It's a moot point now but there were several good provisions in it. Here
are but a few:

:redbox: The Treasury is supposed to consider a bunch of factors when making its decisions, including:

~ Limiting how much the taxpayer gets screwed
~ Not wasting money buying assets from banks that will croak anyway
~ Save jobs, life savings, house values, etc
~ Try to save small banks that got blown up by Fannie/Freddie collapse
~ Protect retirement savings by buying the crap assets of pension funds, too

:redbox: Oversight: Must report back to Congress after 60 days and then every 30 days thereafter. Must send Congress
a report after every $50 billion spent.

:redbox: "The Secretary make such purchases at the lowest price that the Secretary determines to be consistent with the
purposes of this Act." The Treasury has to publicly detail the prices it pays so taxpayers will have access to complete
transparency as to how their dollars are being spent.

:redbox: Helping homeowners. Must try to work with homeowners to modify loans if/when appropriate to avoid foreclosure.
Must encourage mortgage servicers to try not to boot people out of houses, instead working on ways to avoid
foreclosures.

:redbox: Equity/warrants: The Treasury MUST be granted warrants or debt instruments (senior debt) from public companies
in exchange for more than $100 million of bailout money; it must "provide for reasonable participation by the Secretary,
for the benefit of taxpayers, in equity appreciation in the case of a warrant, or a reasonable interest rate premium, in
the case of a debt instrument" AND...must provide additional protection against taxpayer losses. This is an important
and just provision.

:redbox: Ability to stop the madness. Congress can seek a preliminary or permanent injunction from a court to stop the
program.

:redbox: TIME LIMIT: The authority under the plan lasts until the end of 2009. Congress can then extend for another nine
months or so (max 2 years from the date of signing). It is fully expected that by then President Obama and his
supporters in Congress will rework the bill to reflect their growing majority power in the executive and legislative
branches.

:redbox: Oversight: A bunch of oversight provisions, including appointment of Special Inspector General.

:redbox: Financial industry will have to pay for any taxpayer losses. Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning
upon the date of the enactment of this Act...the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the
financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does
not add to the deficit or national debt.

[polichick]

29. There wasn't even a limit on CEO salaries - I wouldn't consider it without that...

Without that, it's all too obvious this is partly a money grab.

[ClarkUSA]

33. That's not true.

The bill would have prevented payments on severance deals that are struck after the bailout (specifically, it prohibited
these deals completely). It's a moot point now. As for me, I would rather not be a one-issue voter focused on the trees
and not the forest.

[polichick]

34. Severance deals, NOT salaries - a non-starter imo...

You ARE being a one-issue voter ~ you're buying the craze that the Bushies want you to buy. There's time to do it right.

[ClarkUSA]

35. It's your choice whether to split hairs over terminology. It's a moot point now.

I'm favoring the same deal Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Warren Buffett wanted -- none of them are Bushies as far as I know.
What I'm not doing is buying into the low-information hysteria that seems to have gripped the internets. I listed good reasons
why I favored the deal; I read the entire 110 pp. before making my decision (unlike you, I'll bet).

I predict a scaled-down bill will be enacted by the end of the week.

[polichick]

37. I read it - as did most here. Krugman had a much better idea on KO tonite...

Dems should write a bill they actually believe in.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Krugman had a nice feel-good TV soundbite but the fact is he favored the bill prior to the vote.

Democrats made adjustments to the bill that was a good start to stabilizing the economy. There could easily
have been modifications later on under an Obama administration and a greater Democratic Congressional
majority (as Krugman himself noted when he expressed approval of the bill). One of those changes would
certainly have been a new Treasury Secretary to oversee the market recovery/taxpayer investment plan.

Again, I predict a scaled-down bill will pass by the end of the week. It won't be perfect to either side but
then again, sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good around here and at Free Republic.

[amandabeech]

49. He thought the bill met the bare minimum, that's all.

This was a real nose holder for him and I would be careful about misinterpreting his grudging okay as though he thought that this bill made Bush look like the second coming of FDR.

As you probably know by now, the chance of a re-write went to near zero with the announcement that a bill with slight modifications and lots of additions will be voted on tomorrow night or possibly Thursday. Apparently, no one wants to do a rewrite or Obama and McCain are screaming for the chance to vote on this thing.

The Senate bill looks like it is going to be a Christmas Tree--a gamble that there are enough pretty ornaments on it to entice enough Dems in the house to vote for it without pushing more Pubbies to the "nay" column. There are provisions cutting taxes in connection with the AMT and another provision forcing parity in insurance policies between physical and mental health care. The Dems must be hoping the that objecting Pubbies have not reverted to their 1960s style fiscal conservatism, because if they have, this bill is unlikely to pass, IMHO.

Personally, I'd like a thoughtful rewrite of the bill that could stand on its own and get real bipartisan support. Perhaps something along the lines of the Soros plan would be doable.

[Tatiana]

23. They should write a bill they believe in, pass it, and then take credit

for saving our economy.

[polichick]

26. "and then take credit for saving our economy" - and RIGHTLY so! :)

[seabeyond]

30. i agree. write it just as they want and say, ..... vote. for the american people

controls, regulations, restrictions, caps, oversight.

sell it to american people

[polichick]

31. With a nice logical equation about CEO salaries - something less than...

300 times the average worker!

[Abugface]

36. Krugman is correct ...

but, will the leadership that said "impeachment is off the table" dare stand up to that abysmal failure in the White House and do what Krugman suggests? I'm hoping that if Obama wins, he will push for a good bill.

[polichick]

41. It is hard to imagine them being tough enough - but they have to do something now.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. The danger in that approach

is the Pottery Barn rule. If it's our plan, then we are the sole owners of the consequences. Remember that the party that caused all the trouble in the first place won't be in the White House anymore after January 20th.

That being said, fuck it. If we can't be bold then we shouldn't be in charge.

Pelosi and Reid need to write a bill that will please even the conservative Democrats (and in the process, entice those moderate and vulnerable Republicans) and get the deal done by next week.

[polichick]

40. Maybe Obama will help them. ;)

[grantcart]

43. That sounds good but with all of the disparate groups in the party getting a consensus

on what the "democratic" bill should be is somewhat far feteched.

there is no bill that is going to make us happy


As Senator Obama has said we are faced with bad options and worse options and if we attempt to find a perfect or even a good option we almost certainly will waste a lot of time and end up in the same place.


I wish there was an easy solution but there isn't - that is what happens when your called in to clean up the parade after the elephants have come by - you have to pick up alot of elephant shit.

[adamuu]

44. Related Threads from today:

The Congressional Democrats should now produce a purely Democratic bill from scratch
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4124598

Should the DEMs Create a Bailout Bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7248155

[adamuu]

46. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[adamuu]

47. kick n/t

[depakid]

48. No reason that the law can't be amended and other laws passed down the line

Obama described it thusly:

"If we do not act, it will be harder for you to get a mortgage for your home or the loans you need to go to college or a loan you need to buy a car to get to work. What it means is that businesses won't be able to get the loans they need to open new factories, or hire more workers, or make payroll for the workers they have. What it means is that thousands of businesses could close around the country. Millions of jobs could be lost.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Which Bush will promptly veto and then McSame will accuse us of wasting time

We're not going to get a bill that we believe in passed, so we might as well milk the situation to help Obama as much as possible.