Great video: Frank asks 'why the hell is McMummy here? ' And, BTW, screw the Dem leadership.

[bushmeister0]

Seriously. How pathetic?

He hasn't cast a vote in the Senate since April, now all of a sudden he's going to come swooping in, one of a hundred, and solve the problem?

He wants to suspend democracy for this? He's so indespensible?

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9905614&ch=4226716&src=news

It's great to see folk like Barney Frank acting like an adult, but then again, why are the Democrats the ones so hellbent on pushing W's fucked up legislation through? The most "conservative" Repuke critters are more in line with what I precieve to be the general tenor of what everyone at DU is saying.

'Why bail the mo fo's out?'

That's what the Repuke base is saying, too.

Very puzzling.

In any case, you know what ever kind of "compromise" they get from BushCO will go by the wayside as soon as David Addington inserts his signing statement, so all the Dems get is a fig leaf to show to the voters, as usual.

They fall for it everytime.

Fuck Harry Reid and "Nona" Pelosi, the more I think about it, I'm with the most ideological right wingers in Congress on this one.

They're the only ones man-enough, apparently, to stand up to this crap!

[Lithos]

1. The most conservative of the Repukes

Want to deregulate even more and give more tax breaks to those who don't need it, essentially praying that trickle down Reaganomics will work this time.

I think the tone of DU is:

1) Put some regulation back into the system. Put the barriers back where people seeking non-risky investments in our nation's financial institutions are not destroyed because of unknown risky investments. Put the barriers back which stop the "get rich" scheme of the day and preventing more Ponzi type of failures.

2) Protect the middle and lower classes, protect homes and jobs which seem to be at risk because of this.

3) Yes, let the rich bastards fail. While I think your point is that no one on DU accepts privatizing profit while socializing failure, there is nothing wrong with taking a really good gander at the books and keeping the parts that are good and letting the investors soak up most of the risk. It is possible to invest in companies provided that we do so with an eye to LONG TERM profit and viability that is in the best interests of US citizens. Sweden did this not too long ago when they had a banking crisis and their economy has been doing quite well. Investing and not subsidizing is I think is good as it will not only help the market with money and confidence, if done right will yield a nice rate of return on the investment. It also gives the US government a nice bit of leverage to help nudge other programs (like point 4 below) along.

4) I also think that most on DU would like to see a reduction in investment in Defense and other corporate welfare programs and promote investment in alternate fuels/technologies as well as US citizens which in turn will build up and create a lasting and strong infrastructure. Invest in ALL of the people of the US, not just the wealthy few.

[bushmeister0]

3. I totallly agree with everything you say.

However, let's be realistic here. The outcome of this particular legislation in the weird, pressurized world of Capital Hill says otherwise.

"Taking a really good gander at the books and keeping the parts that are good and letting the investors soak up most of the risk" will happen only after Obama and Co. get into power, barring any extra-constitutional shenanigans in the interim. But, right now, this is all we've got: Fear, fear, fear, angst and more angst.

All I'm saying is the only ones apprently capable of holding this juggernaught up is the nutjob fringe in the House.

At least, they might buy the more levelheaded ones some time to go through this, before the rest of the lemmings leap over the edge.

[truthisfreedom]

2. Amazing stuff. Must-view!

[Beregond2]

4. No one is trying to push Bush's scheme through.

They are trying to come up with a better scheme.

Most of the people on this board are economic illiterates, who can only see a lot of money heading toward the "fat cats" of Wall Street. They can't seem to see that if we don't thaw the credit system, this whole economy is going to tank. These suggestions that we do what Sweden did are laughable. This is a problem on a vastly different scale.

I'm no expert, but even I can see that no country can go for long without a healthy supply of credit. If that means we have to hold some bad paper for a while until we can sell it at a higher price, so be it.

[tkmorris]

5. And WHAT exactly is this "better scheme"?

I keep hearing people say that the Dems have ruled Paulson's plan a non-starter, and are aiming for a better solution, but I have seen no hard details as to what that might actually BE.

I also do not see this problem as being terribly different then Sweden's, or why a similar solution cannot work. You state that it is a problem of a "vastly different scale" but when you look at the numbers being floated that we need to spend as a percentage of GDP they are quite similar to what Sweden spent. Furthermore, simply being of a different scale does not mean that similar solutions are not viable. What precisely do you think Sweden did that would not be sufficient here?

[bushmeister0]

6. You make a lot of sense. But sensible solutions are off the table.

Think about it, Sweden sounds too French. That's a non starter, if I ever heard one.

Here's what the Dems are doing.

They've got their budget negotiations going on. Remember, the new fiscal year begins on Oct 1.

AP reports they've got a $56 billion stimulus plan in the works, "including proposals to extend unemployment benefits and help states pay for Medicaid." (pass the duchy on the left hand side)

Byrd and Reid have this big bill but "conservative Democrats have qualms about its impact on the budget deficit."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending

Cuz, a $700 billion "rescue plan" won't have any impact on the deficit.

It seems the Dem leadership is living in a dreamworld.

They're going to sign off on $630 bil. for the pentagon, $25 bil. for the car makers, and hope Bush signs the damn thing.

They'll knuckle under, like they always do; no unemployment extensions, no medicaid, no $25 bil. for infrastructure, but a damn firm consideration of a notion of making the fat cats accept slightly less than the golden parchute they're used to.

Maybe, if they're really good, W. will let them have some of their favorite ear marks, just to make the medicine go down a little easier.

I hate to so cynical here, but honestly!

If they don't go along with the bailout, they'll get nothing, W. will just declare an emergency and over-ride the Congress and that will be that.

I think the vice president's office now controls the purse strings. David Addinton just found that little known clause in the constitution.