Okay, why exactly are the Democrats supporting the $700B Bailout when the public is against it

[saracat]

100 to 1 ?????? Both Dems and Reugs are protesting this Bill and we wanna "pass it" ? Our reasoning is "what"? Are we giving the GOP a populist issue to run on, after they screw things up, we defend the screw up and let them clim populism? Sheesh. I do not get this.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Because Republicans got tired of being the Bad Guys....

Playing the Heavy once in a while is fine, but after 20 years, they wanted to switch roles.

[livelongandprosper]

2. Where have you been? The Dems WILL NOT vote for this

without substantial Rep support. That's why these House Reps are relevant in the first place.
If the Dems wanted to pass this on their own they could do it. Hello? They have the majority.
But they don't want to do this alone.

[closeupready]

19. Now try answering the question.

Why are they going to vote for it at all?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I know trying to keep with news is hard

but what they are pushing is NOT the paulson plan

Second it has plenty of supervision

Third it HELPS people... you and me

Oh never mind

:banghead:

[knowledgeispwr]

8. I get sick of ppl repeating over and over...

that the Dems are supporting Paulson's Plan (with the implication being that it has little or no modification). There is so much misinformation on this board.

What is even worse is ppl cheering the House GOP when they want to de-regulate and cut capital gains taxes. It's like bizarro world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Partly it is the leadership fault

You and I have been following this CLOSELY

Just called Boxer's office and pointed to them that THEY NEED to 'splain this to people and STOP using the Paulson Meme

I had a surprised staffer... but i pointed to them... they NEED TO STOP USING THE MEME PAULSON and start using Dodd... and point out what the radical right is STILL trying to pull off

[knowledgeispwr]

16. Can't argue with you there

The leadership isn't explaining it well enough.

I wouldn't say I've been following it close enough to know all the ins and outs, but evidently I've been following it more closely than the people running around like chickens with their heads cut about the Dems.

[dkofos]

22. It is the leaderships fault. They are being played and don't know it.

[saracat]

20. I do NOT say they support Paulson's plan but Pelosi et al have

repeatedly stated they support a "bailout" or "rescue." Most of the public does not. This can't be a good thing in an election year. But whatever. I just think this gives the GOP an angle.

[Fresh_Start]

4. they frequently vote against what the people want

for example, no impeachment and Iraq funding and.....

[Cetacea]

24. And then wonder why the poll numbers tank

Then again, maybe they don't even care about THAT.

[knowledgeispwr]

5. They aren't supporting the Paulson plan as-is

They want to break it down into smaller chunks, provide protections and oversights.

[bdamomma]

7. very true, they want oversight with provisions.

[Lex]

6. You do know there not just one "bailout"

right?

[knowledgeispwr]

9. Too many on this board seem to think there is just one...

unfortunately. And they seem to think the only plan is Paulson's original proposal. Many of these same people seem to think that the massive collapse of banks and the drying up of credit won't affect them...just rich folks. Lordy, lordy.

[saracat]

28. Of course but it doesn't matter what "I" know, it is the public perception and most do not want

ANY bailout.

[Realityhack]

30. Which is exactly why we don't run the country by direct democracy.

People are generally ignorant fucktards.

[NoUsername]

32. Which was why I was always so proud to see

Zell Miller take the senate floor and argue about...whatever the fuck it was he was trying to argue about.

He never failed to demonstrate that there was shortage of ignorant fucktards in Congress either. Representative democracy in action.

[Realityhack]

41. LOL

Honestly though, I think it still works better than direct democracy... even if it is only because of the scale.

[saracat]

48. While I never overestimate the intelligence of the American voter.

I wonder is referring to them as "ignornant fucktards" is really the best way to get their vote?

[SmallTimeFarmer]

10. yea but

Yea, but why are they supporting it at all...why not, for example, support giving hte $700B to people that actualy owe the mortgages, instead of wall street. If the problem is that people can't pay their mortgages, should the money go to the people that can't pay their mortgages?

Keep in mind, I don't think we should actually do this, but it makes about as much sense as giving money to wall street so that they can continue lending money to people that can't payback the money they already borrowed....

I get 5 credit card offers a day...there ain't no stinking credit crisis...

[clear eye]

37. They're doing it to keep business credit from drying up

The good news is they're proposing not committing to the full amount, giving around $150B for the "emergency", include re-regulation and a little foreclosure leniency (that's money to us), see if it helps, and only if it does, continue w/ more. The bad news is they're still planning to allow purchases of bad paper rather than demanding purchase of equity in the banks. If Treasury bought equity, taxpayers would be quaranteed to get money back when the economy improves. If they buy paper, not so much.

I've read a bunch of articles by progressive economists, and five out of six agree that the credit crunch is dangerous to the economy, and that money has to go in there to grease the wheels. But they suggest emphasizing economic stimulus, and only the leanest of rescues. If the bill that passes allows it, it is possible that after the initial amount, the rest can be stalled until we have a Pres. Obama, and he can change where most of the money goes. That is, if he stops listening to Rubin's disciples, and starts listening to economists whose perspective goes beyond Wall St. {Is there a smiley for crossed fingers?}

The danger of the GOP stall is that w/o the first installment, the economic shock waves of the frozen credit (that means huge problems with continuing normal operations for almost all businesses, from the smallest to the largest) will cause enough lost jobs and business bankruptcies to create a panic, and then a really big, really bad bill will be rushed through that crashes the dollar and triggers Great Depression II. So that's why Dems are trying to pass something more reasonable quickly.

With the MSM still primarily anti-Dem (even if they narrowly prefer Obama to McCain), a lack of a compromise will be blamed on Congressional Dems, no matter how unfair that is.

Questions? (not being snarky)

[stray cat]

11. Farmers borrow money to plant crops; imagine ethanol and food prices without farmers

[riverdeep]

12. Because they've bought into the idea that our house is on fire.

They really believe that these people, Paulson/Bernanke, have a special hotline to the economic gods that no one else has. Too bad they didn't use that hotline BEFORE this mess happened.

They need to wait until after the elections to do this. It's too big to do it in a rush. Unfortunately, they still think bipartisanship is inherently good and the public will reward them for it. Not when it leads to half-baked policy that could have generational consequences.

[mzmolly]

13. I've seen polls suggesting that 78% of the public wants "something" done.

What that something is, who knows????

[gravity]

15. Becuase it is necessary for a functioning economy

Our leaders are grudgingly doing this because it is the right thing to do even though it sucks politically.

[doc03]

17. Sometimes you do have go against public

opinion and put country first. Remember the IWR, at that time many Democratic Senators John Kerry for one voted for it when it was the popular thing to do then when things went bad he got hammered for voting for it before he voted against it. Then there was Hillary Clinton that voted for it, look what it did for her.

[riverdeep]

21. Why now?

The public was completely deceived or deeply ignorant of the issues surrounding off-shore drilling and really thought that drilling would lower their gas prices in a few months. They caved on that in response to public pressure, among other things like a Republican threat to shut down the government.

The one time I'd like them to be cowering jellyfish they suddenly get principled.

[dkofos]

18. Because they are fools. They are being played again.

[Cetacea]

26. October.....Surprise!

KKKarl is still at large.

[YvonneCa]

23. Saracat, here's what I think...

...and I am definitely NOT expert on this:

I think our economy and the global economy are BOTH in trouble. The problems go WAY beyond subprime mortgages and foreclosures. All these securitized products ...which banks are stuck with...are losing value fast. And, JMHO, I don't think we really have any idea how much of these these big banks have on their balance sheets.

So, IMO, we have two choices. One, let it play out...and keep our fingers crossed that the dominoes (banks) don't fall. Or, two, try to lessen the fall by helping institutions as they reach the brink. That takes money.

To answer your question, I think the Democrats think choice two is more responsible. And many economists think the 30's depression happened because action wasn't taken. But I think they also know that the $700 billion has to come from somewhere...Pension funds, S. Security, borrowing abroad, new taxes. But if, as Bush said, "This sucker's going down"...then those things are at risk anyway.

This whole thing really angers me. But I can tell that Chris Dodd is angry, too. I think he and the Dems are trying to do what is right...but it's frightening that this administration allowed it to get to this point.:hi:

[saracat]

36. You may be right. I haven't a clue what should really be done personally but

perception is everything and this needs to be spun back to populism on "our" side. We cannot look like we are the "saviors" of big business at the expense of the "taxpayer". Sigh but what will be will be. :hi:

[YvonneCa]

39. I think you are exactly right about...

...perception being everything, especially in politics and winning an election. And I'm hoping Obama will do something during the debate to explain how we are always on the side of populism. (If he talks of the Democratic Party's support for unions, pensions and Soc. Security safety nets...something many people take for granted will always be there...that could help.)

The Republicans want to be rid of these things...either by privatization or just not funding them. And a financial meltdown helps them do this.:scared:

[sniffa]

25. Because, the public are uninformed fucking idiots

but it's not their fault.

If you're talking about Paulson's plan, the Dems aren't supporting it.

[saracat]

27. But the public may be stupid uninformed idiots but we need their votes and they do NOT

differentiate between whose "bailouts", they don't want to see ANY bailout and that is a problem.

[Realityhack]

29. see uninformed idiots.

The bailout may actually be the least painful way out of this mess.

[sniffa]

31. It may even be the only way

Does it really fucking matter if we get Obama elected and we go through 4+ years of another great depression? How great will it be to have the (should I use the OP's term for Obama?) elected only to govern over a suffering/starving middle class. It's still going to be rough but this may lessen the blow.

If we're lucky, the uniformed idiots won't blame him for what he inherited and tries to fix.

[Realityhack]

40. The key here is the opertunity to correct the systemic problems that got us here.

No electing Obama will not prevent a depression (though his policies might well make it a shorter lighter one).

The key is using this opportunity to reverse the deregulation that caused this mess in the first place. The bailout is needed one way or the other, but we can act to prevent this from re-occurring.

It is also a good chance to have a frank discussion about wage disparity with the American People. Right now I think people are more ready than ever before to listen to the details when someone says they are going to increase taxes on the rich and lower them on the rest of us. Previously the 'raise taxes' Meme would be the only thing that mattered. Now I think people are looking at the details and saying hell yes tax people in that income bracket.

[NoUsername]

33. Short answer: they don't give a shit.

Long answer: they do whatever their corporate masters want. Oh, and they don't give a shit what the rest of us want. If they did, they would make the top 1% pay for the bailout. It's a problem of, by, and for the rich so the rich should be the ones to pay for it. They would leave the rest of us out of it and stop trying to stick us with the tab.

[misanthrope]

34. Because they have too much faith in the electorate...

...They don't understand the way common people prefer to digest topical material, in easily understood soundbites, tasty morsels that have no more nuance than a bag of Cheetos.

They don't think about the fact that trying to do this now, capitulating to the scare tactics used by a proven band of scoundrels will only enable further damage down the line by a political party that long ago declared war on the federal government.

Voting for any bailout scheme in the atmosphere of the coming fortnight might stave a few things off, it might not. Being more deliberate and waiting for the fallout to sprinkle onto the heads of the GOP who fostered this mess might look callous or too politically motivated, but it won't be nearly as damaging in the long term as GOP gains on the Hill and the election of McCain-Palin would. Four more years of what got us here would be insurmountable.

Sometimes there's no way to avoid the storm, you just have to take the course that will allow you to dig out best.

[Eric J in MN]

35. Fear mongering by Henry Paulson.

===========================================
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/25/12919/0524/517/609685

Senators described a very somber, serious meeting, with Paulson describing the risk of inaction and working hard to sell the plan to skeptical Democrats during the closed-door caucus meeting. Paulson said unemployment rates could approach 10 percent if the plan was not adopted, senators said, although he did indicate possible receptiveness to the idea of implementing it in stages. Such a plan, Paulson told senators, has worked in countries like Japan, where financial rescue plans were done in stages.

"He talked about the risks in the markets, the risk of the financial system locking up, the risk of companies not being able to borrow money, the risk of major firms failing, the risk of a substantial increase in unemployment," said (Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)).
=====================================

Be afraid! Hurry up! Be afraid! Hurry up!

If Congress had hearings for a few months on the economy, they would probably realize what a bad idea cash-for-trash is.

[screembloodymurder]

38. I agree.

Stupidest thing they could have done. It will just postpone the inevitable.

[MadHound]

42. Just another manifestation of the two party/same corporate master system of government

Their financial backers in the financial sector called in their marks on the Dems, and now the Dems have to dance to the tune their masters are calling. Same as it ever was.

[scheming daemons]

43. Because the public is wrong on this one.

and Democrats care more about the country than they do about poll numbers.

[saracat]

45. Neither politican party is more afraid for the country than poll numbers. They are politicians.

I happen to agree that something must be done but this is all about spinning perception by both sides. WE should be able to win the PR war and that is what gets the votes. But we have to spin this right and Pelosi saying mortgages won't be included because it is a deal breaker with the GOP does NOT help us.JMHO.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Because that's what they're paid to do...Provide "bipartisan" cover.

It's why we "won" in 2006...

[Individualist]

46. DLC is corporatist, not populist.

[killbotfactory]

47. Because we don't have much of a democracy

We have a plutocratic republic with some democratic flourishes to maintain the illusion that little people like us have any meaningful control over the fate of the country.