Skip to main content

Tom Udall wanted me to get you this statement as quickly as possible, now that the bailout bill has gone to a vote:

I cannot in good conscience vote for a rushed $700 billion taxpayer funded bailout to shore up Wall Street while ignoring our middle class and the nation's underlying economic flaws that caused this crisis in the first place. I will, however, continue fighting to do what's right and fix our financial markets to prevent similar crises from occurring again.

Tom Udall laid out his priorities for any bailout bill that he could support last week:

"The Administration's proposal, as it has been presented to Congress, needs significant changes.  First, any plan that puts taxpayer money at risk must ensure that taxpayers get paid back before shareholders, bondholders or executives—so that corporate CEOs do not get a golden parachute while taxpayers are left to pay the bill.

“Additionally, Congress should act further to keep Americans in their homes by addressing the crisis in the mortgage industry as well as the one in the financial sector.  Any economic package that allows tens of thousands of Americans to lose their homes is simply inadequate.

“Finally, there must be accountability.  If we invest taxpayer dollars to protect our financial markets, we should make sure that money is spent effectively and efficiently, with proper oversight and accountability. No administration should be given unlimited authority over the spending of $700 billion or more of taxpayers’ dollars. Any bailout plan needs to ensure that those managing the bailout are responsible to Congress and the American people.”

Tom has carefully considered the current version of the bailout bill, and has decided that it falls short.  It does not meet the principles he laid out at the time this bailout was proposed, and does not address those who are hurt the most by this crisis.  Tom Udall knows that we can do better.

Thank you all for stopping by.  This is an important debate, and we welcome your questions, comments, and concerns below.

Bryan Barash
Internet Communications Manager
Tom Udall for Senate

Originally posted to Tom Udall for Senate on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM PDT.


Do you support this bailout package as it stands?

10%690 votes
18%1195 votes
18%1175 votes
44%2795 votes
7%470 votes

| 6325 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  well (117+ / 0-)

    I hope he quickly gets to work on a bill that will pass... - Status of the Electoral College

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:47:23 PM PDT

  •  leadership we can believe in (12+ / 0-)

    To Undecided Voters: Tell them to watch the debates. If after that, they want to vote for McCain, THEN gently but firmly correct them. -Kos Diarist Stunzeed-

    by mobilio316 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:47:23 PM PDT

    •  My Congressman (13+ / 0-)

      couldn't be prouder of him. Except when he pushed the new GI Bill or voted against the war in Iraq or against FISA or...

      •  NM is my home state and I am proud Udall (9+ / 0-)

        voted against this bill.

        •  Good for you (4+ / 0-)

          Are you enjoying the stock market crash that is currently going on today?  How's your 401(k) looking this afternoon?  Sheesh.....

          "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

          by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:15:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robert Davies, kurt, UneasyOne, Losty

            since I am short the market or in gold, it has not been that bad. (Because it is clear to many that the economy is F%^&ed, so why would one own stocks?)

            This was a horrible bill that tried to solve the wrong problem.

            There are a number of other credible proposals out there that would be far better (see Hussman or Nourini for example) and would use less taxpayer money.

            I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

            by taonow on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ah yes. We Must start panicking immediately. (17+ / 0-)

            We must throw principals and long term considerations out the window because right now - today - we're losing money on paper.  OMG! Sheesh.

            Look, I have a small business I'm terrified about.  One that is definitely at high risk here.  That will mean, not that my retirement investment might drop and take a long time to recover, but that my husband and I could lose everything we've spent 80 hours a week working for - within a very short time.  Yet I respect Udall and all the other Representatives that took a stand and are going to try to get us something better than this piss poor bill they tried to ram down our throats during our panic.

            Take the time to do it right or don't do it at all.  Thank you Representative Udall.

            •  You're not getting the seriousness of this: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elsaamo, CommiePinkoScum, Anne Elk

              We don't have time to waste.  

              And it's NOT just "money on paper" that we're losing:

              we're losing jobs
              people are losing their houses
              people are losing their health care
              people are losing their pensions and 401(k)'s
              businesses are shutting down
              and on
              and on

              It's not paper-this is people's lives.

              "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

              by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:41:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well these are the some of the same people who (11+ / 0-)

                put this administration in charge of their finances in the first place and now they're reaping the rewards of their ideology.

                Look, here's the thing. American's are getting screwed. We can sit here and cry that the world's going to shit or we can do something about it. Now this bill was an improvement over Paulson's original proposal but it was still lacking in actual protection for the very people you are lamenting about; small businesses, middle-class Americans losing their jobs, Retirees (though I wonder why they had their money there and not somewhere more safe like govt. bonds or money markets - sure it's a smaller return but it's alot safer for your nest egg)

                The market it crashing because of fear right now. It's not based on facts it based on an emotion - just like the emotion you're showing right now. The market has protocol for actual market crashes. If it falls 20% it closes for an hour, if it falls 50% it closes for a day. This isn't a crash because Wall Street isn't doing any of those things. If we want to halt the "fear" running rampant we could close the market for 2 days until a new bill is brought up.

                As I've said before, in terms of 401Ks it's not money gone until you take it out so leave it in and let the market stabilize. During the Great Depression the people who rode it out regained their money the people who freaked out and pulled their money out lost it.

                Where was this passion over the past 9 months when we've lost 650,000 jobs? What, suddenly this week you noticed it? All of the other things you mentioned (save 401Ks and see my above comment for that) have been happening for the past 7 years. So suddenly TODAY we have to throw all of our money at Wall Street because all of this has just SUDDENLY happened the past two weeks?

                Look, we can wait another few days until they revote on this and hopefully we can get a better bill out of it. The stock market will rally after it passes just like it rallied last week.

                CALM DOWN!

                •  Wish I could double rec that, Blue Tex n/t (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Robert Davies, kurt, BlueTexasDem

                  "A noun, a verb..." and P.O.W Thanks, Joe Biden

                  by UneasyOne on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:50:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Did you and Phil Gramm attend... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...the same school of armchair economic psychology?  We find it absurd that Gramm calls our economic situation a "mental recession" and yet here you are calling valid responses to a crisis, responses that you happen to disagree with, purely emotional reactions to a market that will naturally restabilize.  Wow.  Guess we're just a nation of whiners, eh?

                  "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals" - Mark Twain -8.25, -7.90

                  by Saxum on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whoa whoa whoa how does waiting 2 or 3 days (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, RebeccaG, Robert Davies

                    make me a do-nothing-Phil-Gramm-loving person? I am simply stating that the world is not crashing to a halt TODAY and that we can take a little bit of a breather and come up with a better bill. 3 days isn't going to change this one way or another is all I'm saying.

                    •  What makes you think it will be only 3 days? (0+ / 0-)

                      Now I'm not accusing you of being a Gramm lover or anything, but it took almost two weeks to hammer out this piece of crap bill that was up for vote today. Starting from scratch in this environment? It's going to take too long. We'll be lucky to last a week, let alone the two or three (or month or four months) it's going to take to get something else through congress.

                      This is a total fiasco. Crappy bill today, but it should have passed.

                    •  Thurs it will pass? All of a sudden, it will pass (0+ / 0-)

                      on Thursday? It will become popular with the public, the Republicans will support it and so will more Democrats and it will be supported and pass?

                      Well, why didn't you say so.

                      Obviously, that's false.

                      The spotlight is on, thanks to McCain and people like Udall and you. It is unpopular and may not become much more popular.

                      The Republicans aren't likely to support it again.

                      Having tried once and failed, the likelihood of success the next time is even less.

                      Moreover, the things that are essential to its success are buying the bad loans and using the money to rescue the financial companies that are in danger of failing so that they stay afloat.

                      But that is exactly what is so controversial. So, this is the part that is most likely to be removed.

                      But, that means that the part that we most need is least likely to be in any legislation that passes.

                      House won't even be in session until Thursday.

                      They won't be able to pass anything.

                      If DJIA believed that they were going to be able to pass something later, then it would not have tanked like this.

                •  You'll wish you could take this back... (0+ / 0-)

                  next week, when nothing is worth anything anymore.  I wish you and your 'do nothing' buddies could be spared a keystroke or two to think about the seniors who are losing their savings today and aren't going to be alive to see the market recover.  Or are you all, 'let them eat Alpo?'  Nice.  Tell me:  you don't understand, or you don't want  to understand that real people are going to suffer because of Mr. Udall's decision today?  

                  •  Really? The world is going to end tomorrow if we (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, RebeccaG, Robert Davies

                    don't do something right now? Right this second? This very minute? They've been saying it was going to crash for 2 weeks and the sun came up this morning didn't it? So waiting until Thursday is just completely unreasonable? Wow, you obviously didn't learn anything from the Patriot Act did you?

                    •  Until Thursday? (0+ / 0-)

                      Or will your false equivalency between this rescue and past bad acts like the Patriot Act provide cowards like Udall who are most fearful of losing their elections the cover they need to continue to delay.  Honestly, you're very, very cavalier with other people's money.  Wherever do you get the nerve?

                      I know you want to win your point, but how many people have to go broke for you to do it?

                      •  Even David Sarota agrees with me so there! (0+ / 0-)
                      •  Sorry, but what crap. (0+ / 0-)

                        Or are you all, 'let them eat Alpo?'  Nice.  Tell me:  you don't understand, or you don't want  to understand that real people are going to suffer because of Mr. Udall's decision today?

                        After that, you seriously attempted lecture on False Equivalency?

                        ... will your false equivalency between this rescue and past bad acts like the Patriot Act...

                        Ya know, you're just a little late to the party about
                        "the Seniors that are losing their savings today".
                        So, Blink. Blink. Specifically: how does the bailout as proposed directly benefit Seniors today.
                        What is the cost benefit over cutting them checks directly to be accounted for on next years tax returns?

                        Unbelievable. Do you really just extrude these pearls right out of your ass?
                        Who's being cavalier with whose money?

                        Honestly, you're very, very cavalier with other people's money.  Wherever do you get the nerve?

                        You're asking the very regular citizens and small biz types
                        who haven't been cavalier with their money or anyone else's to give
                        political juice to this and foot the bill to boot.

                        These are people that expect the social contracts to their insured savings, Social Security, and Unemployment benefits to be honored by the Government, with legal recourse covering their Mutual Funds and Market Positions to be honored as well.

                        Viable small businesses got pushed out of the credit markets 2 years ago. "Seniors", ah yes, "the Seniors" , if you hadn't just fallen off the Turnip Truck, have already been eating ALPO choosing between  Food & Medicine, Heat in Winter and cooling in sweltering summers for years. Get a Fucking  Clue.

                        The Bum's Rush is being hammered in the media by the Congloms and
                        an entire class of people who have been living in a bubble for years.
                        Quite frankly, there is a whole Financial Services Caste
                        of people out there who are liable to criminal prosecution and civil litigation for their misdeeds, malpractice, and misrepresentation.

                        It's not surprising that the Public is now being treated to Psychological and Financial Class Warfareas a result.

                        Ironically, it's not just Lunchbucket Dems, but Conservative Republicans, and Middle of the Road Indies who read their pulse correctly:

                        Show Me   the MY Money.

                        Not through the Banks, Not through Paulson,
                        Not through Bush, Not through Wall Street.

                        Show Me   the MY Money.

                        Short of credible direct benefit and protections for the majority
                        who in fact already have been carrying the burden,
                        the country (for now at least) says:

                        Pound Sand, unless you got  MY money..

                        A Bill surely will pass that promises more guarantees of safeguards and direct benefit to citizen stakeholders. Woe unto us all if it doesn't deliver. Once done, the political and Administrative burden will shift to the Democratic Majority and an Obama White House. It's crucial for the country, as well as us politically,  that we get this done right.

              •  Thanks, Countess (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                It really is amazing how people don't get the idea that the USA is a gigantic Argentina right now. We are going to suffer a contraction in the economy over the next few years of a significant order.

                By the end of it, the USA will look very different from today. We think we have a homeless problem today, but just wait. I think we will see people living in half-built housing out there in the exurbs. We will see a sharp rise in street crime (in fact we already are in the Bay Area). We will see the collapse in the value of the dollar, probably in the next week or two. Interest rates will go up hugely. All of the things that made the post-war USA a nice place to live will go away. The shame is that it could have been so different.

                McCain: Out of touch and out of time.

                by Anne Elk on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:22:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And how exactly do you think the government (6+ / 0-)

                  handing over billions to Wall Street is going to make it different than Argentina?  Face it, neither you nor anyone else has any idea what the effect of this proposed bailout would be.  You're just in such a panic, you're willing to do Anything.  Just so Something is being done.  But sometimes anything is worse than nothing.  We Can get a better bill.  The panic of people are the only thing that will prevent that.  It is the panic of people that caused the market to drop.  It's a shame, because had Bushco not fed that panic, Congress would have the time to come up with a reasonable solution rather than accepting Bushco's.

                  •  I am not in a panic (0+ / 0-)

                    I have been preparing for this for a year. So don't worry about me.

                    Every study of this kind of crisis comes up with the same basic answer: injection of cash into the finance system. There are really slow ways, good if you have the time, and there are quick ways, kind of risky. Congress can't seem to decide what way. All those smart people spent a weekend to come up with nothing.

                    So we will have a massive deflationary recession that might have been just a nasty recession. Oh well. My money is safely tucked away in foreign bank accounts now. So this is now your problem, not mine. Good luck with that.

                    McCain: Out of touch and out of time.

                    by Anne Elk on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Trust me, Countess, I understand the (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Robert Davies, kurt, UneasyOne

                seriousness of it.  But I also understand the seriousness of reacting to a terrible situation with panic.  And that is, without question, what you are doing.  Every one of your comments is in a state of panic.  I might lose everything.  Everything I've spent many, many years working for, years of sacrificing having the material things others around me have had, of sacrificing time and energy on things I'd have enjoyed more than working.  But panic is not going to solve anything.  Nor is making decisions under panic mode.  

                The stock market has handled worse.  Will it handle this?  I don't know.  You don't know.  All the naysayers don't know.  What will reduce the likelihood more than anything is panic.  Bushco worked hard to create panic right now.  We will only make it worse if we follow the lead he gave us.

                •  I'm not panicking--I moved my money out (0+ / 0-)

                  securities months ago--I saw this coming down the pike.  I'm worried about my family, my friends, and the rest of my fellow citizens (of this country and the world).

                  Yes, the market has 'survived' worse--but look at the 'cost' of the survival.  Have you read about the devastating consequences of the Great Depression on the people of this country?

                  "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

                  by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:32:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm trying hard to avoid that odious phrase (5+ / 0-)

                    "What you don't understand", but it seems your underlying assumption, that I find flawed, is that this bailout would have prevented anything.  Not one person has been able to say they believe it would.  They all say they don't know, but we have to do something.  

                    I am worried sick, too.  But I am much more worried about making the wrong decision in a panic than I am about the few extra days or even weeks it might take to get the right decision made.  I strongly believe the long term consequences of this proposed bailout would be devastating.  If we're on course for a Great Depression, this bailout would not prevent it.  Of that I am sure.  Do I want Anyone - even those making the foolish decisions - to suffer as people did during the Depression?  Of course not.  Would I do anything I could to prevent it?  Of course.  But I do not believe this bill Bushco is trying to ram through would help one iota.  The very best that could be siad for it is that it Might delay it slightly.  We need a much more comprehensive and quality solution.

                    •  Your point is reasonable (0+ / 0-)

                      that nobody knows what the effect would have been had the bill been passed. Where I disagree with you, however, is in the presumption that anybody knows the effect of any bill. If you look at the series of bills pushed through by FDR during the New Deal, virtually nobody had any conception of what would ensue. They were risking, experimenting and taking bets with little to no time for study or research. Many of their ideas failed, but some of them succeeded, but most importantly was the sense that regular Americans had, both as voters and as economic citizens, that the government was doing something. Today the US congress sent the message that they weren't going to do anything for the financial sector, which is a terribly risky and destructive message to send. Like it or not, the US and world economy runs through the American financial sector, which means a collapse there, of confidence or otherwise, could have disastrous effects on people the globe over. Certainly we could have had a much more comprehensive or better solution, but at the moment we didn't need it. They made the good the enemy of the perfect and I can only hope we'll fix the damage fast

                      •  If you look back to that time, there were no (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        decisions that were pushed through in days.  While I readily acknowledge they didn't know the potential consequences of the decisions, they had at least had the opportunity of debating them at length.  With this one, it was a matter of being "presented" with a crisis, together with an insistence that if the action Bushco wanted wasn't taken immediately, disaster would strike, then secret "negotiations", and finally one day of preparation for those who had the responsibility of making the decision.  There is no way in hell that would have happened under FDR.  He forced a whole lot of things through Congress.  But he did it honestly - not with the manipulation and secrecy Bushco has engaged in.

                        I disagree that this vote is a signal Congress will do nothing.  It is a signal only that it will not do this particular action in this particular way.  I guarantee you they either already are or will very shortly be back at the table, hopefully coming up with an entirely new framework, or at worst, reworking this framework to improve it so the worst aspects are eliminated.  

                        Not only do I not think this proposal was good - I think it was about as bad as it was possible to get.  I believe the passage of this bill would have made the long term situation much much worse.  I'm hoping they'll come up with something that will at least have a chance of not hurting what it's supposed to help.

                        •  I'm sorry but you're simply mistaken (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CS in AZ

                          "If you look back to that time, there were no decisions that were pushed through in days."

                          In Roosevelt's first 100 days, Congress passed a whole slew of major bills, often with little or even no debate. The, for example, was passed on the exact same day it was proposed. There wasn't much more debate or time for consideration within the Executive Branch either - FDR and his staff barely started making specific plans before being inaugurated. Much of this stuff happened on the fly.

                          Now, I'm not arguing that we should consider that an ideal. Obviously debate is necessary. I think much of the debate that happened this time dramatically improved the bill. But we do need to follow a similar spirit of haste that FDR and his Congress displayed then.

                          I don't know what would have happened had the bill been approved today, but I have difficulty imagining a worst case scenario than what did happen with it having been rejected.

                          •  Supposedly, the first 100 days of our current (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Robert Davies, kurt

                            Congress involved the passage of a number of bills, too.  And if they were talking doing small steps, a bit at a time, I'd maybe be going along with it.  If you can point to one that FDR secretly plotted for seven months, as Bush and his cronies did with this, and then sprang it on Congress, declaring an immediate crisis, and being anything close to the magnitude of this bill, both in terms of money and abdication of power and responsibility, I'll eat my hat.  Although I have to admit, I've choked on that damn hat a few times before.  

                            I do not think the DOW dropping 7% is the end of the world - I can think of worse case scenarios.  I hope that by the time the markets open tomorrow, congress will have issued a strong statement that they are back at the table and have a fresh approach and expect to have the beginnings of true rescue bills - and I emphasize the bills - with the first step to be taken within days.  And more well thought out, well planned, well debated steps to be taken over the next days and weeks.  Because it will take more than one thing to salvage any hope for our economy.

                          •  You equate Roosevelt's Vigourous Fiscalism (0+ / 0-)

                            in his First 100 Days Three years after the '29 Stock Market crash
                            with this doubling down on Bushite Monetarist initiatives?

                            But we do need to follow a similar spirit of haste that FDR and his Congress displayed then.

                            With the Bush Adminisration now holding the Purse?

                            It's an unserviceable analogy.

                            You realize FDR's First Hundred Days were methodically formed
                            via his Brain Trust between 1929 - 1932 ...
                            and the case for Political Departure -
                            was painstakingly made during the 1932 Campaign?

            •  Okay, so is it just on paper or isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I'm reading a LOT of conflicting info.  One diary says it's not just money lost on paper, that many businesses can't even pay their employees now, and this is a serious crisis.  

              Then I read comments like yours that say we have plenty of time to get a really good plan passed through the House and Senate and there's no real need to panic.

              Is there any one I CAN believe in this?

              -7.38, -8.77 "They know you called the Gay Teen Bondage Chatline for 15 minutes last Tuesday, but what you discussed is anyone's guess." - Jon Stewart

              by CommiePinkoScum on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:14:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For those complaining about their 401k's and (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RebeccaG, kurt, UneasyOne

                investments, it's on paper.  For businesses, it will probably be very real.  I've heard stories of businesses that are already experiencing a cutback on their credit.  So far, we haven't received any notice.  If it happens, I readily admit, my business will be seriously affected quickly.  How will we weather it?  I have no idea.  My husband and I could well lose everything we have.  And I'm terrified of it.  Yet I refuse to join the sky is falling group.  Acting in a panic is Always the absolute worst thing that can happen.  And that's what the Bush admin was trying to force Congress to do.  

                I have no doubt we're in for a rocky ride.  At least partly because of the panic Bushco has created.  Where it will go, I have no idea.  I just believe this "solution" is worse than the problem it would supposedly have solved.

                •  Retired people who rely on 401k funds (0+ / 0-)

                  don't find that "it's on paper" when they cannot pay for their living expenses and medical bills.

                  It's quite real!

                  and about this:

                  Acting in a panic is Always the absolute worst thing that can happen.

                  are you serious? It's Always the absolute worst thing to do, to act when there is a crisis causing a panic? That is the time to do nothing? Really?

                  Let's see... my plumbing breaks and my house is filling with water! Panic! What should I do? Rush out and turn off the water main? Or sit around contemplating the situation and not doing anything about it because I'm in a panic and that is no time to act. Sit and think about it until everything in the house is ruined? hummmmm.

                  My dog was hit by a car! She's lying in the street and looks badly hurt! Panic!!! What to do?!? Rush her to the vet as fast as possible? Or sit there and consider the possibility that maybe she isn't hurt that bad and might be okay if I do nothing for a few hours? hummmmm.

                  Sometimes when there is panic, it is because something very very bad is happening, and something needs to be done about it right freakin now.

                  •  The actions you're describing are not actions (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kurt, UneasyOne

                    of panic.  They are thoughtful, if quick, decisions made after the facts have been ascertained and with knowledge of the consequences of the actions taken. Responding reasonably to a situation is the antithesis of acting in panic.  And nowhere have I suggested that action should not be taken.

                    Acting in a panic is the parent whose child cuts his finger and they rush him to the hospital when in fact it's only a surface cut, the swimmer who chokes his savior who comes to save him, because he's so desperate to get his own head above water, he can't think past that very instant, the person who sees his dog lying on the road and takes a shotgun to him to prevent him suffering - only to discover he was laying on the road simply because it was a warm place.  No contemplation at all, no gathering of the facts, no rational thought patterns - just action for the sake of action.  

                    •  You've changed your argument (0+ / 0-)

                      First you said acting in a panic is Always the absolulte worst thing that can happen.

                      My examples are all examples of actions taken while in a state of panic. My point is that even when you are in a panic, sometimes you do need to act and act quickly. Being in a panic does not automatically mean it is the time to go slowly.

                      Passing a rescue bill is not "action for the sake of action" and unnecessary action at that, such as going to the hospital when the cut is just a surface cut or killing the dog when he is merely taking a nap. That is not the current situation.

                      It's more like our economic house is on fire, and some people feel it is urgent to do something about it, while others are saying they don't believe it is even on fire, others are saying it may be on fire, but we need to spend some more days or weeks fighting about how to put it out. Others admit it is on fire but are saying just let it burn down, because we don't want to help the bastards who started the fire, and if everyone inside dies too, well that's just too bad because they should have seen the arsonists setting the blaze and gotten out sooner.

                      I'm in the "let's put the fire out now" camp, personally.

                      •  Panic is, by definition, a time when rational (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Robert Davies, kurt

                        thought is gone.  Just because a situation is critical does not mean that panic is involved.  
                        Panic is not part and parcel of a situation that is critical.  It's a way of responding to a critical situation.  And not a good way of responding.  So I'll stand by my position that acting in a panic is always the worst thing that can be done.  Because, by definition, that means you're not thinking rationally and you're acting with your emotions - usually fear - rather than your brain.

                        As to your analogy - I'll one up it.  If this is a fire - just knowing it's a fire is not enough.  We have to know what kind of fire.  Because if we don't, we won't know whether whatever we're putting on it is going to put it out or make it more dangerous.  Putting water on a chemical fire could be a disaster.  And piling bedding and boxes on top of a fire in the hopes of smothering it would be a disaster.  We need to at least make sure whatever we're putting on the fire is going to at least tamp it down, and not going to make it even worse.  We haven't been provided that opportunity and so trying to put it out with whatever pops into our heads and seems handy at the moment would be acting in a panic.

                        •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                          I'll also stand by my statements that if my dog is hit by a car or my house is on fire, I will both panic (because that is an unaviodable emotional reaction) and act quickly at the same time. I believe that is the best thing to do in such a circumstance. I will not sit around until I've calmed down about the fact that an accident just happened or the house is on fire, because by then it would be far too late.

                          I also don't believe that people such as Barack Obama, who agrees that a rescue bill needs to be passed very quickly, and Barney Frank, who has been working on this for days now, are doing "whatever pops into their head" without giving it any thought. That just seems absurd to me.

                          •  You're still not differentiating between the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            emotion and actions.  You might feel a sense of panic initially, but if you are able to act rationally and calmly, then you are not acting in a panic.  You are overcoming your feelings of panic.  That is just the basic definition of panic.  

                            I never meant to suggest that those supporting this were doing "whatever pops into their head" and I'm sorry it came across that way.  But I do think Bushco has tried to force a decision on this without giving ample time to discuss it.

                            Remember, at first it was within three days or the world would end?  Well, it didn't end after those three days.  Had they worked on it a little longer, made Bushco give up a little more - or better yet, a lot more - even if it took a few more days to get - the DOW wouldn't have dropped today.  It dropped because they forced a vote on a bill they knew wouldn't pass.  Why did they do that?  I have no idea.  It would have been much better, if the situation is in fact so dire, for Bushco to agree to real changes rather than just the cosmetic ones.  The fact Bushco is so unwilling to compromise makes me wonder how convinced they are the sky will fall if something isn't done.  They certainly don't seem to have the attitude something - anything - needs to be done immediately.  

                          •  It will be interesting to see if there's a change (0+ / 0-)

                            toward support among the public for a bill to get passed now -- since the market did crash badly today when it failed to pass, and the downward spiral of the economy is much more obviously happening and is clearly not some made-up crisis/crying wolf.

                            I suspect that many people who were perhaps against it but now find their 401k is nearly worthless or they lose their job or their business goes under, will suddenly realize that this was never about bailing out "wall street" and will start liking the idea of doing something about the crisis. It may suddenly become very popular indeed, once it hits home. I think people will change their tune and start demanding that the politicians in Washington stop their petty bickering and get something done, and soon.

                            This may be what was needed. We kept hearing about how this was so "deeply unpopular" among voters and that's why no one in congress wanted to vote for it. So they didn't, and now everyone gets to see the consequences of that inaction, so they will change their tune. Then congress can vote for a new bill without the risk of doing something "unpopular."  

                          •  People do seem to reach their conclusions by how (0+ / 0-)

                            they think it will affect them.  But I'm not so sure that's why so many were opposed to this - because they didn't think it would affect them.  They've certainly been told often enough that it will.  

                            My perception is they saw it as too much, too fast, with too little control.  If Bushco had been willing to take say two hundred billion now and permit some meaningful oversight, I think the response would have been very different.  While people are talking the CEO compensation angle, I don't think that's what's holding them back in their gut.  I think there's just a real sense of distrust and fear of the longterm consequences.

                            I think congress will come back with something a whole lot more palatable pretty quickly.  Bush and his cronies have to have heard loud and clear their just not going to get what they wants out of this.

                          •  I think opposition was based on "us against them" (0+ / 0-)

                            thinking. This was apparent in the framing of the bill as a "bailout for wall street" i.e., rich people who this money would be "given" to while screwing over the rest of us. Opposers believed it was possible to isolate the pain and hurt them without hurting the rest of us too, and that is what they wanted.

                            But I'm not so sure that's why so many were opposed to this - because they didn't think it would affect them.  They've certainly been told often enough that it will.


                            Yes, they've been told, but many did not seem to believe it would affect them, or ordinary people in general. Even Kos and other front pagers here have been calling it things like "Wall Street Welfare" and "a bailout for wall street fat cats" -- as if the rest of us have no stake in solving the problem.

                            I think that appears to be changing already though, with more people saying "OK, something does need to be done" and fewer people saying "not one dime" and "screw them" and totally opposing any action whatsoever. It becomes harder to deny the scope of the problem and call if a bailout for "fat cats" when it starts hitting hard with widespread consequences for all of us.

                          •  I don't know. Maybe we can't make (0+ / 0-)

                            generalizations.  Maybe lots of people had various reasons.  For some - the us against them meme; for others, not trusting Bushco and the way it all came down; for some, a lack of confidence that this bill would help; and for others, believing there's a better way.  

                            I never got the sense, though, that most people who opposed this thought we should do nothing.  There were a few saying that - and there are still a few that continue.  But for most, it was this particular bill they found fault with.  

                            Some opposed to it are opposed out of ignorance; some in favor are in favor out of ignorance.  There's just no way to know who is right and who is wrong until after the fact.  Kind of like believing in the afterlife, you know?  Once we find out whose right, it's too late to change our position.    

                          •  I would be more likely to believe that (0+ / 0-)

                            for most, it was this particular bill they found fault with.

                            if they had waited to see what this bill actually contained before opposing it. But what we saw was a lot of loud opposition flying fast and furious around here before the specifics of the bill even came out. And the words chosen to express this oppostion and frame the bill as a "bailout for wall street fat cats" clearly says that doing anything at all to assist these financial institutions is an intervention that is designed to benefit them and screw us, so we oppose any such action on principle.

                            That's the message I took away from the vast majority of those opposed to the bailout bill, at least until this afternoon after it failed. Since then it seems, as I said, like the tone is starting to change. Which is good.

                            Once we find out whose right, it's too late to change our position.


                            Yep, that's true... although I do have hope that even if this fails to get passed in any form anytime soon and things do get really bad, it will still be possible for the country to eventually recover. However, a lot of people are going to suffer a lot of pain in the transition and that is sad as well as scary.  

                          •  Interesting side note (0+ / 0-)

                            Rachel Maddow just said that the amount of money lost just today on the stock market crash was more money (quite a lot more) than the entire bailout would have cost!

                            I think that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

                  •  The house is on fire! Throw gas on it! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    That's what this bill does.

                    "A noun, a verb..." and P.O.W Thanks, Joe Biden

                    by UneasyOne on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nope, the bill would put some water on the fire (0+ / 0-)

                      Funny -- I just used the "house on fire" analogy in my pervious comment too. But your idea that taking steps to address the problem is like putting gas on the fire makes no sense. You would rather just stand around and watch it burn down?

                      •  It would ramp up inflation and not loosen credit (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Read the second comment from the top in this thread.

                        That's what I would do.

                        Printing a trillion or so of unbacked currency and pissing it down a rathole is throwing gas on a fire.

                        You think a banking collapse is bad?  Wait 'till the dollar tanks.

                        But some "solutions" are indeed worse than no action at all - which no one has proposed!

                        "A noun, a verb..." and P.O.W Thanks, Joe Biden

                        by UneasyOne on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:14:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Um, a lot of people have said that nothing (0+ / 0-)

                          should be done. I cannot even count the number of comments and diaries I've read here in the past week saying things like "not one dime!" and "no bailout for wall street fat cats!" and "let them fail!" Many people have been saying that there is no crisis, nothing needs to be done, it's a made up problem.

                        •  I looked for the comment you referenced but (0+ / 0-)

                          the second comment on this thread says nothing except someone is glad Udall voted against the bill.

                          •  Look again - Very top of the thread (0+ / 0-)

                            The second comment overall - at the place where the diary ends and comments begin.

                            "A noun, a verb..." and P.O.W Thanks, Joe Biden

                            by UneasyOne on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:38:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah, not this thread but top of all comments (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            got it.

                            Ok, so it sounds like you want the government to print $700 billion and then use this money to create a massive government-owned bank that would replace private banks? Somehow I don't think that is likely to happen... but kudos for at least having an idea, unlike most of those who are opposed to the government buying the bad debts.

                            Personally I would like to just force the banks who hold the bad debt to renegotiate all those bad mortgages and lower the payments so people can pay their payments and the loans won't be worthless anymore.

                          •  The idea has charm (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CS in AZ

                            But it certainly wouldn't make the banks more liquid (in the short run at least).

                            My specific plan isn't likely to happen - true.  But some big names are floating very similar ideas.  If a credit crunch - lack of liquidity in the banks - is the problem, something like that will have to be done.  Better sooner than later.

                            Yup - my plan prints the money too - glad you caught that (I have had idiotic, bs, specious criticism of the idea, which I hate.  Valid points prove you paid attention.)

                            It's a bit different when you invest for a return, however, instead of simply pissing money away.  Proponents of the bailout, of course, claim that some profit is conceivable from their plan in the sweet by and by, but they are laughing their asses off about the suckers who are buying in to that.

                            Check out Matt Stoller's recced Diary proving that point.

                            "A noun, a verb..." and P.O.W Thanks, Joe Biden

                            by UneasyOne on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And OOPS! Not replace private banks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CS in AZ

                            Supplement the good ones and replace the bad ones.

                            And actually, 700 billion (with the various multipliers) is probably waaay more than you would need.  Just picked that figure "because it's really big" - like the Treasury.

                            "A noun, a verb..." and P.O.W Thanks, Joe Biden

                            by UneasyOne on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Well I don't have the option (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kurt, adrianrf, CS in AZ

                  to just ride it out.  My mother left me a small investment account which I've been having to use to live on because of illness.  This account used to make $500/month interest so I took $350/month out of it for medical expenses.  Now the account is down nearly 65% from its value in February, and I haven't even had the courage to check on it since this current bit of the crisis has played out.  

                  Now there's no longer enough to cover medical costs, nor can we make the needed house repairs after the string of storms we had in June.  This means our backup plan to sell the house is now impossible. (Insurance is paying a small percentage of the estimated damage and won't reimburse us the rest until after we've paid out of pocket to repair.)

                  I can't work, the government doesn't think I qualify for disability, my husband's good job is with a Fortune 500 company who was already talking layoffs a month ago.  Right now we haven't lost everything, but we've lost all our options.  We're entirely in the hands of the economy now.

                  It would be nice to worry about the big picture, to have the time to sit around and just wait for a better bill... but a lot of us don't have the time.  Waiting around for something better is a luxury many of us simply can't afford.

                  Besides, the bailout plan today would have just stopped some of the problems and helped shore up some of the economic bleeding.  It was never intended to fix anything.  You can't come up with a full-on fix in such a short amount of time.

                  -7.38, -8.77 "They know you called the Gay Teen Bondage Chatline for 15 minutes last Tuesday, but what you discussed is anyone's guess." - Jon Stewart

                  by CommiePinkoScum on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You better start making plans then (0+ / 0-)

              because this crisis is now going to spill out of Wall Street all over Main Street, and pretty much wash it away.

              McCain: Out of touch and out of time.

              by Anne Elk on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:16:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You seem to think this was a good idea. (9+ / 0-)

            Please answer the following questions for me:

            Why is it that we can be talking about our dependence on foreign oil since 1973, but cannot do anything about it?

            Why is it that we can be discussing global warming for over a decade, but cannot do anything about it?

            Why is it that we can have junk sold on Wall Street for over a decade, but suddenly must pass a bailout in four days or the world will end?

            Why does it strike me (uneducated fool that I am), that the Bush administration sprung this on Congress in the final week that they are supposed to be in session under the Bush administration solely to hand over to his base (the haves and the have mores) a last fistful of million dollar bills?

            I'm uneducated on high finance, but willing to listen.  Educate me.

            Sarah: You're an idiot. Come home.

            by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think it's a 'good' idea, I think it is (0+ / 0-)

              necessary to prevent a worldwide financial meltdown.  There is no perfect solution to this crisis.  But doing nothing (which is what Congress is currently doing) is unacceptable.

              To answer your questions:

              1.  Our failure to address our dependence on foreign oil is decades long and is the fault of democratic and republican inaction in the face of a serious problem.  I would submit that the influence of oil industry lobbyists (and the money they have used to grease the political system) has much to do with this.  The American people are also to blame: no one (with the exception of a few of us lefties) have wanted to pay higher fuel prices to (1) subsidize the development of clean energy technologies, and (2) to reduce the amount of fuel they use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
              1.  See my answer/explanation above--these two problems are inextricable linked.
              1.  The problems on Wall Street have been a long time coming.  After the Great Depression we passed  a series of regulations that were designed to prevent the type of worldwide market crash that precipitated the Great Depression.  These measures worked fairly well for a long time.  But, two things (among other lesser factors) have happened in the intervening decades.  1.  Ronald Reagan came to power in 1980 there started of the systematic deregulation of the markets--this deregulation mania continued up until the present day (read: credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations (CDO's), etc). As a result, banks and other institutions were able to engage in risky financial transactions with lessened oversight/regulation and attendant penalties for their misbehavior (if and when it came to light). 2.  The explosive growth in the financial markets has been fueled by leveraged debt (i.e.: money borrowed to purchase one security, more money borrowed against that security to purchase yet another one, and so on).  This has led to a situation in which financial institutions owe far more than the value of the assets they have on their books.

              Now we have a situation in which the credit (liquidity) that has been allowing the system function, has dried up.  Banks are not willing to lend to each other, they are not willing to lend to business (even very sound businesses) and the end result is that the world economy it teetering on the brink of collapse.  Markets need liquidity in order to function and we are in a situation in which liquidity has dried up.

              Enter the federal government.  It is the only entity large enough (and with enough credit) to inject the requisite amount of liquidity into the financial markets.  This is being done in two way: (1) by increasing the money supply, and (2) by the proposed buying up of bad assets (mostly bad US mortgage backed securities).  

              Why do we need to do this now?

              Well, if we do not intervene at this point, there is a VERY real possibility that the markets will not only falter (as they are doing) but fail:  taking good investments, good companies, good people, right down the drain with them.  If you have a grandparent, or other elder in your family who lived through the Great Depression, now would be a good time to ask them how horrible 1930's truly were (over 30% unemployment, etc.).

              Hope this explanation helps :)

              "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

              by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:06:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It does help. It also raises another question: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, kurt

                The explosive growth in the financial markets has been fueled by leveraged debt (i.e.: money borrowed to purchase one security, more money borrowed against that security to purchase yet another one, and so on).  

                You appear to be describing a Ponzi scheme.  Why is nobody going to jail for this fraud?

                Sarah: You're an idiot. Come home.

                by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:15:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hopefully some people will-- (0+ / 0-)

                  See the FBI investigations now going on.  But some of it was 'perfectly legal' under the laws/regulations--These are the laws/regulations that we need to change under the new Obama administration.

                  "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

                  by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  What's good for the country ...? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, Rachel in MO, ZenTrainer

            Unless you were planning on retiring today (in that case, what were you doing in stocks?) these will come back if Tom Udall and others manage to pass a better bill along the lines he's outlined.

            I too was for passage of this bill, but did share progressives' concerns over it.

            Now the ball is in the other court.

            If we can do better, great -- let's see it. Our progressive friends deserve to get a shot at passing more worker and taxpayer friendly legislation. If they fail, they should promise to come back and pass the best compromise.

            Celebrate women but hate choice? Revere MLK but despise community organizers? Pretend we've won the war but can't withdraw? Republican much?

            by Bronxist on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It'll rebound. I'm not freaking out about it. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt, El Ochito

            Considering we are still around 10,000 it's REALLY NOT A CRASH. Look at last week. It dropped 1,000 and rebounded 1,000. This will bump up once something is passed. Sheesh!

          •  I cut my losses in February. (0+ / 0-)

            I moved from the Fidelity Freedom 2040 fund to a T-bond fund then.  I see no reason to move back yet.  Total of just about $80K.

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            by Odysseus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:45:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I want one like that! n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eaglecries, fbihop, Rabbithead
      •  Not mine yet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but soon my Senator!  

      •  I'm pleased to have (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Helena Handbag, kurt, ZenTrainer

        Tom Udall as my Representative now, and soon my Senator.

        Yes, something needs to happen.  This wasn't it.

        Can we fix it? YES WE CAN! Obama/Biden '08

        by meanderwithme on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  thanks mobillo! (0+ / 0-)

      Steve Olson

      by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tips (164+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    manish, N in Seattle, Kimberley, suresh, opendna, jps, Caelian, meg, OLinda, wry twinger, westsyde, mslat27, Caneel, hubcap, jalapeno, Helena Handbag, gladkov, Shadan7, understandinglife, wanderindiana, sgilman, amanuensis, turneresq, CoConut, sele, nataraj, recontext, hhex65, fight2bfree, Mindmouth, Sychotic1, kalmoth, BWasikIUgrad, DelicateMonster, Redbug, jim bow, BDA in VA, averageyoungman, Troubled, chumley, 3goldens, Roadbed Guy, citizenx, TigerMom, Brooke In Seattle, brocktunestudios, curtadams, SaraBeth, lotlizard, blue jersey mom, paxpdx, joy221, Spathiphyllum, Mehitabel9, OJD, elliott, fbihop, esquimaux, deha, SarekOfVulcan, KozmoD, twigg, bubbanomics, CTLiberal, ER Doc, Jbearlaw, goinsouth, kurt, jjellin, christomento, ZenTrainer, bigchin, Randall Sherman, jsyaruss, dmh44, 0wn, yoduuuh do or do not, unionboy, gustynpip, terabytes, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, malharden, netguyct, uciguy30, UneasyOne, feelingsickinMN, jgilhousen, alkalinesky, JeffW, swampus, LightningMan, Nissl, Cat Servant, Rick Winrod, Akonitum, LearningCurve, happymisanthropy, Serpents Sorrow, ClapClapSnap, KttG, Gemina13, KimD, bob zimway, get the red out, joy sinha, nokkonwud, nzanne, allie123, magicsister, shortgirl, Dems 2008, bhagamu, artmartin, MTmarilyn, LA rupert, AimlessDriver, litoralis, divineorder, mtundu, Shhs, jaf49, Rabbithead, eco d, SciVo, Phlogiston Junkie, Mercuriousss, BDsTrinity, Angry Mouse, obscuresportsquarterly, sanglug, audiored, ElizabethAM, diddosMN, ruscle, marypickford, BlueTexasDem, smileycreek, amerikkalainen, mobilio316, bperk, NMDad, KroneckerD, ArtSchmart, megsmegs, fidellio, TheWesternSun, El Ochito, Capostrophe, Dexter, calichristi, meanderwithme, Racht, Llarian, Inspired By Nature, Its a New Day, ssldenver, Freelance Escapologist, FeloniousMonk, Birchwood, Pecola, smuch, implicate order, username7539, rgm
  •  THANK YOU (5+ / 0-)

    and you were great by the way on Meet the Press.

    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

    by ElizabethAM on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM PDT

  •  Tom Udall should then start working on (29+ / 0-)

    a bill that will pass.

    Rabindranath Tagore-"Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it."

    by joy sinha on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM PDT

  •  Our nation's engine is running without oil (21+ / 0-)

    If you don't agree with the kind of oil that was selected, fine, but please find something soon that you can put in before the engine seizes up

    Be a reporter, not a repeater

    by Plays in Traffic on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM PDT

  •  Ok... (18+ / 0-) can we get a good bill up for a vote?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight. John McCain = Old Boat Anchor

    by JeffW on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM PDT

  •  well, we reap what we sow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Oh in the meantime just hope that the (9+ / 0-)

    whole financial system doesn't crash.

    Rabindranath Tagore-"Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it."

    by joy sinha on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM PDT

  •  Go Senator Go (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smallbrain, corvo, lotlizard, kurt, 0wn, gustynpip

    This bill was a turkey..thanks for standing up for the American people.

  •  good job (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iowan, KimD

    Now let's start making a bill that actually does reform and help the financial sector and get it through.

  •  thank you!! (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scorinaldi, corvo, Hannibal, kurt, 0wn, gustynpip, bperk

    Almost everyone agrees we need to try to stabilize the economy, but let's do it by rewarding the middle class and working people rather than bailing out the wealthy.

    -- Ryvr

    by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:49:25 PM PDT

  •  Tom, I have a question for you. (10+ / 0-)

    I did not support this bill as it was presented.  I have to ask, however - can we do better?

    I expect better, but I'm wondering if Tom thinks we have the ability, with politics as they are today, to do any better on this.

    "The goal of an argument should not be victory, but progress." - my fortune cookie

    by Black Leather Rain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM PDT

  •  then fight for the changes we need (3+ / 0-)
    This is a real crisis. Without credit, my small business will fail.
  •  Senate != House (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So let me get this straight.

    He comes out in opposition right after it fails in the House?

    Real brave there.

  •  You have some fucking nerve. (14+ / 1-)

    Lets hear answers Tom. Im watching my 401k shrink and watching banks fail.

    Do you have some counter proposal that can pass?

    You have a nerve to be on the internet advertising with a cute poll.

    Go get back in that fucking room and make something happen.

    •  they don't need to (4+ / 0-)

      "make something happen."

      What is happening is that rich people are losing money on ridiculously conceived investment instruments which never had any reason to be considered of value(CDO and other exotic derivatives), but the eighties-gen investors thought they could cheat the system.

      Yes, I expect Congress to help the people. But let Wall Street take their losses? Otherwise, that is a very, very strange form of welfare ... cover bad bets???

      -- Ryvr

      by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I supported the rejection of this bill, BUT - (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zett, jordans11, neroden, pgm 01, geejay

        you are wrong in your assertion that this is just impacting the rich.  Congress DOES need to buckle down and come up with real solutions to this real problem.

        "The goal of an argument should not be victory, but progress." - my fortune cookie

        by Black Leather Rain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  impacting everyone (9+ / 0-)

          I believe it is caused by the rich, but impacting everyone. My business is in trouble too.

          What I want is a solution that supports the middle class and working people. This is way too much of a handout to wall-street. They caused it. They should not be getting the bailout; we should.

          -- Ryvr
          END THIS WAR NOW

          by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ryvr, zett, eaglecries, kurt, gustynpip

            Simply but properly put.

            The people who caused it should suffer loss.  The victims should be the ones who get bailed out.

            Where are the lobbyists pushing for $700billion in free money to the victims of this free market scam?

            "The goal of an argument should not be victory, but progress." - my fortune cookie

            by Black Leather Rain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Trickle/throw/launch bottom up! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kurt, Black Leather Rain

              I know something has to be done, I know that the entire economy is interconnected and that unless something is done soon that we will all hurt very badly, more than some of us have been today.  But I didn't like the bill b/c of the beginning premise; we know that some federal money (the oil) must be infused into the economy to keep money moving (credit) so that payrolls, investment etc. is protected.

              I never understood though, why the SHOCKINGLY high amount of money HAD to go from the Treasury Department straight to the exact Wall Street Banks that created this crises, with benefits "trickling" down to Main Street.  And, coming at a time when Congress wants to adjurn to campaign, and 40 some days before we elect a new president, it all sounded like a giant Bush grab, which like all of his grabs wouldn't have worked in the long run.

              I am glad that the bill was blocked today; provided a new one premised more from the bottom up (giving assistance to people behind on loans etc, investing in infrastructure, and "buying" a position in the companies helped, all seem just as viable except the super rich don't get near the trough.

              But, a new bill must be re-worked quickly, b/c you can't undo bank closings, and emotions play a roll in the market and can cause a panic that in and of itself leads to hard times, so, please, Tom and all others, get back to work and put forth a democratic bill and hold the fire to Bush and the repubs for once.

              Obama/Biden '08 Because my daughter is one year old.

              by 4CasandChlo on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:17:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  There are at least FIVE pre-existing solutions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I listed them above -- solutions which were used in previous crises.  Any one would certainly help a lot.  Unfortunately the Bush maladministration proposed NONE of them.

          -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

          by neroden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:36:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  congress does have to make something happen (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zett, Black Leather Rain

        It's not just wall street that will be hurt. This is a big problem rolling down hill on to people who have already been struggling for years. Congress needs to fix what they failed to regulate.

        "To paraphrase Kipling, if you can keep your message discipline when all others are losing theirs...." Al Giordano

        by geejay on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:00:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i somewhat retract (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett, kurt, Black Leather Rain

          I do agree that action needs to be taken to protect the middle and working class people.

          The "do something" has tended to be used to describe a bailout of wall street. That 's why I took issue with "do something" - but something that supports the people DOES need to be done. yes.

          -- Ryvr
          END THIS WAR NOW

          by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  They should lift the penalty on 401k's (0+ / 0-)

        if the Govt admits that our money is at risk than they should allow us to withdraw it without penalty.

        •  and put it where? (0+ / 0-)

          Doesn't your 401(k) have an associated money market fund?  That's about as safe as you're going to get right now, if safety is all you're concerned about.

          The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

          by N in Seattle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  money markets did used to be safe (0+ / 0-)

            the experts were sure spinning their heads in circles as money market funds started failing recently too.

            -- Ryvr
            END THIS WAR NOW

            by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  only one, I think (0+ / 0-)

              MMs from, say, Fidelity, Vanguard, and such won't break the buck.

              The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

              by N in Seattle on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Fed has gauranteed MM's. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              and I moved my money into one a couple of weeks ago.

              BUT thats not the point.

              The point is, that NOW the only choice we have is to keep our money in a MM account or face penalty.

              They should lift the penalty and lets really see what the market looks like- you want to protect consumers? Stop holding our money hostage, you want free-markets? Let that money loose and see what happens.

      •  oh, really? (0+ / 0-)

        What about the credit markets seizing up?

        What about millions of americans losing 40 years of careful saving for retirement?  What about pension funds going down the drain?

        This is not just rich people losing money.  This is much more that the middle class is on the verge of collapse.  All it will take are a few more days of no short-term credit.  And congress won't even meet again till Thursday.

      •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

        you understand what's going on very well.

        This isn't about paying off rich peoples' bad bets.  This is about how their bad bets have put the world economy at risk.

        The end result won't be a small cabal of poor bankers.  It will be a depression.

        Here, watch this even though it's an hour long:

        This bill may have been imperfect for various reasons.  But something is needed.

        •  all ya all Stop Threatening Us! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt, gustynpip

          "If you don't give lots of money to Wall Street, there will be another depression!!"

          Yes, I've heard the threats.

          And it is probably true that if we do not do something big and radical, there will be something like a depression.

          I reject the idea that the only solution is to give the money to Wall Street.

          Workers produce the REAL WEALTH.

          -- Ryvr
          END THIS WAR NOW

          by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This just (0+ / 0-)

            sounds like propaganda.

            We're not giving money to Wall Street.  We're lending it to them to stop banks from failing.

            This isn't about a long-term solution where we need to support the underclass.  This is about a short-term bandaid that's needed very, very quickly.

            •  ah (0+ / 0-)

              Marx on his head.

              FWIW, I oppose "dictatorship of the proletariat" for "short-term bandaid" reasons just as much as I oppose the same for the oligarchs.

              -- Ryvr
              END THIS WAR NOW

              by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:40:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  AND (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I just read Kos on the frontpage:

                It [the failed bailout] was a reverse Robin Hood -- the largest transfer of wealth in our nation's history from the working class to the upper class. And transferring that wealth to healthy financial institutions and foreign ones was morally repugnant.

                So, I am glad to be in good company. Let's find a solution that is not a give-away to the rich.

                -- Ryvr
                END THIS WAR NOW

                by Ryvr on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you!! n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ryvr, FenderT206, smkngman, kurt

    There is no avant garde. There are only people who are a little late. --Edgar Varese

    by thepdxbikerboy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM PDT

  •  Tom Udall Should Fight to Raise Taxes on the RICH (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ryvr, corvo, KimD, Toe Jam


  •  Thanks, Tom! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, thepdxbikerboy, 0wn, gustynpip, artmartin

    I'm convinced that in a month most who voted yes will be wondering what they were thinking.

  •  Can you consider the Swedish Plan? (21+ / 0-)

    Could you please have him read this:

    and this:

    Can we have one actual politician look at this alternative?

    Trying to make the libertarian Democrat a reality

    by Don the swing voter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51:04 PM PDT

  •  Not sure I'll give to the DSCC then (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Niniane, ratador

    I've given already this year.  I might target my contributions now.

    I don't see the leadership here from Representative Udall.

    •  Grow up. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you were depending on this bailout, you haven't been paying attention.

      Udall did the right thing for the American people today.  If that didn't work out for your financial situation, that's not his fault.

      Send 'em a message:
      Withdraw $700 from the bank

      by goinsouth on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am fully grown up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I read the Representative's vote as one designed to save his ass rather than the country.

        Had he put forth a clear and viable alternative I might think differently.

        And calling upon me to grow up is not what I would call a reasoned argument.  I've given heavily to Obama and will continue to only give to those who most favor the things I want to see happen.  That you and I disagree on that does not make you a grownup and me not.  I think putting my money where my mouth (and values) is (are) is more the sign of being a grown up, thank you.

        •  Please stop (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goinsouth, kurt

          I read the Representative's vote as one designed to save his ass rather than the country.

          Had he put forth a clear and viable alternative I might think differently.

          Nobody has any idea what is necessary here.  Nobody has any idea what the stimulus package would do.  Nobody knows whether it's the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.

          Given that, if it's poorly implemented (for the reasons he gives above) it has even LESS of a chance of working than if it were the same package, only well-implemented.  That's easily the best reason I've heard to reject the bill, because everything else comes down to 'my gut tells me it [will/won't] work!'

          I don't know whether this bailout was a good idea or not.  Am I the only person in the room willing to admit that?  We don't know whether this bill would work, we do know it effectively bankrupts the US, not that it wasn't already.  I don't have the foggiest idea which way I would vote if I were in his shoes.

          So please don't accuse him of pandering.  He seems to be a good person, and it's the Republicans' job to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a bad person, not ours.


      •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

        Some of us pay attention, read the bills and stuff, you know?

        When you lose your job because the boss can't meet payroll, hopefully you will get it.

        "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly".

        by Niniane on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:09:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read the bill. And people like Roubini. (0+ / 0-)

          Unless you know more than he, you didn't.

          Cut the "I'm a serious adult" crap with me.  A lot of people have seen this coming and prepared for it.  If you didn't, that's not our fault.

          And this bill wasn't going to save any body's job. The money was headed down a rat hole.

          The real way to save jobs was true fiscal stimulus, not a bankster giveaway.

          Send 'em a message:
          Withdraw $700 from the bank

          by goinsouth on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:22:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I saw that you and Pearce (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, kurt

    voted the same way - how often does that happen?

    I know that something has to be done, but I tend to agree with you that this proposal falls short.  Wall Street, with the help of the Republicans, created this mess.  They should not be permitted to get away with little to no repercussions.

    John McCain - somewhere on the stupidity scale between plain silly and numbingly desperate

    by TigerMom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

  •  Greatest day for American democracy... (10+ / 0-)

    since Nixon resigned.

    We love you Udalls.  Keep up the good work.

    Maybe you ought to be whip when Durbin moves up to ML?

    Send 'em a message:
    Withdraw $700 from the bank

    by goinsouth on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51:34 PM PDT

    •  Just don't dance your jig in front of retirees (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, Pd, Clues, geejay, gramofsam1

      or people who ever want to retire...

      Maverick - a calf that has become separated from its mother. By convention, it can become the property of whichever lobbyist finds it first.

      by Minerva on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Say goodbye to your 401k(n/t) (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pd, gramofsam1, Broke in PA

        "We need men who can dream of things that never were." John F. Kennedy,...experience without good judgement is useless!

        by norahschronicles on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I need a home equity loan to keep (0+ / 0-)

        my 91 year old mom in her falling down house. I hope I can still get one.

        "The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing." The Tao Te Ching

        by hester on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What retiree has money in the market? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Toe Jam

        Especially after all the warnings that have been coming down for years.

        Really, considering what people with any sense have been saying for a long time, why would you have your money in anything but cash, Treasuries and gold?

        Markets go up and down, especially unregulated ones controlled by crooks.  Not a place for retirement money.

        Send 'em a message:
        Withdraw $700 from the bank

        by goinsouth on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The vast majority of retirees (0+ / 0-)

          rely on money they had saved in mutual funds, or on pension plans and 401ks which are stock market based funds.

          •  Retirees should not be in the stock market. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            This is basic, Personal Finance 101.  Every single piece of financial literature I have seen in the last 20 years has said that money that you need should not be in stocks.  All Retirees should be 100% bonds.

            You are far outside of industry best practices.

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            by Odysseus on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:59:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  OK. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            In the case of the former, that should be insured, and this bill didn't do that.

            In the case of the pension funds, those will have to bailed out, and this bill didn't do that either.

            401k money left in the market after you're retired?  Really?

            Send 'em a message:
            Withdraw $700 from the bank

            by goinsouth on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:25:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thank Sen. Udall for me (8+ / 0-)

    I would rather suffer now than take something worse down the road...time to let the sun shine on the books, Wall Streets and Governments.

  •  Thank you for your Courage! (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, goinsouth, kurt, RWood, 0wn, Rabbithead

    We cannot let wall st put a gun to the heads of all of us

    "We were warriors then, and our tribe was strong like a river" - Hunter S Thompson

    by GonzoLegend on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM PDT

    •  We'd expect nothing less... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      from the son of Stewart and the nephew of Mo.

      And Judge Seth's clerk.

      Good work.  We applaud your courage.

      Did Pelosi or Hoyer really put the heat on you?

      Send 'em a message:
      Withdraw $700 from the bank

      by goinsouth on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Sure About Hoyer and Pelosi (0+ / 0-)

        Word on the street was that they weren't whipping for this bill - but I don't know... that may just have been rumors.

        Thanks for that comment, goinsouth. That's goin' up on our wall. :)

        Steve Olson

        by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Please quit negotiating w/ those w/ no authority (5+ / 0-)

      It is clear that the Bush Administration cannot deliver enough (any?) Republican votes.

     Until the Administration gets serious - i.e. - publilcly and privately threatening the GOP blockade - and presents a serious legilative proposal - I wish Dems would just back away.

  •  Does Mr. Udall think we can tinker the bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Coldblue Steele

    into something better for us?

    I'm dubious. This one eucked but couldn't it have been changed in the 111th?

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM PDT

  •   Three things could have made bailout pass. (11+ / 0-)

    1- Paulson should have not given himself the authority to dispense funds.  He should have defined the principle, and allowed Congress to select the individual to execute it.

    2- Bush should have accompanied this bill with a vow to persecute those who broke the law, setting up a DOJ-FBI special task force.   This would have dissipated some of the anger.

    3-There should have been retroactive limits on exec compensation, not only in the future as was in the actual bill.  The MSM did not characterize this correctly.

    And as a separate issue, FDIC limits must be raised immediately, as the fed just did for money markets.  This 100K limit is causing a quiet run on the bank by high wealth individuals, and brought down WaMu and Wachovia.

    •  executive pay caps is a red herring (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      executives are still working people, unlike their investor overlords who have no such pay limits on the table.

      and yes, i realize everyone thinks him/herself an investor for having a 401k with a couple hundred grand in it, but let's get serious for a second here:  the only stock that's really worth anything is preferred stock, and chances are if you spend time on an internet forum rather than on a gulfstream, you don't own any.

      Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding both puppets!

      by mediaprisoner on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prosecute, please n/t (0+ / 0-)

      History will not forgive us if we do not try and convict the neocoms for their crimes, every last one of them...

      by Jesterfox on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you provide some more information on this? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, kurt

      This 100K limit is causing a quiet run on the bank by high wealth individuals, and brought down WaMu and Wachovia.

      So people are pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash out of their accounts and stuffing the cash in the mattress because they exceeded the FDIC limit?  Why didn't they just open another insured account?

      Wasilla- Come for the meth, stay for the MILFs.

      by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many are doing that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but there are tons of estates and high wealth individuals who represent a sizable proportion of the assets of banks.

        Right now they are buying short term Federal notes, at almost zero interest....the equivalent of the mattress.

  •  Ok then.... Democrats write a good bill and (5+ / 0-)

    protect mainstreet first. Then get off your collective asses and pass it with or without Republican support. It's time to take the bull by the horn and demonstrate COURAGE!

    "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave." - Thucydides

    by JasperJohns on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM PDT

  •  Considering I read the Bill Proposal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NDakotaDem, GlowNZ

    I think Udall is a moron like the rest of them.
    The bill did cover accountability and it did cover payments back to the taxpayer.

    Our congress thinks we are idiots.

    Pass a Bill that says, all Rich People are now going to be paying 12% more a year in taxes!

  •  I no longer know whether to cheer or cry. nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Little, geejay, newyorknewyork

    The readiness is all

    by mrchumchum on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!! A Democrat with backbone is a sight (8+ / 0-)

    to behold!

    I won't support any bill that does not include jail time for the thieves in Wall Street and their lackeys in Washington.

  •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, smkngman, kurt, 0wn, gustynpip

    I am tired of "trickle-down" economics.  Bailing out these banks does NOTHING to ease the suffering of the middle-class that is getting squeezed to death by rising food, energy, healthcare and education costs.  I think a Middle Class bail out is a better idea.

  •  I hope your portfolio hasn't been sold off yet. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, GlowNZ, Broke in PA

    I want it to tank like millions of others who's investments are going up in smoke.

  •  Why haven't you guys been working (15+ / 0-)

    on an alternate plan for the last 10 days then?  With all due respect, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

    "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain

    by fortuna on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:54:30 PM PDT

  •  Importance... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, zett, eztempo, curtadams, kurt

    of the three things listed, this is the most important to me:

    Additionally, Congress should act further to keep Americans in their homes by addressing the crisis in the mortgage industry as well as the one in the financial sector.  Any economic package that allows tens of thousands of Americans to lose their homes is simply inadequate.

    The money is going to be huge, I can accept that. But we must do the right things with it, and with the right oversight.

  •  The poll here and the calls to the office (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Julia, GlowNZ

    are misleading. Those likely to read this place and those likely to call an office are activists. Activists on both sides were angry about this deal, which caused it to be viewed disproportionately negative.

    In reality, most Americans want a bailout. They're concerned about the liquidity of their bank, and their access to their funds. They're also tracking their 401K and IRA accounts, all of which lost 6 to 7% today. They're facing another year working to pay off the petty politics played today.

    I think the Congressman is on the wrong side of this one from a political standpoint. But so is John McCain. And the bill's failure has much to do with John McCain's playing presidential politics with the economy. John McCain: Country First, except when I need to win an election to boost my already massive ego.  

    •  I don't read the poll that way (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, eztempo, curtadams, kurt, gustynpip

      I don't think anyone questions the necessity of some sort of bailout.

      I certainly voted "no" but certainly want a bailout. It needs more work, and no matter how hard Paulson hits the panic button, we can wait a few more days for a reasonable plan.

      •  I think we can all agree (5+ / 0-)

        that we are in favor of a plan that helps right our economy, but this plan was flawed.

        Bryan Barash is the Internet Communications Manager for the Tom Udall for Senate campaign.

        by BryanBarash on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you for your time; HR 1452? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt, Losty
          Thank you for your time here.  I appreciate the soon to be senator and current congressman sharing his thoughts and I appreciate your time here.

          I'm glad he voted no.  It is a chance to pick up a bill created in the legislature as they're supposed to be created instead of starting as Mr. Bush and Mr. Paulson's wish list.

          I'm asking my representatives to support Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)'s bill HR 1452.  That sounds like a bill that goes to the heart of the matter as far as the country is concerned.  

          My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

          by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:40:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, gustynpip, KimD

    I suggest an immediate commitment to a new bail out bill - details to be determined, to assure the markets that help is coming and no need to panic.

    Also, though he didn't mention it, my number one reason for not liking this bill is that it comes from BushCo. They have ZERO credibililty, and if history has taught us anything... it's that any thing that they support is ultimately going to be GOOD for THEM and BAD for US. For this reason alone I'd reject it.

    Finally, now is the time for BOLD moves.. how about a provision towards single-payer universal health care? Isn't the majority of home mortgage failures due to catastrophic illnesses and not sub-prime loans gone bad?

    Keep up the good fight. Let's get a progressive solution on there right away. There's plenty of very good ideas being floated by very bright people. I can assure you Bush isn't one of them.

    Anyone still voting republican clearly does not pay attention to anything and should have their driver's license revoked!!!

    by zipn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:55:27 PM PDT

  •  Say Tom (0+ / 0-)

    Don't know what is going on with David Wu's office.  Can't e-mail and can't get by phone tell him his constituent in Oregon wants him to vote no on the bail out.

    Not only did we beat the British now we have to beat the Bushes.

    by libbie on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM PDT

  •  It seems like this issue is getting more partisan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fiona West, bflaff

    than less. The terms you outline seem sound, but there's no way republicans would support them. Isn't a bad piece of legislation that both sides will support the best we're going to get. Both sides seem to be digging in.

    •  Exactly. We have to go with the best bill we can (0+ / 0-)

      manage with the Congress we have now. And we have to make that an impetus to campaign for further regulatory reform, and perhaps proposals like Rep. DeFazio's suggested transaction tax, which would add a tiny cost to each transaction on Wall Street and thereby allow Wall Street itself to pay for this rescue. If the election goes well, we could come back and pass that.

      But we need a first-step bill right away.

      Unlike many here at DKos, I don't see the point in holding out for a level of legislation that this Congress, as currently constituted, is not capable of passing.  You know there is no bill in the world that all House Dems will vote for. House Dems will be bailing out either for conservative or progressive reasons.  And we have a less-than-one-vote lead in the Senate (Lieberman counting as less than one vote -- he certainly can't be relied on).  

      This credit crisis does have to be dealt with quickly, and if progressives refuse to settle for the best we can do at the moment -- well, I don't consider that progressive.

      Vote John McCain for a Hundred Year War!

      by Fiona West on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are wrong. You should have supported it. (5+ / 0-)

    I am sorry, that one of your last votes in the House of Representative was a no on the bailout bill. I hope you think about this very carefully and understand how difficult it is going to be for your constituents if a deal is not reached.

    "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM PDT

  •  Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    All right, everybody be cool, this is a robbery! -GW Bush

    by audiored on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM PDT

  •  Not NO but HELL NO! (15+ / 0-)

    This is nothing more than blackmail on the part of the Banks and Wall Street... They are no better than a robber at the local Stop and Rob saying, "give us all the money or we will shoot you!"

    All of those shouting FREE MARKETS a month ago are NOW looking for regulation and to socialize the risks?

    Borrowing money to make payrolls? What the hell ever happened to investing profits back into the business...i.e. using profits to make payrolls?

    We don't have ENOUGH MONEY for Social Security.
    We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Medicare.
    We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to provide single payer  health care to ALL Americans.
    We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help out Americans losing their homes.
    We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help all our veterans returning from war.
    We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to rescue "no child left behind".


    We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Bears Stearns.
    We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out AIG.
    We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out ALL of Wall Street, the world's largest banks, AND let foreign banks get a piece of our pie too...
    We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to pay for an unnecessary TRILLION DOLLAR PLUS WAR?

    What the hell is wrong with this picture?

    •  well after this (0+ / 0-)


      you think  it was bad before.

      you ain't seen nothing next.

      by GlowNZ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:05:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It A Free Market Baby! : / (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances...

        This is a lesson that needs to be learned all over can't get something for nothing...I am a "survivalist doomer" at heart. I've been watching and warning about this (among other things) coming for years...

        Yeah, I DO know what's coming... y'all ain't going to like it... our "Non-negotialble" way of life is about to become highly negotiable... Change is coming alright...and like all change, it is going to hurt.

        Carter warned us... no one wanted to listen...

  •  Thanks for nothing Richard Cranium (6+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Clues, RenaRF, Viceroy, bflaff, dirtdawg
    Hidden by:

    Well, Tom, while you're making this "stand" I just got word that my line of credit for my small business has just been cancelled, and my new limit is my existing balance. While you guys in DC dick around and preen for your re-election while trying to cloak it in you voting your conscience, the people you say you are protecting are struggling and failing DAILY. The bill you voted against wasn't perfect, but it left enough room for a new President to re-frame once in office.

    So, stick your self-righteous platitudes up your ass. You gonna give my business a loan? Didn't think so. Asshole.

    •  Very sorry to hear that, napalm... (5+ / 0-)

      By the same token, this particular bill wouldn't have helped you. The only way to stabilize the credit markets is with real reform.

      Steve Olson

      by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:05:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so your opinion is (0+ / 0-)

        that credit markets would stay frozen anyway in the short term?

        Listen, EVERYONE wants comprehensive reform, but it's not going to do a damn bit of good if we can't stop this thing before we're all bankrupt.

        Think triage, please.  Stop the bleeding, then let's consult on the further operations.

      •  That is just political bull crap (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You just don't get it. This bill would have made banks stable. If you puds weren't so lax in regulating the businesses banks could do in the first place, the "reform" you speak of wouldn't be needed. This bill would certainly have given banks the knowledge that they can continue to extend operating capital to businesses.

        Real reform? You sat there while the value of credit default swaps (or at least the value on bank balance sheets) grew to 45 BILLION DOLLARS, more than twice the value of the stock market, and none of you said shit.

        Your time to make your stand on principles passed awhile ago. You turds could have sent a message to America today that, in effect, said we will give you a safety net. You don't have any idea what is happening in the real world right this minute.

        Get your ass back in there and pass this bill. You can tweak it later.

  •  We urge a progressive alternative (7+ / 0-)

    Clearly the republicans did not deliver any credible amount of votes today.  the "deal" was blown up on Friday when it may have easily passed the house because the GOP felt left out.  Well they got thier two cents in and then only delivered 65 votes and 131 nay votes.  They wanted to run against this bill but it didn't pass.  The GOP miscalculated badly.  This is an opportunity for the progressive caucus and an opportunity for Democrats to pass a bill that DEMOCRATS and the PUBLIC can support! A Democratic bill may not get the support of republicans but it will get the support of the PUBLIC and that should be paramount in a democracy.  The PUBLIC clearly wants to see Wall Street punished by the huge mess they have created.  The GOP had thier opportunity to pass a bill that would have kow-towed to thier Wall Street paymasters BUT THEY BLEW IT.  NOW PASS A BILL THAT WILL BE POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC AND ACTUALLY HELP THE ECONOMY.


    THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY, USE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    John McCain gets economic advice from subprime mortgage banking lobbyist

    by gaspare on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM PDT

  •  Oh. I thought you voted against it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, edwardssl

    ... because you read David Sirota's book.

  •  Thank you for the voice of sanity, Tom n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, 0wn
  •  My question is... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, rian90

    why does the Congressman describe a bill, whose provisions contained only a two-tranche authorization up to the amount of $250 billion, as a $700 billion authorization bill?

    Did he read it?

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

    by Viceroy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:00:23 PM PDT

    •  It's $700 in total. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Viceroy, lotlizard, kurt, 0wn, Losty, googleimage

      there's an initial $250b, then $100 from the president's authority and then an additional $350 with congressional authority. I assure you that they've been reading nothing else this weekend.

      Steve Olson

      by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not in the bill I read... (0+ / 0-)

        and I assure you that I have read it.  What you describe as an "additional $350 billion" means nothing more than that an additional authorization bill would have to be passed from scratch.  That may be Paulson's plan, but it isn't the plan of Dodd/Frank.

        My question remains.

        "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

        by Viceroy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I hope you enjoy your partisan stare down. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm going to write my company's CEO and see if he'll be able to make payroll tomorrow.

  •  Anybody with a good (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, eaglecries, kurt, gustynpip

    American history textbook knows what we need to do.  It's right there in FDR's 1st 100 days.  It's not just the bank holiday, audit, open the sound ones, and regulate - there's also a Federal Home Mortgage agency to buy up the mortgages (let that trickle up to the financial industry), refinance them, and carry them until they're paid off.  Help to the homeowners and the money comes right back to the taxpayers in monthly mortgage payments (no "trusting" a CEO to pay it back - CEOs are out of this loop).

  •  Dow closes down 670 (0+ / 0-)
  •  Thanks to Congressman Udall! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, kurt, gustynpip

    I think a bailout is important - but this bailout would have made things worse. It would have propped up insolvent institutions, propped up prices of bad securities, and given excessive discretion to one man. All of these are things that are destructive in a financial crisis. The IMF just issued a research paper backing this up.

    Also please be aware that the "safeguards" in the bill are phoney. The executive compensation, equity compensation, and staging provisions are easily ignored by Secretary Paulson. It's all in the financial industry conference call the Treasury made last night. There's a summary at Naked Capitalism.

  •  Well if the people were against it (4+ / 0-)

    i hope the people are ready for whats coming next.

    by GlowNZ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM PDT

  •  Udall just LOST all mine and my families vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bten, Colonial82

    He played politics with this vote because he is running for the Senate.......

    I am telling you, I have spoken to over a dozen people who are now saying they will not vote for Udall because he is a coward.

    McBush is a gaffe monger.

    by BlueFranco on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM PDT

  •  Effin' A, Bubba. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Sychotic1, lotlizard, kurt, gustynpip

    That's Army Creole for "I agree with my fried Mr. Udall."

    And thank you for not allowing Henry Paulson to shove his appalling excuse for a bailout plan down your throat.

    Now, please get your Congressional colleagues together and build a plan that will actually work and that won't screw poor and middle-class Americans to the wall.  

    Thank you.

    "When those who are accountable are right, they take the credit. When they're wrong, they take the heat. It's a fair exchange." - Lehman Bros ad ca. 1980s

    by Mehitabel9 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM PDT

  •  How, according to Udall, did the bill fall short? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    His statement really says nothing of substance.

    •  A longer statement... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, kurt, Losty

      This was posted in the Albuquerque Journal:

      "The proposal we voted on today still contains significant flaws.  For example, under this proposal:

      ·       The Treasury is given unprecedented power to spend taxpayer money without adequate oversight or an actual plan for fixing the systemic problems that led America to this crisis.  

      ·       Corporate executives who ran their companies into the ground can still walk away with millions in taxpayer-funded golden parachutes.

      ·       Taxpayer dollars are being spent to bail out foreign companies whose governments are doing nothing.

      ·       Little is being done to help responsible homeowners.  Tens of thousands of families could lose their homes.  More importantly, families who had nothing to do with failed mortgages could lose billions in assets as foreclosures continue to drive down property values.

      Steve Olson

      by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Finally a politician (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ROGNM, curtadams, kurt, 0wn, PurpleMyst

    who has some fucking cojones!

    Thank you Mr. Udall. Enough cannot be said for people like you who stand up for people like us.

  •  DJIA: -664.42 (0+ / 0-)

    Happy now? The Nasdaq is down TWO HUNDRED. Does this make you shine? Dow ten thousand is possible tomarrow. Glorious, huh?

    •  DOW down 777 points. (0+ / 0-)

      Rabindranath Tagore-"Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it."

      by joy sinha on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, Ludi, Losty

      At this rate, The dow might actually reflect the true value of the companies in another couple of days.  

      Sorry, but at some point Wall Street needs to visit reality.  The market has been massively overvalued for a number of years now.  When the P/E ratio of the S&P gets around 17, we will be where we should be.

      This day has been coming.  If that idiot Greenspan had been doing his job, this would have happened several years ago & would not cost anywhere near what it will end up costing us.

  •  just a cowardly senate candidate (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry I have to run to the Senate floor to abolish torture.

    by bten on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:06:13 PM PDT

    •  Can't win for losing. (9+ / 0-)

      When they refuse to listen to their voters, they're in the pockets of K Street.

      When they do, and vote accordingly (it's been mentioned elsewhere on DK that mail and calls to Congress the past several days ran 90 to 1 against this bill), they are cowards.


      I mean, the diary proposes alternative action plans.  Nobody's saying "No bailout", they're saying "No" to a single, bad bailout plan and proposing better ones.

      Honest to God, what the hell do you want????

      "When those who are accountable are right, they take the credit. When they're wrong, they take the heat. It's a fair exchange." - Lehman Bros ad ca. 1980s

      by Mehitabel9 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They want Rep. Udall to acknowledge that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musicalhair, Mehitabel9, kurt

        the sky is falling, because after all George Bush and Nancy Pelosi say it is.  They're absolutely panicked.  The reaction on this site alone is frightening.  Mass hysteria.  And if it's happening here, it's got to be even worse out in the real world.  The one thing I do know is that the creating fear language used by those that wanted this terrible bill really worked.  It's going to create exactly what they were supposedly warning against.  Self fulfilling phrophosy.

        •  I'm not so sure about the real world. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          revsue, kurt

          The hysteria here has in my observation exponentially exceeded the hysteria I've seen in the real world today.

          Certainly here in my workplace, people are going about their business.  The vote and stock market dive have been briefly discussed, and then people have gone back to work.

          "When those who are accountable are right, they take the credit. When they're wrong, they take the heat. It's a fair exchange." - Lehman Bros ad ca. 1980s

          by Mehitabel9 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:09:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The reason that we have a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mary Julia

        representative democracy instead of a true one, is that sometimes the electorate simply has no idea what needs to be done.

        We need statesmen, not politicians.

        That means doing what needs to be done, and damn the consequences.

        Epic failure was the result of the vote today... that and utter, self-serving cowardice.

        "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly".

        by Niniane on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Tom Udall doesn't oppose any bailout (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye BattleCry, Ludi, lotlizard, kurt

      He just didn't believe we should pass a bill that does nothing about the underlying problems with the economy.

      Four hundred of the country's top economists asked Congress to put more time into improving this proposal, including three Nobel laureates.

      Sorry to be a broken record about this, but this bill was flawed.

      Bryan Barash is the Internet Communications Manager for the Tom Udall for Senate campaign.

      by BryanBarash on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry that doesn't fly either. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mary Julia, ElizabethRegina1558

        You want to restructure all of Wall Street, reform the CMO market, create oversight for complicated securities, reform the bankruptcy laws and create equity in the system so that businesses can make their payroll and do ALL that in ONE bi-partisan bill?

        That's political crap. Everything above has some element in the current situation. Some large, Some Small.

        And you actually tell people ALL of this has to be addressed in one bill?

        That's amazing. If you don't know that's impossible then...well...then you don't.

        Already small business is in trouble because banks are tightening requirements for new credit and existing credit.

        I've heard of, by the way of media, a large car dealer have his flooring line crashed (not renewed) and now he's out of business as he couldn't make payroll. There another instance of the same thing happening to a really small dealership in a small town in Utah. (Heard that from a worried member of house on MSNBC.)

        You guys have a race you want to win. Got it. I want you to win too. When the second bill hits the floor this week I sure as hell hope he AND, STEVE PEARCE (one of the most conservative people in the House)vote for it.

        The most revealing fact of this whole thing is that he and Pearce voted the same on a major piece of economic legislation. Now that's scary.

        Just a red meat eating Democratic dawg...frontpaging at The Democratic Daily

        by BigDog04 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And I never have said this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigDog04, lmdonovan

          in my entire friggin' life, but my Republican congressman, Jim Walsh, voted FOR the bill, God bless him.  He's not running for re-election.

          I'm sorry, people, but those who voted no were not profiles in courage today.  And the market sank 777 points, the most it has EVER fallen point-wise.  Did you think nothing would happen?  Did you think they were just making it up?

          And I don't have a dog in this fight. No stocks, no 401(k).  And I am not looking for a loan.  But there are businesses that can't borrow, people who can't get mortgages, or car loans, or student loans.

          It's easy to look at this in a simplistic fashion and say "why bail these guys out?" Because the credit markets are freezing up. The stock market just tanked. And wait till tomorrow morning.  The best thing that happened to Wall Street today was the closing bell.

          The bill that hit the floor today was much better than the three page proposal of last week.  But if there is humor in this (and there is humor in everything), it's that the goddamn Republicans sunk this boat, on which their President and his Administration were riding.  And hey, NICE leadership McCain. WTG, bud.

          We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

          by Mary Julia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:12:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks (7+ / 0-)

    Please tell your colleagues the House Republicans just did you a favor.

    Get the 90+ Dems who voted no on board with a progressive Bill, and we could have something that actually moves us forward.

    Let the Senate Republicans and Bush face the need to compromise to save the country.

    The world will see Democrats intend to be responsible and take care of the Bushco messes.  

    The upper class may not like it, but it will bring a measure of stability and confidence, which is the point.

    try habitat restoration - good for you, good for all

    by jps on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:06:15 PM PDT

  •  Bad decision Udall (4+ / 0-)

    You, along with a bunch of your colleagues may have precipitated a worldwide financial meltdown.  I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, be it on all you heads.

    "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

    by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:07:14 PM PDT

    •  thanks for the "concern" and the fearmongering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      did you learn it from bush?

      How did not bailing out wall st percipitate a world wide financial meltdown?  Wasn't that wall st's own doing?  Are you saying government intervention messed with wall st's good karma, or their non-intervention messed with ... something?  

      Don't blame it on anyone but Wall St.  

      Think about what you're saying, that because he didn't go along with


      plan that he did something wrong?

      Who you trusting here?  Bush and Paulson?  Awesome.  

      Hi, welcome to DailyKos, a website founded because the country got trashed by republicans and bad dems.  It's all about getting rid of bad repubican ideas-- like every single one from


      -- and replace those and bad dems with better dems.  Ones taht will help the working class, and unions, and schools, and not the ruling class.

      My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

      by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate your concern for my concern (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Thank you.  It is duly noted.  Were it not for you, I wouldn't have realized that I get all of my ideas from W. and Co.  And thanks for letting me know I at at DKos!!!!!!!!!!  Wow--I didn't even realize it.

        "Candicrat /noun/: a democrat who will vote for the opposition or not vote at all because their candiate did not secure the nomination."

        by TheCountess on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you simply don't get it... (0+ / 0-)

        how many people and how many companies need to fail for you to feel you got your justice against bush.

        we all know who/why/where this problem came from - and its not important at this point in time.

        it is important to keep the world economies flowing - its absurd to think this plan 'had' to be the 'end all be all' of fixing this issues - as if there can't be adjustments later...absurd

        there is a time for railing against this admin and past admin that have feathered this flame - and i will be there to wage that fight - however this is not the time.

        this isn't about bailing out wall st - its about rescuing the american people from a mistake and then dealing with those that made the mistake

        i.e. stitch the fkn cut then go clean up the glass that caused the cut - Don't sit there and fkn bleed!

        •  it is about bailing out wall st (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          otherwise it would look like some of the new deal legislation like the WPA, or it would take money and set up credit unions in every town and neighborhood.

          This isn't about justice against bush.  This is no skin of his back.  

          What on earth do you mean by

          its absurd to think this plan 'had' to be the 'end all be all' of fixing this issues - as if there can't be adjustments later

          As the plan was written and defeated it was a blank check to Paulson.  The only thing he had to do-- and when have they ever done what congress compelled them to do-- is explain his spending after the fact.  

          How could it be adjusted later?  Only more spending later.  Maybe I agree with you there: I guarantee there will be spending and fixing later.  But I say it because Bush isn't going to fix anything now.  They will take the money, take care of their own so they can ride out the crash.  I get it quite well.  

          Our choices are give Bush the money and then let Obama fix it that much further in the hole, or ask our representative to craft a better bill-- like the one talked about below by Marcy Kaptur-- to stave off collapses on Main St until Obama is president.  

          If you want to take your chances with Bush, fine-- but don't say I don't get it or I'm the crazy one for not trusting Bush (or Paulson) as he stands there yet again demanding money four months before he heads out the door.

          My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

          by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, here's the vid I promised ... (0+ / 0-)

            How does that sound?  Not the tin-foil hat begining, but the description of the plan.

            My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

            by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  the best... (0+ / 0-)

            person to catch a crook is a crook....

            i don't give a rats ass about the politicians or bush or wall streeet at this time in this mess - i care about my neighbors, my friends, and my families...

            what i meant was - exactly what i said - the problem on the whole will require multiple bills - this merely being one - what i meant was if 'panic' takes a firmer hold than it already has and 'more' institutions fail before 'a better' bill is created and implemented it defeats the purpose.

            too much of this discussion is labeled 'bailout for wall st' when as true as that maybe - i simply think if 'bailing out wall st' 'rescues main st' then we must do what we must do 'now' and fix the 'real' issue as time i agree with everything in the plan as written 'no' - do i agree it should have passed to 'prevent further panic and failures for now' of course...and all that aside my main point being that 'passing' and 'failing' the whole thing stinks of partisanship on both sides and that I DO NOT AGREE WITH!

            •  also (0+ / 0-)

              i have strong objections to the blank check and pretty much everything else 'the majority' of us are objecting to - and like the majority of us i do not have an economics degree - i do however have enough education to understand without these evil institutions we will all suffer - payrolls won't be paid etc...

              i have (and will continue) to gather as much knowledge as i can on this issue but everyone has their own point of view based on their own situation...for instance being unemployed with no bill means staying unemployed

              am i a firm believer in regulation - hell yeah - i have been screaming about it since the 90' i concerned the regulation talks will somehow miss teh oil speculators again - hell yeah - this issue is far fetching and quite frankly whats $700 billion at this point (snark)

              i'm in a town of 600 people with the closest 'metro-ish' area 30 miles away - what you would call a REAL small town (wasilla is not small town america folks) and this issue could potentially end towns like this in the long run.

              if there is TIME for a PERFECT bill then fine kill this one but time is crucial and my point being the 'politics' will not allow for perfection! so now its war and dems will have to get something passed and will have to cower to more rep demands now - i fear.

            •  much to agree with there (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              creating a good economic system that can be trusted by investors, loan applicants, and anyone with a bank account will take some legislation and enforcement.

              Set up a system where the whole country isn't held hostage by Wall St--legitimately or not-- will take some doing.

              I saw no good in the failed bailout bill.  I saw a quick heroin fix for a group that needs no more heroin.  I saw Paulson being in charge, and I don't trust him or Bush and I think no situation is so serious that it would make Bush stop being a crook if he has a chance.  A $700B check, or any check is too much of a risk to trust to Bush.

              This problem has been going on for quite a while.  Isn't the whole september rool out suspicious?  I don't deny the problem.  Bush has ignored the problem for a long time.  Look how long it took McCain to get the memo-- that the "fundamentals of the economy" aren't "strong" after all?  In September, when Andy Card says you roll out a new product, Bush comes not with a description but FEAR.  Fear, and a wish list that was just dreadful.  What part of that makes you think he's dealing with this problem in a sober fashion?  He blew it off and now looks to take advantage of it.

              Let Reid and Frank and Pelosi look at solutions being generated in their legislative bodies, where they're supposed to come from.  Leave Bush and Paulson to execute a carefully crafted law that makes us both happy.  IF we could leave Bush and Paulson out of this entirely that would be better.

              My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

              by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  That must have been a difficult "No" (4+ / 0-)

    And you have my thanks for it. This bill was bad legislation. We can do better.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM PDT

  •  It's not the "no" vote that gets my goat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's the subsequent finger-pointing and blame-gaming - as though the parties were obligated to vote for a shitty bill.  If the reason for certain "nay" votes was because they didn't like Pelosi's speech on the floor, then that's pretty sad.  But it also speaks to the fragility of the support for this bill.  Above all, the #1 reason it didn't pass was that too many representatives felt that it just wasn't plain good enough.

  •  So will you now pass a more partisan bill (0+ / 0-)

    with Democrats making up the margin now that Boehner and McCain have been humiliated for their lack of leadership (despite McCain's grandstanding) in whipping their party to vote for ayes? Because this all has very little to do with individual Democrat's senitiments and principles and a lot more to do with shrewed Democratic party political tactics aimed at the presidential and down ticket elections, imo.

    Or will another bi-partisan bill be reintroduced for the extra 12 Rep. votes to make up for your own nays

    •  p.s. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musicalhair, kurt

      it would be nice to see the Democrats force Bush's hand to a more progressive bill and this may at last be the opportunity to take advantage of waning Republican loyalty to their commander codpiece to push such a bill through.

      •  legislature writes the laws, executive execute .. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, fisheye

        them.  Paulson's wish list had no business as the basis for any bill.

        Now, HR 1452 cosponsored by lunatic Scott Garrett (R-NJ_ and Marcey Kaptur (D-OH) is something to consider.

        Let her get past her mellow-dramatic intro to describe it.

        I'm so glad I get to pimp that vid yet another day.

        My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

        by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those urban Ohio Reps are cool (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musicalhair, Losty

          to bad the state is so rural. The ideological disparity between urban and rural districts in the rust belt is amazing.

          •  I don't know enough about her ... (0+ / 0-)

            or Ohio.  The cosponsor, Garrett is from my area (not my rep but next door), and he's wacko.

            She makes a good case.  I've been pimping that vid for like 4 or 5 days running.  I think we should be pushing our representatives to support it.

            What do you think about it?

            My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

            by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Makes a lot of sense to me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              don't know why we can't or shouldn't start changing economic policy to bottom up security from trickle down failure now.

              •  Well if we don't try now, we'll never do it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Another poster here pointed out that when the capital gains tax was cut charitable donations dropped.

                In other diaries here people have been kicking around a lot of real systematic changes that will fix this-- our end of the problem, not the fat-cat's part of the problem-- so that our counry is better and we're not as dependant on Wall St.

                Some thoughts along those lines:

                1. strengthen Social Security so that the bulk of the people don't pretend to be on the same side of these issues as the ruling class.  This was part of the "ownership society" bush was pushing: to get everyone's meager savings tied into the interests of the ruling class so that we think saving their investments will save ours.
                1. discourage passive investing, encourage investing that creates jobs and benefits communities.  People are seriously calling for raising the FDIC limit from $100K to $250K.  That sounds like the worst thing.  If people are so lazy that they can't open multiple accounts adn want to trust one back with that much money, the shouldn't be encouraged to hide even more in savings accounts but instead should be doing something with the money like starting a charity or a business.  Kiplingers had an article a few years ago titled "What you could do with $1000", and leaving it in a savings account that is already up around $100K wasn't one of the options.

                Man, we have to get Congress on these ideas though.  Me and you and the rest of us here at dKos, ain't getting it done!  :^)  

                My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

                by musicalhair on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:15:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The capital gains tax cut implications (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  really gets under my skin. Of course if capital gains taxes investors will shift to first tier productive sectors of the economy. It's pretty obvious at this point (like a sledge hammer to the head obvious) that decreased capital gains taxes leads to imaginationless and disasterous speculation runs and a relative devaluation of work.

                  I work in residential trades. I watched the value of my customers investments in my services decrease as a percentage of their home values for years. The equation leads to disaster. If a new kitchen raises the value of a house 15% the service is appreciated with higher demand a lot more than if it only moves worth by 5%.  With out concurrent inflation for the service and products the system becomes unbalanced. Because I can't afford the same house as the worker providing the devalued service unless the Fed lowers interest rates artificially to offset the inflated price I would otherwise demand to maintain my standard of living. But the Fed can only lower the interest rate so much (to zero) which it's at, after existing inflation.

  •  I agree with your "No" vote, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm confused about exactly why you say you opposed it.  The things you demand are:  Taxpayers get paid back first.  No golden parachutes.  Relief for mortgage-holders.  Accountability.  That sounds pretty much like what the Democratic criticism was to begin with.  Why did all the changes they put in not satisfy you?

    "The old boy's network. In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting."

    by Simian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM PDT

    •  Probably... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      revsue, kurt

      Because there was none of that stuff there?

      The changed the tax deduction on exec comp to 500k. It was ONLY 1M to begin with, so those fat 12-25M compensations were already NOT being written down. What is an extra 500k? The protection should PREVENT the full compensation from being paid out, not worry about how much they can fleece the IRS for it.

      There was NOT Congressional (ie, representative) oversight. Just oversight by the 'independent' departments that created most of this mess to begin with.

      And you cannot have a guarantee of taxpayers getting paid FIRST unless that includes EQUITY. If we buy it, we should own it, and that ENSURES money back to the taxpayer if money is to be had.

      Condemnant qui non intelligent.
      Economic: -6.75
      Social : -5.03

      by cognizant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:50:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, but no thanks for this vote. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Julia, grapes

    You voted to protect your Senate race, stop the bs.  The bill as revised did MANY of the things you state as your reason for not voting.  Specifically address the parts of the bill that didn't meet your requirements...not sure you can do that.  

    Those that are against this bill want to refer to it as the Paulson's not.

  •  Mr. Udall, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So can the DEMS get a progressive bill together and put it forward?  There is sooooo much "whining" on this site about a lack of Democratic leadership on this issue.  Let's see a bill that takes care of the issues you have laid out in your statement and get it passed

  •  I hope we have the time (0+ / 0-)

    But thank you for explaining why you voted against it.

    I mean it's like these guys take pride in ignorance! It's like they like being ignorant.

    by math monkey on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM PDT

  •  Guys forget politics, this is Financial CRASH (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elsaamo, zett, grapes
  •  Thank you sir! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, gustynpip

    It's great to see that some Democrats have a little bit of spine. Now get to work on a bill that:

    1. Forces the shareholders of financial institutions to take their losses, as they're supposed to in a capitalist economy. The best ideas on this are the debt to equity swaps that some have suggested, where the shareholders are wiped out and the bondholders become the shareholders in a now-debt-free company.
    1. Provides direct assistance to distressed homeowners in the form of temporary loans, payable on sale of the property.
    •  And this will pass how? (0+ / 0-)
    •  This is only part of the problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mary Julia
      The progressives on this site (and I am one) need to get over this...the credit crunch is real and it not covered by your two points.
      •  Unless someone is lying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the credit crunch is a result of the existence of "illiquid assets" on the balance sheets of Wall Street financial institutions. According to Paulson, if the government buys these illiquid assets, the problem will be solved.

        According to everyone, the reason that these assets are illiquid is because they are backed by loans that headed into foreclosure and the recovery expected from foreclosure is compromised because the value of the houses on which the loans were made has dropped below the par value of the loans, to a large extent due to the fact that foreclosure sales are dominating the market right now.

        So...tell me why a program that radically reduces the likelihood that the loans in question won't go into foreclosure does not solve the problem of illiquid assets on Wall Street?

      •  The problem is the price (0+ / 0-)

        The derivatives can sell.  

        The problem is that Wall Street doesn't want to do what is called "price discovery" in economic terms.  

        Rather than go "mark to market", and selling these "products" for what they are worth, Wall Street still wants to price these items at "mark to fantasy".

        Bottom line - the shareholders are going to be wiped out.  

        So what?

        Anyone dumb enough to have their money in the stock market over the past few years was a flipping idiot & they deserve to get reamed.

  •  Poor judgement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redstatedemocrat, kubrick2008, NHCt

    Putting what's in your political best interest ahead of what in the economic best interest of the country is cowardly.

    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM PDT

  •  That was stupid. Nice going. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    •  can you type while running around in ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      circles screaming out of fear?  It's been a week since Bush gave his sky is falling speech and your still freaking out?  It is september, didn't you know he was going to roll out a new product of fear-- as per Andy Card's own words?

      Isn't it better the dems can write a bill form scratch or pick up on HR 1452, rather tan base anyting off of Paulson's wish list?  Not if you're so crippled with fear that you call a congressman running for senate and his web guy "stupid".  Stay classey.

      don't you want to see the wonders of the market save the day?  Can that invisible hand stop choking the working class long enough to save itself?

      My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

      by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like a pony (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Seems to me that this is as good as we're going to get. Yes, Tom, we'd all like to focus on Main Street, but if Wall Street goes under, there won't be a Main Street left.

    •  so if government ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      doesn't clean this mess up, all the wall st people nd the investor class will go home to not main st and hide.  THey'll never hire a roofer, never hire a plumber, never eat food they don't grow themselves.  They'll just take their money and go home if we dont' give thme ours?  And we're supposed to believe that PAULSON AND BUSH's plan will fix it so that Main St don't get shafted?


      This is a chance to craft a good bill that deals with the crisis and not the crying.  Someone should lose their shirts over this, not the tax payer.

      HR 1452 cosponsored by Garett and Kaptur is my fav.  

      My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

      by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know if I support it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musicalhair, zett

    My home was foreclosed over two years ago. Yesterday I went out to my storage unit of furniture to see if IKE had destroyed it. While there I dug through my books. I brought back my copy of "The Grapes of Wrath."  

     This is the mood of the American people. Washington better wake the fuck up.

    Please send your old copies of Strunk's "The Elements of Style" to Pathetic Palin.

    by redtex on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM PDT

  •  What I want to hear... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is how they will help and how we are going to make up for what was just lost today on Wall Street.  

    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Dr. King

    by proseandpromise on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:14:39 PM PDT

    •  when did we the people get in the ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      business of making up for what ws just lost today on Wall St?  I lost nothing, I got out about a month ago, because I have more class than to just wait for the bust we all knew was coming and-- of all things-- demand a bailout.

      My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

      by musicalhair on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How very progressive of you... (0+ / 0-)

        people losing retirement money, small businesses closing, credit drying up...who cares, I got mine!

        "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Dr. King

        by proseandpromise on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:52:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  do you think ... (0+ / 0-)

          yesterday's blank check to Paulson would stop any of that?  

          How progressive is it to give $700B to Wall St?

          Most people that threw fits after the bailout didn't pass the house were looking at their own accounts.  Besides, if we want to save people's retirements why isn't the bailout for Social Security? If it is about credit for small businesses so they don't close, why isn't setting up credit unions locally with the bailout money so that the business of our country can continue?  The bailout wasn't for the small businesses, nor the retirement funds, nor anything progressives care about.  

          We know it wasn't for two reasons: people like Kucinich and Kaptur were against it, and Bush was for it.  We know it wasn't for anything good based on the details that emerged from the failure of the bill.  All of the so-called safeguards put in by our party leaders were toothless by design.  It was a blank check to Paulson, to bail out Bush's patrons.  A parting gift for his 8 year party at our expense.

          When you first got a 401k, did you really think Wall St was suddenly your st?  I didn't.  It was always monopoly money and I'd rather have been paid cash than give it to Wall St.  Wall St can afford to gamble, people praying to have enough to retire on can't.  Didn't we learn this lesson 80 years ago?  What did bailing out out Wall St then do for us?  Nothing.  But the same families on top then are still on top, playing the same game on us.

          How progressive in deed.  I'm with Kucinich not Bush on this one.  How about you?

          And I do got mine, for now.  And I say it not to be an A$#hole, but because I'm sick of people crying over the failure of the bailout (till Thursday for crying out loud. that's when they vote again right?) pretending they've got the economic expertise and knowledge as opposed to the progressives and populists here.  It is patronizing.  Besides, don't hate the player, hate the game.  You seem to have it mixed up.  You call me out because I got my chump change out before the fall, but you're not calling out the system for being so obviously screwed up in the first place.

          My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79

          by musicalhair on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If you were dumb enough to be in this market (0+ / 0-)

      you are getting what you deserve.

      The market fundamentals have been out of whack for over a decade.  

      A lot of financial guys and gals aren't getting bonuses this year.


  •  Just get it over with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Before there's panic and bank runs

    I think John McCain had better suspend his campaign again.... till January ;)

    by lostmypassword on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:14:39 PM PDT

  •  Why Not Make a Clean Breast of It? (0+ / 0-)

    Exactly HOW did this bill fall short?

    Exactly WHAT are your requirements for a bill you would vote yes on?

    At what POINT in this crisis is inaction on this bill a positive when compared to its negative consequences?

    To what EXTENT. precisely, does Congress have to go in terms of add-ons before you will vote yes?

    How do you assess the LIKELIHOOD that the requirements for your yes vote will require additional distasteful compromises by Democrats to Republican demands?

    Thank you for your time, if you take it to respond.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM PDT

  •  i support a bailout bill ... (0+ / 0-)

    but i am ill equipped to judge it as stands,

    I like (and agree with) what you have written, Senator, and I am honored that you took the time to have this posted here, on dKOS!

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM PDT

  •  I think we can all agree to... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, gustynpip, ribofunk

    get a better bill through congress. At this point, the Democrats should introduce their own.  Drop the Paulson plan entirely and start over.  

  •  Stop this Nonsense! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No one likes that this needs to be done, but unless you have a viable alternative this is just political posturing at the expense of the U.S. economy.

    Saying "something needs to be done.  I don't know what, but not this" is not a viable option

    Letting Wall Street hide their losses by changing their accounting rules is not a viable option.

    If you don't like this plan put forward an alternative.  If you can't do that just vote for the damn thing.

    •  You mean like slavery? (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of people knew that slavery was wrong, but no one had an alternative to save the Southern economy.

      So by your reasoning, everyone should have voted Yes! for the damn slavery.

      See what I did there?

      •  I'm sponsoring a bill.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, Letters to the Fathers

        ..that will immediately and permanently stop global warming.  It will be accomplished by giving me $10 million dollars.

        If you do not have another proposal that will immediately and permanently stop global warming, you must vote for my bill.

        They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Feb 17, 1755.

        by Wayward Son on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:21:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Help the people not the corporates. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      baahl, kurt

      We have a glut of houses on the market because of foreclosures.

      These foreclosure were caused in part, by bad lending practices and violations of TILA and RESPA laws.

      Fees are generally unregulated which meant that the value of these loans increased due to junk fees that remain unregulated. (and taken out of every bill by the republicans that the dems have tried to put in).

      These unregulated fees meant that people needed higher housing prices to get out of their loans to make enough profit to pay off the debts. This led to housing prices skyrocketing. This couldn't continue.

      The housing market crashed as too many homes were on the market and too many homes had mortgages that were forcing higher prices that the market could give.

      This led to banks selling out these mortgages that had been very lucrative in packages. These packages subprime loans were not worth what was stated because they were full of junk fees, some of which were illegal.

      Now the country's banks are failing because they bought these packages hoping to make big bucks but finding that they were not worth the stated value. The originators of these loans have all gone away. Leaving these big banks holding the empty bag.

      So, one possible solution would be to allow the judges to regulate the fees. Refinance this mortgages in affordable terms. Shoot for long term investments so more homes do not end up selling right now. Keep people in their homes with mortgages they can afford.

      Then they will begin to have true equity based on the real value of their home not junk up fees forcing the market for higher prices.

      This could get america back on it's feet.

      The idea that we have to bail out the investors is just wrong headed.

      One thing Clinton did right was to invest in the middle class. We need to do this again.

      It brings prosperity to all because when folks's income is no longer tied up paying ungodly and illegal fees they will finally have money to spend on the economy again. I have been caught up in a predatory lender. If I put my house on the market it adds to the problem. If I foreclose it adds to the problem. I have an income and the ability to pay my loan as borrowed.

      The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.

      by wavpeac on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:31:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  short term... (3+ / 0-)

        are you suggesting that we let banks fail and the credit markets dry up?  When small business fail and start shedding jobs because of it then what?

        There would be more options on the table if we had gotten ahead of this 6-12 months ago... but we didn't and congress needs to deal with the situation we are in today.

        •  Let the banks fail (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That is the "invisible hand of the free market" works.

          The assets will be bought up by banks and Credit Unions that didn't get stupid.  The folks that had their saving in failed banks are insured to 100K.  Shareholders will get wiped out.  So what.  If you are too damned stupid to understand what you are spending your money on, you get what you deserve.

          If your business depends on outsized lines of credit, I am sorry, but your business was never viable and it will die.  If not from this, then from something else.  Nobody has a god given right to a profit.

  •  Dear Mr. Udall (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elsaamo, katieforeman, rian90, ribofunk

    While I am not likely to support any republican, it is a good thing I can't vote against you.

    If you had a better plan, where was it when this was being negotiated? Why didn't you fight to get a plan you could support, rather than sniffing about how this one isn't good enough, so you voted against it.  

    The Dow and my pension plan are now down seven hundred points. I don't know if my neighbors will get paid on their jobs this week because of what you didn't get done. I am trying to sell a house but no buyer will be able to get a mortgage now. I wonder if the bank with my money in it will survive the next few weeks.

    Smart man, what is your solution for that. "Not good enough for me to vote for" is not good enough if you don't have an alternative to propose.

    Now all of us are going to pay for your elitist sniffing on this matter. It's a veyr good thing you are not in my state to vote against. Because I would.

    •  Agree.Udall letter is a cheap fundraising ploy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The concerns Congressman Udall expressed have been expressed by the Democratic leadership. I trust that someone as smart as Barney Frank did the best he could while negotiating this deal.

      Your vote against this bill today is why so many Americans are disgusted with Congress. My guess is that you chose to demagogue this issue in order to curry favor with the "netroots" and cash in on the donor base.

  •  Why 700 billion? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, Texas B, ribofunk

    That's the part I don't get. Even if you are 100% for bailout/rescue what do you need to get you through February or March.

    I am hoping Obama gets elected. I am hoping if we have some adults in charge.

    With any Bush people involved I cannot believe that the money will not be thrown away. I am still waiting to hear what happened to all my Iraq dollars.

    Every entity that gets a slice should have to open its books and the tax records of every corporate officer who has served for the last five years. If I am an investor I have a right to know what I am really getting.

    •  It was not 700 billion (0+ / 0-)

      it was 250 billion, then 100 b in reserve, then another 350 b down the road in 4 months only with congressional approval.

      Udall lost his nerve and our whole economy will suffer.

      Thanks for nothing ,Tom.

      •  Sounds like 700 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Not like 250 with 100 in reserve and then after the election the new congress and the new president decide what is best for the country.

        Bush and his team just threw 700 on the wall. If they would have thrown 750 or 850 on the wall the debate would be starting from that. I still don't get why it has to be 700 and not 675 or 712.

        And the whole suffering part...what is the guarantee? We could have passed this and the whole system could still fail. We could have passed this and the economy could have gotten worse.

        Republicans and conservative economists have been selling the idea for years that the New Deal didn't do squat and that Hoover was right, that letting things run their course would work. But when faced with the reality suddenly they want money from me now.

        If economics were a science we wouldn't have gotten in this mess (well with Bush running things even science can be made to fail).

  •  Thank you for your vote. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, kurt

    Voting against this monstrousity was Step #1.

    Finding a real solution is Step #2.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Feb 17, 1755.

    by Wayward Son on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM PDT

  •  That's ok... (0+ / 0-)

    I only work for a bank. Being able to pay rent and buy food and stuff is overrated anyway. My work's stock is only down %19 today anyway.

    I'm just glad I don't have a family. I'm the only one who suffers.

    •  so what (0+ / 0-)

      We should bail out the banks so you can keep your job?

      Seriously, if your bank is looking at tanking, welcome to today's economy.

      The banking sector got us in this mess and there is going to be some pain coming out of it.

      You will be getting a taste of what the manufacturing sector has been dealing with for the past decade.

      •  Jackass (0+ / 0-)

        I work for a bank that has nothing to do with the housing market and it went down 27% today. 27% for a bank that has nothing to do with housing.

        The only satisfaction I'll get with this situation is to know when I'm dying of starvation assholes like you will be too.

        •  If you bank wasn't big in housing (A BIG IF) (0+ / 0-)

          Then people are going to be buying up your bank's stock because your board of directors had their heads screwed on right.

          A one day plunge like this means that the stock may now have some relationship to the underlying value of the bank.  If that value means that you fall under "excess production", well it will suck to be you & you will have to get another job.  Just like anyone else, including me.

          As a final note, I won't die of starvation, Republicans are good sources of protein.

  •  You did good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, kurt

    If you want to bail someone out, bail out America's workers. Dont' bail out the same people who have been stealing from us for decades.

    "The people have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want & the courage to take." - Emma Goldman

    by gjohnsit on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM PDT

  •  hold firm Tom, thanks for letting us kow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, kurt

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM PDT

  •  I'll accept a week of market crashes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opendna, ssgbryan, kurt

    in exchange for a better bill for the long term

    We Changed The Course! Now we must hold their feet to the fire.

    by hcc in VA on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:19:08 PM PDT

    •  you are naive, there will be no way to fix (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this if the markets plummet for another week. The credit markets will have collapsed. Hopefully you don't work for anyone who has to make a payroll, and you are independently employed. There will be no need for a bailout in a week, we will be in a world wide depression.

      My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me. Benjamin Disraeli

      by pvmuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:24:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, and in 2002, we had days before Saddam blew (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, ssgbryan, hcc in VA, kurt

        us to smithereens. get a grip.

        •  are you really THAT stupid? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          One was based on nothing.  One is based on easily discernible facts based on open and transparent market conditions.

          "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." - Voltaire

          by DrFrankLives on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "open and transparent market conditions"?!? (6+ / 0-)

            I'm sure you'll find a way to correct me on this, but doesn't the problem basically revolve around the lack of transparent market conditions?

            Banks don't know what hidden liabilities their assets contain, so they can't value them, and the don't know what assets other banks are holding, so they don't trust them enough to loan money overnight.

            If we had an open and transparent market, we wouldn't have the same liquidity problems we do now. In fact, we'd already know which banks are insolvent and should be bought out at what price.

            --- My real name is droogie6655321.

            by opendna on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:45:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I have a grip, you obviously do not. (0+ / 0-)

          How long have you been operating in the credit markets, are you a trader, a large money manager?

          Get back to me with your experience in handling a credit collapse, you sound more immature and inexperienced with your additional comment.

          My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me. Benjamin Disraeli

          by pvmuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:56:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No way to fix it, but another bubble, you mean. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, ssgbryan, kurt

        The only way to fix P/E ratios of 1000 and a 100% debt-income ratio, and a nation with median home prices over 10x the median income is...

        (1) to inflate wages, or
        (2) to deflate prices.

        People have been asking (for a damn long time) how long the US can continue to borrow against future income to pay for present consumption. The answer, evidently is "as long as we keep borrowing money to throw at our over-priced collateral."

        --- My real name is droogie6655321.

        by opendna on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:42:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Proud of Nancy Pelosi (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zane, katieforeman, dnamj

    I am so proud of our Speaker today.  She held the line and stood to her promise that this would be a bipartisan bill or no bill.  I believe we should have passed this bill, but I also know that if the Democrats had done so by themselves, then we would have lost the election in November

    •  I agree. This DID take guts. (0+ / 0-)

      I personally felt quite a bit uncomfortable after reading the bill with the amount of authority that it handed over to Paulson.

      However, a complete crash will cause a lot of misery, and a poor stopgap measure would have been helpful. That's probably what we'll get by the end of the week.

      McCain is a Chode.

      by dnamj on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:42:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know what would been more courageous? (0+ / 0-)

      How about a good bill or no bill?  The quest for a bipartisan bill is a search for political cover.  It's cowardice disguised as comity.

  •  Best decisions take time. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, gustynpip, googleimage

    I feel that last bill was being pushed too fast. It had problems and dem after dem that supported it talked about how it wasn't perfect, how it needed some more revisions, etc...

    Why pass a compromise bill that doens't accomplish the task at hand. There has to be a better solution and hopefully this buys time so they can come up with it.

    The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.

    by wavpeac on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM PDT

  •  I agree with you Tom. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Please come down to southern NM.  We want to feel represented here too.

    Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining...

    by ipaman on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM PDT

  •  Tell the truth (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone up for re election voted against this thing. Come on.  I want you to win, I just do not like the - I'm not playing politics, I'm for the little guy story.

  •  pls don't play politics with this (0+ / 0-)

    vote as your conscience guides you, but no grandstanding when our economic future is at stake

  •  If you are going to vote against the bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    as proposed, then propose an alternative bill with specifics.  I have not seen any specifics from members of Congress on either side who voted against the bill.  Write your own bill and include the specifics you want or get out of the way.  While I agree with your principles, I want you and others who feel as you do to get off your collective ASSES and propose an alternative bill.  Don't push the responsibility off on others, though that is what all of our elected representatives in Congress appear to be best at doing, propose your own damn bill.  While you waste your time and ours writing to explain why you oppose something, why not spend the time creating an alternative.  Right now I am pissed off at every single one of you.  SO do your job or STFU!!!!

  •  YOU DON"T GET IT (7+ / 0-)

    This is not a "wall street bailout"  This is about opening up the credit markets that are frozen.  Small business can't get loans, people can't get mortgages.  This will start trickling around the whole economy.

    You voted down this bill because your constituents think this is a bailout for wall street fat cats. it is not.  It is a bailout for US.

    •  Yes, people here are very stupid. (6+ / 0-)

      apparently none of them have jobs or any assets. People don't seem to understand that many will soon lose their employment, many companies will not be making payroll with several more days of this. People here think that since they don't have a 401k it doesn't matter. Hope no one has parents who are retired and living off asset generated income, because they will now be moving in with you.

      My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me. Benjamin Disraeli

      by pvmuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:30:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My mom is a teacher (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arielle, dirtdawg

        Her retirement fund is dwindling to nothing.  She has been a hard worker all of her life.  This bill is about her, it has been framed in the wrong way.

        •  Yeah, people here sound like rethuglicans, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grapes, CS in AZ

          they are being babies. This is not about Wall Street anymore, we are all going down together. I don't know what people think is going to be gained by waiting, several more days of this and we will be in a total credit collapse, I guess everyone here has money buried in their backyards and don't have jobs.

          My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me. Benjamin Disraeli

          by pvmuse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:46:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  My Mom too, actually - and she was against it. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, kurt, Losty

          And, as a person who has both a job and (similarly dwindling assets) I still think Tom did the right thing. He's still there working on real reform. Keep taking pot shots if you like, but this was the right vote.

          Steve Olson

          by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No so. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, kurt, PurpleMyst

      Enough of "trickle down" plans. It does not trickle down. It just keeps redistributring the money upward.

      We need some-roots up real restructuring of the economic system.How about a 300B jobs program? That would get money flowing right quick and lift all boats.

      This bill concentrates unbelievable power in the executive branch in the form of Paulson whose old company , Goldman Sachs,benefits most from this bail-out. Udall is right to demand that it shift to Congressional over-sight.

      The bail-out too closely resembles what Hoover did before the '29 crash. History should be telling us something.

      The bill still allows the CEO's already in the  pipeline to receive their golden parachutes. Outrageous.

      There's no help for mortgage holders, 62% of whom were capable of having non subprime mortgages but who were pressured into these sub-primes. Lenders made 4k every time they passed a risky loan on through. Where's the accountability?

      It's too much money too fast for companies, 26 of whom are under FBI criminal investigation.

      We should be demanding real ownership for the people  at this point, not being terrified into a bad deal.

      The Brits and Holland both nationalized two of their major banks this weekend. Why can't we nationalize our banks until they again become profitable? As Bernie Sanders says "If a financial entity is too big to fail, it's too big to exist". Where is the plan to break up permanently these huge financial power-houses?

      Sick too death of the"trickling" myth.

  •  I think this diary was phoned in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    last week, before all the changes were made to the bill that went to the floor.

    Barack Obama- magna cum laude, Harvard Law 1991. .....John McCain- 894/899, Annapolis 1958.

    by nyseer on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM PDT

  •  My Question. (0+ / 0-)
    I agree with Mr. Udall's statement. But I was under the impression that all of that was in the bill after you tangled with the White House, the FED, and the Treasury Secretary. If not, what have y'all been doing the past two weeks?

    "If (Lyin' Johnny Mac) is the answer, then the question must be ridiculous." - Gov. David Paterson (NY-D)

    by Gut Check on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:26:21 PM PDT

    •  The protections were pretty much a joke. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, Gut Check

      The oversight board was the Chair of the Fed, the Treasury Secretary, and a few other similarly unbiased folks...

      Steve Olson

      by smallbrain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair Enough. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm cool with that then. Not cool with a 777 point drop in the Dow and basically a 8 year time warp back to Bush's first day as President...maybe Election Day, but not first day :)

        Well, go ahead and make a killer Main Street bill, push it all in with Dems, and dare Bush to veto, I guess. In the meantime, we'll just try and keep our heads above water. Thanks...

        "If (Lyin' Johnny Mac) is the answer, then the question must be ridiculous." - Gov. David Paterson (NY-D)

        by Gut Check on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "prevent similar crises from occurring again. " (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Oh Congressman, occurring again is not the problem.  This one has barely started.

    "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." - Voltaire

    by DrFrankLives on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM PDT

    •  I don't believe (0+ / 0-)

      that we can prevent it from occurring again. We had provisions put in place after the Great Depression, and subsequent laws made them weaker. There's no guarantee the same thing won't happen years down the road.

      by DeniseH on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's all nice and everything, but what the hell (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opendna, dirtdawg, pvmuse, ribletsonthepan

    are we going to do to actually FIX this crisis?

    All this grandstanding against this compromise isn't really useful. What we need is a solution - and we needed it before the market dropped nearly 800 points in a day.

    Businesses are NOT going to be able to meet payroll this week and next without some liquidity being opened up. Let's SOLVE that problem...then we can whine about how much it sucks we have to pony up and pay for the mistakes that have happened.

  •  Gutsy move. I approve. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opendna, kurt

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:28:40 PM PDT

  •  thank you! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opendna, kurt

    Thank you for voting 'No'. No bailout of Wall Street is necessary. The banks will eventually start making loans again because that's how they make their money. Don't bail out their destructive "mortgage-related" investments.

    Thank you again and please hold firm. We have your back.

  •  Mr. Udall (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, kurt

    Please consider alternate proposals. There are a number of very intelligent economists out there that saw this mess coming and have viable alternate plans.

    Please think OUTSIDE the Paulson plan BOX.

    I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

    by taonow on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM PDT

  •  Couple of more things ... (0+ / 0-)

    I'd like to see in the bill.

    1. Some way to make the primary benefactors of the massive "fraud"
    1. Revenue nuetral. Small transaction tax on wall street if they want to be bailed out.
  •  the only person who has total credibility on this (0+ / 0-)
    financial meltdown is jim cramer. he is the one who screamed on cnbc at bernanke to lower interest rates over a year ago and laid out exactly what would happen if that didn't occur. he was dead right. i now watch his show daily for guidance in this storm and he says that if this bill doesn't pass we will see 20 - 30% unemployment. not "may", WILL. that scares the shit out of me.
    •  LOL cramer!?!???!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      agoldnyc, hhex65

      The guy who was screaming at everyone to buy big in builder stocks last April?


      "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." - Voltaire

      by DrFrankLives on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i am not going to justify all his stock picks (0+ / 0-)
        perhaps he was expecting the government to actually do something about this mess. (he was also the guy who said to buy first solar 2 years ago. i made a mint.) mock him if you like, i'm not his agent, but he did say that this would happen if bernanke failed to take action. i hear many blame greenspan for keeping interest rates low too long. to me, bernenke is much more to blame. at least when greenspan kept rates low he was doing it to avert economic collapse. what's bernenke's excuse for keeping them too high?
    •  Jesus, you are clueless (0+ / 0-)

      Lowering interest rates isn't the problem.  The problem is that no one knows what these CDOs are worth & no one wants to do price discovery & find out.

      The banks have been working on the "bigger fool" theory for some time.  They are hoping that the "biggest fool" will be the US Taxpayer.

      •  i shouldn't justify your rudeness with a response (0+ / 0-)
        but i will anyway. once. i didn't say interest rates are the problem. i said they were a problem. if rates had been cut sooner, much sooner, we could have had a much softer landing, the balance sheets of these banks would have been in a better position, we could have instituted reforms without taxpayer money being needed. if you disagree your point might have been better made without the dickishness, by the way. as it is, i'm done with you. have a nice day
        •  I may be a dick, but I am right. (0+ / 0-)

          Just how much lower could they go?  Have you been following the rates?  I have.  

          How does dropping a another quarter point help a financial industry that is so over-leaveraged that there is no way out short of a blood bath?

          Interest rates don't help when CDOs start crashing back onto your balance sheet.

          Interest rates are not the problem.  The problem is that the banks have a large amount of derivatives on their books that they can't sell because they are worth nowhere near what they claim that it is worth.

          We should have gone through this last summer once the first dominoes started falling.  It would have been less painful

  •  propose a moratorium on foreclosures! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's not a new idea.  Hillary proposed it last December - and we wouldn't be in the current mess if anyone had followed through.  Robert Scheer at TruthDig has been saying it for weeks.  There's still time.  

    We need an FDR type to express what most Americans intuitively know: that while Congress is being psyched out, there are solutions that can actually radically diminish the mortgage debt issues at the source - if the government isn't dead set on screwing homeowners.

    A real leader would say to American homeowners:

    Congratulations.  You own equity in the USA, the most valuable real estate on planet earth.  A bunch of crooks and speculators have been messing with the value of your homes.  But unless you're a crook or speculator, we're going to make sure you and your neighbors keep your homes, and can pay off any loans based on reasonable assessments at reasonable rates -- not usurious ones set back when your own credit was worse than the banks'.

    Property values AND Wall Street instruments based on them would rise instantly.  Are there no leaders of FDR's caliber in Congress?

  •  Thank you Rep Udall! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Please stop scaring me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, EastcoastChick, kurt

    This is not fun anymore.

    Eight years of this nonsense is enough. -- Sen. Barack Obama

    by makemefree on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM PDT

  •  I sure would like to hear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    more information about an insurance type plan instead of this bail-out / loan plan.  Over the weekend, I saw some financial news folks talking about an insurance plan that would only cost us (the taxpayer) $35 Billion.

    It sounds as it Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using the exact same type of accounting practices as Enron.  And, we all know how that worked out.  Sadly, these types of accounting practices were happening under the leadership of Franklin Raines.

    So, now waiting to hear what Paulson has to say....after all, the $700 Billion plan to give him free reign of the cash - the initial bill - was his.  Was it not?

  •  You screwed up, Tom Udall. Big time. n/t (0+ / 0-)