It is disturbing that a few hundred wacko right-wing zealots can bombard congress...

[DCBob]

with phone calls/emails/faxes and change votes. The vocal minority strikes again. That is not democracy.

[Demeter]

1. There Were More Than a Few Hundred

and it was bipartisan disgust that sank the plan.

[DCBob]

5. Not really. It was killed by Republicans who were afraid of the political consequences.

Cowards.

[babylonsister]

2. Who says only the r/w did it? I just find it interesting that on so many

issues, people can bombard Congress all day long and they don't change a thing. Now, when it's politically convenient to them, they do.

[Overseas]

7. I agree with you. This is more about the Gingrich plan-- make the bailout a Democrat thing.

NOT JUST FOR JOHNNY BUT FOR THEIR OWN REELECTIONS.

CLIP:

If McCain were to come out against the bailout plan, Gingrich said that Republicans would rally to his side and it would become possible for the McCain-Palin ticket to style itself as "taking on the Bush-Obama establishment."

"Either McCain is going to go along" with Obama in supporting the plan, said Gingrich, "in which case the establishment will have the fix in . . . or you are going to see McCain decide, much in the way that he did in picking Palin, that, in fact, he is a genuine maverick, that he genuinely defends the taxpayers, and that this is a terrible bill."

"If the latter happens," Gingrich continued, "I think you will see the emergence overnight of a 'McCain Reform Wing of the Republican Party' and you'll see House and Senate members siding with McCain by overwhelming margins and then you'll be in a very different political environment. You'll have 'Bush-Obama ads' on the one side and 'taking on the Bush-Obama establishment' on the other side, and that will be, frankly, one of the more amazing elections."

LINK: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/gingrich-mccain.html

[AnOhioan]

3. Not only the rightwing saw this "plan" as bad

[Marsala]

4. It wasn't just right-wing zealots

Left-wingers were sending just as many messages, and probably people in the center, too. My mom, who is far from a right-winger, tried contacting every appropriate member of Congress to tell them to stop it.

[DCBob]

8. Two thirds of Democrats supported it. That's a healthy percentage.

Two thirds of Repubs voted against it. The Repubs killed it.

[stillcool]

20. Yes..the Republicans killed the bill...

hopefully now the Democrats can write their own bill that addresses the issue in a more sane manner. Then they can pass it along party lines. You can never trust Republicans to keep up their side of a bargain.

[DCBob]

26. I suspect they will pass a similar bill to the one they killed today on Thursday.

[stillcool]

52. I hope the Democrats write..

a brand new bill. One all the Democrats will vote for, and pass it along party lines alone.

[Quantess]

6. "Minority"?

I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the bailout.

[DCBob]

10. You would be wrong.

I don't have a link but I did see a recent poll that said most Americans were for a bailout bill of some sort. I guarantee if you did that poll again tonight it would be about 80% for a deal.

[MercutioATC]

11. "Of some sort"...agreed, just not this sort.

This bill was bad legislation. It deserved to die.

That certainly doesn't mean that we can sit idly by nor does it mean that there's not better legislation to be written. We need to roll up our sleeves and pass something that will actually address the issues.

[DCBob]

12. Meanwhile the banking/lending system collapses.

Many banking/credit experts think we have only a few days or weeks before things begin to go south in big way. The longer we let it go the more difficult it will be to recover from. There will be a deal later this week that will look a lot like the deal that was killed today.

[MercutioATC]

14. No, credit remains tight and the market corrects (to where it SHOULD be).

As I said, we DO need to do something. I believe it begins with regulation and bottom-up solutions, but I'm no economist.

I believe we now have the opportunity to craft legislation that will actually address the issues...and we'd better take advantage of that opportunity. Might our elected idiots flub it? Of course....but I'd rather they make an attempt at something productive than have this bill pass.

[DCBob]

15. I'm no economist either but real economists say this is an urgent crisis and

credit will begin to dry up and likley cause a recession or worse if something is not done soon.

[MercutioATC]

16. And it is...but there's never a good time to pass bad legislation.

Think about it. It was 11 days ago that Bush handed Congress a 2 1/2 page "plan" and said that it had to be passed immediately or our economy would collapse.

It's 11 days later and they actually voted down the bill....and we're all still here.


Yes, there is a degree of urgency. Yes, we do need to move on this. However, we have (and need to take) the time to craft legislation that will actually address the issues. With the Bush/Paulson "plan" out of the way, we can begin to do that.

[DCBob]

17. It all depends how much time we have. I think nobody knows that for sure.

However to scrap the current bill and start over will likely take weeks and I suspect we do not have weeks. They will have to pass something this week and it will likely be something similar to what was killed today.

[MercutioATC]

18. You may be right, but this was still bad legislation.

It wouldn't have stopped any possible collapse, it would have just delayed it.

It's now our responsibility to pass a bill that works. Maybe we're up to it, maybe we're not...but the chance is preferable to certain failure.

[DCBob]

23. I don't know where you are getting your information but most economists/experts are saying...

we need a bailout plan or else we face certain economic collapse. For example:

Billionaire Warren Buffett told congressional negotiators that if they can't agree on a proposed financial bailout, the nation will face "its biggest financial meltdown in American history".

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Buffett.bailout/?postversion=2008092811

[MercutioATC]

27. O.K. I agree, but you can't seriously quote Buffet right now.

We DO need a legislative fix. This just wasn't it. I'd much rather see us take the time to craft a real fix than pass a very expensive band-aid that doesn't deal with any of the underlying issues.


...and Buffet put $5B into Goldman Sachs last week. I like the guy and I think he's a financial genius, but I'll bet that statement was looking after his $5B, not the rest of us.

[DCBob]

29. Are you kidding? Buffet is one of the most respected in business. You do realize he advises Obama?

What "experts" are you quoting??

[MercutioATC]

35. Buffet is respected because he gets returns.

Personally, I like him because he's also pretty down-to-earth.

Do you really think that Buffet would have invested $5B in Goldman if he wasn't counting on the bailout bill? Do you really think that he's not doing everything he can to make that investment pan out for him now?

Buffet is great at making money. I have no problem with him doing what he can to protect his investments.

I just realize that his investments take precedence over everything else.

[DCBob]

37. Please read this....

In June 2006, Buffett gave approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately USD 30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006) making it the largest charitable donation in history and Buffett one of the leaders in the philanthrocapitalism revolution. The foundation will receive 5% of the total donation on an annualized basis each July, beginning in 2006. Buffett will also join the board of directors of the Gates Foundation, although he does not plan to be actively involved in the foundation's investments. He also announced plans to contribute additional Berkshire stock valued at approximately $6.7 billion to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and to other foundations headed by his three children. This is a significant shift from previous statements Buffett has made, having stated that most of his fortune would pass to his Buffett Foundation. The bulk of the estate of his wife, valued at $2.6 billion, went to that foundation when she died in 2004.

His children will not inherit a significant proportion of his wealth. These actions are consistent with statements he has made in the past indicating his opposition to the transfer of great fortunes from one generation to the next. Buffett once commented, "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."

The following quotation from 1988, respectively, highlights Warren Buffett's thoughts on his wealth and why he long planned to reallocate it:

"I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die.

On June 27, 2008, Zhao Danyang, a general manager at Pure Heart China Growth Investment Fund, won the 2008 5-day online "Power Lunch with Warren Buffett" charity auction on eBay with high bid of $2,110,100. Zhao had the right to dine with 76-year-old Buffett, at New York's Smith & Wollensky Steakhouse, and invite up to 7 companions for the private lunch and can ask Buffett anything at all, except what he's buying or selling. Auction proceeds benefit the San Francisco Glide Foundation. In 2007 Mohnish Pabrai dined with Buffett. Buffett also helped Dow Chemical pay for its $ 18.8bn takeover of Rohm & Haas. He thus became the single largest shareholder in the enlarged group with his Berkshire Hathaway, which provided $ 3bn, underlining his instrumental role during the current crisis in debt and equity markets.

[MercutioATC]

40. Again, Buffet is a great guy...he's also very generous with his money.

He's not about to lose $5B on Goldman, though...


One can be both a generous philanthropist and a savvy investor. Buffet is both. His generosity does not preclude him from protecting his investments.

[DCBob]

42. But you think he is exaggerating this crisis to protect his investment. Is that right?

Please tell us which economic experts you trust on this crisis?

[MercutioATC]

45. Yes, I do.

...and you don't have to look very far to find opposing viewpoints...Ehrenberg, Merkel, Steinhardt (Google any of them).

[DCBob]

47. I just Googled "Ehrenberg" and got no hit on any comments related to this current crisis.

Can you provide a link please?

[MercutioATC]

48. Here's one:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/97338-re-invigorate-main-street-instead-of-bailing-out-wall-street?source=yfcolumn

[DCBob]

50. Thanks. Good article but that is 4 days old and a bit stale. I wonder if his opinion has changed...

considering how the situation has escalated. Has he written anything or made any statements today?

[MercutioATC]

53. I haven't looked. Judging from his views, I'd imagine not.

Regardless, that summarizes some of what I believe would be a real solution. I also believe that we need real regulatory reform if we expect the future to be any different from the past, bailout or no.

I do believe there's a partial legislative fix to this...I just don't believe the Bush/Paulson bill was it. I agree that something needs to be done. I think we'll be a lot better off looking at a variety of options and creating a plan that will address the issues rather than just throwing money at the problem as a short-term band-aid.

[1corona4u]

21. Here's a interesting look at the recent numbers...

What are people saying today? First, it is clear people are paying attention. Since 1985, Pew Research Center pollsters have been asking people how much attention they pay to various news stories. In the News Interest Index released this week, 49% said they were following the turmoil among financial institutions on Wall Street "very closely," a far higher level of interest than Pew found about the Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) takeover earlier this month, or even the 1989 savings and loan crisis.

How pollsters word their questions affects public opinion about what should be done. In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 44% approved of "the steps the Federal Reserve and Treasury have taken to try to deal with the current situation involving the stock market and major financial institutions," while 42% disapproved.

In polling firm Zogby's question, which described the costs and benefits of a "sweeping bailout," 46% supported it and 46% were opposed. In Pew's question, 57% said the government was doing the right thing by "potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure," but 30% said it was doing the wrong thing.

Though confidence in Wall Street is low and concern is high, just 28% told Fox News/Opinion Dynamics interviewers that, if they were given $10,000 today, they would put it under their mattress. Two-thirds said it would be safer in a bank.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/26/polls-wall-st...

[DCBob]

25. Interesting. I suspect if there was poll tonight there would be a huge majority..

supporting a bailout plan. I think the reality of what might happen is sinking in.

[1corona4u]

28. Exactly. The knee jerk initial reaction has passed.

People started to think it through. Just in time for congress to kill the bill.

[jberryhill]

9. Bi-Partisan Populists /nt

[TheKentuckian]

13. This is why we have a representitive democracy

emotionalism, kneejerk reactions, and uninformed decisions are bad things to base law on.

Popular opinion is a stupid basis of lawmaking. We'd still be segregated, probably would have never went to the moon, and going to Iraq would have been the correct call based on popular opinion at the time.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Wrong. Many progressive democrats are also against this "power grab" by the Executive Branch.

This is NOT a purely partisan issue.

[1corona4u]

22. Exactly.

Progressive democrats, and right wingers. I'd guess this is the first time they ever agreed on anything...which I find fascinating.

[DCBob]

24. 2/3 Dems voted for it. 2/3 Repubs voted against it.

Do the math. Republicans killed it.

[TexasObserver]

30. it failed because there is widespread opposition from citizens in both parties.

[DCBob]

34. The citizens did not understand the critical nature of this issue.

It was not explained properly to us by the administration or by congress.

[MercutioATC]

36. I understood it and I was not in favor of its passage.

I'm not a "Let it burn" guy, I just think the negatives of the bill far outweighed the potential positives.

[TexasObserver]

38. I keep hearing that, usually from people who don't understand it at all.

You keep assuming the "crisis" is as dire as you've been led to believe by Bush and his clowns.

[DCBob]

39. Do you read much? There are dozens of articles by non-Bush clown economists that say...

we are headed for a major economic meltdown if there is no bailout deal.

[TexasObserver]

41. Not another one!

Yes, Bob, I read. Unlike you, I don't panic every time I read something, and having been around in business a good while, I don't rely solely on what people put in articles they write.

We are headed to a meltdown with or without a $700 billion bailout.

Until the public DEMANDS a bailout, it's nuts to have one.

[DCBob]

43. You trust the "public" on this issue? That's scary.

[TexasObserver]

44. The voters are the voters, whether you like it or not.

The reason we lose elections is because of arrogant Democrats like you, who think they know what it is best, but don't.

[DCBob]

46. This is not about winning an election. This about the future of this country.

You simply do not understand the seriousness of this crisis. And it is not my "arrogant" opinion -- it is the opinion of virtually every economics expert out there -- liberal or conservative or independent. Are you sure you read much??

[TexasObserver]

49. This is all about winning the election, which IS the future of the country.

No, it is not the opinion of virtually every economic expert out there that this bailout is necessary and that it will fix the problems we face.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I advise large non profit foundations with millions of dollars, and they pay me handsomely for telling them things like "get your funds out of Wachovia and Merrill Lynch," and things like "move out of equities and into government securities and safe bonds NOW, before the market drops 2000 points." They do so because I have a proven history of being right about matters of finance going back three decades. Unlike you, I have been there and done that.

But you keep assuring yourself that you know what's going on because you've being reading about this for two weeks in selected media. I love talking to people whose knowledge of this topic consists of what they read the past two weeks. It's so refreshing. Fortunately, there's an endless supply of such posters here at DU, captives of the latest thing they read online.

[DCBob]

51. I am sure you are a brilliant expert in your profession but how can you ignore so many...

who have more expertise than you and are claiming this is a major crisis and we are headed for a economic meltdown?

[TexasObserver]

54. I'm not ignoring them. I'm noting they all have their points of view to sell.

Let me explain something, so we're clear.

My PRIMARY objection to the bailout is that it lacks popular support. It is a politically stupid move for Democrats to pass it without overwhelming popular support. I believe Democrats will have that support if the DOW drops another 700 points or more. Until the public gets behind it, I am unalterably opposed to the bailout because it makes no sense, politically.

Even when the bailout occurs, it is merely a band aid. In a few months, there will have to another one. This problem is fundamental. It cannot be cured by throwing a trillion dollars at it.

[DCBob]

55. You appear to be looking at this from almost entirely a political viewpoint but..

this issue goes beyond that. Of course there are political implications and they cannot be ignored but there is a reality here that transcends politics. It's a bit like arguing global warming with hard-core Republicans -- they can't get past the politics but in reality there are hard scientific facts that have nothing to do with politics. I believe this economic crisis is similar.

[TexasObserver]

56. The only thing that matters to me is winning in November.

After that happens, I'll rest easy that whatever happens, Obama and a Democratic congress will soundly address it.

I do not believe any bailout is going to fundamentally change the ongoing decline. Our economy is sick.

[DCBob]

57. I do totally agree with you that winning in Nov is our highest priority and I will leave it at that.

Enjoyed the debate and good night!

[TexasObserver]

58. Likewise, Bob.

Glad to visit.

[AZBlue]

31. Yeah, damn that whole democracy thing!

Did you know that 42% of the no votes were Dems?

[DCBob]

32. And 58% were for it. Your point??

[OwnedByFerrets]

33. Today and the past 5 days were a demononstration of a

democratic republic the likes of which we haven't seen since Clinton was elected.