So since the bailout failed can we now ram through a "lefty version"?

[mrgorth]

And if Bush wants to veto it fuck him. OK, I'm not an economist but I heard some good points on NPR recently that this bill was a joke anyway. We gave the repugs a chance to compromise and they fucked up. I want a bill for the American people now and I want them to tell the GOP to suck it.

[ContinentalOp]

1. I don't see why not.

:shrug:

This is our moment. I hope Obama can seize it.

[jobycom]

2. I thought the one that failed was the lefty version.

:shrug: Most of the people who opposed it were the conservative Dems or the Republicans.

[cui bono]

8. No. That was a mere modification of the Bush/Paulsen plan.

Many progressive Dems opposed it. I think it was the moderates who were for it.

[jobycom]

13. What worries me (not that I was a supporter of the bill)

is that the next one will be more bank-friendly. The one that was defeated passed the costs on to the lending industry, and unless things went horribly wrong, would not have cost tax payers anything. The next one--the one the Republicans push through when the markets continue to collapse and everyone is in panic--will be less favorable to us.

I didn't like the first bill, either, for a lot of reasons that would take a page to recite (and have all been covered by everyone anyway), but I'm more worried about what is going to follow. In my experience, the longer legislation drags out, the more likely the Republicans are to get what they want. My feeling is that we should have passed it, and then waited until January to fix the bill.

[Bigleaf]

21. I agree. The Pubs will write a Wall-Street friendly bill fucking us over and we will not support it

and be be made to look like the bad guys for failing to pass the second bill. We have to get out in front and lead on this.

[maui9002]

30. You can bank on it (pun intended)

What the House Republicans are proposing, based on what I've picked up from interviews:

1. Lend money to the financial institutions.

2. Cut the capital gains tax rate for investments in banks (I'm not kidding).

3. Reduce the regulatory restrictions on investing in financial institutions (more deregulation).

4. Insure the "troubled assets" by charging a premium to the banks/financial institutions holding those assets, which seems to me to have far greater risk to taxpayers unless a cap is imposed (and then you have to determine which assets to insure, because you can't insure them all).

What the more liberal Democrats want and didn't get in the bill.

1. More bankruptcy protection (enabling courts to cram down mortgages or reduce interest rates, although it does allow for the Secretary of the Treasury to provide mortgage relief for mortgages owned by the Treasury).

2. Punishment of those who are responsible (which would be great if (a) you knew whom to punish; (b) you had time to figure that out; and (c) the ability to punish any wrongdoers wasn't already available under existing law.

[jobycom]

32. Wonderful. At least they didn't try to ban abortion in the same bill.

We are going to wish the previous bill had passed.

[maui9002]

37. Wouldn't put it past them

Don't forget a ban on gay marriage or possibly a ban on loans to illegal immigrants.

[cui bono]

33. Yeah, I don't see why they can't pass something that takes us through the election

then let the president elect work with congress to figure something out and overhaul the whole system.

[jobycom]

42. the original bill gave some leeway, as I understood it.

It only committed 250 billion for the Fed to buy loans from troubled banks, at first. The Fed would then hold and service the loans, and could even re-sell them, so the idea was that the taxpayers wouldn't pay anything, ultimately. There were protections built in to the bill to prevent the lenders from profiting from the buyout, and they would still be held responsible if the loans lost money--I suspect that those protections are why the Republicans killed it.

If more was needed, the Fed would have access to the rest of the 700 B, but still, we would have some time to change the bill after January before the entire 700B was invested. And we'd have a bit of a window to see if the plan was succeeding before spending the rest.

[cui bono]

51. I think that's what they want us to believe about the bill but here's a site that

went through it and didn't like it so much.
http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/9/analyzing-the-bailout-what-s-in-it-anyway-

[maui9002]

50. One, because credit crisis won't wait that long

and Two, because there are provisions in bill that open door for exactly what you're suggesting (see Section 105(c) of the proposed bill).

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Kucinich? Sanders?

The conservative REPUBLICANS (as opposed to the neocons) and the progressive Democrats (as opposed to the neo-lib DLCers) opposed this plan. As i understand it the entire black caucus opposed it - they are not exactly representative of Blue Dogs.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Yes, the hyper-liberals like Kucinich voted against it. OTOH, Kucinich voted against SCHIP,

since he didn't think that was lefty enough, so him voting against something isn't evidence of anything, really.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. DK voted against SCHIP because he felt, for some strange reason,

it was wrong to imbed discrimination in the law of the land. Funny, that.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Without getting into a debate of the particulars of the bill, yes.

He found a minor sticking point regarding what he felt as inadequate extension of care, and as a result joined the near-unified Republicans in voting against the near-unified Democrats in what most Democrats believed was one of the most important bills of this session of Congress.

Dennis Kucinich's refusal to vote for a bill is not worthy of particular note. His litmus tests are many, ironclad, and applied sans perspective.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. IOW, he actually has principles. nt

[Occam Bandage]

29. Which he applies regardless of consequences in the real world, which is why

he has few allies and fewer accomplishments to his name, and why he will never become anything more than a niche icon.

[dchill]

40. So tell me why it is...

that sometimes the truth has to suck so much.

[jobycom]

31. True enough.

The far lefties like Kucinich opposed it on principle, but the biggest faction came from the conservatives, including Dems like Gene Taylor and Henry Cuellar. They aren't opposed on principle--even though they may spin it that way--they just didn't like this bill. Both claim it was because the bill didn't offer enough consumer protection, but given their records, I only believe that excuse with Taylor.

Cuellar is too beholden to the banking industry to give a damn about the consumers. In fact, he "won" his primary when a mysterious box of uncounted ballots was found at a polling station days after the election. That polling station happened to be in a bank run by a major Bush, and incidentally Cuellar, supporter. (Sorry for the topic drift, but I find it hard to talk about Cuellar without spitting.)

I don't believe the rejected bill was "leftie," I just think it was the closest thing to a leftie bill we are going to see, and I believe it was rejected by the right so they can pass their own version of the bill.

[ContinentalOp]

35. Conservative Dems like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich?

:rofl:

[jobycom]

45. I answered that above.

[izzybeans]

39. That was the squishy feel good version.

[T Wolf]

3. Never gonna happen. Not with the group of "Dem" politicians in DC. Just count it as

another missed opportunity to really do something positive for the country.

There will be a "lefty version" just like the Dems stopped the war after taking control in '06.

[lapfog_1]

4. Except all of the "lefty" versions

don't address the central issue. They are great for "revenge of the middle class", but without corresponding tax increases on the wealthy, we are just robbing ourselves (or worse, our children).

One alternative that I haven't heard yet... let the Fed (or a new gov agency) open a "discount" window for direct loans to businesses and people. Retail services. $700B should be enough to float paper. All people have to do is trust the new "bank" (our government). Have to think about this idea.

[jobycom]

15. Hmmm.... That is something to think on...

In some ways, it's only a step away from what they are trying anyway, and for that matter, from what they did in the 30s. Fannie Mae was started to buy loans from lenders to give them more money to loan to consumers (which isn't very different from what has been proposed this time, except that this time the gov starts off buying bad paper).

Cut out the lender, loan to the people directly, at least temporarily. Give consumers the right to choose gov or private loans, so that private lenders will have to offer something as good as the government's offer to get business. That might give the gov a new way to control loans and interest rates...

Thought provoking. Nice job!

[cui bono]

52. I've heard suggestions of taxing wall street transactions or charging the rich a surtax.

Neither of which I'm against.

I think all those who benefited from all of these bad trades/sales whatever should open their finances up to scrutiny and be forced to give back the money. They are thieves, after all. They do that when individuals run into financial trouble and need to file bankruptcy.

[Lucky 13]

If we couldn't ram through a "bipartisan" version, you think a "lefty" version would do better?

It won't pass... and then they'll just blame Pelosi or Frank or Obama or whoever.

[Barack_America]

7. Because now we've seen that the stock market WILL tank...

when Wall Street thinks this isn't going to happen.

And Americans are starting to hear about and understand how the credit freeze affects them personally.

[Occam Bandage]

19. I don't think that anyone in America didn't think we'd see a one-day drop if it failed.

[bullwinkle428]

23. Because all of the Democrats would be on board?

Remember, we still have the majority of the House.

[Occam Bandage]

28. What makes you think they would? The Dems voting against it were almost all in

hotly-contested seats. Would an even-more-controversial bill encourage them to get past their reservations and tie their names and re-election fates to public reception of that package?

[ContinentalOp]

38. The whole point would be to craft a less controversial bill.

Something that isn't a massive handout to wall street. Something that the general public could get behind so that Democrats would have the political capital to get it passed and do an end run around the lobbyists who are trying to frame the issue.

[cui bono]

54. Not my Dem. I'm sure he's got an easy win in November here in Los Angeles.

But my guy also voted against the IWR, against FISA, etc... you get the idea. He votes for what is good for the people.
(I'm pretty sure I stated his record correctly, I know when I've looked up stuff he has voted to save the constitution and protect the people. He gives out pocket constitutions at his town hall meetings. :) )

[Thothmes]

53. But you do not have

a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

[Barack_America]

5. Yes. The Dems can pass it alone. But many Republicans will now be forced to vote for it.

No matter what it looks like. Plus, they said they opposed it because it didn't have enough "protections for average Americans". Well, let's put those protections in and see what they have to say about it then.

[cui bono]

6. That's what I'm calling congress about today.

Let's get a serious bill out there that provides relief to the people as well as create a system for the investment banks to pay for their own bailout.

[wvbygod]

9. Which version would that be?

Where does the money go in that one?

[adamuu]

10. Yes that's what many of us have been saying (related threads here)

For a lack of a better way of putting this: Is there a way to bail out without using paulson plan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4131774&mesg_id=4131774

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

The Congressional Democrats should now produce a purely Democratic bill from scratch
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7248155

Krugman is making GOOD SENSE on KO - Dems should write a bill they believe in...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7249066

[WeDidIt]

11. No can do, bra

Sorry, not in this Congress with this president.

what failed was the best bill we could hope for.

[Jersey Devil]

12. Yes, and it could come from the Senate and guess who?

I just heard Hillary on CBS radio say she wouldn't be surprised if the Senate led the way and came out with a new bill before the House does, maybe as soon as tomorrow.

[Zenmaster]

14. No. There is some serious politics going on here that could end the GOP

While the financial crisis is dangerous for all of us and nothing to fool around with, there is a perfect political storm brewing that could almost permenantly destroy the republican Party.

McSpain winning the nomination, whom the far right hate, was the first step. Then him picking Palin was the second step that has driven a wedge into the party. She is seen as the top of the ticket by the religuous right, but there are many fiscal conservatives that see her almost as scary as we do.

As bad loss in this election, alone, would have gone a long way towards fracturing the GOP into the 2 groups that have been having more of a shaky partnership over recent years.

You ad in this crisis and the bailout issue and the GOP is seriously screwed. Their ONLY HOPE is for the Democrats to force a bailout bill on themselves, and take all the blame. The Democrats are playing this perfectly, IMO, right down to Pelosi needling them before the vote. The Democrats shouldn't budge on this one. FORCE THE GOP TO SHARE THE BLAME FOR PASSING THIS BILL!

Their regime fucked this up, they can help with the bailout.

The GOP wants nothing more than for this bill to pass without them actually having to vote for it. They know that many of them are going to get voted out, giving the democrats even more control, if they vote for it too. But they still need it to pass.

This fall is the perfect storm that is going to ruin the GOP for a very long time. They will have to rebuild themselves into something else. The fiscal and religuous conservatives are no longer going to be on the same page.

If the Democrats force a "lefty-version" of this bill through, without GOP support, it will be throwing that party a life preserver.

[ContinentalOp]

41. Or craft a new bill that would be widely popular with the American people...

and let wall street fund it rather than taking the country further into debt.

[mrgorth]

16. Some thoughts

against the bill and alternatives. I appreciate everyone's indulgence of my ignorance:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95187278
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95177163

[Occam Bandage]

18. How? You think you can convince the entire Democratic House Caucus, including those members

in tight races and those in right-wing districts, that they should hook themselves permanently to a unilateral version of the largest transfer of wealth in American history? Keep in mind that a third of House Dems were too skittish to vote yes on this bill.

[trudyco]

22. And why can't the bill include a tax on the rich to pay for whatever

they bail out?

Then the transfer of wealth goes from rich to rich.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Sure it could. But good luck getting red-district Dems on board

with what their opponents will giddily call "a crushing new tax rammed through by the Democrats without debate"--if it doesn't just get vetoed and leave us in an even worse spot than we're in now.

Again, remember: 1/3 of the House Democratic Caucus was too skittish to get on this bipartisan bill. Making it unilateral will not encourage them to leap on board.

[ContinentalOp]

44. The point is that it shoudn't be the largest transfer of wealth in American history.

As long as that's the plan, the bill will be a loser and Democrats should go nowhere near it. That's why we need a new plan and a new bill that we can frame in a new way and sell it to the American people from a new angle.

[slackmaster]

34. Let's see some specifics

What would a "lefty" version look like?

[mrgorth]

36. I posted

some NPR links that had suggestions.

[onenote]

43. how are you going to "ram through" a "lefty" version without a "lefty majority."

If you think there is a "lefty" majority in the House, you're not paying attention.

[rug]

47. Because the world will end otherwise.

Wasn't that the reason they were supposed to vote for the right-wing version? Why can they claim cataclysm and we can only claim working majorities.

[backscatter712]

46. Let's do it!

Call it the Main Street Rescue, it would give most of the money not to Wall Street fat cats, but to ordinary homeowners.

If you're in default on your mortgage and facing foreclosure, you get free money. Maybe a $10,000 check to be used to pay the mortgage-holder and bring your mortgage out of default. Couple this with requirements that the lender accept the check (they can't refuse the money just so they can seize the house), and they call off the wolves and give the homeowner a second chance - some time to get back on his feet and a new deal to save the home.

Throw in some bankruptcy and foreclosure reform. People with medical bankruptcies and other bankruptcies they got hit with through no fault of their own get some help - medical debts should just plain be written off in many cases. The judge should be empowered, no, required to take actions to save the home - give him the power to rewrite bad mortgages - turn those usurious ARMs and interest-only mortgages into sane, single-digit-interest fixed mortgages with reasonable monthly payments, and tell the bank, no, we're gonna try to refinance the mortgage before I bang my gavel and let you auction the house.

As far as bailing out banks on Wall Street (yes, some of this will be required to avert a liquidity crisis train-wreck,) $700 beeeellion is way too high. Try $75 billion, with strict oversight and rules on how the money is to be used, and audits and penalties, maybe prison time for people who break those rules.

Oh, and money going to Wall Street should not be free. The .gov should demand equity. Shares of stock, worth billions, in exchange for those billions in bailout cash. Hell, demand a 51% share and give the government outright control of the bank. And make sure that when the economy levels out and the bank starts making money again, that the taxpayers get a share of the profits.

How to get this through Congress? Rove knows how. Don't push for 75% of our Congresscritters to vote for this. Push for 51%. A bare majority with only enough concessions to get that majority, while forcing the Repukes to pound sand.

How to deal with Bush? Once the final bill is put together, set it on his desk the day before Election Day and dare him to veto it! See how the Rethugs do at the polls when Chimpy vetoes a highly popular economic rescue bill.

[chicagoexpat]

48. This is the dumbest thing to come down the pipeline since... the last time a DU'er posted about how

"edonomiks is too HAAARRRDD to understand what to do, so OPPOSE ANY EMERGENCY RESCUE!!"

Of course, if your secret plan is to shift the blame from the GOP where it belongs, and place it on the Dems, you're brilliant

[seabeyond]

49. tactic: yes. lay it out in dem turn. regulations, tight control, caps, oversite....

regulate regulate regulate.....

sell to american people

present