Kevin, please explain why this has to be done with fake oversight and no brakes on the get-away-car?

I was a luke warm supporter as long as their was oversight and called my congresspersons last Monday with my support, but now that it has failed and I see just how bogus the proposed "oversight" was, I say the hell with it. No on this one.

My understanding is that it included an oversight committee appointed by the executive.

Also, the provisions to dole out the $700 billion in blocks was a sham. If congress hasto affirmatively block the provision of the next stage of money when they believe it is being administered unwisely, it is little different from just giving it all to Paulsen or whoever will by running this boondoggle next winter.

Unbelievably,Drier voted yes. Who knew?

Just for giggles, I've figured out what the October surprise will be. McCain will dump Palin for somebody more mainstream, like Romney or Guiliani or somebody Texan. His numbers will soar, he'll win in November, and we'll all be f####d.

Argh. That should be: Unbelievably, Dreier voted yes.

Argh. Time for bed.

I sent my Rep. an email yesterday. Sadly, I'm pretty sure that Don Young doesn't listen to liberal Democrats.

I emailed my Representative, pete Visclosky of Indiana, a couple of days before the vote, telling him that Paulson's initial proposal needed to be reworked, and suggesting that the principles enunciated by Robert Reich would be a useful starting place.

His (office's) response essentially thanked me for agreeing that we shouldn't pass a bill, and assuring me that he was opposed to doing anything.

Why do I so rarely write/phone my representative in Congress? Because his office staff is apparently composed of idiots.

Kevin sounds like he lost a lot of money today in the market. And so does every gasbag on TV Who looks like they are about to cry because the market went south and they are now poorer than they were yesterday.

Eat shit assholes. No rule says the Dow has to go up 4.3% every year forever and ever.

THIS IS THE NEW SHIT STAND UP AND ADMIT TOMORROW'S NEVER COMING

[O]ur congress members ... seem to be hearing from no one but refugees from talk radio and Lou Dobbs.

Bite me. Seriously. You have the gall to call other people "elite pundits"? Excuse us if we don't have your same faith in our Glorious Overlords. These are the Same People who have been screwing the country blue for nearly 8 years and there's no reason to think they've changed their ways. In fact, there's pretty clear evidence to the contrary.

When you apply for a business loan, you present a business plan and that plan is scrutinized. To pass a bill of this magnitude w/o scrutiny, in one weekend, would be absolutely absurd! Yet, all in favor are asking just that, $700 billion in one weekend. Hell, how long does it take congress to come up with a budget every year? Last I remember, it wasn't in one weekend.

As well, the Dems can pass this all by themselves and literally exclude Repub's if they so chose to do so. Won't happen; they need that co-dependency, co-conspirator.

So the Dow and NASDAQ has fallen adn money will be tight. Maybe this is the clarion call to fiscal responsibility on all our parts.

The only way to change this direction is from the ground up. Use cash, live on what you can afford that is not on credit. My bet is that if YOU exercise personal responsibility in your buying habits of large purchase items, durable goods, Wall Street will have to start re-adjusting as well.

Although a BIG blip, it is still just a blip, the US will recover...and all the smarter.

I've figured out what the October surprise will be. McCain will dump Palin for somebody more mainstream, like Romney or Guiliani or somebody Texan. His numbers will soar, he'll win in November, and we'll all be f####d.

Why would McCain's numbers soar in the wake of his admitting to a catastrophic error of judgment? Why would throwing Palin (far more beloved by the nutso GOP base than McCain is) under the bus help keep the indispensable Republican ground team loyal? And you do realize that we are getting to be too late to remove Palin's name from more and more state ballots, right?

How would it work, anyway, if Palin were dropped within, say 2 weeks of the election? Presumably no state could change the ballot. Would that even matter, given that the vote is for the top of the ticket anyway?

(I moved most of my savings from the stock market into Intrade "Palin dropped from ticket" contracts, so I need to know this ASAP.)

Maybe this is the scenario that will lead to a big payoff for my other investment, in Intrade "General election is postponed" contracts.

The stock market is NOT the issue. It's just a symptom of a much larger disease.

Kevin stated it better than anyone else I've read. Credit is the oxygen of global business, and because the market has been flooded with toxic assets that no one knows how to value and that everyone previously thought was "good as cash."

As a result, no one knows who is solvent and who is credit-worthy, so the commercial paper market -- which floats short term loans to businesses and banks so they can balance their books each night -- has shut down. Businesses are living on lines of credit right now, but those will soon dry up as well.

And when that happens, the hardware store down the street will go out of business because, suddenly, it can't get a line of credit to buy inventory. Farmers will go bust because they can't get credit to pay for seed and labor. Big corporations will have to severely cut back operations because they won't be able to fund them.

This is no longer about stocks and bonds. It's gone way beyond that. The unregulated global commercial banking system is collapsing because of a crisis of confidence, just as the consumer banking system collapsed in 1929. If it isn't stopped, the effects will be just as profound.

brooks may be unhappy, but larry kudlow is down right apoplectic.

but at least kudlow knows whom to blame: the darkies!

So I simplified the last post. It's late. Cut me some slack, please. But, I did it w/o the use of one pejorative toward any one politician or group of politicians, nor any person posting to this forum.

The name calling and the nasty deprecating calls towards single individuals need not be.

I'm a yellow dog democrat, but maybe those dems that voted yes are the ones we need to talk to.

(All kudos to Barney Frank though, seriously.)

What i don't understand is what the Republican position wants.

The Democratic position is that maybe it's too much money or not enough controls on how its applied.

What's the Republican one? And does it have anything to do with what their voters are saying?

Because I bet it's just a smoke screen for their tantrum.

Crissa: Republicans in general want a solution that (a) doesn't stick taxpayers with huge debt if there is a way to get around it, and (b) doesn't remake our economic system via a more "socialist" approach to financial matters.

There ARE numerous ways to go at what I would like to call an "economic stabilization plan", and I think we'd be a bit better off if we elected people who actually had some horse sense about what makes business run, how financial markets work, what goes on in global finance, and the like. Lawyers and career politicians don't, so they are easily swayed by their special interest friends, and don't know even the temperature of the water through which they are steering the ship of state.

My guess is they are trying their best to learn on the fly, but it's not something you get an appreciation for in a series of legislative consults with heightened tensions all around you. There WERE voices of reason trying to get the situation under control through regulations years ago, but the voices representing "Dead End Street" and those representing "Wall Street" were the only ones politicians (both parties) paid much attention to. You get the government someone else pays for, as in, "buys off".

Then, down the road, you pay the price. We'll be paying a big big price.

When credit markets freeze, Congresspersons will get their NEXT lesson, at our expense. Shame on them for making this a political hot potato. Clean house (and senate). It's been amateur hour way too long. That goes for you, too, Ms. Pelosi.

Jimmy: To pass a bill of this magnitude w/o scrutiny, in one weekend, would be absolutely absurd!

Of course. Totally unreasonable. Doesn't happen on TV. Go tell the markets.

Haha Kevin Got F'd: Eat shit assholes.

Great. Spoken like another self-appointed representative of the world's leading deadbeat nation. You tell 'em.

Terry,

You forgot that Republicans also want a solution that:
(c) continues the Norquist trickle-down insanity by cutting capital gains taxes and further removing oversight.

Republican claims that they just want to help would be a lot more credible if they hadn't spent the last 8 years plundering the treasury and trying to bankrupt the government. Or if their solution to a problem occasionally was something other than another tax cut.

Well, OK, but why is this news? I mean, doesn't David live to be unhappy or something? I mean, isn't it like his job? There's no news here.

There is no crisis except that the richies have run out of ways to make money out of nothing and they want us all to help them plump up that one last good vein and shoot them up with one last fix before they slink off to their tropical tax-shelter retreats.

Their last few years of binging have left us regular folks with some serious problems to solve, but if we can get over the crisis mentality and start looking at where we really are, there are solutions that can protect the victims without profiting the perpetrators, and (if done right) they shouldn't cost the tax payer a penny.

As for our friend David, he can go suck eggs. Isn't that kinda what he's there for anyway?

It's been amateur hour way too long.

This is awfully optimistic. So, like, we'll have a whole new team of Mister Smiths after the next election, except they'll have business and economic expertise and will make every decision in the interest of the nation, rather than their constituency. The people that fund their campaigns and vote for them will altruistically expect nothing back for their support, because it's a big nation, and individual communities and states will have a spontaneous desire to subordinate their own interests to the common good.

Sounds a bit like a passage from Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward", doesn't it?

Those of you who love the bailout are welcome to send your contributions to the banks. Please leave the rest of us alone. If Buffet can get such a sweet deal from Goldman Sachs and if Citi can issue stock to buy Wachovia, why the eff can't they give the taxpayers the same deal?

I would have had some trust in these bastards if Paulson started out with a reasonable proposal. Instead they chose to scare the shit out of Dem congress with a neatly manufactured Lehman-bankruptcy induced mini crisis, leak the bailout news to CNBC one hour before options expiry on Thu afternoon, and march onto Capitol hill with a bailout ultimatum. This isn't what you do if you want to earn our trust after all the crap we had to put up with the last 8 years.

Feels like Feb '03 again when Bush managed to spread FUD to scare many liberals into supporting the Iraq war. Don't you learn lessons from the past?

Claiming that those who oppose this bailout (as it stands now) are responsible for future economic weakness is extremely disingenuous.

The seeds of this recession were sown long time ago. The Fed and Treasury have been fighting this problem since Aug '07 when they fired their first shot with a surprise 75 basis point rate cut in discount lending rate. They thought they could quietly contain this crisis without having to tell the kids about it.

Brooks can go suck some nuts. Don't go around blaming the current set of problems on those who are not willing to part with 700 Billion dollars for bailing out irresponsible bankers and their investors. Why weren't these banks selling their stock to raise more cash late last year when the problems were already recognized and known? Nobody ever bailed me out when I lost money in the stock market. They passed tough bankruptcy laws and charged high fees for services. Now they want us to assume all their toxic crap?

If this bailout is passed in its current form we will be setting ourselves up for a bigger problem down the road.

Lunatics of one sort or another have been in charge of the asylum on the other side of the aisle for about 15 years now. You're forgetting DeLay et. al. so quickly?

I think the question we're all failing to ask here is "Does Bush really need $ 700 billion"? It's why Bush always has a crisis - so nobody will ask questions, but just give the money without oversight, without time to really look at what the actual price tag to bailout the investiment bankers really is! How much is a cushion amount. Does it really have to be $ 700 Billion?

THAT is what I want to know, and I don't think it stupid to ask that question.

Nancy Pelosi is wrapped up in proving how bad Bush is, so bad that he needs $ 700 billion to bail himself out, that no oversight is done, no justification, just a handout, done purely for political reasons.

Hell maybe Bush needs even less than a third of that money to shore up the investment Banks - does anyone really know?

Pelosi merely does whatever Bush wants, and it's why the FISA Bill was so ugly, as we don't really who Bush is wiretapping, and Pelosi as guilty as Bush for all his law breaking. I want some government oversight, and that isn't too much to ask for, is it?

Does anyone else remember Charles Morris' book "The Trillion Dollar Meltdown," published just about 6 months ago, which outlined nearly act by act what is unfolding right now?

Somebody, please, do a Q&A with Morris -- today.

after looking at that graphical map of the bailout votes, it is interesting to note that there is just one state of any size whose entire Congressional delegation (Republican and Democrat) voted against the bailout - and that would be Arizona - guess Mr. McCain has as little influence there as elsewhere...

My Congressman, a Dem who voted no on this bill, is locked in a very tight reelection battle (WI-08. I cannot fault him for voting no. As sure as I'm sitting here writing this, his Rethuglican opponent would've jumped all over him over a yes vote. I'd rather have my Democratic congressman re-elected, so he can live to fight another day, than for him to lose and give the Rethuglicans one more seat.

I could not disagree more Kevin, and you're being completely obnoxious and insulting to the majority of Americans, including rafts of PhDs, who think this Wall Street bailout bill is a turkey.

The failure here is that there has been zero transparency. There have been no public hearings, no testimony from experts, no testimony from Wall Street executives, no committee process, no amendments, almost no floor debate -- nothing that would suggest even the slightest regard for democratic processes. And it's precisely because this bailout is such a horrible idea that political elites failed to consult the shareholders: the American voters. So they got their asses handed to them. Washington just received a massive injection of democracy, and it's about freakin' time.

Heck, there are even many experts saying this bailout would deepen and broaden an economic downturn.

By the way, stock market futures are up this morning. Guess what? The world didn't end. The Treasury, SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, and its central bank allies around the world are still powerful institutions with incredible tools at their disposal. (Paulson begrudgingly admits as much.) Congress's role is to be the sober one and not act erratic and impulsive like...well, like McCain.

Brooks: The short-term blows will fall on John McCain

I'm not so sure. He can still "come to the rescue" by changing a handful of votes -- if he sees that as advantageous, that is.

I agree with 'rational' on this. I know that letting the chips fall where they may is going to cause problems and I'm not against some gov't intervention on this to cushion the blow, but just handing over the money, few if any questions asked, to the greediest and most unethical big wigs in the country is just plain wrong. This is a very big issue and the kind that in history books will be seen as a startling turning point in the country, but I think the bailout as it stood, would have seemed like a disastrous furtherance of the same corruption. A properly constructed intervention would by its nature have a better outcome. Has reason just flown out the window? I agree that Kevin is starting to sound more and more like a person who took a hit on the market and less and less like a card carrying liberal. I'm all for government taking a role in our lives, but I want it to provide health care and good education for kids and adults, public safety and programs to enable energy independence and a green future, NOT to band aid the financial world at its highest tier, which would allow poor, Republican-crafted policy to continue to hang on.

My congressman, Adam Schiff (D-CA), voted against the bill. He claims to be liberal. It's hard to navigate his site, apparently due to heavy traffic, but he says the bill did not have enough "controls." Great. I guess I'd like to see Plan B and very quickly. The alternative does not look good.

Our elected reps only care about two things:
1. Getting re-elected.
2. Raising money to get re-elected.

These two reasons are why I find Mondays vote so interesting. Republicans looked at the public anger at the bailout and voted no. This no vote may help short term with #1, but look who contributes to their #2. Wall street, big business and K street are not happy. Watch where the money goes and feel the Republicans pain.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality.

"Now" they have? That's what Republicans do. And Exalted Pundit David Brooks is only now figuring this out?

But apparently none of us are calling our congress members, who seem to be hearing from no one but refugees from talk radio and Lou Dobbs.

Excuse me? So the vast, vast majority of the people who are against this bailout are all mouth-breathers? Thanks for your condescension.

I really, really don't understand why you are so in the tank for this bailout. I've been reading you for years, and I am just flummoxed. This bailout has zero, absolutely ZERO, guarantee of working. A $700 billion bet with no guarantee? No thanks. There are plenty of other alternatives out there, alternatives that we can get behind. Alternatives that recapitalize banks, provide relief to homeowners, and get our several tons of flesh from the people that caused this.

There are some of us, like myself, who have lived below our means for years. I have no debt. I am solvent, unlike most of Wall Street. This is my choice. I sure could have gone wild with mortgages and debt had I wanted to, but I'm an adult. So do you have any wonder why people like me are 100% opposed to rewarding the people who screwed up? Where is my reward for playing by the rules?

I'm sick and tired of rewarding idiots. No more.

I have emailed the guy who, but for a gerrymander, would be my Representative, LLoyd Doggett (D-Austin) and have promptly received two very coherent and encouraging responses.

Doggett voted no from the left, as I would have.

He has been in contact with Reagan's head of the FDIC (name eludes me) and is endorsing raising the limits immediately, as Obama has just proposed. Jamie Galbraith and Dean Baker have recommended this as well. I trust these guys.

I think the Republicans in the House did us all a favor for the wrong reasons. Life is like that sometimes.

No one seems to paying attention to the $480-620 Billion (depending on who you read) the Fed made available yesterday. Seems like they weren't waiting for a vote. If they can do this, why do we need a bill for $700 Billion?

@Timothy on 09/30/08 at 8:46 AM

Totally agree. Frankly, Kevin falls into the category of the majority of us who really don't understand this well enough to have a strong opinion. If there is a real crisis, Congress can explain it to us to the point where we understand. It wouldn't even take a day.

As it stands, this thing stinks to high heaven, and I don't buy the liquidity and credit arguments. I think the market bookies are losing some of their new toys and are upset, that's all. But maybe I'm wrong. If so, please explain, Barney, don't demagogue.

Kevin...I really recommend that you take a deep breath and resist the urge to lash out against the opponents of this thing. Sure some of them may be way off base, but there's room for honest disagreement here. Lets focus on getting the job done rather than lashing out.

I also don't understand why Kevin ignored the politics of this, which is admittedly less important than "solving the crisis" if this truly is a solution.

If a majority of Democrats pass this bill, there will be a lot of torqued off people out there. It is possible they could lose seats, in this banner year, and it is even possible if it goes badly enough that it could throw the election to McCain. He's callow enough to exploit it, reverse his position and run against Obama on it.

I remain hopeful that we can get a better deal. They sky hasn't fallen - yet.

It's refreshing to hear the media actually question GOP talking points, such as exactly how a capital gains tax cut would help.

"room for honest disagreement"

If anyone thinks honest (and informed) disagreement had anything to do with this, check out Brad Delong (delong.typepad.com) for the comments of the Hon. Mr. Echols of GA.

I must say, this is the first time I've come close to reading Brooks all the way through, and I actually made it this time. But I almost gagged on the following:

What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.

If anybody understands his distinction, let me know. But apparently even he needs a fig-leaf to advocate re-regulation.

Kevin wrote: "... if your guy/gal voted No maybe you should give 'em a call on Tuesday morning."

I will indeed be calling my representative, Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland -- to let him know that his support for this bill is one of the main reasons I will be voting for the Green Party candidate who is challenging him in November.

As far as I can tell, this bill is about nothing but the CheneyBush gang trying to stampede Congress into handing them a giant blank check with which to reward their kleptocratic cronies on Wall Street for trashing the US financial system, and has nothing whatever to do with actually addressing the causes of the problem or the severe economic pain of the working class (including the so-called "middle class") people of this country.

Paulson's original proposal was a scrawled note handed by a bank robber to a teller: put the money in the bag and keep your hands in sight. And the "compromise" bill did little but throw in some cosmetic improvements.

Both houses of Congress should hold extensive, in-depth hearings to examine a range of proposals, from the widest possible range of voices and views, on what needs to be done. If that has to wait until the next Congress -- with an even larger Democratic majority -- that's fine with me.

I certainly don't want Congress signing on to a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation produced by the most corrupt and blatantly criminal administration in the history of this country, legislation that is clearly intended to enrich their ultra-rich cronies and financial backers at the expense of everyone else.

But sure, Kevin. Go ahead and let the Bush gang lead you around by the nose -- the same way you supported their case for invading Iraq. Go ahead and sneer at anyone who raises questions -- the same way you sneered at the wackos who questioned the Bush gang's case for war.

After all, you'll have plenty of opportunity to change your mind later, after the damage has been done -- the same way you eventually wised up about Iraq.

As California goes, so goes the nation.

Applies to the GOP, too, apparently.

Crisis management badly executed simply creates a bigger crisis.

It's interesting that what seems almost completely lacking in both the corporate media and the "sensible liberal" blogosphere is any coverage of the views of the progressive Democrats who opposed the bill for substantive reasons.

Dennis Kucinich:

The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered:

Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received?

Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money?

Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street?

Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess?

Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this?

Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors?

How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?

Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden?

Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy?

Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street?

Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks?

Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?

My rep is Nancy Pelosi, so apparently I should write her to tell her not to give any more mean mean speeches that might hurt Eric Cantor's feelings.

Well, the House of Representatives is closed for comments

Messaging Service Unavailable

The House of Representatives is currently experiencing an extraordinarily high amount of email traffic. The Write Your Representative function is therefore intermittantly available. While we realize communicating to your Members of Congress is critical, we suggest attempting to do so at a later time, when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience.

I wonder if the lobbyists and the likes of Rush Limbaugh are having troubling contacting members of Congress?

I will never understand how Kevin Drum got suckered into believing that it's vitally important that we give $800 billion in new spending authority to George W. Bush to use in his last four months in office.

God, just typing those words gives me goosebumps.

Here's Bizarro Kevin Drum, also known as Hugh Hewitt, explaining how the failure of the bailout bill actually proves that Kos, Michael Moore and (really) Bill Ayres are actually running the country.

Both sides think that if they ridicule and demonize the people opposing the bailout as an evil, stupid "other" they will build fear-based support for the bailout bill.

Kevin, I have a suggestion.

Why don't you write an article in which you examine and critique the substantive objections to this bill from progressive Democrats like Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey and Peter DaFazio? Why don't you examine and critique the specific proposals that they have offered to address the crisis? Why don't you comment on the 12-step program for addressing the economic crisis that Ralph Nader published last week?

It would take more effort than simply sneering at opponents of the CheneyBush bailout bill as "wackos", but I think you are up to the task.

"I agree that Kevin is starting to sound more and more like a person who took a hit on the market and less and less like a card carrying liberal."

I feel exactly like Kevin feels, and I have no investments, no debt, I rent, and I live on a small, fixed, disability benefit income. In addition, I'm very liberal, I despise the Bush administration, I don't trust either it or the GOP, and I hate the fact that conservatives are always willing to spend money on war and satisfying Wall Street and never on social justice.

Yet what makes me very upset, and even angry, about the opposition to the bill is that, firstly, part of the opposition is motivated by a sort of vengeful glee that is happy to see "Wall Street" take a beating. Personally, I don't have strong feelings about the fate of those folks one way or another; but I find it more than a little repugnant that the schadenfreude with what the opposition supposes are the only consequences of this crisis is encouraging them to disregard the possibility that many, many innocents will also suffer. It's like being happy that a school shooter kills the jocks and popular kids who picked on the outcasts while ignoring that more than half the victims of the shooting were kids who weren't jocks or popular. It's a moral failure that is born from an unhealthy delight in others' bad fortune that, in its fascination, allows people to fail to notice that innocents are suffering, too.

Secondly, much of the opposition is based upon extreme ignorance. The central notion that many people have that this is essentially a bailout of the Wall Street elite is, though perhaps understandable (because of its name and how there's been a failure of both our politicians and the press in educating voters), is nevertheless almost monumentally ignorant and deeply wrong. The problem is the imminent failure of the credit markets, upon which almost all economic activity relies in some form or another. A system-wide unavailability of credit will slow much economic activity or bring it to a halt, and will result in a great many negative consequences that affect almost every American. The dismissal of this crisis as being something remote and of interest only to the wealthy with direct involvement is painful in the degree of its know-nothingness.

These are two legitimate reasons to be upset and angry and do not require an investment in the stock market.

I got an email from Tom Udall explaining his vote, and I can't say I disagree with his rationale; he wants a better bill that has greater protections and oversight. It's hard to be critical of someone who is actually holding out for Main Street. I was wary of rushing into a bail-out that would be flawed, but I also understand that time is of the essence. My anger is that House Republicans are holding out for Wall Street, not Main Street! I wrote Boehner with a rant to that effect, even though I'm no longer living in his state.
The street reaction to the mess on my Main Street: I've been working at my local Obama headquarters nearly full time, and I've been dealing with *hundreds* of people this week coming in for Obama signs and stickers, and each one of them is LIVID over the financial crisis! I'm exhausted at the end of the day from sitting with people and just letting them rant about it. Not all of them wanted to see a flawed bailout rushed through, either. Nancy Pelosi resonates with these people.

"But apparently none of us are calling our congress members, who seem to be hearing from no one but refugees from talk radio and Lou Dobbs."

Being a Liberal and someone who has never voted Rep, never listened to Lou Dobbs and never listened to a second of talk radio on either side of the party divide the above quote seriously offended me. I'm sure you don't care because it's contrary to your POV but many, there are more of us against bailing out the liars and cheats on Wall St AND on Main St than there are those for it.

I called my Rep Congressman (yesterday was the very 1st time I've ever thought he made the right choice) and both of my Dem Senators to tell them not to do it. IMO beginning at the top and hoping it trickles down is ridiculous. Start at the bottom instead!

America needed a reality check in the housing market and got it. We also need a reality check about credit and it's coming, none too soon. We are addicted to consuming for consumings sake and put blinders on so our folly isn't obvious. Credit markets need to tighten, fast and loose credit has gotten us into this mess and I blame every American who is living beyond their means on credit or off of equity. Until that stops our nation is at risk.

And being an American who uses zero credit, accepts no credit cards in our business, and lives within our means by buying only what we can afford when we can afford it I do not want to pay for anyone else's selfish stupidity!

The offices of my Representatives all told me that they were getting nearly 100% calls and faxes from constituents that felt exactly how I do. Nearly 100%...that isn't a small uncaring, unthinking minority! There are more against than for this bail out. IMO there is no way to deny those numbers and I was happy to see the measure fail yesterday.

Go back to the drawing board and start with individual taxpayers, small business and let the money trickle up to those Corps and Banks that are successful enough to make it through. If they're only solvent because of credit lines then they ARE NOT solvent at all!

Jassalasca Jape says I am too idealistic --- the idea that we need a major incumbent turnover in the Congress. Well, perhaps. But when Congress has an approval rating south of 20%, is populated mostly by lawyers and career politicians, has been gerrymandering its way toward everlasting reelection, and has to dance with those "special interest" hacks who bought them during their campaigns ... it IS truly time for a fresh start.

My biggest disappointment in this election year is that it failed to generate a "common sense" populist organization, with "real people" on the ticket, one that offered us some fresh faces with different values and no special interest allegiances that get in the way of doing what's needed to get the US on track. The window for that truly DID open, but sadly no one climbed through it.

If you disagree on what we need, I respect that. But when I see crucial issues like this one (not "bailout" but "economic stabilization" and avoiding a credit freeze) get thoroughly politicized, it disgusts me.

Perhaps we are 2 years away from the overthrow of big numbers of House incumbents. That process of cleansing will bring to Washington people who know more about macroeconomics, finance, trade, development, investment, fiscal discipline. Why? Because voters will by then realize that unless we can get the economy fixed, with government doing its part, all the BS about "social issues" is just irrelevant hogwash.

JMonkey,

Yeah, I get that commercial paper (short term loans to business) are currently essential to doing business.

Well maybe they shouldn't be. Maybe they allow businesses to be 0.5% more efficient or whatever but they also come with a bigger risk. The have made the world economy vulnerable to what is happening right now.

So maybe getting back to business as usual is NOT the right answer.

I hate it when people talk about global economics like it is an act of God, an artifact of the physical world instead of the human construct that it is.

We purposely went down this path. Maybe we need to backtrack some and change course. Heaven knows even without this crisis we are heading towards the precipice where infinite growth actually reaches its limits.

So they have even lost Brooks!?!! Wow.

It seems to me that we actually have two very problems. The first is a crisis created by the second.

The first is the collapse of the financial markets. The House bill was hammered out to improve on the framework of Paulson's proposal, but I have not been convinced that it would achieve what it was intended to achieve. It was editing, a response, not a broad look at the problem. IMHO, until we can define the problem, we don't have a hope of figuring out the solution. From what I have been reading, if the problem is a lack of cash/credit in the financial system, the solution may not be paying Paulson "cash for trash" approach, as Paul Krugman put it.

The second problem is movement conservative ideology--which is so entirely wrong in all of its assumptions and policies that it is better described as a paranoid delusion than a philosophy of governing, and yet continues to be treated with respect rather than as a thought disorder. Finding a plan that might suit their crazy ideology is a hopeless proposition. What will work, what might help, won't pass. What will pass, won't work, will only make the problem worse. They aren't going to help in any way, shape or form.

If we can hang on until January when we have a somewhat different set of players, maybe we can begin to clean up the mess that these lunatics have created.

"If we can hang on until January when we have a somewhat different set of players, maybe we can begin to clean up the mess that these lunatics have created."

Unfortunately, this is not a hang on till Jan. issue. I guess we will have to go with a series of smaller interim steps till then. O well.

PTate in MN wrote: "If we can hang on until January when we have a somewhat different set of players, maybe we can begin to clean up the mess that these lunatics have created."

Of course, all "sensible liberal" bloggers know that that's a Lou Dobbs populist yahoo talk-radio know-nothing view, and that we cannot wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their work and must give Bush the blank check he demands to invade Iraq ... er ... uh ... I mean we cannot afford to take the time to consider a range of possible solutions or for a stronger Democratic majority and an Obama administration, that might be in a position to really address the underlying problems that led to this crisis, and we must give Bush the blank check he demands to bail out his kleptocratic cronies and financial backers on Wall Street.

Doctor Gonzo on 09/30/08 at 9:34 AM

* * * * * * * *

X2 -- Well said.

Getting angry isn't the answer either. Maybe it's an interim step (like some Kubler-Ross thing) to solving the problem.

Someone needs to write about the difference between real wealth and imaginary wealth. Please.

Whatever the difference is, both my real and my imaginary wealth have taken a beating in the past week. The imaginary more so because there was more of it.

I'm opposed to the bailout as proposed, and my congressperson, Barbara Lee, likewise opposed it. I think people need to be reminded that it is Bush and Republicans who will get the money. Want my support? Re-work the bankruptcy law that is so punitive to individuals. Stop housing foreclosures. Tax bonuses to executives at 90% over $1 million. Regulate the hell out of the industry.

Let's not saddle President Obama with this Republican bailout.

The lunatics are running the GOP asylum these days, but unfortunately, all of us are paying the price.

The lunatics have been running the asylum since '94 when Gingrich and DeLay took over, and Norquist and Abrams held power. Two of those standard bearers may be gone up to the big house, but two remain and their idea to "make government small enough to drown in the bathtub" has been taken up by a legion of true believers.