Obama rolls, the bastard

[elfs]

Obama today:

Congressional leaders have made progress in their negotiations, and appear close to a deal that would include these principles. President Bush addressed some of these issues last night, and I'm pleased that Senator McCain has decided to embrace them too. Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation on behalf of the American people.

Goddamit. Calls to Congress are rolling in 300 to 1 opposed to raising the debt and handing $700 billion taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. I understand that we hire these people to be smarter and more introspective about these issues than you or I have the time to be, but at 300 to 1 you'd think they'd listen.

This is like FISA all over again. Do we really have to vote for either?

(Yeah, we kinda do.)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What's the source of the 300-to-1 ratio? I'm curious to see if that's in response to the idea of a bailout package in principle, or to the idiotic "give me lots of money and don't you worry about what I do with it" version proposed by Paulson. I've certainly seen and heard a lot of opposition to any bailout, but I've also seen quite a bit of hesitant support for it if it comes with strings attached. My experience doesn't gel with a 300-to-1 ratio against it.

I'm disappointed that they're trying to push this through so quickly (what the hell's wrong with convening an emergency session to take a couple weeks and mull it over?), but I don't think this is anywhere near as bad as the FISA rollover. This is just a hit to our wallets; that was a slap in the face in matters of our civil rights, and for no apparent reason.

Anonymous Blog Reader #127

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It went by me on CNBC radio this morning. I looked for a link, but I can't find mention of it on their website.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Update: The NY Times is citing 19-to-1 against (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/25voices.html?ref=business). Not 300, but definitely reflective of my mood at any rate.

[(Anonymous)]

According to a USA Today/Gallup poll (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-09-25-poll-results_N.htm), 22% of those polled want Congress to pass the Bush/Paulson plan. 56% want Congress to pass a different plan, and only 11% want Congress to take no action.

The phrasing of the poll is frustrating since it gives you no idea what "different plan" people might want, but even if you assume those 56% want something minimalist, it looks like the ratio is no more than 5-to-1 at the outside, and probably considerably lower.

For my part, I'm woefully ignorant about economics and have no basis for forming a coherent opinion on the bailout, but I just don't understand the rush here. Why does this absolutely have to be done this week? It completely baffles me why they can't take a week, or a month, and have a proper discussion.

Anonymous Blog Reader #127

[codeamazon.livejournal.com]

I've sent email to the campaign stating that if he supports this without very substantive changes (and explicating a few) that Obama will not see another penny from my wallet.

I'll still vote for him, and said so, but he will have spent my 'discretionary income' and then some.

I have to say, I know it may be a bit rash and ill-advised, but I have no trust for ANY bailout currently proposed to benefit the actual public and lean towards "let them sink and sort the rats." We have been shielded from the pain of our political choices for some time now, and this collapse is the direct result of those actions. Sometimes it is better to accept the pain of surgery to avoid death. I think that time is here.

Chalk me up for the "300 against a bailout" short of a radical revision that starts with a number that actually means anything at all, continues through a plan that outlines HOW the money will help (and be allocated) and concludes with criminal consequences for violation of strict rules of allocation.

[norikos-author.livejournal.com]

I don't like the idea of a bailout either -- financially speaking, I'm a conservative -- but we don't have a choice. If we 'let them sink', we sink right along with them; our economy and financial system can't handle failures on this scale, and I have no desire to live through a depression, much less a worldwide depression.

Right now, we need to be jumping all over the bailout bandwagon, since we don't have a choice, and ripping Paulson's 'we do what you want and you shut the fuck up' gifts out, replacing them with a raft of rules that will ensure this never happens again. We should never have been in this position, but we are, and we need to turn this necessary evil around and use it to our benefit. We need regulations in place that have actual teeth, not just wrist slaps.

We need togive the companies a choice: they can take the bailout, and accept all these additional rules, limitations on executive pay, etc., or they can retain their freedom and try not to go bankrupt.

If we don't have at least one company decline the bailout, we left money sitting on the table.

This is, lets make no bones about it, an utter disaster. But _because_ it's such an utter disaster, there are opportunities. I hope we have the sense to take advantage of them.