Wall Street bailout won’t help Main Street (Peter DeFazio)

[central scrutinizer]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/story.csp?cid=131374&sid=115&fid=41

(first four paragraphs)

The financial crisis we face today does not need to be resolved by forking over $700 billion from the taxpayers to assume bad bets (I mean illiquid “investments”) made by Wall Street barons. The fundamental premise of the bailout is flawed, reckless, and foolish.

It is flawed because it won’t solve our underlying economic and housing problems, it is reckless because there are better and much less expensive alternatives, and it is foolish because borrowing and giving away $700 billion will limit our ability to deal with the myriad other problems we face — such as health care, energy independence and job creation.

If we dump $700 billion into Wall Street to buy bad assets, we have no assurance that the benefits will trickle down to Main Street and prop up our ailing housing market.

I am not alone in this opinion. Almost 200 economists wrote to Congress stating, “As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson.” The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the plan’s long-term effects. Several noted economists who oppose the bailout have offered other, less expensive options.

(and the last line) The bottom line: I will continue to challenge this bailout every step of the way.

[sandnsea]

1. I rarely disagree with Peter

but I do this time. I think he's heard from too many of his fringe constituents and not enough of the rest of us.

[movonne]

2. And I still don't disagree with him...

[That Guy 888]

3. Do you disagree with the 200 economists too?

"...Almost 200 economists wrote to Congress stating, “As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson.” The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the plan’s long-term effects. Several noted economists who oppose the bailout have offered other, less expensive options."

[sandnsea]

4. They had a variety of opinions

Some of them are like Rush Limbaugh, they're terrified this will prove the failure of the unfettered free market, and consequently oppose this legislation. Others opposed the original Paulson plan which is not what is being voted on anymore. And still others opposed it because it wasn't a complete nationalization of the system. You can't just say 200 economists oppose it as if all 200 of those people agree with you. The fact that DeFazio did that proves the weakness of his argument. He's afraid of the lunatics in this district, from Deadwood to Elkton.

[That Guy 888]

6. I see it as the 200 economist agreeing more or less on one thing...

mainly that we shouldn't charge into this. The only people who I've heard saying that the bailout has to be done now are bush and some other politicians. I don't count limbaugh as an expert on the economy or anything else. Check around DU, there are many articles from economists saying the bailout isn't the only way to solve this problem. I think I've only seen one pro-bailout article from someone with a professional financial background.

I think the fear-mongering serves two purposes: to ramrod something through that will give the illusion of financial stability until bush leaves office, and to stampede small investors into driving down the market so the rich can scoop up bargain stocks. :shrug: Just my two cents.

[Two Americas]

8. why?

Seriously, why are you arguing so strongly in favor of a bailout?

[depakid]

9. You and I don't agree all that often

but we do here.

Businesses and communities along the central and south coast are already going to be reeling from the loss of county timber revenues- add to that the inability to have access to reasonable credit.

Wow.

[pberq]

5. DeFazio is right!

Thankfully we have some Dems who are not beholden to Wall Street.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=388842&mesg_id=388842

Top 5 Reasons to Vote Against Wall Street's $700 Billion Bailout

By David Sirota

September 28th, 2008 - 4:01pm ET


There's news this Sunday afternoon of a congressional deal to bailout Wall Street fat cats with $700 billion of taxpayer cash (you can read the draft legislation here). Though the deal negotiated between congressional leaders and the White House is better than what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson originally proposed early last week, it remains an insulting atrocity, having omitted even basic aid to homeowners, bankruptcy reforms and any modicum of future financial industry regulation. Now, the New York Times reports that the Democratic leadership may not have the votes to pass this bailout. So without further ado, here are the top 5 reasons (in no order) why every single member of Congress - Democrat and Republican - should vote this sucker down. Please feel free to copy and paste this post into an email to your congressperson. They are deciding right now - let them hear your voice.

1. BAILOUT'S INHERENT FISCAL INSANITY COULD MAKE PROBLEM WORSE

. . .

2. EXPERTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SAY THIS BAILOUT COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE

. . .

3. THERE ARE CLEARLY BETTER AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES

. . .

4. ANY INCUMBENT VOTING FOR THIS PUTS THEMSELVES AT RISK OF BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE

. . .

5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE ARE SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS - AND AMERICA KNOWS IT

. . . (see link for details on each reason)

[DCKit]

11. "5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE ARE SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS...

- AND AMERICA KNOWS IT"

Even the financially ignorant know there's something deeply wrong with a bailout of an industry that, for years, has been trumpeting their billions in profits and pays salaries, bonuses and retirement in excess of what 99% of U.S. will make in a lifetime - if only on a visceral level. The fact that we haven't heard a single truth from the maladministration in nearly eight years only confirms the feeling, even for those still supporting the regime. Where there's no conscious connect-the-dots, the ignorant masses "get it".

Every time the * maladministration announces another emergency, anyone with two functioning brain cells knows - or feels - it's time to put on the brakes and take a long, hard look at the alternatives. My first response is always to do the exact opposite.

BushCo has overused the Shock Doctrine and has lost all credibility - even among those who still claim to support the most disastrous leader in American history.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. He makes sense to me. The people who know economics are against this bill.

The only ones who would benefit are the very people who are responsible for this problem and got rich do it.

[OhioChick]

10. K&R

:kick:

[blue97keet]

12. DeFazio and Marcy Kaptur

DeFazio and Marcy Kaptur were on Lou Dobbs tonight with a proposal.