I have a question, but I'm nervous about asking it since I'm not very knowledgeable about Wall St...

[Bicoastal]

Obama is supporting Bush's Bailout, correct?

Not word-for-word, but he and other Democrats are working with the President to fix the initiative in a way that everyone will be happy with, right?

Isn't this bailout growing more unpopular by the today, and aren't many here on this site opposed to it? (I saw a 50% approval rating for it in the last poll I looked at)

So, might there be a backlash in Obama's numbers for supporting it, and might McCain gain from (suddenly) being dead-set against it?

Help me out--I'm confused, and economics is by far my worst subject on the political spectrum.

[Hissyspit]

1. Here's Arianna Huffington's take on it from today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bailout-bill-obama-needs_b_129374.html

Bailout Bill: Obama Needs to Lead, Not Be One of the Bailout Bipartisan Musketeers

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: bipartisanship in service of bad legislation is not a good thing.

And, make no mistake, this bailout bill -- at least if the details that are trickling out are accurate -- is going to be very bad legislation indeed. And by that I mean very bad for the American people, whose interests are by no means identical to Wall Street's.

If Barack Obama goes along with it in the name of post-partisan comity, he's making a big mistake. Washington is not lacking political leaders willing to go along with the flow. It's lacking political leaders willing to lead.

"This is our moment," Obama keeps saying in his speeches. And this is his moment to lead, rather than to appear as one of the Bailout Bipartisan Musketeers ("One for all, and all for Goldman Sachs").

Could it be that he's surrounded himself with so many advisors who are looking at the bailout from a Wall Street perspective, he now sees it that way too?

Last night, he announced that he'd urged Democratic leaders in Congress not to pursue efforts to include an economic stimulus package in the bailout, or to push for a provision giving bankruptcy judges the power to rework mortgage rates because it might derail a deal.

More at the link

[katandmoon]

5. Obama's statement stunned me as much as his voting for telecom immunity did.

Why is it more important to Obama to help Wall Street swindlers than the many people they've screwed?

[vaberella]

12. That's not the case. WE take control of the company and there's a chance

86% of the returns on those debts goes to the tax payers. The swindlers actually don't get anything out of it. 4 of Obama's provisions were met and they were making sure most of them were ironed out.

[katandmoon]

14. Then why did he urge against the stimulus package, etc.,?

[vaberella]

23. Huh? Check out link below:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/obama-says-bailout-should-include-4-conditions/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aciF1DJzl2x0&refer=home

What stimulus package did he reject? From the two articles above, asuming from reputable sites say that he's still pushing for a stimulus package to be drawn separately.

[1corona4u]

35. Because it doesn't belong IN this bill

it needs to be separate.

[SemperEadem]

9. One thing Huffington didn't explain well

when she wrote: Last night, he announced that he'd urged Democratic leaders in Congress not to pursue efforts to include an economic stimulus package in the bailout, or to push for a provision giving bankruptcy judges the power to rework mortgage rates because it might derail a deal.

It was better explained in another article that Obama doesn't feel that bundling that kind of language into this particular bad bill is a good idea--that it needs to be its own piece of legislation. It is a part of his stimulus plan, but he doesn't want it rolled up into this mess, which I can understand. On its face, what she's said is concerning, but when you dig deeper into it, what he is saying makes a lot of sense. This is a bad bill and the Dems needs to distancing themselves from it quickly. They don't need any more than $50B to get started and they need to have a choke collar on them and NO GETTING OUT OF PAYING CAPITAL GAINS FOR TWO YEARS. Absolutely not--they dont' have to pay cg's on it anyway because its value is so low.

[katandmoon]

15. What kind of guarantee does Obama have that such a separate piece of legislation would ever fly?

[SemperEadem]

20. until he's got 60 dems in the senate

none.

[lapfog_1]

10. Arianna is spot on with the politics of this...

and McCain has already done what she says he might do.

but she is absolutely wrong when it comes to the economic well being of the country.

this is not a political football. It's the future of our nation.

And sometimes leadership is all about putting together a bi-partisan approach.

Besides, McCain and the House repukes have already staked out the "no way, no how" side of the argument... and presented their own brain dead pile of crap... one which doesn't use "tax dollars" (well at least directly, indirectly it will likely cost taxpayers even more). But the public will *love* it because it lets the Wall Street firms fail. And, three months after McCain is elected and unemployment is at 8 to 12 percent or more because either no plan or the McCain plan is the path to destruction, I'm sure we can all blog about it on Huffington Post (I won't have much else to do).

[On the Road]

2. Yes, That is Possible

What will make it worse is that if it works, no one will know whether it is necessary. Unlike McCain, Obama is acting out of responsibility rather than political tactices.

The failure of Washington Mutual IMO will make the vote seem more reasonable. I do not believe it will be an issue by the election.

[Double T]

3. The end of the election season is near; one miss step by either candidate and it could be all over.

Most of the American people are sick of tax cuts and bailouts of the greed mongering rich.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Hi Bicoastal,

Yours is a very good question, and I'm hoping to read some informed responses here.

A lot seems to have changed between what looked like a resolution to this and this afternoon after McCain and Obama met with Bush, et al.

I've read that repubs want a two year moratorium on cap gains taxes and some other unacceptable items.

I've also read about changes in popular support, though I don't trust polls of typical Americans who know less on average than you or I about it.

I think nobody knows and we'll have to wait and see.

I am confident that Obama won't let us be bamboozled, so I'm not too worried.

:kick:

[vaberella]

8. Thanks that was it. So the Corps get a tax break and we pay the shit. n/t n/t

[NYC_SKP]

16. That's what I heard that the republicans are pushing for...

but this whole thing became a clusterfuck today and I can't tell who exactly wants what, or how many different proposals are on the table.

It seems further away from resolution tonight than it did this morning, it may never happen or might take another week or longer, IMO.

What I loved hearing was that McCain had nothing to add in the sitdown with Bush, Pelosi, Reid, etc., even when challenged, and folks seemed to keep asking Obama for his input, which he naturally provided.

That part rocked!

[vaberella]

27. I think I finally got it....sort of.

Okay so there are literally only 2 bills out there.

The first bill was the one proposed by Paulson and Bush's ultra stupid admin. They had an article 8 that gave power to one man alone and basically provided none of the provisions Obama spoke about or what Bush even said in his statement to the American people. <---Funny how that works out. Oh, the original bill was 2.5 pages long, not even three.

So Bush basically quotes Obama and tries to take credit, where he can't.

The bill was then revised excessively by Dodd and Reid, it's several pages meeting 4 of Obama's clauses.

First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.

Second, taxpayers shouldn’t be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.

Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.

Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.

Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.

Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I’ve been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7136073

The first three are met. Obama wants the stimulus package to be done separately. Links here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aciF1DJzl2x0&refer=home
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/obama-says-bailout-should-include-4-conditions/

So Obama is still pushing for the stimulus package, but wants it done separately and I get the feeling because he wants to write one up with his people and provide it as the first thing in the senate later on. I think he has a plan for that and he's building a big bill so they can protect future home owners as well. This is my own speculation.

The other two are provisions that aren't sort of provisions. They have be done in practice and should be done in my opinion by a bill produced and handed from the SEC. They really control those things and they need to make those amendments in their style. Those last two can wait until Obama becomes president or provides a new stimulus package. I think he wants that one done very well.

Now the Second bill which is like the third bill, since it's the bill proposed after the revisioned bill by Dodd first offered by Bush. The second, or third bill as it is, provided exactly what you said and it was utterly shot down and not even given consideration by Paulson. I get the feeling Paulson might have been annoyed since the plan was moving forward. But he said it would not work at all and caused more problems.

Further more it basically paid off the CEO's and gave tax cuts to the Corps who make it out. What does that spelll out too? REpubs protecting their hides, investments, and money and it turning into an epic fail.

Dodd is back at the table again and doing more revisions and tightening a few things and loosening others. From what I can see the equity shares ARE a go for us no matter what and I'm glad.

HTH.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Wow, thanks.

You're a sleuth!

Thanks! :donut:

[vaberella]

34. De Nada...That's why I think there should be a damn legislative thread.

This is detailed and there is a lot of things involved.

[lapfog_1]

13. I haven't seen the House Repuke plan in writing,

but I believe that I heard they want to totally eliminate all corporate taxes for two years AND eliminate Cap Gains forever. Plus a lot more deregulation.

[NYC_SKP]

17. Right, but I don't know if that's the only plan, or just one of the plans that are

being proffered. It's messy, some friendlies, some nasties, on the other side of the aisle.

No way will Obama accept those terms.

[lapfog_1]

21. Bush/Paulsen won't accept it.

Rumor is that the reason they wouldn't offer this up over the last 5 or 6 days for inclusion in the discussion is that Hank totally destroyed it in private session with the idiot freepers from the House that thought this piece of crap up and they didn't want that done either in front of cameras or in front of democrats.

[vaberella]

28. Yup. Paulson said Hell NO!! n/t

[vaberella]

6. I hope this helps.

That's the crazy thing. McCain supported the bail out publicly all over the place.


So don't worry about Obama's numbers.

The bail out is unpopular but I think it's because people are seeing it as a bail out to the CEO's. That's what Obama is trying to stem. He's like sure we take the bail out, but then the citizenry takes control of the returns.

The 700 Billion dollar number is not as arbitrary as people make it seem. On Olbermann last night, he said 100 Billion of the money is made up of risky debt. Meaning debt that may never be paid back, or I should say the riskiest of the debt and bail out money. The other 600 Billion is for debt we could earn back and with interest and Obama, plus the house put in the provision that the tax payers get the 86% possible returns.

So the companies go under Fed regulation but we own them. As in the citizenry...it becomes almost like a socialist country. I get the feeling that's why Obama is pushing it so much because if it works out the citizens benefit a great deal from taking part and the economy can stabilize and prosper later.

Further more it helps keep jobs going. You don't provide a fund to control all the upchucks that are going around more and more and more jobs will be cost. All those Bear Stearns people? Out of work. It's to mitigate the job loss.

Obama also requested a provision to let the CEO's pay for this...however the Repubs are against that and created this weird credit proposal thing where corporations still get a tax cut through the back door. Thank god Paulson dropped that shit quick. The Dems aren't providing the CEOs with company but keeping the companies going under Fed control---ie Jobs sort of in place and we get all the revenue. The citizens that is...hope it helps.

[Bicoastal]

22. Because BOTH Obama and McCain currently support a bailout of some nature, right?

So this is logically more damaging for McCain than Obama, because it seems more Republicans dislike the idea of a bailout period, correct?

[vaberella]

29. You are correct. Most of the citizenry making noise is in Repub camps. Not Dems. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

7. No, I don't think Obama is supporting "Bush's Bailout." But you raise a good point...

which is that from a strictly political point of view, Obama and the congressional Democrats haven't really done a good enough job of differentiating their plan from the Paulson/Bush plan and selling it to the American people.

It's all about marketing and they're still thinking about wonky committee meeting details. Whatever happens, whatever plan gets passed or not, Democrats in Congress need to make sure that this can't be framed as Obama and the Democrats siding with Bush while McCain the Maverick fought against the wall street handout.

[vaberella]

11. They won't. How do I know? Because MSM calls it Dodd's bill. Dodd wrote it, Dodd is rewriting it.

It's all about Dodd...it's not being framed as Bush's bill except on this site.

[MichaelHarris]

18. my thoughts

Most people who hate the idea of a bailout hate it because it's rich guys getting money for making mistakes. They ask, "when I mess up the government doesn't bail me out." Those are valid points and questions.

Here is where it gets hard. These companies that are failing control the lives of millions through their investments, loans, and accounts. For them to fail means millions of Americans loose. So now we find ourselves looking beyond the rich fat-cats who messed and see those who trusted them. People like you and me.

The solution? Well if you're a caring American and recognize that not only will the CEOs loose, so will everyone else who trusted them. You start to see the bailout as a good thing, sort of.

Here's the sort of part. You can't give billions of dollars to greedy corporations, that's the Bush plan. Give, give, no over-site, no return. Basically it's a reward to all those fat-cats who supported him. Why Conservatives hate it? They hate give-away programs. They don't want their tax dollars helping anyone. The problem Republicans have right now is, they take the money from the same guys Bush did. These guys expect, no they demand favors. These Republicans are up for re-election in November, they can't have their base see them bailing out these companies.

So now what? They walk away from the bargaining table hoping the Democrats come up with a plan they can later use against them. You'll see things like, "Obama caved", "Franks is in the pocket for big business". The Republicans can in no way support a bailout, publicly that is. Their goal is to blame it on the Democrats.

Now, what is the best action? Two words, over-site, and return. Exactly what Franks, Dodd, and Obama want. They see that by giving the bailout they are saving these companies and their American families. Not necessarily the CEOs but the millions who trusted them. Over-site, the money has to be watched closely. These men just can't take giant retirements and run, they have to fix things. Obama has said over and over that none of these people would get those golden umbrellas. I believe him.

Return, when you invest in something there has to be potential return. If these companies return to prosperity then the investors, you and I, will profit. We share in the profits once these companies turn themselves around. Now I know, Iraq would pay for itself. Remember though, an idiot said that. His train has left the station. What Democrats working on this have to do, and this is the most important thing, is to make sure the Republicans cannot hide from this decision. They will surely use it in negative campaigning in November.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. People are in denial about the real catastrophe that will ensue

should no assurance on these instruments be forthcoming.

It will be a historical nightmare that will touch every American, and there's no doubt about that.

Too many here are reacting like children, huffing and puffing that the whole thing is fake. It's not. It's very unfortunate that we're seeing a Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect because it seems like yet another manufactured crisis. But there is a wolf this time. And Obama IS leading, contra to Huffington's flatulence. Huffington won't be on the street behind this thing. Many many other will, and I'm not talking about Wall Street fat cats. Given the demographics on this web site, I'd expect a solid third may be directly effected by unemployment if the economy collapses, and perhaps even half. Retirement money? Gone. 401K? Well, you agreed to the terms of the prospectus, so, say good-bye to that. I hope you're under 40, because otherwise, the shit might be gone for good. Which wouldn't matter much anyway, because behind door #4 is some runaway inflation for you, as the government tries to handle the crisis piecemeal, and the FDIC struggles to make its commitments while banks fail in every direction. It is very, very, very bad.

Obama IS leading by supporting the bailout and tacking on provisions favorable to the taxpayer and middle income people. That is LEADERSHIP, even and especially when a majority of DUers don't like it. Because a majority of DUers have no clue what the fuck's going on, and will have no clue until they are foreclosed on and their dollar's worthless. But keep on with the bit about "Bush's bailout." That's just great. We'll all go into the shitter together, and we can rest assured that we stuck it to Bushie at last when we're scraping together dimes and begging for day jobs.

[vaberella]

24. I agree. n/t

[TexasObserver]

25. Yes, Obama could end up being saddled with supporting a bill to help Wall Street.

while many every day citizens resent that

I do not care for his support of it, and think that he, like many Democrats, are overreacting and being led around by their collective fear.

[Bicoastal]

26. But McCain supports a bailout as well, I am now reminded...

...and the course of action seems MORE unpopular among Republicans than Democrats. Both candidates may suffer, but McCain would get the worse of it...

...right?

[vaberella]

30. Yes. McCain's people hate it and hate him. However he was in the news

supporting. Obama said bail out at about 5 of his rallies but said THERE MUST BE PROVISIONS. And 3 of those provisions are in there. The fourth one is sort of there but Obama wants the stimulus package for mortgage owners done separately and the SEC really should be in charge of the other two issues. Check out my response to NYC_SKP and you'll the linkes nad everything.

Here you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7192583&mesg_id=7192752

[TheKentuckian]

31. Maybe this is why McCain can hang around

Maybe people identify with reacting based on the heat of emotions.

I'll be the first to tell you that a scam has been presented by BushCo that has every intent of hitting The People with a trillion dollar transaction fee for us to take the quagmire cracked out loans the thieving, corrupt, and blood sucking banks and insurance companies have jacked up beyond the comprehension of some pretty sharp people to unravel and take on the responsibility of sorting it out just to allow the same garbage to buy the now profitable paper back for a small piece of what its worth.

The Paulson piece of junk could have no other purpose. A huge shafting for John and Jane Q. Public. This is done in a three page "bill", that ANYONE could review. The result is is sensibly a big hell no from all but the financial corporate whores that are about to profit from for possible the third, fourth, and fifth time.

Well, then we see the usual shakedown. Cheney comes out of the bunker but with the heat from back home there is little movement. Dubya, also emerges for his Max Headroom walkway address for the third time in forever and spews stupid shit and semi-incites fear which actually further pisses off a giant chunk of the country.

Fool me once, shame on you. Won't...won't be fooled again.

No welfare. No corporate welfare!

Its now way, no how, no bailout territory all the way. Anywhere from fuck it we'll tough it out to burn motherfucker burn!
I believe it is at least 80% "calling their bluff".

Which is a sentiment I share, except we're up against the house and most people don't get the fact they are the house. You don't do a frontal assault on the house in that way, they'll shut everything down and be cool as a fan. Away from prying eyes at least.

and

The threat could actually be fully legit and BushCo is just capitalizing. The problem is entirely plausible, maybe even likely.

I think the safest and best course both politically and and practically is to take the bull by the fucking horns here and take bill, make it ours-in fact Obama's. We need to get our brain trust together and produce a bill that accounts for this situation responsibly and with the interests of Americans and our economy as the filtering priority. I think we actually do have to suck it up and beat the daylights out of the Republicans with an evil vengeance. Let Bush veto it and if he does he must explicitly explain why and how it fails to meet the objectives.
If responsible adjustments can be made do so and send it back, if not then sure fuck em but we can't allow any of their crazy nonsense from the House Republican loons or Paulson/Bush and we can't sit by idle.

Call me crazy and I might be but I think if we realistically knock this out and come out swinging and selling, that a substantive win may be the result.

[oviedodem]

33. A SOLUTION MUST BE FOUND! America does not understand if

this falls peoples lives will be forever changed.

I firmly believe that a faction of the GOP would love nothing more than to see the markets crash.