Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A word of CAUTION to the Democratic Party...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:18 AM
Original message
A word of CAUTION to the Democratic Party...
When the people are against an issue by 25 or 50-1, you are skating on thin ice in challenging them. When you take the side of the fat cats on Wall Street against the will of the skinny cats on Main Street, you had better tread very carefully.

What may appear today to be a winning issue could tomorrow be the issue that loses the election for you. If the stock market gains back in the next two days most of what it lost yesterday, the sense of urgency will have lessened tremendously. The panic screams of urgency may fall on deaf ears.

Do not think this is lost on the electorate. For the loser today tomorrow will win, for the times they are a'changin...

If the voters perceive that this Administration was pulling another quick one - as they have many times since 2001 - then this support for Wall Street could backfire very quickly. Gullible and naive politicians will not be tolerated in today's political climate. There was a rush to judgment. The sky was falling. The world as we know it was about to end. But, was it really??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. it is not opposed 25 to 50 to 1
I am not sure why I'm bothering to post about this anymore but if you want to make an argument against the bill, don't start off with a lie.

and, they should not vote for or against the bill based on how it hurts or helps us politically. It helps us politically if it is the right thing to do and we can convince the public of that.

I just called my congressman for the first time in my life and told him to get his butt back to DC and find 12 yes votes.

It's a loan, it's essential, we've done it before, we'll do it again. It's the only way the free markets work. Regulation and the ability of the government to correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You are willing to hand over $700 Billion to completely untrustworthy people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. of course not, I am not an idiot
and neither is Krugman and neither is Barney Frank.

You think they want this bail out because they want to give $700 billion to completely untrustworthy ppl?

I've been closely associated with the banking industry for 25 years. (Regulation side.) Not all of them are untrustworthy ppl. They do want to make money but so do I so call me greedy too. (I'm basically pretty close to a communist so be careful when you do.)

The housing bubble burst. Just like it did in the 80s when we spent $500B to bail out the S&Ls. My ideal would be to nationalize the banks like Sweden did when it happened there. But we probably don't have the political support for that.

I'd rather take my clue from the Swedes, Krugman and Frank. But it has nothing to do with greed on my part. I'll lose some of my retirement account but I work for the unemployment office so my job is safe and my husband is a banking lawyer and his business with thrive without the bailout (already is) even though he supports it (because its the right thing to do). Otherwise we end up with a consolidation in banking like we have in TV news. And we all know how that's worked out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. From Michael Moore's latest editorial:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=...

From Michael Moore's latest editorial:

1. The bailout bill had NO enforcement provisions for the so-called oversight group that was going to monitor Wall Street's spending of the $700 billion;

2. It had NO penalties, fines or imprisonment for any executive who might steal any of the people's money;

3. It did NOTHING to force banks and lenders to rewrite people's mortgages to avoid foreclosures -- this bill would not have stopped ONE foreclosure!;

4. It had NO teeth anywhere in the entire piece of legislation, using words like "suggested" when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout;

5. Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Every Congressman that I heard to speak on the matter said....
their calls were running about 50 to 1 against this bill. Some said it was 50-50 - 50% said no and 50% said "Hell no!"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. and "everyone" thinks the media is liberal
you know your numbers are wrong yet you insist on:

1. posting them

and/or

2. basing your decision on them.

Both are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes.
I just heard another person on MSNBC say that the calls to the Congressional offices were running 100-1 against the bill. It is not popular with the American people. So you think the people are wrong and a few people supporting this bailout, with obvious interests involved, are correct?? OK..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. I don't think ppl who call congress are necessarily representative
Here's what I know: Historically, in countries where banks have failed (don't just look at our experience, there are many) the best case scenario is massive layoffs, unemployment in the 9-10% range, contraction of the economy (recession/depression you pick, doesn't really matter what word you use) lasting about 2 years. And THAT is what happens if we bail them out (historically). If we don't, like Japan failed to do, it lasts a decade. Remember, when America sneezes, the world catches cold. If China goes under too, we starve. Literally.

I don't know who the 200 economists are. I know who I trust on this issue. Krugman, Frank and some locals who set out their reasons for favoring intervention instead of ppl just waving a sheet of paper and saying "see, 200 economists oppose the bail out."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Just you stating something does not make it so
Where do you get your information? I have heard exactly the same thing the OP has and I have heard it from a variety of sources. Maybe you could name just one of your sources. While this "loan" as you call it may be needed I am of the opinion there needs to be a lot more supervision of how it is Administered and what will be done to correct the underlying cause. So far all we are hearing is give the bankers and wall street hundreds of billions of dollars because they lost that much with their poor management and need to regain it or the whole world will collapse. It is a blatant threat designed to scare people into throwing good money after bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. DeFazio in Oregon said, in his own voice, on NPR
that the calls were more like 100 to 1 against it. Or maybe it was 300 to 1 - I'll go for the smaller no. - you can go to the NPR website and hear him state, in his own words, that the calls against are enormous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. polls are evenly divided
one third no, one third yes, one third don't know

And that's in polls that say "bail out wall street"

polls that say "save the economy" are over 60% in favor of the bailout.

But then, I guess the ppl who call congress really know what the fuck they are talking about and we should trust THEM to run the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I was just replying to your statement
because, of course, the ones who create these bullshit investment instruments, who JUNK BOND America, are the ones who should be deciding what's good for the economy. god knows they know what they're doing.

and that's why so many of us oppose the current scenarios.

there are ways to deal with this that do not throw good money after bad. but in order to do that, greed cannot rule the day.

those making the calls are most likely not the ones who fucked over everyone in the first place. it's astonishing to see how many totally subservient suck ups to the Bush boys we have on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. The numbers are NOT wrong. My entire congressional delegations voted against the
bailout and they are split ultra liberal Dems and conservative Repugs! All of them told me their calls were 10-1 against the bailout. They voted agaisnst it because it was a rush job and contained no protection for the working people and no oversite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. gee, I'm frankly surprised the ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals agree on what is wrong
with the bill

I wonder how that works. The ultra conservative really does want to bail out the working people and provide oversite they have just never VOTED FOR IT IN THEIR LIVES BEFORE!

Listen to yourselves ppl.

It is a freaking compromise. It's not great, its just better than any alternative.

And if you really think it's 100 to 1 or 300 to 1 against this thing, AND that all of those 100 or 300 understand what the fuck they are talking about, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

Paul Krugman and Barney Frank are idiots and ppl who call in to complain, to congress and radio programs, are right.

(Haven't we been saying for sometime the electorate is dumb? Now we are going to base economic policy on the ones who call in?????)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. it's called progressive populism
it's the Teddy Roosevelt conservatism that brought us national parks and environmentalism, oversight for the gilded age motherfuckers, protections for labor like outlawing child labor laws.

I bet, back in the day, you had Wall Street types screaming about the way a refusal to allow child labor would bankrupt the economy too. same with an eight hour day. same with anti-trust law.

the other side of it is also Roosevelt - Franklin Roosevelt liberalism that brought social security and helped paved the way for Kennedy's unemployment insurance - which ever other western democracy had long before the U.S.

I know many here have never known anything other than Reaganomics. There is another way and it is better for everyone. If you want to dismantle the coalition of the theocrats and crony capitalists, you have to hit them when they are weak and demand better.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murdoch Donating Member (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Polls show a majority oppose the bailout
55% oppose a bailout of Wall Street. 31% supported it.
64% oppose an automaker bailout.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ec...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYK...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kip Humphrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well said! Word to Democratic Leadership: Stop being suckered & start hanging this shit on BushCo
Listen to Dennis for once!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. The politicans are having a hard time trying to figure out which cheek of their asses to cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheGambit Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well said
Well Said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
13. You know what ? I think they know better than you how many people are opposed to a bailout
Edited on Tue Sep-30-08 10:48 AM by kenny blankenship
they're POLITICIANS Usually how something plays in Peoria is ALL you can get them to think about.
They're also Democratic politicians which means that most of them hate Wall St. just like you do.

They know how much people are outraged by the bailout. They understand better than you there's a stiff political price to be paid for taking this action.
They must be nauseous thinking about handing over money they planned to spend on social programs to bailout our financial system.

BUT THEY'RE DOING IT ANYWAY
Or at least they're trying to.

What does that tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. It tells me they are easily scared and stampeded into rash judgments
All we have to do is look at their record. They have consistently voted for more Iraq war money because they are scared of the political consequence of not "supporting the troops" in harms way. They were stampeded into passing the IWR based on nothing but false information. They refuse to hold the Administration accountable because they are afraid of the politics of it. Fear seems to be the only thing that really drives the Democrats. While this may indeed be a worthy cause and in need of massive financing I would like them to spend at least a little while studying the situation and not assume all Americans are stupid and only they know what is best. Not once has the underlying cause been addressed in any way, yet they are planning to throw a whole bunch of good money after bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
22. Well-said, Kentuck. They need to let this shit DIE. This is bad legislation...
and if a bill is being pimped SO HARD by Gee-Dubya that he actually comes out of his hidey-hole 3 times (by my count) to attempt to shove it down our collective throats, then it's most likely a screaming disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
23. I used my credit card yesterday
It's the only one I have and it still worked.

I tried living without but it's very difficult to function in this rigged society without one.


The Sun came up this morning and the cat still wakes me up before dawn to be let out.

Credit ads are still on TV and I'm still getting applications for credit cards in the mail and the interest rate is still 0% until sometime in 2009.

What's wrong with this picture.... I'm obviously missing something....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OakCliffDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
24. The bailout situation is a demonstration that Congress does not represent their constituents
Congress needs to know they work for the citizens, not the people who donate to their campaigns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC