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??
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.
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..
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.