New, improved bailout plan to go to Senate vote tomorrow

[crispini]

WASHINGTON — Senate leaders scheduled a Wednesday vote on a $700 billion financial bailout package after accepting tax breaks and a higher limit for insured bank deposits in a bid to win House approval and send legislation to President Bush by the end of the week.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, above right, with two aides Tuesday in Washington.
Top lawmakers said the Senate proposal, worked out after a day of behind the scenes maneuvering, would include tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy and higher government insurance for bank deposits.

“It has been determined, in our judgment, this is the best thing to move forward,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, in announcing the surprise move.

more....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01bailout.html?hp

Tax breaks and that's it? No tighter oversight controls? Hmm..... :eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Sounds like more fllim flam. If Kucinich isn't for it, I won't be either.

[wtmusic]

2. Tax breaks for alternative energy is supposed to win Dems over

Drop in the bucket. Just Say No.

[neverforget]

3. Yeah now with tax cuts for businesses!

FUCK OFF YOU ASSHOLES! I'm ready for torches and pitchforks.......

[whistle]

4. Fuck the tax breaks, these bastards need to pay their own bailout. Send it with a .65% surtax on

...trade values.

[Mind_your_head]

5. Ehm, if I don't even have $100,000 in my bank accourt, why should I *care*

that the FDIC 'insurance' will go as high as $250,000? "Don't affect me none." I really don't understand Obama's push for this.

Obviously, he's talking to someone other than *me*, when he talks about/proposes this. Sure, sure, he needs to "talk to his base" ~ which STILL ISN'T *ME*, but even AT THAT, most people who have that much money will/would have protected it via FDIC insurance by putting their wealth in different accounts at differnt banks, etc.

I really don't get this. It sort of 'smells' of *something* amiss.

Can anyone explain?

TIA,
M_Y_H

[DCKit]

6. If the left comes up with a plan, the center and right are going to be against it...

If the right comes up with a plan, the center and left are going to be against it.

If the center comes up with a plan, the left and right are going to be against it.

No matter who comes up with a plan, 2/3 are going to be against it and, unless the Dems compromise on the center's plan ('cause nobody else ever deals), it's just not going to pass. Further, if the center manages to pass their bill, it'll be a simple giveaway - we may as well have just gone with Paulson's original deal and kissed $700 billion goodbye.

[99th_Monkey]

7. So now it's "tax breaks for business"??? WTF?? Screw that. Earth to Pelosi/Reid: Hell no!! ~nt~

[Peace Patriot]

8. Bottom line: I don't want George Bush or his appointee or anyone remotely

connected to him and his criminal enterprise anywhere near any bailout.

It's only a month to the election. Why the rush?

I want these bastards cleared out. I want a new Congress--even if it is the Diebold III Congress--and a new President--even if he's a Corpo (as, sadly, seems to be the case with Obama--or else he has a lot of Corpo advisers)--to look at this, and come up with fresh ideas, or maybe some great recycled ones, like FDR's low interest, long term (FHA) home loans to the poor and middle class.

Just think for a minute how refreshing it will be--what a startling change--come November, if the Corpos decide to let Obama win, and let the Democrats sweep Congress, as should happen, and as it looks more and more like it will happen?

You just shouldn't give a murderous, thieving idiot like Bush and his dreadful cronies this kind of power, three months before they are out. It's crazy. Bush has a 25% approval rating, and tanked long ago. Congress has a 10% approval rating--worse than Bush's! Neither of them has any legitimacy any more. They have both failed us, miserably. I say, stop the deal! Or, at the very least, make it temporary. No, no, we can't trust Bush & cohorts. They've already looted us blind, and this final looting is intended to kill all social programs in the country. Obama was already talking in the debate about how some of his programs won't be able to be funded. At the very least, once he is president, he will be free--and hopefully with a considerable mandate--to look afresh at this and the whole situation. He will have a new Congress, who will--hopefully--sweep away the present leadership. It will be a new day! Even if it is manipulated and rigged against us--for instance, by Diebold & brethren shaving his mandate--and stacking the deck with more "Blue Dog" Democrats, it will be a NEW SITUATION.

Frankly, it's beyond me how Obama could have fallen for this--giving Poulson a bottomless cup of Fool's Gold, starting with $700 BILLION! --a month before the election, and three months before a change of administrations. But whatever his reasons for supporting it--and it could just be that he doesn't want to get whacked--once he's in office, it's HIS game. And, by God--see my fingers in the form of a cross in front of my face--even McCain would be better than Bush, with a $700 BILLION bottomless cup, simply because he's NEW. + + + + + + + + --horrible as that would be.

NO BOTTOMLESS CUP CZAR SHOULD BE APPOINTED BEFORE JANUARY 20. PERIOD. Let the new president do it. Let the new Congress do it--if that's what they're going to do. At least it will give people time to THINK. This two-week wonder bill is NOT OKAY.

[Norrin Radd]

9. If we don't rush, an instantaneous Depression will descend upon us.

In one day. We'll all be selling apples by Wednesday. :sarcasm: