they're going to pass a bailout bill specifically to prevent a progressive solution...

[mike_c]

...to the financial crisis. Heard that on Democracy Now! this morning (no transcript link yet, the program is still in progress). I believe the gentleman being interviewed was the former chief economist for the senate banking committee. Again, check names and titles as soon as DN! gets a transcript up.

The guest said that congressional leaders and business lobbyists are telling reluctant congress critters that Bush's back is against the wall and he will have to sign whatever bill the congress sends him, so they MUST support some version of the Paulson bill IN ORDER TO PREVENT A PROGRESSIVE BILL FROM GETTING TO HIS DESK.

The newest scare tactic is apparently "You must support the $700 billion Paulson bailout with some minor, meaningless sweetners in order to avoid giving the left a chance to solve the problem!"

They're lying to us, folks. All but a few, e.g. Kucinich. The rest, including Obama, are setting us up for the harvest.

[sandnsea]

1. Progressive solutions are being considered

Some of it is being added, including FDIC insurance, more homeowner help, mark to market, etc.

Where was everybody when the Housing Act was passed in 2008? That was the time to get in a shitfit over helping homeowners. Where were the progressives then??

[mike_c]

4. those are some of the meaningless sweeteners, not real solutions to anything....

Homeowner help was considered and rejected. Mark to market pricing is ultimately not going to make much tangible difference.

But my favorite meaningless sweetener is the notion that raising the FDIC insurance ceiling from $100,000 to $250,000 is going to help most folks. Do you really think that many Americans have more than $100,000 in their bank account? That folks who can't pay their mortgage are somehow going to magically benefit from FDIC protection in excess of $100,000?

I don't. I think it's more smoke and mirrors.

A progressive solution would START at the bottom of the pyramid instead of at the top, solving the problem by addressing the causes of the crisis rather than its effects, e.g. on liquidity. THAT'S what they really want to avoid, because it would work to strengthen the dollar, help the poor and especially the middle class, and threaten Wall Street profits.

[pnutbutr]

8. FDIC increase is to prevent

people from withdrawing money from the banks which would further reduce their ability to continue lending.

[mike_c]

15. and how is that going to affect the deposits of most Americans...?

I KNOW what it's for. I say its mostly eyewash, and nothing of real substance. Do YOU have more than $100,000 in your savings account? I sure as hell don't. None of my friends do either.

How would this provision help you?

[pnutbutr]

17. It's not to help the people

It's to help the banks hold onto cash. If someone has $200k in their account and only $100k is insured they will withdraw $100k to make sure they do not lose it. By increasing the insured amount to $250k it lets people with over $100k in the bank to leave it there because it is now insured. The banks retain the money which maintains the supply that they have on hand to be able to restart lending. Plus if people start pulling all their money out of the banks they most certainly are going to fall.

[mike_c]

20. I give up....

I told you, I KNOW how FDIC insurance works and what raising the ceiling is meant to do. I'm saying that it will not do much for the majority of Americans-- it won't help ANYONE who is actually impacted by the current housing bubble collapse, and so on. It's all smoke and mirrors. Unless you have deposits that would be affected, you've been hoodwinked if you think that's progressive.

[pnutbutr]

26. what?

I never said anything about it being progressive. I was just explaining why it was being done. It helps everyone by allowing the banks to maintain their money supply and stay in business. It's not a bad idea and doesn't hurt anything.

[Spike from MN]

28. And for those with more than $100,000, there's always CDARS.

CDARS® is the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service®. And it's the most convenient way to enjoy full FDIC insurance on deposits of up to $50 million. With CDARS, you sign one agreement with a participating local bank or other financial institution of your choice, earn one interest rate, and receive one regular statement. It's that easy.

CDARS is the perfect solution for many depositors — from non-profits and public funds to businesses, advisors (including trustees, CPAs, financial planners and lawyers) and individuals, as well as socially-motivated investors.

http://www.cdars.com/index.php

And if a person has $120,000 and doesn't want to go with CDARS, they could always just split the amount between two banks of their choosing and still be fully covered.

[mike_c]

29. yup-- that FDIC sweetener is utterly meaningless in real terms....

But hey, we're "forcing concessions" into the Paulson bill. Yay team! :sarcasm:

[Spike from MN]

37. Yeah, they're doing a heckuva job with those concessions.

And you forgot to say "Gobama." :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

12. Tell it to DeFazio

Those were key parts of his plan.

What did you do to improve the Housing Act that goes in affect today?

[cascadiance]

19. Bingo! Time to go back to pre-Reagan top marginal income tax rates...

... and other infrastructure that was there then to protect the middle class.

I'd like to start by saying that they should take away the cap on Social Security payroll tax...

Drop the percentage of payroll tax from 6.2% to 2.48% so that those earning $250,000 or less will either have the same effective payroll tax rate, or a drop in taxes here. Those above $250,000 would be made to pay the piper...

Time to make the social security tax rate progressive instead of regressive. That reduction in payroll tax for those at the bottom of the ladder would be a shot in the arm, and then the worries of Social Security insolvency would be gone. Those making $250,000 or more? Well, it's the first in a number of measures you are going to have to pay more to pay back for all of the ripoffs that have been engineered in your favor over the last 20-30 years without your complaints of lack of fairness then. TOUGH BEANS! You can't complain about fairness now if you didn't then, when things were being unfairly tilted in your favor!

[mike_c]

22. where the HELL is all this support for the bailout heist coming from...

...this morning? Wow! Did you see the response below about "black helicopters?" Sheesh!

[cascadiance]

31. Like you said, time to fix the CAUSE of this problem, NOT the symptoms. Correct the wealth gap NOW!

If most of these people with "bad loans" had had their salaries increase versus the cost of living (or at least keeping pace with it), then I'd bet that a huge chunk of these loans wouldn't be "problems", and though perhaps we might have some problems, we wouldn't be in the advance stage problems that we have now. This sub-prime mortgage mess is about opportunists (aka LOAN SHARKS), trying to exploit the fact that people's salaries aren't keeping pace with inflation to trap them into loans that they can't plan effectively for (if they don't know how much their salaries are really dropping versus inflation), and had planned to benefit by, by raising interest loans and ultimately taking over property for themselves. They just didn't understand from the high level that this kind of game playing would lead to the liquidity problem that utimately affected their own health as well and now are crying like babies for our help! Time to say NO to those babies, and take away some of their freedoms for misbehaving.

To fix the problem we should be spending money and changing laws to restore the wealth gap to the New Deal days of FDR. This will mean things like renegotiating free trade agreements to avoid off-shoring of jobs, redoing agricultural subsidies so that big ag companies can't DUMP exports at below cost prices to put foreign farmers out of business, and create the outsourcing situations overseas, and many other pieces of legislation to reverse the corporatist agenda that has persisted over the last few decades. There's a lot of work ahead of us and it's going to be painful, but we have to start by saying NO so that the government isn't too starved to do other necessary changes later!!!

[dkofos]

7. Bullshit

[kestrel91316]

2. We can pass "whatever" now..........and then once Obama is in office and

we have stronger Dem majorities in Congress, we can pass improved legislation.

I'm gonna relax about this right now. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

[mike_c]

5. Paulson will spend every dime before Bush leaves office....

Hell, he'll spend it by Christmas.

[hopewell1985]

14. election

We only have to wait to the day after the election. Why do anything now?

[dkofos]

16. Not going to happen. After they give the crooks a TRILLION dollars

there will NEVER be enough money to actually fix it.

[LSK]

27. 60 votes for cloture

No, we cannot pass "whatever" now.

[chicagoexpat]

3. yeah, them black helicopters just won't go away, will they?

[mike_c]

6. who are you ridiculing? Amy Goodman or the congressional economist...

...she was interviewing?

[chicagoexpat]

9. No, u can keep on ignoring what Obama & Bill Clinton & the Dem leaders in Congress say

about the hard choices grown ups, who know something about the situation, needs to be done

You'll find a lot of support from the RW maggots

Look close, you can see them if you'll just look out from ur tin foil hat

[mike_c]

11. here's some more information to scoff at....

Those grown-ups sure are busy....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4143062

[chicagoexpat]

13. A thousand uninformed opinions inflamed by RW talk shows is still uninformed opinion

[Lex]

10. If the Dems get a filibuster proof majority in Nov., we re-vamped it

completely.

[Spike from MN]

21. Just like when the Dems won the majority in 2006

and ended the Iraq war. Oh wait...

[Lex]

24. a majority doesn't make it filibuster free

now does it?

[Spike from MN]

35. But they never even put up a fight to make the R's filibuster it.

How come when the Dems are in the minority, they say they are powerless to do anything because the R's are in the majority yet when the Dems are in the majority, they say they are powerless to do anything because the Republicans block everything? They can't have it both ways.

[cascadiance]

25. Heck it would be nice to get a constitutional ammendment majority!

That way we can REALLY start to change things, and say FU to the damn right wing SCOTUS on things like corporate personhood, women's right to choose, etc.

Would it be too tough to get 7 more seats in the senate and a 67% majority in the House? If we can really push these Rethugs in a corner now as being ANTI-AMERICAN in their policies and just pro-corporate, maybe we can turn some additional races.

And if the DLC and the blue dogs stand in the way this time once we get those majorities, THAT is when we make the primaries the REAL elections in the next mid-term election!

[ContinentalOp]

32. After the money is all spent?

:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

18. Thanks K&R n/t

[Truth2Tell]

23. "Are you sure you want to recommend this thread?"

Yes.

[leftofthedial]

30. the bailout, as currently formulated, is supply-side extortion

they hope to prevent a real solution to our problems, which will require a progressive, demand-side approach

the rich elite, in their zeal to undo the New Deal, have driven us to the point where the only possible salvation for our country is a New New Deal.

[Spike from MN]

33. But Mike, they HAVE to do this.

Otherwise they run the risk of one of the bills by, say, Sanders or DeFazio getting through. You know, bills that actually put the interests of the PEOPLE before that of the corporations. Can't have that now, can we? :sarcasm:

Will someone in the Senate step up and filibuster this bill or will they just hang us out to dry? I guess we'll find out tonight.

[mike_c]

34. yup, that is apparently the riot act being read to opponents on Capital Hill....

If a liberal solution to the banking crisis gets to Bush's desk, he will have no choice but to sign it. Therefore, we must do whatever it takes to prevent a liberal solution from materializing.

[Spike from MN]

36. At least "opponents" was plural.

The way things are going, we'll probably have to use the singular form of that word in the future. That is, in the rare instance that we get to use it at all.

[chicagoexpat]

38. Good Work! The McCain campaign & their internet forces appreciate your efforts -- http://www.democra

Good Work! The McCain campaign & their internet forces appreciate your efforts -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7269132

Who can argue w/ ur brilliance? Obama, Warren Buffet, the Dem leaders in Congress are ALL WALL STREET STOOGES!

[slipslidingaway]

39. Kick n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. ROFLMAO!!!!!

[EFerrari]

41. The Thugs will sell it as pre-emptive of progressive initiatives

and their mirror twins will do the same. :shrug:

[OakCliffDem]

42. Kick