A deal breaker? They gonna say Thanks but no thanks?

Good. I hope they never get together until after the election. The draft of the proposal contains these clauses:

1) The Sec Treas is authorized to enter into contracts "without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts."

2)The Sec Treas may, "at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices set by the Sec. sell, or enter into securities loans ... any mortgage related asset purchased under his act."

3) "Decisions by the Sec pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Considering Bush's interpretation of the constitution, and his use of the AUMF, combined with the possibility that Phil Gramm, or someone like him, could be the next Sec Treas, the Dems should reject this proposal. If this problem can't wait until Jan, Dems should strongly consider expedited impeachment.

You mean the banks are going to keep their bad loan assets? Give me a break. It sounds like we are just giving the banks money. I say let the bastards go under and then liquidate the loans the same way we handled the S&L crisis.

If we are buying the assets we, the people, ought to be able to do what we want with them. If that means letting a bankruptcy judge regigger a mortgage loan to keep an American family in their home, then go for it.

The technocratic ruling class is now in firm control of our destiny. Democracy is an illusion. The two party system has one head.

what is especially galling is that after the lobbyists have their shot the Republicans will be bleating about the need to get this done quickly "for the sake of the American people." Indeed John Boner was saying just this very thing yesterday. These politicos are shameless.

Dems better be ready to push back. I fear a repeat of the rush job that accompanied the Iran War legislation, the Patriot Act, ...

I wonder what Obama has to say about these clauses (although I think I know what McCain et al. thinks about them). I can't help but think that this 'bailout' was planned as a get rich quick scheme by the power brokers of this country, knowing that the government that they own would ultimately put the bill on the people, and they needed to do it now while a friendly administration was in place before a more responsible one--hopefully--takes over.

Lou is, unfortunately, spot on on this.

AND, how typical...no Dems meeting with lobbyist though, huh? Truth in reporting!! The RUSH to make decisions and pass bills with, again, little oversight and in a PANIC should send out RED FLAGS to everyone...I want Obama to stay measured and thoughtful and vigilant and TRUE to what he wants us to believe are his core principles...that, right now, is more important as we watch McShame implode on himself with a "new point of view daily"...today his WJ rep is putting out the "he's ahead of the curve" meme...MY GOD...it will, doubtless, be all over the media this morning as his surrogates get their AIR TIME...watch for it...

The short of this seems to be: Punish the victims and reward the crooks. How republican of them!

Now that we've gotten past the barriers that prevented us (and particularly the corporate-controlled media) from calling false statements lies, can we start calling campaign contributions bribes?

If I shoot someone and they die, it becomes my responsibility to prove that I didn't commit murder. So if a corporation wants something, and they give a politician money and the politician then does what the corporation wants, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the politician to prove that the money wasn't a bribe?

Just asking.

This is definitely a deal which should be broken. Who in their right mind would give the Bush administration with their horrible history of cronyism, and the former Goldman Sachs chief in particular with his close ties to so many of the people who profited handsomely from starting this mess, seven hundred billion dollars or more to hand out to anyone they want with no strings or oversight attached? Even in the midst of a crippling financial crisis, Republicans still find ways to steal from taxpayers and give it to the richest of the rich.

Having read The Shock Doctrine, I would say that this is a moment for vigilance. Hope the Dems in Congress and the Obama campaign have their eyes wide open.

Consider this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

If Atrios is right and this is part of the deal, then Naomi Klein will be able to add a new chapter to her book.

We all know how this will go. The proposal will be passed word for word as Democrats scurry for cover. At this point, I am willing to acknowledge that the two-party system and constitutional democracy are dead. I will vote for Obama because I believe he is considerably less likely to blunder into a nuclear war than McCain, but I have no illusions he can turn around the decline of this country into a kleptocracy strangely resembling our old/new enemy Russia.

Pitchforks.

Once the industry is assured that those in bankruptcy won't get a break
Yeah, sure, people don't deserve bankruptcy protection, but banks do. Welcome to the birth of the corpocracy!

Jeezus, it's like an organized crime shakedown.

Nice little economy you got here. Pity it's on fire. Wonder how that happened. Hey, Vinny, any of youse guys back there know who set the economy on fire? (Nah, we don't know nothin' about that.) Geez, it sure would be a shame if you just let it burn to the ground now, wouldn't it?

Whassat? You want us to put the fire out? I dunno, looks like you got about $700 million worth of damage already. But tell you what, you give us the 700 mil and we'll see what we can do. One thing, you give us the dough with no strings attached or it's no deal, got it? You can watch your precious economy turned into ashes. Don't matter to us, we'll be in livin' it up St. Barts either way.

Let us know what you decide. We'll send Paulson around to collect. Oh, and by the way, this is just a first payment, got it?

This used to be called extortion.

Are reasonable folks really surprised that this "deal" smells rotten?

Wealthcare.

Why do you think I've been calling it that? It's not about putting country first, it's about burdening taxpayers with a "bill" that is beyond comprehension.

Look at the behind-closed-door aspects of the past few days. The money changers and top level administrative folks want the new agency to be
up and running by 10/1/08. That's 10 days from now.

It's similar to the "mushroom cloud" scenario we were sold before the Iraq War. We have to do it now.

Hold on folks. We need a public debate about Wealthcare, since we'll all be paying for it.

Maybe Obama should start using the term until we can be clear just what the deal means.

Global financial meltdown. Our very way of life threatened. Wealthcare to the rescue. Sounds/smells like more of the same old same stench wafting up from canyons and corridors of power.

''We need this to be clean and to be quick,''
(Paulson)

Shock and Awe.

The time for diplomacy is over. Operation Iraqi Liberation.

We gotta go forward with this plan now. Wealthcare

How about, "Go TO HELL!"?

It was these Parochial interests who got us into this mess. Who ignited the stealth class warfare. Who forced companies to outsource jobs. Who took advantage of tax breaks they created. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I'm not against making money or people getting rich, but I'm not really crazy of the idea that I AND MANY OTHERS are going to lose our jobs because of the greed of a few crushed the credit markets.

The author of the current Newsweek cover article "King Henry" was on MSNBC earlier and mentioned that Paulson sold his Goldman Sachs stock for $500 million when he became treasury secretary. So the person who is supposedly going to help us out of our mess really is one of the biggest profiteers who got us into it.

Can I get my principal lowered too?

Or was buying a home I could afford a sin worthy of punishment?

I'm not necessarily siding with the lobbyists, but there needs to be a better solution than rewarding fools. Risky behavior mustn't be rewarded for corporations OR private citizens.

Pitchforks.

Some barbarians are just gonna sack the shit out of us, aren't they?

The information posted on your blog is very interesting one to go through.

The financial firms are threatening the government: if you let US fail, we take the whole economy down with us.

So you'd better give us that $700 billion without any conditions, OR ELSE.