it only matters what John McCain says RIGHT THIS SECOND. looking into the past isn't putting "Country First."

Before this latest crisis fades down the memory hole, someone needs to ask McHoover EXACTLY what kind of oversight he thinks the new Federal agency that Bernanke and Paulson are proposing should have.

Maybe the moderator of the debates will ask that or maybe Obama can force his hand on it.

Most GOP dogmabots have been saying that the buying of bad assets (now to include more than just sub-prime home loans) is essential for the health of our "financial system," but that any sort of oversight would dampen the recovery. What they obviously want is a blank check at the taxpayer's expense so they can go back to the craps table.

What's funny is that many of the "Deerhunting with Jesus" crowd don't even have retirement plans that are invested in the stock market. They don't have retirement plans period. I would like someone to stand up and tell them that their tax dollars are going to bail out Wall Street, while they will most certainly receive cuts in government provided benefits and maybe even increases in taxes to pay for it.

When an individual engages in risky behavior, the consequences are God's punishment for sinning. When a corporation engages in risky behavior, it's our duty to rescue them and their overpaid "managers" from their own excesses for the good of everyone. Of course, "everyone" really translates to the managers, who don't want angry shareholders to put their heads on pikes and don't want to lose that second or third home.

Someone needs to explain this to Joe Sixpack in a way that makes them angry about it.

Well, he said he believed in EXCESS regulation - that is, he believes that there is such a thing as too much regulation. So it's been the same tune -- albeit the wrong tune -- all along.

easy... He wants only GOOD deregulation. None of that BAD deregulation. It's what mavericks do.

has anyone seen the new McCain ad. Slime I tell you. This is a perverse little old man. He will do anything and say anything to win. I personally like the fact that he has brought the Rezko issue out this week because it will hopefully bring to the fore his past involvement regarding the S&L crisis and his involvement with Charlie Keating.

"No, I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."

Let's see -- let's compare the economy for the 7 years preceding the passage of that act to the economy since, shall we?

Before: Boom times. DOW tripled. GDP expansion, avg wage expansion ($7500/taxpayer on average) and job expansion, unemployment to record lows. Gov't surplus acheived after years of huge deficits.

After: Short cycles of bust and mild jobless recoveries. Avg wages DECLINED $2000/taxpayer. Job growth during Bush years 5M, below population growth rates, versus 22M during Clinton years. Gov't surplus lost, huge deficits return.

Is it fair to blame all of this on the Wall Street deregulation? Of course not. However, it does call in to question McCain's judgement that it helped the economy, and the economy has been anemic during the time this law has been in effect.

My first rule for dealing with this crisis is that everyone who supported Bush and the Republican-led deregulation agenda should shut the fuck up.

Is it just metaphorical that one side of McCain's face looks like it's decaying? Or that he wears more makeup than a street hooker?

To Annony, I say "here, here"!

Deregulation helped John McCain and his buddies. We need leaders but get gamblers instead. Tar and feather that asshat!

I think this is a bad time for McCain to bring up Rezko. Nobody is paying attention.

Sure the economy grew -- that's why someone needs to lose at least $700 billion dollars to pay for it. It is such a Republican way to look at things to believe that putting a pyramid scheme on the national credit card somehow qualifies as "growth."

How is it that the GOP is hanging on to the title of "fiscal responsibility"? Is it some kind of deep code? Clinton paid down the deficit, Bush pumped it up. McCain promises to do the same. That's not very responsible.

Yeah, McCain loves to talk about "oversight." But hates "regulations."

Regulation is to oversight as rules of conduct is to that lady at the park who says "Brian, if you do that one more time we're going home." over and over and over while talking on her cell phone.

Regulations and rules can limit bad behavior. Oversight merely pretends to.

We don't seem to be holding anyone or any thing accountable for the fiascoes occurring during this administration, from 9/11 to the mess in Iraq to all the corruption and scandals to the first economic recovery in which ordinary Americans lost ground, and ending (hopefully nothing more) with the bursting housing bubble and Wall Street meltdown.

Instead, we're asking the Bush administration what to do about the latest catastrophe.

Why on earth would anybody listen to these guys?

Things have gotten so bad that we've all but forgotten about the real 21st century challenges - energy and climate change.

But nobody's pointing a finger at the Republicans, the Bush administration, or Reaganomics and the ideology that has gotten us here.

They've had their shot at it, for nearly thirty years. It's time for a new crowd, another kind of policy.

But we're just not getting it. The American people don't seem to understand the link between McCain and what's happened to us. It's as if this were an ordinary close election with nothing at stake and no culprit for the disastrous Bush years.

This is a lot like the Iraq argument. Yes, we shouldn't have started the war, and we completely fucked it up from the beginning - but the surge worked! So I was right!

Sure I was in favor of deregulation, and it's destroyed the American economy, but for a while, things were really hummin'! So I was right!

McCain's semi-forgotten passion for deregulation has driven the collapse of the free-market system, resulting in yet another "opportunity" for the United States government.

There's a name for a political system in which the state owns the economy. See if you can think of it.

I am curious what Obama is going to say today in Wisconsin. I would like him to explain why the crisis on Wall Street matters to a guy or gal living on Main Street? Is it about jobs? Is it about keeping the engine of our economy strong? Will they come take my house? What's in it for the other 99%. So far, it just seems like a bailout for the top 1%. As a voter, I need to know why their problems should become my problem. Simple sentences please. If he can't explain it, and the dems role over and give this to Bush, they've lost me.

Ask yourself; What would John McCain be doing about this mess IF he were NOT running for President? He would say little and wait for his instructions from Mitch McConnell on how to vote to give the administration what it wants. He would be a loyal soldier for Bush.

The problem is that he is running for President and cannot afford to appear to be what he actually is. So, he has to come up with something different than Bush, which makes his brain hurt. Hence, the flailing, the flip-flopping, the scapegoating, the vehemence over coherence etc.

The question he needs to be asked over and over -- is he planning to support the Paulson plan as is, or is there something other than the Bush plan that he is proposing?

Has McCain ever stood for anything except whatever he thinks will get him elected? He's a classic example of a politician who wants to BE something, not to DO something. Actually, it might be more to the point to say that his wife wants him to BE something, since she's bankrolled his career.

Here's a real deal breaker: The inclusion of bad commercial real estate mortgages into the mix. This is where the real fraud will occur.
From http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/treasury_proposal/index.htm?postversion=2008092011

Sec. 12. Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term "mortgage-related assets" means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

I'm beginning to think that all of McCain's double-talk is an actual, um, strategy.

If he says two diametrically opposed things, and you agree with one of them, and you're not too fond of black guys or Democrats, it's pretty easy to convince yourself that he *really* will do the thing you agree with.

He's taking "tell 'em what they want to hear" to a totally new level!

And last week, McCain's position was the opposite, but nevertheless crystal clear: "Do I believe in excess government regulation? Yes."

So he's been consistent here - consistently wrong.

To follow up on Scott F.: would someone paint a word picture of what will happen to the middle and lower classes if Paulson doesn't get his way? Will it be a rerun of the Great Depression, with productive citizens starving in alleys, and uninhabited houses rotting without tenders? Will it follow the hard times described in "American Made," Nick Taylor's history of the WPA? Or is Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" a more realistic outcome? Someone needs to put some time and effort into elaborating on outcomes.

To follow up on Scott F.: would someone paint a word picture of what will happen to the middle and lower classes if Paulson doesn't get his way? Will it be a rerun of the Great Depression, with productive citizens starving in alleys, and uninhabited houses rotting without tenders? Will it follow the hard times described in "American Made," Nick Taylor's history of the WPA? Or is Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" a more realistic outcome? Someone needs to put some time and effort into elaborating on outcomes.

Now is the time contact your Congressperson and Senators to put the brakes on the forthcoming Big Bang Bailout before it's too late. With only a three-page summary from Treasury Secretary Paulson, our representatives in Congress are being asked to spend $1 trillion of our money to solve a problem for which nobody knows the precise cause. All too often well-intentioned legislation turns sour because nobody thought it out enough to identify its impacts. Any Big Bang Bailout must be scrutinized with the Test of Unintended Consequences or else it could produce an even worse disaster or simply throw our money away to reward the private sector exploiters who produced this financial crisis.

It's going to be a bill that runs hundreds of pages and the Bush Administration is putting pressure on Congress to vote on it in a few days. We'll have another instance of Congressmen voting on a bill few have read or even understand.

And we'll have piecemeal legislation to solve a problem without fully understanding its causes (beyond greed and a lack of adequate, focused regulation) -- so the legislation may not actually accomplish much besides getting the folks who produced the crisis off the hook and keeping them wealthy.

This is government at its worst. I'd love to see Obama and McCain issue a joint statement to slow down, analyze the cause and draft legislation that addresses the causes of this crisis so it will not happen again, so that the folks who caused the crisis are not rewarded, and that the average guy and gal actually benefit from it. That'll be the day. McCain is already calling for passage of this bill he hasn't seen. ;-)

So write your Congressperson and Senators today to urge them to vote "No" unless a vote is delayed at least two weeks (preferably until after the election) so they can adequately review the Bailout legislation and identify the unintended consequences it may produce. There's really no need to rush this legislation through Congress -- the financial world will not collapse. And no issue this complex can possibly be solved with such hastily-drafted legislation.

Former Secretary of Labor Richard Reich has been publishing the most cogent comments on this on his blog at http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

You can get the email addresses for your Representative and Senators at http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
http://www.house.gov/
Most offer a web form you can use to submit email.

Don't delay. Write today.

Example - Here's the email I've been sending to my Congressman Danny Davis and Senators Obama and Durbin:

Put the brakes on the Big Bang Bailout Bill today. With only a three-page summary from Treasury Secretary Paulson, you are being asked to spend $1 trillion of our money to solve a problem for which nobody knows the precise cause. All too often well-intentioned legislation turns sour because nobody thought it out enough to identify its impacts. Any Big Bang Bailout must be scrutinized with the Test of Unintended Consequences or else it could produce an even worse disaster or simply throw our money away to reward the private sector exploiters who produced this financial crisis.

It's going to be a bill that runs hundreds of pages and the Bush Administration is putting pressure on Congress to vote on it in a few days. We'll have another instance of Congressmen voting on a bill few have read or even understand.

And we'll have piecemeal legislation to solve a problem without fully understanding its causes (beyond greed and a lack of adequate, focused regulation) -- so the legislation may not actually accomplish much besides getting the folks who produced the crisis off the hook and keeping them wealthy.

This is government at its worst. I'd love to see Obama and McCain issue a joint statement to slow down, analyze the cause and draft legislation that addresses the causes of this crisis so it will not happen again, so that the folks who caused the crisis are not rewarded, and that the average guy and gal actually benefit from it. That'll be the day. McCain is already calling for passage of this bill he hasn't seen.

So Senator Durbin, I am urging you to start a movement to slow down this train wreck before it crashes. Please urge Congress to allow enough time (at least two weeks, if not delaying it until after the election) to:
(1) Fully understand the actual causes of this financial crisis
(2) Fully understand the extent of the financial crisis -- how much money is at stake?
(3) Craft a solution that addresses the causes, a solution that is not a band-aide
(4) Craft a solution that does not reward those who created the crisis -- because if you don't, they'll just do it all over again knowing that Congress will give them a blank check whenever they screw up
(5) Craft a solution that protects the "
end users," the public that is caught in this financial crisis thanks to the irresponsible practices of the private sector that seeks this Big Bang Bailout.
(6) And carefully apply the Test of Unintended Consequences to the legislation that emerges so that the legislation doesn't merely through good money after bad and solves nothing.

Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

To follow up on Scott F.: would someone paint a word picture of what will happen to the middle and lower classes if Paulson doesn't get his way? Will it be a rerun of the Great Depression, with productive citizens starving in alleys, and uninhabited houses rotting without tenders?

Yes. This is what is needed. And it needs to be challenged skeptically.

They are planning on pushing this through by daring congress to oppose a "rescue" move when "so many Americans are suffering."

Bullshit.

You want us to quarantine your bad debt? (Clinton uses that term on her Senate website) Then you damned well better pull down your trousers and prepare to be spanked by regulators. If not, then fuck your plan.

Personally, I think the Dems should propose a counterplan to nationalize any firm that is rescued. Simply taking bad debt off their hands is a taxpayer ripoff.

Scott F. said, "As a voter, I need to know why their problems should become my problem. Simple sentences please. If he can't explain it, and the dems role over and give this to Bush, they've lost me."

That very last bit seems to be a wrong-headed conclusion. Rolling over for Bush would certainly be disappointing, but why does that mean you should reward the republicans, who are far more guilty in this mess than the democrats? It is not easy to go against a president and a unified opposition. Electing a democratic team to the white house means that Republican problems and "solutions" are less likely to occur in the first place, so no one will need to actively oppose them.

Has anyone seen this? The issue is less deregulation than law enforcement. Note the date on this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Dan Lauber: good stuff.

I did call my senators and rep (two of the three are Rs, ugh) and told them that any bailout must have oversight, regulations added, and not reward the people who got us into this mess, because I can't afford to bail out millionaires. Your letter goes further. Anyhow, I feel better having called. The woman at my Dem Senator's office was the nicest and seemed to care the most. What a surprise.

Also, here's an article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13706.html
"Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) says he’s seen this movie before: The Bush administration, citing an unprecedented national threat, puts the hammer on Congress to ram through gargantuan legislation with a minimum of review — and the murkiest of repercussions.

"“We will do something this week — but if we learned anything from right after 9/11, it’s that the biggest mistake is to pass anything they ask for just because it’s an emergency,� Leahy says."
"“They can’t get away with what they did in 2001,� Leahy said. “This will be ‘trust but verify.’ The biggest mistake they can make is holding a press conference while we’re negotiating to say there’s going to be a worldwide depression if Congress doesn’t do exactly what we want them to.�"
~~~

Go Sen. Leahy! I'm now going to call his office as well as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi.

The guy has no ACTUAL policy positions AT ALL.

It's ALL political. He'll say whatever he thinks the voters want to hear. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, etc., etc.

The only policy he has is to excoriate his "enemies." You think Nixon had "enemies lists"?

John McCain makes Nixon look like a piker. That's why Huckabee is not his VP candidate.