This is a much more rational approach. I could support this. Make Paulson the new Emperor, I could not.

how refreshing to see the democrats put together a plan that actually makes sense. it will never be approved, of course.

orange

Ever since the economic stimulus package, we have been lurching from one bailout to the next, trying to get the economy back on track.

Seems 168 billion wasn't enough.....then Bear Sterns, 29 billion...then FM2 100 or so billion, then AIG 85 billion, now 700+ billion.

Clearly, no one in Washington is willing to admit the obvious, something has gone wrong with the US economy.

For Weathcare to pass, we need hard answers to obvious questions.

Atrios added that "no proposal matters as long as the plan is to surrender when Mr. 24% stamps his feet," which is certainly correct.

Well, fortunately Harry Reid would never block a superior Democratic bill while allowing the Republican minority to dictate that Congress implement the agenda of a historically unpopular president.....oh, wait....

Uh oh....

my attitude is a good bill or no bill: let's play chicken. i'm ready.

The Paulson plan must be approved immediately without questions or modifications.

Because we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Thank goodness Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader. Reid always fast tracks Dodd's bills, and would never dream of ignoring a hold placed by Dodd. No, the fact that Harry Reid is in charge is nothing but good news all around!

Let's hear it for Harry Reid!

No one? Crickets.

My friends, that proposed panel should include a member of the SPIC.

I think something like the Dodd plan will pass with significant GOP support. A lot of the right is just as upset about the Paulson (Bush) plan as is the left.

One thing that really strikes me is the unwillingness of Bush to go out sell the plan. Even he knows that would kill the plan for good.

Dodd has taken a lot of $ from the cheaters Paulson wants to bail out.
This whole thing is a scam. We're the suckers.
The $700 billion is only the beginning. It won't work because things on Wall Street have gone too far to be fixed. We could watch out future monies go down the tubes and at the same time watch Wall Street go belly up.
This is sudden and anything from this administration is a pack of lies.
The Dems are tied into the cheaters and they could care less about any of us. They don;t need us and have been able to ignore us for years.
Remember when the Dems said that they'd end the war in Iraq?
Paulson is saying that Wall Street is on the brink. Nonsense. Wall Street would have crashed before now.
They are telling us stories from fantasy land, just like the sniper fire in Bosnia story.

This sounds like a good start. I'll be interested in hearing the downside to it. The one thing I'm not wild about is this sentence:

The Treasury secretary would also be required to issue weekly public reports

Why not daily, and why not post it on the web? That would be transparency, right John McCain?

I'm glad someone is thinking straight.

I have been very concerned with this blank check approach from the Administration.

One has to wonder if they know they are going to lose the election and this is their last ditch effort to con the country out of more money until they get back into power.

Funny how there is never any money available for public spending, whether is be for health, education or infrastructure, but somehow the money is there for the financial/credit markets.

The issue really becomes if we trust the same morons who got us here to get us out. I don't ... and I believe most people don't either.

Paulson's view that this crisis is as much the public's fault as the bankers/investors is such a fallacy and insulting. The right, true to form, always wants the public to do as they say not as they do. And when the public got in on the action they became the whipping boy.

No blank check to anyone in this administration. I rather wait until the next administration and lose money waiting than to give these clowns any more opportunities to con the public again.

Remember, the procedure is always to present a plan so egregious that the Democrats must refuse it, in order to lay the foundation for blaming the massive failures of Republican ideology on somebody else. Big Chief Stamps-His-Feet is only playing his usual part in the charade. Please, o' my members of Congress, tell them to stuff it! Take your chances on him trying to blame you rather than handing over your power of the purse. He is trying to put the financial power of the government in escrow until he and his cronies can win another election.

Why he doesn't just appoint a regent with all executive powers to rule until such time as a Republican can win the presidency again?

I find myself siding with some paleoconservatives and libertarians on this one...

Let them fucking eat cake.

To paraphrase G.K. Chesterson:

"The free market has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried"

At least not by the corporate welfare caste and their daddy state enablers.

Fuck all of them. I don't care if my 401K tanks as long as there are some Wall Street types hitting the sidewalk. I love the smell of auto-defenestration in the morning.

It's my new political strategy "laissez faire liberalism." Or "punitive progressivism" if you prefer.

It's time for those in authority to finally taste some accountability.

I would suggest to everyone that it would be good idea to learn how to grow and store potatoes and turnips, and how to capture and filter rainwater.

"Mr. 24%?"

He means Mr. 19%.

But, yeah, if they fold to somebody whose lack of cards are face-up on the table, when the pot is 1.7 trillion, I'll be done with 'em. And so will an awful lot of other people.

That's it! I hereby officially rename it The Paulson Regency Act of 2008.' We will all be welcome to petition for him to use our money to purchase our undervalued assets. I only hope I can get a good spot in line.

How can Mr. 24%, stamp at anyone, considering he is effectively gone in under 45 days?

I mean, seriously?

The only thing that can possibly be motivating politicians one way or another, are electoral possibilities.

Is supporting/not supporting the plan, good or bad politically?

Considering that a lot of Republicans are also against the plan, as well as Democrats, and the optics of giving Wall Street a free 700 billion, is HORRIBLE, there really is no downside to opposing this.

The only downside is, will the economy blow up in the next 45 days?

That really is it.

And if the economy WILL blow up in 45 days, why didn't Paulson give us some warning in the last 6 months? Why present at the last possible moment?

It seems to me, that there can be lending/buying of assets done, enough so that the whole system doesn't melt down in the next 45 days, allowing the next Adminstration to be voted on.

They, the winner's economic team can work with Paulson, to come up with the plan, moving forward.

But, yeah, if they fold to somebody whose lack of cards are face-up on the table, when the pot is 1.7 trillion, I'll be done with 'em. And so will an awful lot of other people.

And how.

My revolver is unholstered and pointing at the would-be cowards from under the table.

Enough is enough.

Grow some balls Dems or assume the position. This time there is going to be no lube.

I think the only way we can ever hope to turn this economy around is by rolling up our collective sleeves as Americans and going shopping. Look at how shopping saved us after 9/11. And how the simple Christian act of shopping helped all those Katrina victims.

And it was everyday Americans' shopping habits that helped win WWII and beat the Great Depression. Only, the habit then was to, you know, stop shopping.

Yessir, enough of this gloom and doom. Get your credit cards out. Buy some shoes, an SUV and a hot tub. And before you know it, you'll forget all about Wall Street. Trust me. It works!

I'm somewhat reassured. But it still strikes me as insane to give any Secretary of Treasury this kind of power for two whole years, even with supervision.

If this is really about liquidity, then if it doesn't work in six months it ain't the right approach. If it's about recapitalization, Krugman is right, let the government lend money and get shares in the company.

Jared Bernstein last night at a Firedoglake book salon mentioned he thought it shouldn't be for more than six months? Has anyone else heard anyone in or out of congress talk about such a limit?

T. Boone Pickens presented his energy plan to the National Press Club, which was covered live on C-Span2 a while ago. At the end, he was asked to comment on Paulson's plan for the bailout. He said the taxpayers should not just bear the risk, but the upside, too, if the deal actually makes money in the long run. Interesting. He said he is committed to remaining non partisan in this election cycle because the energy crisis is so important to our future.

He's very persuasive on his energy plan, by the way, if there's a post coming up on that topic.

Steve,

Its time to point out Benedict Clinton's appearance today on the View where he all but sold out Obama. The man is one major pain in the butt. I am sorry I voted for him.

Steve,

Its time to point out Benedict Clinton's appearance today on the View where he all but sold out Obama. The man is one major pain in the butt. I am sorry I voted for him.

The difference between Paulson's plan and Dodd's is that Paulson wants to back his truck up to the loading dock and haul away the garbage in exchange for 700 billion dollars. Dodd wants to buy a portion of the banks, putting the taxpayer ahead of other stock holders, and then demand the banks use the new capital to clean up the mess.

It's not ideal, but doing nothing would be catastophic.

Did Dodd check out his suggestions with Angelo and Franklin and Jim before offering them ? He has been in the pocket of the crooks for years. Why would anyone believe him now ?

It is good to challenge the Paulson plan, and I think e.g. Krugman did a good takedown with "No Deal" out 9/20. However, we have to stay on top of the after-the-fact blame game, which Republicans and allies want to blame on Democrats and liberal sentiments (like, the horrible impulse to make it easier for low-income/minorities to borrow money and own their own home (never mind that GWB constantly said he too wanted to support "the ownership society", boost home ownership etc.) For example, this fairly blatant propaganda piece in Bloomberg news is trumpeted on Drudge, and now we see that Drudge is pushing Palin-McCain very hard ("sure" but it wasn't so clear before, maybe "girl"friend Coulter is pushing him.) Note Bloomberg news very tied to finance world interests - BTW should Mike Bloomberg have ever been considered a great VP etc. choice considering his AFAIK involvement with that sector?):

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

Kevin Hassett

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

He blames it all on Fannie and Freddie, and the Democrats wanting to extend the pool of loan eligibles - to hell with repackaging, no income checking, etc., that are much more at cause for what happened. I warn you, this will get around and must be beaten back now, not later!

"Dodd is proposing to penalize executives who take "inappropriate or excessive" risks. "

I know, how about no more volume based bonuses for the mortgage industry ? Remove the only reason one would lie about a loan's value and they will stop being over valued. And instead of Dodd lowering pay, how about he toss some of the crooks in prison. Seems like Wall Street is above reproach, it's not, and until someone does some times, these little consumer scams will not stop.

Are they even going to pretend to throw us a scape goat or two? There are a lot of peopel who were calling crap, A-paper and they need to answer for it. I am tired of them acting like this is some mechanical failure and no is to blame, it's the exact opposite.

I want some heads. Giving nearly a trillion dollars to the clowns that just stole billions, is really fucken stupid.

Between the war and the bailouts, Bush has managed to siphon nearly $2 out of the US Treasury and all his republican donors are feeding at the trough.

I just hope the Democrats considering how well things worked out every other time Bush insisted on passing his preferred bill quickly, with little time for amendment or debate.

The recent "clean bill now!!!!1!" rhetoric is a clear sign that this legsilation is a dog. The Democrats shouldn't touch it with a ten-foor pitchfork.

If they do....well, I've been thinking about our long and dignified tradition of tar and feathers, and I'm sure there's enough for them as well.

well played mike k! ill-founded ad hominem.

here's a little reality for ya: compare and contrast the paulson plan and the dodd plan. they are the only two options on the table right now.

we don't care who was who's friend or donor or who's an elitest or any of the other crap you usually throw up in lieu of thinking things through: we want you to demonstrate that you have enough command of reality to even be commenting.

we can hardly wait.

Umm...how do we know that Dodd's plan isn't just Paulson's intent all along? Just sayin'

CNBC has reported that the Treasury has agreed in principle to the debt-equity swap, but that exec compensation is still a stumbling block.

how do we know that Dodd's plan isn't just Paulson's intent all along?

Because it's completely different? Oversight vs none? equity (some of which is measurable) vs a grab bag of loans? Limited power to buy and sell mortgage debt on a BFF basis?

We should put these equities in the lock box.
How been has the Soc Sec over payment been during Bush? Lets get something out of this!

hark,

All due respect, fuck T. Boone Pickens and anything he has to say.

He financed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and that'a absolutely the first and last thing any of us should need to know about him.

What he supported in the past was unforgivable and I won't listen to one word he says. He can choke on his energy plan.

A "clean" bill? How much more are we going to hear that this week? I say it's mockery time.

Everytime some right-wing flack says "clean bill" the push-back should be fast and hard -- "what you really mean is a 'naked bill,' because what the administration is proposing is for taxpayers to be exposed to the financial elements with no protection. Your 'naked bill' will not protect the taxpayer from getting burned or washed out. Taxpayers should not be left with something worse than rags while Wall Street bankers and the lobbyists running John McCain's campaign keep their riches without accountability."

Funny how there is never any money available for public spending, whether is be for health, education or infrastructure, but somehow the money is there for the financial/credit markets.

Funny thing is that there isn't. The 700 Billion we are borrowing doesn't actually exist. It's hypothetical money will be borrowed over time (along with a hike in taxes at some point to create revenue)but mostly paid back by future generations -starting with mine (Thanks Baby-Boomers, please retire soon). So its truth when you say there isn't money for education, healthcare, infrastructure, or any other "socialist" expenditure conservative Americans refuse to pay for. But when it comes to American Imperialism in 3rd world countries/tanking investments and markets, the most conservative of conservatives will outspend the most liberal of liberals by a factor of 200. The only thing Conservatives conserve are the domestic programs that they happen to not agree with. To be honest, I think George Will is probably the last true conservative left on the planet. Everyone else wears the mantle but don't conserve a thing - whjich makes for poor policy and terrible diplomacy.

Because it's completely different?

Come on... you don't think Paulson's smart enough to play this politics game? His first bid was obviously unacceptable to anybody with a pulse. Now he gets the same basic plan with reasonable oversight, and the equity concessions are 'the democrats' fault. The compensation thing will get negotiated out. And since the republicans are probably out of power in a few months, he didn't necessarily want someone else to have all that authority anyway.

My bet is that he's probably been working with Obama and Dodd all along anyway.

we want you to demonstrate that you have enough command of reality to even be commenting.

Aw, howard, that isn't fair. You know Mike K. has been failing that test with every post he makes here. If he could think things through, he wouldn't just repost the bullshit he reads on the right-wing blogs.

Speaking of reposting bullshit from right-wing blogs, I'd also point out that Mike K's unsourced assertion isn't worth a bucket of piss. C'mon, trolls, if you're going to throw ad hominems, cite your fscking sources so we can laugh at you some more.

Re the argument that a "clean" bill is needed because adding provisions means it may not pass - are they saying that Republican congresspeople will vote against it if it doesn't indulge their clientele? If that's the case, how dire is the necessity?

CNBC has reported that the Treasury has agreed in principle to the debt-equity swap, but that exec compensation is still a stumbling block.
Posted by: Wagster on September 22

Really? I'm assuming you mean on the teevee, since I don't see anything about it on the website.

That would be ... big. Very big. Essentially it would be saying that Wall Street doesn't really care about who owns the companies as long as the executives get their money. Those executives are supposed to be looking out for the shareholder's interests - and if letting the government take an equity stake in a firm is in your shareholder's best interest how is not giving up your golden parachute and scaling back your compensation package also not in your shareholder's best interest.

In a world that really believed that executive compensation was set by the market, there would be a shareholder's rebellion right here. Here's some proof that your executives and your Boards have been scamming you this whole time. The time has come to find those clauses in their contracts about "malfeasance and misconduct" and get their contracts negated. You know those clauses are in there - dig them out and fire their asses. And hope that whoever the Federales put in charge of the company knows what the hell they're doing enough to make your stake worth more than the paper its printed on again.

CNBC has reported that the Treasury has agreed in principle to the debt-equity swap, but that exec compensation is still a stumbling block.

Oink!

I trust Dodd to put forth the right proposal. It is exceedingly important to have oversight. I am reminded of the Iran-Contra affair oddly enough at this time. Much of that controversy involved the executive branch developing its own method of funding initiatives, essentially bypassing Congress's control of the purse-strings. An unregulated, zero-oversight bailout proposal of $700 Billion, with potential profits down the line, smells of an attempt to invest the Executive Branch with a funding source outside the reach of Congress.

It feels very much like a Cheney/Addington gambit.

I hope you've all called your Senators and Rep and shared your feelings on this (be nice to the staff people).

But here's something interesting... many conservatives are now on board with having some oversight... because, you know, Obama might be the next president and they don't want to have to trust the next Treasury Secretary. Here's Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/22/paulson/
"Apparently, the same political faction that has cheered on every instance of unchecked, absolute executive power over the last eight years -- which demanded that the President, and he alone, decide which citizens, including Americans, can be spied on, detained, even tortured, and that no oversight or disclosure was needed for any of that -- has suddenly re-discovered their desire for checks on federal government power. The reason? They say it themselves: with the looming prospect of an Obama presidency, they may no longer be in charge of that Government and these "small government conservatives" have thus suddenly re-awoken to the virtues of checks and balances, oversight and other restraints."
~~~
Friggin' hysterical.

"small government conservatives"

Friggin' hysterical.

Posted by: Hannah on September 22, 2008

ditto

If the purpose of the bailout is to actually help the ailing American economy, as opposed to giving taxpayer money to Kenny Doll Delay clones -

Why not give tax payer money back to the taxpayers?
Especially those who have gotten screwed because they didn't know that their mortgage contracts could be bought up and sold over and over and treated like so much toilet paper.
That way they can pay out their homes and become property owners and pay property taxes!!! And buy lawn mowers, and new roofs, and fix the pluming, and need new heaters and air conditioners, and lawn furniture and couches and chairs and desks.....

The left overs can come to the rest of us lower than average earners who have 30% of our paycheck skimmed before we get so much as a dime.
Most of that money would get plowed immediately back into goods and services.

You remember goods and services? They used to be the real economy.

We don't need Wall Street. We're in a global economy and we can borrow from wealthy nations like China, or we could if we were not already maxed out on debt and unworthy of further credit. Isn't that the real problem?