What are the tax cuts? What is the mental health legislation?

I'd like to hear a little more about the DeFazio No Bailout Act. Like soon, so I know what I want to convey to my Senators this morning.

variety of House members began exploring new alternatives to the bill rejected on Monday, including at least one that would garner
significant Democratic support.

I've only heard of new suggestions that would be Republican-friendly, like eliminating mark-to-market costing. I hope the Dems stand firm and concede absolutely nothing!

As I said at Kevin's, my problem with the Senate plan is precisely that it must be crafted to get the vote of 51 Senators, including Republicans. Therefore, it can't help but lack the teeth that a real reform needs, and wind up being a milquetoast bill of little value but the word "rescue" in its title. All show, and little substance.

Rather, the Republicans should pay the price for their perfidy by being forced to accept a solid reform bill crafted and passed by the Democrats in the House. Not a giveaway to the failed Wizards of Wall Street but market reform, strict oversight and help for the middle class. Bring the liberal Democrats on board, muster enough House Republicans afraid for their jobs to get it thru, and then let the Senate Republicans filibuster it if they dare.

We've discussed how Paulson's approach was typical Bush -- respond to the crisis by maximizing demands. Now that the pressure to pass something is increasing, it's the Democrats' turn.

Rather, the Republicans should pay the price for their perfidy by being forced to accept a solid reform bill crafted and passed by the Democrats in the House.

And I should have a new Lexus, which ain't gonna happen either.

The Democratic House majority is illusory, for which you can thank a few fossil Dixiecrats, and a bunch of Blue Dogs.

Nothing significant is going to pass on a party-line vote, because the parliamentary Democratic Party is a coalition, not a party.

Banks/companies that are Regulated are not experiencing any econimic crisis, just the investment banks/companies which are not regulated or de-regulated and have no oversight! "One of the regulations meant to keep insiders from driving down the prices of their own company’s stock so that they could sell short at will to make a quick million whenever they felt like it was called the “uptick rule�. The “uptick rule� is another one of the FDR Era regulations which the Heritage Foundations was talking about when they said that they wanted to roll this country back to the days of Herbert Hoover. They succeeded. The Bush administration got rid of this safeguard last year---with predictable results.

The uptick rule is fairly simple. "

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/uptick...

Boehner gave the 'green light'? Deja vu. It's dead.

Boehner gave the 'green light'? Deja vu. It's dead.

I had a similar thought. Did anyone else play a game called 'red-light/green-light' as a kid?

I would, honestly, MUCH rather have a depression than have the current Senate version of the bill adopted. If that bill passes, the only realistic choice for patriotic Americans will be violent revolution and the complete elimination (by violent means) of the political, media and military-industrial classes.

I'm sure if the Senate can find some way to make the bailout bill even more fiscally irresponsible, such as tax cuts, then they can be sure to pick up some more GOP votes for the bill in the House.

I lay this bill fiasco at the the feet of Pelosi and Hoyer. They were completely out-maneuvered by a bunch of crazy folk in the GOP House. The Dems need new leadership.

Varecia wrote: "I'd like to hear a little more about the DeFazio No Bailout Act. Like soon, so I know what I want to convey to my Senators this morning."

Here's an article by John Nichols of The Nation:

The “No BAILOUTS Act�
by John Nichols
October 1, 2008
The Nation

Excerpt:

Introduced Tuesday with co-sponsorship from some of the most outspoken critics of the Paulson machinations - including Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur, a leader of the anti-bailout movement in Congress - the measure would impose a securities tax equivalent to one quarter of one percent of profits and empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to deal more effectively with bank failures.

The plan is based on a proposal made last week by former FDIC chair William Isaac, who recalled that in the 1980s Congress enacted a "net worth certificate" program - which allowed the federal agency to shore up the capital of weak banks to give them more time to resolve their problems - and the FDIC resolved a $100 billion insolvency in savings banks for a total cost of less than $2 billion.

Funny thing how "sensible liberal" bloggers have ignored the substantive concerns and counterproposals coming from progressive Democrats, like DeFazio, Kaptur, Kucinich and Woolsey.

While at the same time, the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate seems to be focused on finding ways to make the horrible Paulson proposal worse in order to get more right-wing Republican votes.

In the midst of a "crisis" it is reassuring to see the Congress conducting business as usual, with the Democratic leadership marginalizing and ignoring both progressive Democrats and public opinion, and bowing before the wildly unpopular demands of the Bush administration and the Republican minority.

Harry Reid is going to be tarred and feathered. He occasionally acts tough, but he's a fox in the henhouse.

I think I agree with what you are saying, beans, but I think you have your metaphors mixed up. Reid is more like a babe in the woods. If he were a fox in the henhouse, then he would be eating all the chickens, rather then being henpecked. But he may just be the canary in the coalmine for all I know.

Pssst - Steve. We don't use the word "bailout" anymore. The proper term is "rescue." It turns out that the problem isn't with the bill. It just isn't being "sold" properly to the American people.

Now where have I heard that before?

@SecularAnimist

Funny thing how "sensible liberal" bloggers have ignored the substantive concerns and counterproposals coming from progressive Democrats, like DeFazio, Kaptur, Kucinich and Woolsey.

While at the same time, the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate seems to be focused on finding ways to make the horrible Paulson proposal worse in order to get more right-wing Republican votes.

In the midst of a "crisis" it is reassuring to see the Congress conducting business as usual, with the Democratic leadership marginalizing and ignoring both progressive Democrats and public opinion...

Nailed it.

Why so little discussion of alternatives to the outright "bailout" of Wall Street Welfare Queens? Where is the democratic debate on this issue? I don't see much here.

If Congress passes the 'bipartisan' $700 Billion line of revolving taxpayer credit to 'bailout' Wall Street Welfare Queens and it does not work as advertised and the economy falls further into recession, when do we start to question the judgment of our elected representatives (and unelected representatives, such as former Goldman Sachs CEO and Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson) who no offer no alternative to debt and inflation courtesy of the 'Federal Reserve'?

Part of the National Socialist 25 Point Program was the nationalization and division of profits of business and industry and unlimited authority to carry out this Program. That's exactly what this 'bailout' plan does, it nationalizes the economy from the top down and provides for the division of profits of business and industry through the unlimited authority of an unelected bureaucrat, former Goldman Sachs CEO and Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, to carry out the Program.

For those who have read The End of America, this "bailout" is alarming.

Dems have lost the chance to take this bill in their direction. It actually has to get 60 votes -- including 9 Republicans, and like they say in the Senate, it's easie to get 80 votes than 60 votes. This will broadly appeal to the GOP, especially given that the tax cuts Dems are adding are actually a (smallish) capitulation to Senate GOP over the House Dems.

House Dems have pushed a similar tax cut package that leaves out some coal-friendly provisions the GOP wants, and that would pay for more of the cost by tax increases on multinationals that the GOP opposes. The Senate Dems have tried nine times to pass the House's version without success.

But you have to ask, why are they sticking it to fellow Dems in this case? would the Senate GOP really block the bailout now over a small increase in taxes on multinationals? i guess we'll never know -- senate dems are more afraid to pressure their opposition, even when they have them over a barrel, than they are to stick it to their copartisans.

I say let's throw some serious tax breaks at this thing, loosen up some of those constrictive regulations in the commercial banking system. That oughta get those clogged credit arteries flowing again.

I trust 'VoR' doesn't stand for 'Voice of Reason':

I would, honestly, MUCH rather have a depression than have the current Senate version of the bill adopted.

Red State Mike is still trying to blame Fannie and Freddie for the meltdown? That's so last week.

Seriously, Mike, your desperation to blame this mess on the Democrats, and your clinging to hoary, long-debunked talking points (as you do for both the fantasy that George W. Bush fulfilled the obligations of his military service and that John Kerry did anything other than expose the corruption of an unjust war), is too pathetic to be funny.

What's even sadder -- far beyond putting politics first, as you routinely accuse your betters of doing, you, a self-professed "independent thinker," can't admit Democrats are right even when proven to you. And you'll embrace any dishonest right-wing spin, any out-of-context quote, to safeguard your fragile ego from the roaring tide of cognitive dissonance. No wonder you embrace the right-wing blogs' bullshit so -- you're as dependent as a junkie.

Sad. Too sad even to be shameful.

Could the House just go with a voice vote? Why do they need to count votes if nobody want to be associated with it, and it isn't supposed to be political?

Yea, let's see what the Democrats had to say about regulation of Fannie Mae in 2004/2005.

You mean a Democrat, of course.

I just saw the McCain ad about the bailout that they say Obama and his liberal allies are pushing on the American people, if anyone else has seen it - are you as outraged as I am?

Let's see what Frank had to say about it 3 years before Fannie Mae had to be bailed out by the taxpayers, smart man that he is.

And while you're at it, Mike, why don't you post a link to your out-of-context quotes so their sourcing and context can be evaluated, hm?

And since we know you aren't smart enough to come up with these on your own, how about crediting the right-wing blog that's misleading you, with your pathetic critical thinking abilities, into parroting this hogwash?

In any case, the notion that Fannie and Freddie are solely the causes for this meltdown, and that the Democrats are solely to blame, is simply too ridiculous to be debunked yet again. Only an intellectually dishonest hack or someone so pathetically in the throes of cognitive dissonance as to blindly repeat comforting partisan drivel would continue -- oh, but I forget, it's you, Mike.

As for "carry water for the liberals to the gates of hell," Mike, I'd only note that no one who embarrassed themselves so completely by having their water carrying exposed and debunked only yesterday should be throwing stones. Your dishonesty and water carrying is a matter of record. I realize that Rove taught you Republican jackasses to accuse your betters of your own faults, but that dog won't hunt.

I do take back the sympathy I expressed in my 11:28 AM post, however.

There are trolls, and then there are trolls.

And then there is SJRSM with "Republican Talking Points For Dummies".

Here's a hint, SJRSM: an effective troll is supposed to get people riled up, not put them to sleep.

What's this about spending bills having to originate in the House?

Article I says: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."

Is there some specialized legal definition of "raising" that means "spending"?

I've listed Frank, Waters, and Meeks so far.

Sure you have, Mike -- without posting links so that the context and the accompanying statements of their Republican counterparts -- or even their fellow Democrats! -- can be evaluated. You're trying, rather obviously and desperately, to attribute out-of-context statements by individual congresscritters to the party as a whole. From someone with your record of partisanship and intellectual dishonesty -- I've cited just one recent example, marveling that you aren't hiding in shame at having been exposed as a tool and a fraud.

But even granting your premise arguendo, expressions of confidence in Fannie and Freddie only matter if they are the sole source of the meltdown, which they aren't. All kinds of financial institutions are failing, which all kinds of people thought were on solid footing several years ago. And, of course, it's the Republicans who resist regulation as a matter of political philosophy. So at best your quotes prove that individual Democrats can be foolish at times. We knew that, but here's a news flash for you: The Democrats aren't running the Federal government right now, are they?

That a Republican stooge, a committed advocate of a Party that escews even the required Constitutional oversight of Executive branch activity, should be pointing fingers of regulatory blame is really too rich. You aren't convincing anyone of anything but your own lack of critical thinking and dishonesty, and no one needed any more proof of that.

Google on the youtube video that I linked to in a previous thread.

You're making the accusations in the first place, Mike, and in the second your word isn't worth a bucket of piss, Mike. The burden of proof is on you, and you can't ask your betters to do your homework for you.

mortgage backed securities are absolutely central to the meltdown. Period.

Fixed it for you, Mike. That statement alone is sufficient to explain the mess we're in; Fannie Mae is no more or less a part of it than any other financial institution.

Corrupt Democrats paid off by corrupt Fannie Mae execs

Cite, please. Though if I were defending the Republicans I really would be careful about bringing up corruption...

obstructed efforts to better regulate Fannie Mae.

The quotes you provided do not support that premise.

But, again, any Democratic opposition to Republican proposals to regulate Fannie Mae -- and I remind you of the obvious sensibility of opposing any Republican proposal, since Republicans do not govern in good faith -- pales beside the corruption and incompetence of Wall Street in general that Bush's regulators in the SEC and Treasury let run wild.

Their words, saved for posterity on C-Span 2.

Yes, Mike, and it's telling that you're still harping on selected, out-of-context quotes -- while we know the right-wing blogs could pitch a fit over a Democrat remarking that it's raining outside, and you'd swallow it right down -- without providing any indication at all that you're even aware of the context. Your own arguments stink of bad faith, Mike -- but then, we're used to it.

I am amused to see you so thoroughly trampling your earlier pretense of objectivity, though. It seems like just the other day -- of course, that's because it was.

Shame on you, Mike.

Really?

Since once *again* you don't provide a cite, Mike, there's no way of evaluating the veracity of your claim. You could be quoting anything from Fannie Mae's own Web page to Wikipedia to Jonah Goldberg, who is even more of a dishonest right-wing tool than you are.

Your assertions aren't worth a bucket of piss, Mike. When you aren't lying, you're usually simply, wildly incorrect.

But anyway, no one's arguing that Fannie and Freddie didn't participate in the secondary mortgatge market. Your cite simply proves that you're being obtuse, whether deliberately or out of pigheaded ignorance.

The current financial crisis arises from a number of factors -- for example, the Fed keeping interest rates historically low for so long, which stimulated the housing boom (which, you'll recall, started going bust as interest rates then climbed); subprime mortgages (which were not, of course, originated by Fannie Mae), and a whole galaxy of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives.

So yes, really, despite your ongoing desperate and dishonest efforts to find some way to pin this mess on the Democrats, Fannie and Freddie are no more or less a part of the mess we're in than any other institution, from the Fed on down. (And don't even get me started on the notion that Alan Greenspan was motivated to provide economic cover for Bush's insane tax cuts and spending binge...let's not forget their share of the blame, and who cheers their Party on? Why, you do!)

Moron. And willfully so.

Again, Mike, the Rovian tactic of accusing your betters of your own flaws won't work, especially when you yourself provide the proof.

F*CK A BUNCH OF DUMBOCRAP SENATORS!

We have had 4+ decades of the repugnican philosophy that "The economy is the super-wealthy" with Bill 'the best republican president in the last 30 years' Clinton and many dumbocraps bowing to that philosophy. Now Harry 'rethug-lite' Reid and the democrap so-called leaders of the Senate are going to 'sweeten' the bailout bill to get rethug votes.

What are they doing? Adding more tax cuts for the wealthy assh*les who got us into this mess? Adding corporate tax cuts? If you believe that the only problem with our economy is that the rich do not have enough money, this is a great solution.

What have we, the amerikan people, been told? That we have an impending disaster! That we need to bail out the financial corporations (amerikan & foreign)! That it probably won't cost that much in the long run (and may even make money)! What a bunch of bullshit!!!

If the true underlying problem is that of mortgages in default that cannot be 'properly' valued, then there are a lot of less expensive alternative solutions that will actually address this problem. If the true underlying problem (that they are not talking about) is the estimated $200-$500 Billion of fraudulent mortgage paper that I have read about, this ratcrap legislation will cost the amerikan taxpayer considerably without addressing the reasons for the fraud in the first place.

Why do the amerikan people keep getting financially raped by the wealthy under the guide of supply side economics? Is it because the Harry Reids of the world believe this crap or is it because they have been bought? Since Ronnie Raygun, we have had decades of proof that the 'piss down' (trickle down) theory of economics is really just war on the working people of our country by the super wealthy.

Now is the time for an uprising of the working class of amerika. IF THERE IS A REAL CREDIT CRISIS, let's open up the flow of credit by the federal government buying up the real mortgages that are in default or in trouble - then refinancing to the credit worthy or renting to the uncredit worthy. This will free up money for the financial institutions to flow thru the credit markets again. The long term costs to the amerikan taypayer will be small compared to what is being proposed.

Let the companies that created fraudulent loans eat that cost. Let the Wall Street corporations that packaged these loans with other mortgages (and assured the rich that they were selling them to as being AAA rated)(and sold the same set of bad paper multiple times) eat those costs AND go to jail. If you or I sold our house once, it is not noteworthy. When we sell that one house 4 or 5 or 6 times, it is fraud and that is basically a lot of what has happened.

There is a lot of reason to believe that a number of executives and employees of Lehman Brothers should be going to jail. Instead, the foreign bank that bought Lehman has reserved $2.5 Billion for bonuses for these people.

For $700 Billion, the amerikan people should not be getting a Wall Street insider hiring Wall Street criminals to distribute. The only result of the Paulson bailout plan that I would bet on is that Goldman Sachs will be well taken care of!

By the way, Mike, the quote you just provided -- accepting for the moment its veracity -- actually undercuts your efforts to blame Fannie and Freddie for the mess:

As of 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market.

In that case -- if Fannie and Freddie are really the source of the rot -- the Fed takeover of Fannie and Freddie should have gone a long way towards fixing things. Obviously, it did not. Investment banks -- some of which created their own CMOs that collected who knows what kind of risk -- continued and continue to fail, and the credit crisis shows little sign of slowing.

The irony of a Republican hack trying to blame the Democrats for a failure of capitalism is simply too rich.

They obviously thought the Democrats were key to unfettered access to bad loans.

That's only "obvious" to a dishonest Republican hack like you, Mike.

When you cited the "top three," I smelled a rat. Let's continue the list from your link, shall we?

Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from PACs Total from Individuals Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500 Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800 Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450 Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500 Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400 Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000 Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750

Out of the top 10, half are Republicans and half are Democrats. And how does it stack up overall?

"Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that. "

57 percent...overwhelming! And such a staggering sum, when Obama collects $66 million in a month! And factoring individual contributions, yet!

Your totals also combine those from the companies' PACs and from individual employees, a dishonest tactic that's been pointed out here in the past (note that I include the breakdowns). It's highly misleading to say the least to characterize contributions from employees of a corporation as contributions from the corporation itself

Misleading, did I say earlier? Let's face it, Mike -- the time to give you the benefit of the doubt is past; you're simply lying.

And for the top three Democrats you cited, the total from individuals is higher; for the next top three Republicans, the total from Fannie and Freddie's PACs are higher. Contrary to your implication, it would appear that the Republicans benefit from the organizations' own contributions.

Mike, if my advice not to overestimate your critical thinking skills aren't enough, your constant embarrassmnets here whould be, really. Is this the support you offer for your assertions of corruption and influence buying? Because the data appears not only to disprove your allegation, but to support it for the Republicans you shill for.

Did some conservative blog post this, and you just snap it up because of your continually misplaced faith? Are you genuinely too stupid to see that this data not only doesn't support but undermines your case and your Party? Or are you simply being dishonest and hoping we don't notice? Too late for that, I'm afraid.

Really, Mike, it won't do.

Gregory - Stop wasting your energy on SJRSM...

SJRSM - Go away you elephant shit eating troll.

Aw, crud, the HTML didn't format the table right.

The columns should be name, office (S for Senate, H for house), state, party, grand total (which Mike provided alone in his effort to deceive) total for PACs, total for individuals.

Note which numbers are bigger for the top three Republicans versus the Democrats. Each one of the top three Republicans received more from PACs than any of the top three Democrats. The Democrats' numbers is made up of individual contributions. I can see why it bugs mike that the D's are so much more popular this year than the party of failure, corruption, mendacity and incompetence he shills for, but only his dishonesty and willful ignorance is shameful about it.

Anyway, I'm confident enough in the data to provide a clickable link.

By the way, that $126,349 of Obama's that Mike cites with ominous implications?

$120,349 from individual donore -- the way Obama's been raising most of his campaign funds.

A lousy six grand from the PAC. Each of the top three Republicans got more than ten times as much.

You were saying, Mike?

(Don't worry, Vet, from long experience I'm under no illusion that Mike is honest enough to admit he's wrong. I'm just setting the record straight.)

Secular Animist.... couple of problems:

This is the same Bill Isaac who, per a post of mine, says that the FDIC insurance fund is but a myth without an Al Gore lockbox.

I also want to know by how much DeFazio, et al, propose to increase the amount of FDIC payments they're charged.

Likely answer? Zeeeero.

Gregory -- That's small potatoes compared to Goldman Sachs being Obama's No. 1 camapaign donor; combine that with rumors that Obama might keep Paulson on, and now you get the other reason, besides the House GOP, we ain't gonna get a real regulatory-driven bailout bill.

That's why Obama claims "we don't have time."

OneWorlder — You forgot to bring the rest of the Ron Paul folks.

Sorry if you can't handle the truth that your dearly beloved Democrats are no better whatsoever than Republicans

What truth? Far from establishing your so-called "truth," the evidence you cited shows that Republicans are worse! More contributions from the PACs for the top three Republicans than the Democrats.

That's just appalling, Mike -- I'm embarrassed for you -- but worse is your insistence on asserting your belief despite having not only failed to support it but also provided contradictory evidence.

You don't need to demonstrate further that you don't argue in good faith, Mike. You've already done it enough in this thread, and everyone knew it already.

Suppose instead of giving Wall Street $700 billion, that is $700, 000,000,000, we give it to all the legal people in the US who are over 18 years of age.

Assume that the US population is approximately 305 million in 2008 and that there are 200 million over the age of 18. 200 million folks is 2 x 10^8

So 7x10^11 divided by 2 x 10 ^8 is 3.5 x 10^3 or $35,000. Married couples would get $70,000.

Now let's assume that the recipients had to pay a 30% tax on that windfall, that would still leave $24,500 or $49,000 for the recipients and the actual cost to the treasury would only be $490 billion.

The rules would be that if you were in default on your mortgage it would have to go towards that first before any other use. Secondly, you would have to pay off any credit card debt.

But all the rest could go for -

small loan repayments
new cars
medical insurance
college tuition
new homes
new appliances
new computers
etc. etc.


Now that would fix much of the mortgage crisis, pumping lots of money into the stupid banks, employ lots of people making all that stuff people would purchase. If some of the big guys collapsed it wouldn't be so bad. None of the money would go to the smart guys and gals that got us into this mess in the first place and cost only $490 billion instead of $700 billion.

Secular Animist

As I read Nichols’ description of the Pete DeFazio bailout alternative, I think —

“Where’s the beef?�

Let’s look at a few of Nichols’ touting points:
• SEIU endorsed it? Given Andy Stern, this could be a negative;
• As I’ve blogged elsewhere, former FDIC head Bill Isaac is on record as saying that the idea of an actual pool of FDIC insurance money is a myth without a lockbox;
• There’s no mention on how much, if at all, banks would be charged to expand FDIC insurance limits to $250K.

You may think it's great; I'd say it's a lukewarm improvement on Round 1.

Republicans trying to blame their failures on the Democrats?

Quel surprise!. ;)

I've done a charming video on this very subject. It's called "Get Up. Screw Up. Blame the Liberals," and it will change your life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BkIU1GqXA