McCain: “It’s time to fix the problem”

posted at 6:05 pm on September 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

Nothing much of interest here, really, except an obligatory shot at Obama near the end. Now would have been the perfect time for Maverick to suspend his campaign to deal with the crisis. Too bad he played that card last week.

Meanwhile, Ace is apologizing to his readers for (a) listening to numerous experts who are telling him we’re in a gravely serious situation and (b) wanting to do something about it.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I really don’t belong here anymore. You people are such downers and alarmists. Hey, did you hear the Earth is warming? Why don’t you run with that?

VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

I keep spelling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae wrong! Today when I was discussing this I couldn’t even say them right!
I kept saying Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac!

JellyToast on September 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

SteveMG on September 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Why did Republican leadership say that some Republicans voted against this because of Pelosi’s immature partisan rant before the vote? Was he lying?

Or, did some Republicans switch their votes because they were angry at Pelosi, as the leadership statement implies? So, we have a national crisis, and some Republicans, maybe enough to change the outcome, didn’t put their party over country, or even ideology over country, they put their immature personal emotions over country.

Pelosi’s behavior was not good for our country.

And Republicans reported behavior is not good for our country or our party.

Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Dick Armey votes NO and for all of the right reasons. The current bill did nothing to address the cause of the meltdown and, thus, kicks the can further down the road.

onlineanalyst on September 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Dick Armey votes NO and for all of the right reasons. The current bill did nothing to address the cause of the meltdown and, thus, kicks the can further down the road.

But saves investors $1.2 trillion dollars, so Dick Armey can kiss my left nut.

nickj116 on September 29, 2008 at 7:03 PM

CATO is worthless in situations like this. Where the hell were they five years ago when this problem could’ve been fixed with position papers?

A position paper can’t fix a problem. It can provide a plan to fix it. And that’s equally true today.

The Monster on September 29, 2008 at 7:03 PM

patrick neid on September 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Well put, but not taking into account the governmental shift that such an action entails.

Apparently the trade-off for a slow, managed decline is an increasingly socialist economic system. Now, I would have less of a problem with that if I believed that the effects of such a system would be (a) temporary, and (b) confined to a small portion of the economic realm.

Given what I know about the persons that inhabit Capitol Hill and 1600 Penn. Ave., I can not believe that.

A Congressional bailout may in fact be the best solution, but I can not support one that is as large a steaming pile of crap as each of the proposed bills have been. And I am pessimistic that we will see any such crapless bill with Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Dodd, et al., playing major roles in its crafting.

Harpazo on September 29, 2008 at 7:04 PM

patrick neid on September 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Thank you.

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Plan B: Administratively the FDIC forces marriages (culls the heard of the weak banks) and injects capital as needed into the new entities… like what was just done with Wachovia – that’s being discussed in lieu of this Bill.

TheBigOldDog on September 29, 2008 at 7:05 PM

McCain doesn’t get it or else he is trying to be kind to his enemies. The money crunch is because of the Community Reinvestment Act and the renewed enforcement of it by the Clinton Administration. Reagan and Bush 1 ignored it. The subprime crisis of several months ago was the opening cracks in the scheme.

Congress could start correcting past mistakes by repealing this stupid law and removing Frank and Dodd from their committee positions.

Pelayo on September 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Nationalizing our economy and giving the Treasury Secretary dictator like powers to TEMPORARILY correct a problem is not a fix.
JellyToast on September 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM

And of course your version is nothing near what the reality of this is. This would not be anything like nationalizing our economy. And he wouldn’t have any dictator powers. My God.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

“It’s time to fix the problem”

Yeah? Well this bill would get cleaned up and stripped down to whats essential and fly through both the Senate and the House if the Dept. of Justice would start handing out subpoenas and indictments to the members of Congress who blocked the many attempts to avoid this crisis.

And if its truly time to fix this partisan boondoggle why hasn’t Pelosi gotten a clue and cleaned these sham up and passed it herself?
She could try offering a bill that nobody needs cover for.

So John, hows about making a public call for the DoJ to start putting people under oath?

Speakup on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Making an argument based on commonly accepted empirical data is not the same thing as an appeal to authority.

“You shouldn’t jump off a cliff because I said so” is an appeal to authority.

“You shouldn’t jump off a cliff as the fall will likely kill you” is not an appeal to authority.

So far, every argument I’ve heard for the bill reads like the former.

How’s about you watch the patronizing tone and we’ll call it even.

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Every argument relying on knowledge or understanding outside one’s own is indeed using an appeal to authority in some sense, and is often proper, as in the case of “my doc says I should take the pill, so I will.” (not commonly accepted empirical evidence, like gravity) It is not black and white, as you seem to indicate.

I’ll be happy to back off the patronizing tone when you back off the ‘I’m all that’ attitude.

trailboss on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D. Or.) said that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership always assumed that the bailout bill would pass. As a result, they failed to lean hard enough on people like DeFazio and other House Democrats who were allowed to vote “no” as a matter of conscience.

ejbentz on September 29, 2008 at 7:02 PM

No doubt Frau Pelosi will not again allow such a mistake as permitting Representatives to make up their own minds.

Harpazo on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

I’m voting Barr. If only Palin would join his ticket.

VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Well, if your goal is to make Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama happy, please do.

If your goal is to elect Obama as my husband’s commander in chief, please do.

funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Gah…that strikeout s/b a block quote.

Stupid buttons and no edit feature.

Harpazo on September 29, 2008 at 7:08 PM

I have from Indiana. I sent Pence an email and told him if that if this thing gets bad enough that I do not have a paycheck, I think he should give his up to. After all waxing poetic about the need to stand for free markets while those markets are tanking and your check is signed by the US Treasury, is just a tad hypocritical.

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 7:08 PM

But saves investors $1.2 trillion dollars, so Dick Armey can kiss my left nut.

nickj116 on September 29, 2008 at 7:03 PM

What good are those 1.2 trillion dollars when you’re simply setting yourself up to lose $10 trillion in a few years by continuing to subsidize risky behavior?

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Granting the Treasury broad authority to buy troubled assets from private entities poses a significant threat to taxpayers and fundamentally alters the relationship between the private economy and the federal government. Despite the sweeping breadth of the proposed bailout, there is virtually nothing in the bill that addresses the underlying problems that created the housing bubble and the oversized and over-leveraged financial services sector that grew with it. Taxpayers have become Wall Street’s newest financier, with little more than a promise — and a report to Congress on “regulatory modernization” — that Congress will not let this happen again. Dick Armey

“…there is virtually nothing in the bill that addresses the underlying problems…”

THAT SAYS IT ALL RIGHT THERE!! IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM THEN WE ARE JUST THROWING MONEY DOWN A HOLE AND NATIONALIZING OUR MARKETS WHILE GIVING DICTATOR LIKE POWERS TO THE TREASURY!
THEN,, WE DO IT ALL AGAIN DOWN THE ROAD!

JellyToast on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

I’m voting Barr. If only Palin would join his ticket.
VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Well, if your goal is to make Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama happy, please do.
If your goal is to elect Obama as my husband’s commander in chief, please do.
funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

I agree.

And I can’t believe that some people can be so stupid.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

And of course your version is nothing near what the reality of this is. This would not be anything like nationalizing our economy. And he wouldn’t have any dictator powers. My God.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Actually, it is, even if only “temporary.” When you have the Government taking major equity stakes in almost every financial institution and legislating worker compensation, that is the very definition of socialism.

TheBigOldDog on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

‘Cause I read something like 5 of your comments, and every one of them had the same, condescending tone. From where I sit, you’re probably about 1/3 as bright as you think you are, putz.

philwynk on September 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Been sitting on your head a long time, phil?

trailboss on September 29, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Emergency Rations for the Economically Self-Righteous.

How to cook your nose that you have cut off to spite your face:

Take One Removed Nose.
Marinate for 24 hours.
Blow gingerly.
Sautee.
Salt.
Eat.

Tastes remarkably like crow.

profitsbeard on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

I think I have early onset dimentia. I am from Indiana, not have. sigh.

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Yet another damned appeal to authority.

Can no one make an argument for it on the merits?

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

There’s nothing wrong with an appeal to authority if the appeal is to a person with expertise in the area under discussion. If we were talking about, say, particle physics, we’d defer to particle physicists, no?

paul006 on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Speakup at 7:07pm

Amen!

justincase on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Why did Republican leadership say that some Republicans voted against this because of Pelosi’s immature partisan rant before the vote? Was he lying?

Maybe he was talking through his hat?

If any Republican voted against this because of petty anger over her irresponsible comments, then shame on them.

And shame on her for her comments.

But the bottom line is the Democrats run the place and Pelosi has shown over the past two years that if she wants a vote, she’ll break arms and rules to get it.

She failed miserably here.

SteveMG on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

I’m sorry, but too many people here have no idea what the hell they are talking about. This isn’t about saying “Wall Street” this is about saving the credit market. If banks don’t lend, the economy will STOP! That means company can’t use their line of credit to purchase new goods or better yet pay their employees. But keep on clinging.

No money for buying cars, 50 inch LCD TV’s and no money for buying money for houses. Watch mortgage rates spike and the value of houses plummet.

So keep on clinging to your Ron Paul economic world view. All you people are going to do is help create European style socialism.

Pathetic

Lance Murdock on September 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Bear Stearns, Fredie and Fanny, AIG, 25 billion to the auto industry? When does it end Lance? Credit? EVERY time this nation has extended and operated on credit we have failed drastically. If a company needs a line of credit to pay their employees, they obviously are over-extended and are already ready for bankruptcy. Having a govenment that has no real assets loan the financial institutions “extended credit” does nothing to solve the sickness when they have already SOCIALIZED half the industry.

“No money for buying cars, 50 inch LCD TV’s and no money for buying money for houses. Watch mortgage rates spike and the value of houses plummet.”

Boo Frickin’ Who! What ever happened to the practice of saving to buy what is desired? I tore up my credit cards twenty years ago. No, I don’t drive a brand new car, own an overblown mortgage, or take 10k vacations, but I do live within my own means quite well. This nation has returned to the buy now pay later mentality that has always ended up biting you in the ass. Historical lessons we’ve still not allowed to sink in.

Rovin on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

No bailout. Let the market get rid of the cancer. These companies need to die.

jdun on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Mac just called the perky one a “so-called expert” in a CBS news interview a while ago.

Smoke, I’m telling you, was coming out her ears.

davidk on September 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM

anybody watch CBS news?

Allah, I’d love to have you post video of that….

funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM

“I’m voting Barr. If only Palin would join his ticket.
VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM”

That has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Bob Barr but only if he brings in Maverick’s know-nothing airhead veep. brilliant man, f cking brilliant.

Roger Waters on September 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM

I’m voting Barr. If only Palin would join his ticket.
VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Well, if your goal is to make Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama happy, please do.
If your goal is to elect Obama as my husband’s commander in chief, please do.
funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

I agree.

And I can’t believe that some people can be so stupid.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Their not stupid, they are simply being overly loyal to their ideology, like people who are overly loyal to family members when there are times they really ought not to be.

I appreciate loyalty, but sometimes it can blind you.

Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM

“…there is virtually nothing in the bill that addresses the underlying problems…”

Those words say it all!
They are not fixing the problem!! They are just spending money!

JellyToast on September 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM

It lasted that long because of ham-handed government intervention after the fact (Smoot-Hawley tariff, etc.).

Meh, pass the bill. Better to do it now than to wait for the hysteria to metastasize it into a monster. There’s enough people on this board that are willing to let experts tell them what to think that the thing could turn into the New Deal part two.

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Well, hate to say it, have to agree with the cause. Think we are likely to get anything less ham-fisted this time around? New Deal Part I was the end result of ’29.

trailboss on September 29, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Actually, it is, even if only “temporary.” When you have the Government taking major equity stakes in almost every financial institution and legislating worker compensation, that is the very definition of socialism.
TheBigOldDog on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

I’m sorry that we disagree on this. In what way is the government going to start legislating worker compensation here. I obviously missed that one.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Frankly, I haven’t been very impressed by Sen. McCain over the last few days in all this.

CP on September 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Regardless of the bailout or rescue or whatever you want to call it- a lot of business’s and people are going to fail- it’s going to be ugly , To believe that this bailout is going to solve the problem is wishful thinking.

We are going to pay for our over- consumption and (I truly believe) the Dem’s arrogance and greed, one way or another. Bush made big mistakes in his neglect, but the Dem’s were criminal.

anniekc on September 29, 2008 at 7:16 PM

I think I have early onset dimentia. I am from Indiana, not have. sigh.
Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Happens to us all at one time or another. When you read the comment, you get it’s not what the author meant, and understand what was intended.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:17 PM

I’m sorry that we disagree on this. In what way is the government going to start legislating worker compensation here. I obviously missed that one.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Read the Bill.

TheBigOldDog on September 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Frankly, I haven’t been very impressed by Sen. McCain over the last few days in all this.

Me neither.

Although I can’t think of anyone I have been impressed about.

Obama’s been smart to sort of stay in the background. Everyone is getting bloodied by this and the less blood on you the better you’ll look.

SteveMG on September 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

F— it.

I’m voting Barr. If only Palin would join his ticket.

VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Your Perot moment for more Clinton Socialism that caused this mess.

Chakra Hammer on September 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Rovin on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

I was using those things as example in a sarcastic tone. I too live within my means and don’t buy things I can’t afford. But as I clearly stated here, you clearly don’t understand the situation. This is not about saving Wall St. This is about restarting the credit market. Believe me or in your case don’t believe me. Credit is still moving, but slowly and if the credit market freezes up, you’ll regret what you said. I rather take my chances with a crappy bill than take no chance at all.

Lance Murdock on September 29, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Paul006 at 7:11pm

That’s about all we can do, but if the “experts” have ripped you off for years, why believe them? Nancy Pelosi makes the “expert” claim that this is the result of Bush economic policies when everybody knows it’s from CRA forcing banks to make loans that would never be paid back – except by taxpayers. With that kind of “expert” it puts us all over a barrel. We have nobody we can trust.

The people in Washington and in the newsrooms should have seen this credibility crisis coming a long ways away. What we have in America now is two sides, neither trusting anybody from the other side. The media has done nothing to earn credibility, and that hurts us. We are a nation without factual reporting and without an enduring (as opposed to politically-maneuvered) Constitution.

This crisis is the tip of a much, much worse iceberg in America – what happens when there is nobody who can be trusted to not lie and rip the people off for all we’re worth. That’s why Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air. But the political/media machine is shredding her up too. We’re hopeless, unless somebody “gets it”.

justincase on September 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

She failed miserably here.

SteveMG on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

I agree about Pelosi. She claimed she had put together a bi-partisan bill that was really 90%+ Democrat, then she gave a partisan rant and couldn’t deliver enough Democrats to pass it.

However, Republicans must be 200% clean or the MSM will demagogue then, as we all know. So, Republican complaints & behavior regarding Pelosi’s speech just handed a great story line to the MSM to blame today’s crash on the Republicans. And given the leadership’s statement, it is a very believable story.

Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:22 PM

CATO is worthless in situations like this. Where the hell were they five years ago when this problem could’ve been fixed with position papers?

That is the funniest post of the day. Only a nut in college could think a position paper is good for anything except to place the paper in the ready to wipe position.

Wade on September 29, 2008 at 7:22 PM

Read the Bill.
TheBigOldDog on September 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Perhaps you could quote me the applicaple paragraph that you are referring to

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:22 PM

How many homes going into foreclosure have 50+ inch fancy TVs and stereo systems worth tens of thousands of dollars in them? Why should my tax dollars go to bail out these people? I think that’s the issue most folks have with this whole deal. If the legislation doesn’t fix the underlying irresponsible credit and spending problems, it just seems like it’s not going to actually save us from a real problem.

I was listening to one of those consumer advocate guys several years ago, and a guy called in who wanted to know how he could legally force the automotive repo guy to allow him to take his 10,000 dollar car stereo system out of the vehicle. See, the stereo system was paid off, but the idiot didn’t make his car payments.

That’s the kind of thing that has caused an awful lot of the current trouble.

And where is George W Bush? Really, if this was such a huge crisis, why isn’t the President out front and center on it?

funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Every time I hear that moron Barney Frank get up and say trust me vote the money I call my congressman and tell him to vote no.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM

In what way is the government going to start legislating worker compensation here. I obviously missed that one.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

It mandates a $400,000 max for executives for participating companies.

Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Cavuto just said that credit has not dried up. Corporations with good credit history will still get credit and loans. Home buyers with the high crefit scores will also get loans.

The buyers with low credit scores will not get loans, which is funny because that is the way it should have been all along.

The financial train wreck did not happen las Friday. It’s been a work in progress, and the sky has not fallen.

Pelayo on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

I think lots of us have been disappointed by McCain these past few days- I am however more inclined to vote against an Obama administration, than for a McCain one.

anniekc on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

I don’t know why McCain says he wants to put aside partisan politics and then gets a dig at Obama in the next sentence. It doesn’t matter if its true that Obama is playing politics, you don’t say that if you are trying to be above the fray. It just reinforces the idea that everything he is doing is a stunt. And I say that as someone who thinks McCain is generally more serious than Obama. Maybe some speechwriter just put it in the draft of his remarks and he just read it without thinking about it. That’s the only charitable explanation I can think of.

RINO in Name Only on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Harpazo and spmat,

a tip of the hat to you both.

patrick neid on September 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Meanwhile, Ace is apologizing to his readers for (a) listening to numerous experts who are telling him we’re in a gravely serious situation and (b) wanting to do something about it.

Meanwhile Michelle Malkin is posting anti-panic chicken-little lectures.

Topsecretk9 on September 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Boo Frickin’ Who! What ever happened to the practice of saving to buy what is desired?

Rovin on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Exactly! The mindset of these bailout shills is that the status quo are the only companies that can run the market. BS! The people who are in trouble have strayed from sound financial practices. They deserve to fail. They deserve to lose their jobs. They deserve to suffer the consequences of risking their fortunes in a quest for more, more, MORE! They wanted more…they got NOTHING!!!

Screw them all! They can burn in financial hell!

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

I don’t like ‘bailing out’ idiots and morons who wanted to live beyond their means, but we are now beyond that now. We need to save the credit market.

Lance Murdock on September 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

However, Republicans must be 200% clean or the MSM will demagogue then, as we all know. So, Republican complaints & behavior regarding Pelosi’s speech just handed a great story line to the MSM to blame today’s crash on the Republicans. And given the leadership’s statement, it is a very believable story.

Yes. Two and one-half cheers.

I think Boehner might be doing some fanny covering with this excuse. The latest I heard (Mort Kondracke Roll Call/Fox) was that he had 70 votes going in and wound up with 66.

SteveMG on September 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

The market lost more today that then entire cost of the bailout.

Only those who sold today lost money, who had bought shares at higher prices. Somebody who had bought an index fund in, say 2002, is still ahead.

There is no profit or loss in Wall Street except for those who sell their shares. Smart investors won’t sell now–they will wait until it inevitably goes back up again. Or they will buy when it gets really cheap, then make money. People who have money in diversified IRAs or 401K’s, who aren’t retiring next year, will wait it out.

Paulson did say something sensible after the failure of the bailout bill, that the Treasury could handle things without Congress. Not really the Treasury, but the Federal Reserve–it can allow banks to “borrow” liquidities at very low interest rates, in effect “creating money”, over the short term, to keep banks afloat until bad loans can be gradually written off, and banks can make money off good loans to pay their debts.

There is a downside to this–future inflation. More dollars in circulation means each dollar is worth less. But if Congress had passed a bailout bill, the burden would be borne by taxpayers–about half the population. If the Fed bails out the banks by “creating money”, it fuels future inflation, the burden of which would be borne by the entire population, although the Fed can always tighten lending when the system becomes liquid again. It could be that letting the Fed handle things is a fairer way of sharing the burden.

But in an inflationary economy, payments on fixed-rate mortgages decrease in value with time–effectively rewarding responsible borrowers. There might be some “merit” to this!

Steve Z on September 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Here’s the thing guys…credit never goes away, it just gets more expensive. What do you think about paying prime (times) interest instead of prime plus? What do you think that would do to, say, a fortune 500 company’s cash flow? Commercial paper went from 3 to 5 % recently — how does 14% sound? It wouldn’t surprise me. It never *stops*…borrowing money just becomes very very expensive. And that slows down the economy a lot.

Personally I think Pelosi goaded them into voting no, and likely had a few on her caucus vote no as insurance. Now, in a few days when panic is high enough, they can pass a bill that will say whatever they please.

Conservatives turning on their own here is pretty pathetic.

Patrick: I agree with you that this won’t stop the market decline. That’s the thing about the business cycle: you have to take your medicine at some point. However, I don’t think people quite realize the difference between an orderly correction and a panic. Come Thursday I think a lot of people’s 401(k)s might have them singing a different tune.

k2aggie07 on September 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM

The expectation to get something for nothing has caused this. I am actually quite encouraged that 78% of Americans understand that there is no free lunch and they aren’t going to give their lunch to the fool who is waiting for one.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM

jdripper at 7:24pm

I heard NPR in the car. They went from Barney Frank acting like the cure-all guy, to a report on the “unprecedented firing of US attorneys”. I thought, “We just heard from a crook who’s hailed as an expert, followed by Bush being blamed for the non-crime of firing only the known incompetent hacks.”

And they wonder why we don’t trust the media. Geez.

justincase on September 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM

You know what’s interesting is that many GOP-supporters have said that one thing that would assure the McCain campaign a victory is if there is a terrorist attack, because the nation overwhelmingly trusts the GOP on foreign policy and national security issues. Well, I don’t think anyone was predicting that the one thing that would assure the Obama campaign a victory is if there is an economic crisis, because (polls suggest) the majority of the nation trusts Democrats on economic issues.

But this just might be the turning point in this campaign. This campaign may now hinge on whom the nation blames for the economic crisis and whom they most trust to bring us through this.

Michael in MI on September 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM

You know the really pitiful thing that’s not P.C. to talk about is that in many cities, these foreclosed homes have zero value; They’ve been trashed by the “owners” who had no business owning a home. Many of them are on the auction market for around a 1000.00. I’m not seeing any “profit” for the taxpayer from them- Tp imply that banks are going to go into the “Flip” business and make a profit is ludicrous.

anniekc on September 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Frankly, I haven’t been very impressed by Sen. McCain over the last few days in all this.
Me neither.

Although I can’t think of anyone I have been impressed about.

Obama’s been smart to sort of stay in the background. Everyone is getting bloodied by this and the less blood on you the better you’ll look.

SteveMG on September 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Didn’t Obama claim he pulled this bill together?

Marybeth on September 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM

I don’t know why McCain says he wants to put aside partisan politics and then gets a dig at Obama in the next sentence.
RINO in Name Only on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

The first one involves real work in the senate, and the other is speaking truth to the people. Sorry you can’t see the difference.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM

After all waxing poetic about the need to stand for free markets while those markets are tanking

You know its not an IMPERATIVE that people pull their money out of the markets. And besides, the losses are incremental to the individual investor. Where does all the money go when pulled out of the market? Oh, right into Treasury Bills.

JonPrichard on September 29, 2008 at 7:33 PM

!!!Carleton Sheets for President!!!

equanimous on September 29, 2008 at 7:34 PM

The day that Democrats put aside political upmanship for the sake of the nation is the day I awake in Jesus’ arms.

leftnomore on September 29, 2008 at 7:34 PM

the majority of the nation trusts Democrats on economic issues.

Its true about what the polls reflect. But what have the Democrats done in the last 40 years to earn trust on economic issues? What? ANYTHING?!!

No.

JonPrichard on September 29, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Every argument relying on knowledge or understanding outside one’s own is indeed using an appeal to authority in some sense, and is often proper, as in the case of “my doc says I should take the pill, so I will.”

You aren’t listening. “My doctor told me to” is not an argument. It is a justification for a decision. Yes, a decision can be made based on such a justification, and oftentimes such decisions are the right ones, but they are predicated on trust, not truth. If you didn’t trust your doctor, you would ask for further evidence, based on fact and logic, that would convince you of his prognosis, or you would leave him for another opinion.

It is not black and white, as you seem to indicate.

And if your infallible authorities told you to jump off that cliff? At what point would you start asking for “black and white” specifics? If/when Paulson et al. starts asking for $5 trillion to fix the crisis created by the first $700 billion, will you ask for specifics then, or will their authority still be sufficient?

The point is, if you’re making your decision based on what your “betters” tell you to think, then you cease to be relevant in the decision-making process. The only people Paulson needs to convince at that point are the punditry, Gingrich, etc. The current aristocracy of influence. I like to be convinced on the merits when it comes to something of this magnitude, and any time there’s this kind of a vacuum of logical, empirical justification, I get suspicious.

I’ll be happy to back off the patronizing tone when you back off the ‘I’m all that’ attitude.

trailboss on September 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Dude. Everyone here has that attitude. Present company excluded, of course.

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Everyone is getting bloodied by this and the less blood on you the better you’ll look.

Yeah, like the guy that hides behind the jukebox in a bar fight. But would you really VOTE for that guy?!

JonPrichard on September 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Paulson did say something sensible after the failure of the bailout bill, that the Treasury could handle things without Congress. Not really the Treasury, but the Federal Reserve–it can allow banks to “borrow” liquidities at very low interest rates, in effect “creating money”, over the short term, to keep banks afloat until bad loans can be gradually written off, and banks can make money off good loans to pay their debts.

There is a downside to this–future inflation. More dollars in circulation means each dollar is worth less. But if Congress had passed a bailout bill, the burden would be borne by taxpayers–about half the population. If the Fed bails out the banks by “creating money”, it fuels future inflation, the burden of which would be borne by the entire population, although the Fed can always tighten lending when the system becomes liquid again. It could be that letting the Fed handle things is a fairer way of sharing the burden.
But in an inflationary economy, payments on fixed-rate mortgages decrease in value with time–effectively rewarding responsible borrowers. There might be some “merit” to this!

Steve Z on September 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM

hmmmmmmmm

double hmmmmmm

funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

I suggest we get a good fix on what caused the problem, then we can figure out what it takes to fix it.

Did anybody propose that Enron or Worldcom be bailed out?

We spend $700 billion for foreign fuel a year, looks to me that a sensible energy plan could keep about $500 billion or more in the USA. Why not start there.

I don’t think making the Treasury Secretary King makes much sense.

tarpon on September 29, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Are there any banking institutions that are not in trouble right now? Banks that stood up to pressure by community organizers and didn’t give out bad loans? Or banks that only gave out the bare minimum of these loans required by the CRA?

If so, those are the institutions that I’d like to deal with in the future.

If not, I think I’ll start keeping my money under my mattress. (kidding…about the mattress. Not kidding about wanting to reward banks that didn’t jump on the subprime bandwagon).

JadeNYU on September 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM
USAA

I hate to go back to this since this comment was almost an hour ago, but I just got on.

Please know that there are good, responsible banks out there. I work for one here in North Carolina and we absolutely HATE what happened to Wachovia today, even thought they were the competition (no, I don’t work for the other big bank here in Charlotte). Our current Chairman actually wrote to all the members of the house and told them why they should be including the banks, who have succeeded in these tough times, in the discussion of the bailouts. He wanted to know why they were listening to the ones who failed, when obviously what they did didn’t work. I’m thanking my lucky stars every day to have a job at the bank I’m at and not one of the Big Two here.

Smitty24 on September 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM

There’s nothing wrong with an appeal to authority if the appeal is to a person with expertise in the area under discussion. If we were talking about, say, particle physics, we’d defer to particle physicists, no?

paul006 on September 29, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Yes, but those particle physicists don’t immediate answer your question with “because I said so.” They justify their position with solid argumentation. Well, they do that if they respect you, at least. Frankly, that Bush decided to take that kind of “because I said so” tact with this bill is the main reason I’m skeptical of it. The fact that its supporters spend more time name-dropping than educating is another reason I’m skeptical of it.

spmat on September 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM

I have struggled for years to have what I have. Just to have Congress piss it away. I want heads on pikes on Pennsylvania Avenue. And I would rather stand in a soup line and live under a bridge than give up one more dime to the bastards.

JonRoss on September 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM

All y’all calling for a repeal of the capital gains tax, and for an end to marked-to-market requirements, and other free market solutions (including repealing CRA and firing of Dodd et. al), do you not realize who is in control of congress?

The fact that there is tons of ACORN slush and mess embroiled in this should be a wakeup call. We couldn’t pass the things y’all want on a good day of congress. What on earth makes you think they’re going to wake up and use ANWR royalties to pay for this now? Wake up and quit wishing for pie in the sky — it’s stupid!

This bill (even if it wasn’t intentionally scuttled by Pelosi…) was, perhaps, the best we were going to see. Pelosi’s rant made no sense unless she didn’t give a flip about whether or not it actually passed. It appears she played the house republicans like fiddles, and now they’re left holding the bag looking suspiciously a lot like idiots.

We’ll find out in a few days if she can drum up a completely quorum along party lines to vote for a much bigger, much uglier bill.

k2aggie07 on September 29, 2008 at 7:43 PM

THEN,, WE DO IT ALL AGAIN DOWN THE ROAD!
JellyToast on September 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Apparently, yes. Michelle had a post today about LA Mayor Villaraigosa going ahead with a $5 billion plan to build housing for the poor. He was hopeful that “Federal dollars may flow to the city because of the foreclosure crisis, for example.”

So, hey, let’s spend $70 billion to right the ship, and then keep insisting banks lend money to people who can’t pay it back, and let’s keep funding community activists to twist the arms of banks to make the loans, and everything will be peachy keen. What could go wrong, again?

Nichevo on September 29, 2008 at 7:43 PM

I was using those things as example in a sarcastic tone. I too live within my means and don’t buy things I can’t afford. But as I clearly stated here, you clearly don’t understand the situation. This is not about saving Wall St. This is about restarting the credit market. Believe me or in your case don’t believe me. Credit is still moving, but slowly and if the credit market freezes up, you’ll regret what you said. I rather take my chances with a crappy bill than take no chance at all.
Lance Murdock on September 29, 2008 at 7:20 PM

This is where we disagree Lance. This whole mess has perpetuated over the extension of credit to those who were totally unqualified, including businesses over the period of years, (10 to 15). The same principal happened in ’29 when some one came up with the bonehead idea of allowing stocks to be purchased on credit. With this whole financial mess tied into global markets, even one trillion dollars would not stop the bleeding that many will have to endure before this ends. Only when credit drys up will you have investors re-enter a cash based market that relys on real assets. Confidence on credit or government phoney paper issued in the guise of real capital will never be the same.

Rovin on September 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I don’t know why McCain says he wants to put aside partisan politics and then gets a dig at Obama in the next sentence.
RINO in Name Only on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

The first one involves real work in the senate, and the other is speaking truth to the people. Sorry you can’t see the difference.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM

I can see the difference just fine. Claiming that your opponent can’t put aside politics for the good of the country is a classic campaign argument, in use since time began. No one who hears it will think McCain is putting aside politics, unless they already support him.

If you were on the fence between two candidates and one of them said “I wish the other guy would put aside politics for a moment, like I’m doing,” you would laugh at him, because in that very sentence, he’s doing exactly what he accuses his opponent of.

RINO in Name Only on September 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

In My Opinion…………………..

For all those that Screwed the Pooch and got us to where we are today….they should fall, fail, be thrown out of office, what ever you want to call it, they do not deserve to stay in the market place or in office and play with our money.

The tax payers who are going to have to foot this bail out should have the last say on what is passed…..so far they don’t like it and you can bet your ass if they don’t like the next version they will light up the phones and emails again and we will be waiting for version three.

If the DC people sneak one by the people and it sucks the big one…………………………I hope they can find a good job back home because the voters will kick their asses to the curb next time they come up for re-election…….

……if they don’t find away to kick them out earlier.

Old Hippie Vet on September 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM

I don’t think people are getting what this is about. The purpose of this bill was not to solve any and all problems related to the credit sector for the last decade.

The purpose was to keep credit from freezing up to the point that employers can not make payroll. It is not just about living within your means, it is about business being able to buy supplies and material. It is about people being able to get car loans and if they can not…how much more damage will that do to the auto industry and the people who depend on it?

Some people just sound either selfish, or willfully dense.

It is as if they are in denial.

What good do bailouts do? Well, in the past they have turned profits for the government and have in fact done some good, but the larger problem is that people who do live within their means will end up being hurt just like the bad people who did the bad thing and got a bad loan.

Some people sound almost spiteful about this, as if they want to see people hurt.

This is not ideology, it is demagoguery.

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM

This bill (even if it wasn’t intentionally scuttled by Pelosi…) was, perhaps, the best we were going to see. Pelosi’s rant made no sense unless she didn’t give a flip about whether or not it actually passed. It appears she played the house republicans like fiddles, and now they’re left holding the bag looking suspiciously a lot like idiots.

She did the same thing with the energy bill completely igoring the demands of 70% of the nation. It’s way past time to send this nutcase back to the Republic of SF/Berkeley

Rovin on September 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Meanwhile, Ace is apologizing to his readers for (a) listening to numerous experts who are telling him we’re in a gravely serious situation and (b) wanting to do something about it.

Meanwhile Michelle Malkin is posting anti-panic chicken-little lectures.

Topsecretk9 on September 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

When the country’s two largest mortgage lenders and largest bank go bankrupt in a few months, and economists are calling this an historic credit crunch, it in not unreasonable to worry about the economy. because this has been developing for months and nobody has done anything, the likelihood of panic is increasing.

Passage of this bailout bill, as bad as it was, would have helped discourage panic, but it failed. And today’s sell-off was panic behavior, and it may trigger further panic that could damage the economy worse than it already has been.

Calling people chicken-little, blaming Reagan & Bush, blaming Democrats, or calling for secession from the Union if a bailout is passed, simply induces even more emotional and irrational responses. And that further feeds the panic.

Calm and reasonable dialogue and federal action is what is needed ASAP to increase economic confidence and reduce the likelihood of further panic. Then, work on undoing the underlying causes, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, and promote economic growth to counter the damage done, through US oil production, for example.

Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Well put Terrye. I believe the term you’re searching for is “collateral damage”. A perfect example of this is the commercial paper market, which has little to nothing to do with MBS’s…the only connection is via the financial system. The problem has metastasized, and people are here want to bleed the patient.

k2aggie07 on September 29, 2008 at 7:49 PM

But would you really VOTE for that guy?!

JonPrichard on September 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

The cowards who will vote for Obama are the types that hide behind the jukebox.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Jon:

Some of it goes into Treasury bills, some of it just goes. People are losing money. Do you honestly think that as stock prices fall and more and more people sell stock for less than they paid for it, that there is no effect on them financially?

As for what Democrats have done for people, it seems that people think they have, that is how they vote. They think that Democrats are more concerned about the needs of working people. At least that is what they tell me when I ask them that very question. They also say Republicans don’t care if you go broke, they won’t lift a finger to help a working man. That is just the attitude. I have tried to explain the whole nanny state breeds dependency thing, but when things look scary, they tend to lean Democrat.

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 7:52 PM

….Calm and reasonable dialogue and federal action is what is needed ASAP to increase economic confidence and reduce the likelihood of further panic. Then, work on undoing the underlying causes, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, and promote economic growth to counter the damage done, through US oil production, for example.

Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

With all due respect, bull crap. This is not going to happen. Pelosi and company want to drive a stake through the heart of capitalism. They have almost accomplished it. The passage of this bill ends the great American experiment. We, the citizens, are no longer of any consequence. Like I said above. Heads on spikes on Pennsylvania Ave. Until that happens, to hell with them all.

JonRoss on September 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM

I think lots of us have been disappointed by McCain these past few days- I am however more inclined to vote against an Obama administration, than for a McCain one.

anniekc on September 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

McCain has shown Solid leadership IMHO, he has more balls that ANYONE in congress or in ANY position of power..

He needs to be elected by large a LARGE Majority and I will be voting for McCain with enthusiasm.

I was never a McCain supporter during the Primaries I always supported Rudy even before Rudy announced but McCain has put his Country First just like he did with the Surge in Iraq, and he is the guy that needs to be in the White House No questions about it.

McCain/Palin ’08

Chakra Hammer on September 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Calling people chicken-little, blaming Reagan & Bush, blaming Democrats, or calling for secession from the Union if a bailout is passed, simply induces even more emotional and irrational responses. And that further feeds the panic.
Loxodonta on September 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

It’s amusing to see what’s going on here are mirroring what’s going on in DC.

Well, “amusing” if the people in DC weren’t actually toying with our futures in the name of politics. And while both parties share responsibility, the most shamelessly partisan and destructive aspects are coming from the democrats.

wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Some people sound almost spiteful about this, as if they want to see people hurt.

This is not ideology, it is demagoguery.

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Don’t confuse expectations of equal treatment as spite. These people deserve what they get and I don’t deserve to have to bail them out or have to compete with them when the field is not equal.

I ask no one to bail me out. NO ONE! I expect others to do the same and accept responsibility for their poor choices like mature adults are expected to. Only people with a child’s mindset believe that “mommy” is going to kiss the boo-boo and make it all go away.

If you can’t pay the price of your behavior, then don’t engage in that behavior.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Paulson did say something sensible after the failure of the bailout bill, that the Treasury could handle things without Congress. Not really the Treasury, but the Federal Reserve–it can allow banks to “borrow” liquidities at very low interest rates, in effect “creating money”, over the short term, to keep banks afloat until bad loans can be gradually written off, and banks can make money off good loans to pay their debts.

There is a downside to this–future inflation. More dollars in circulation means each dollar is worth less. But if Congress had passed a bailout bill, the burden would be borne by taxpayers–about half the population. If the Fed bails out the banks by “creating money”, it fuels future inflation, the burden of which would be borne by the entire population, although the Fed can always tighten lending when the system becomes liquid again. It could be that letting the Fed handle things is a fairer way of sharing the burden.
But in an inflationary economy, payments on fixed-rate mortgages decrease in value with time–effectively rewarding responsible borrowers. There might be some “merit” to this!

Steve Z on September 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM

phronesis? unseen? I’d love your honest appraisal of that….if the Bush admin could grease the wheels with a little loosening of the money supply, wouldn’t that be OK? I don’t really care about the Dow, but if the credit crunch could be handled by the executive branch, without involvement of Dodd, Frank, Reid, and Pelosi, wouldn’t that be better?

and, wonder of wonders, it could pull the rug right out from under Obambi’s little feet.

funky chicken on September 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Don’t confuse expectations of equal treatment as spite. These people deserve what they get and I don’t deserve to have to bail them out or have to compete with them when the field is not equal.

I ask no one to bail me out. NO ONE! I expect others to do the same and accept responsibility for their poor choices like mature adults are expected to. Only people with a child’s mindset believe that “mommy” is going to kiss the boo-boo and make it all go away.

If you can’t pay the price of your behavior, then don’t engage in that behavior.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

DAMN RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Old Hippie Vet on September 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Roger Waters on September 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Look man, I can’t help it that you are the type of person to bend over whenever they’re scared. Some of us don’t like it in the rear. That’s all.

P.S. Palin could eat your lunch buddy. Heck, she’d kill and filet it, give it to you, then take it back to eat.

(PLAYA)

VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 7:59 PM

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Noble, but you’re in the wrong place.

The prevailing theme here is that WE ARE ALL GOING TO H#LL IN A HANDBASKET AND CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR STUPID IDEOLOGY IS TO BLAME!!!!!!11!!!elventy!1!

VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Loxodonta:

I agree. The economy is in real trouble and all some people want to do is bicker.

I heard on the panel on Brit Hume, that it is possible Bush will have to pass some Executive Order in the next few days to try and keep it all afloat.

I think this vote was a failure in leadership.

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 8:02 PM

question realty

equanimous on September 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

VolMagic:

No, I don’t think that is true. And since when did conservative ideology embrace disaster? Do you think that if Reagan were facing just such a situation he would counsel doing nothing?

Terrye on September 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4