Next For the Rescue

George Stephanopoulos lays out four paths forward for the rescue package:

# 1 -- Muscle Bailout Bill Through House: [Fear will lend them wings.]

#2 -- Pass Bailout in Senate First: ...There appears to be broader support in the Senate for the bailout package. This option would see the Senate vote first which would increase the pressure on the House to pass the Bush administration's bailout bill.

#3 -- Make Small Tweaks to the Bill: Congressional leaders wonder if perhaps there are a couple of small tweaks they can make to the package that would bring along the 12 votes they lost the vote by....

#4 -- Get More Democrats On Board: Finally, one other unlikely option talked about on Capitol Hill is to try to pass the bill almost entirely with the Democratic majority in the House. That would require adding a major stimulus package favored by Democrats, infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance spending, and heating and food stamp assistance for low-income Americans.

Only Option 4, the Dem Dream Bill, unnerves me.  But I think Nancy pounds the table, insists that she can't rely on Republicans, and passes a take-it-or-leave it Option 4 bill for Bush, Paulson and the Senate to deal with.

Set aside the queston of what the "right" bill would contain, since expert opinion varies so widely.  Instead, focus on the questions that play to Pelosi's strength and orientation: what is best for Pelosi, for House Democrats, for Senate Democrats, and for Barack Obama.  She will take the path that optimizes her partisan advantage.  I am guessing that takes us to Option 4 - the bill will be a clean Dem dream with plenty of raw meat and giveaways for Dem constituencies.  If Republican's don't like it, well, Republicans already expressed their opposition to the current bill.  If the public at large doesn't like it, Pelosi will blame McCain, Bush, and the House Republicans.

Now, Pelosi may not have the courage for a bold approach that actually involves leadership, risk-taking, and (perhaps) accountability.  In that case, Option 3 - substantially the same bill voted down today with a few cosmetic tweaks - is the easy way out.

Comments

[ben]

I vote for Door No. 3....
Bush should say right now he will veto No. 4 so anything in that regard will be clearly seen as politics and a waste of time.

[mark l.]

"#4 -- Get More Democrats On Board: Finally, one other unlikely option talked about on Capitol Hill is to try to pass the bill almost entirely with the Democratic majority in the House."

never. these dems didn't vote against it becuase they didn't like what pelosi said, they knew they would lose their seats.

maybe if they offerred the black caucus their own casino lands...

[clarice]

Gingrich has proposed a work out bill--not a bail out bill. Thinka Pelosi will do a big give away if they try bail out again.
His most intriguing suggestion is that the Administration do away with mark to market rule tomorrow which he says it can do without getting anything from Congress.

[sbw]

Here's a draft for comment...

Headline: Something smells.

Yesterday's House of Representatives vote stages a gambit reminiscent of the ploy in the "Manchurian Candidate." In the 1962 movie, scheming politicians plan to stampede voters into electing their stooge in the upcoming elections.

In the bloody aftermath of yesterday's defeat of the bipartisan compromise financial bill in the House, Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Finance Committee, played the part of a congressman who had worked so hard to pass the bill. Blaming 12 unnamed Republicans for the bill's failure, his impassioned sound bite created a new urban myth just in time for the upcoming elections.

Fortunately, just as the plot in the "Manchurian Candidate" was exposed before it could be carried out, the fingerprints on the Democrat's plot are obvious enough to be exposed, too.

It's not the unnamed 12 Republicans who voted against the bill that tell all. It's the specific Democrats who voted against the bill tell us all that expose the scheme.
-- If Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House believed passage of the bill was essential to the economy and wanted the support of Republican votes, she would not have prefaced the vote with a highly partisan tirade against administration economic policies.
-- If she wanted passage, Pelosi's top committee chairs and subcommittee chairs would not have voted against it.
-- If she wanted passage, Pelosi's close friends and allies would not have voted against it.
-- If she wanted passage, the Democrats on Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee would not have voted against it.
-- If she wanted passage, she would have brought the Congressional Black Caucus into line.

Pelosi's speech was rabble-rousing. "Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs; it can create wealth — many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos."

Pelosi's speech signaled her intention to make this a partisan issue, and use it to beat up on Republicans who supported the bill — putting both their principles and their seats in jeopardy. It was a declaration of war. She has happy to see Republicans bolt. It gave her someone to blame.

The bill's failure was deliberate and planned. The very same people blocking the reform measures that were recommended back in 2004 are the ones blaming others for failures resulting from their own conniving.

These shameless, lying hypocrites, now spread anger, fear, resentment, hate, and panic to stampede voters in the upcoming election. We will not be party to it.

[Joan]

I'm going to offer Door #5: Pelosi gets a massive migraine and can't come to the House for two weeks. That would be the mother of migraines, wouldn't it.

[TCO2]

BOO!!

[sbw]

*** who voted against the bill that expose the scheme.

[mark l.]

I'm all for floating the sentiment that 12 seats are open to reconsideration if pelosi resigns.

The problem for the house is that the bill becomes even less popular as time goes by, if they held the vote tommorrow, with the foregone conclusion that it would fail, it would be lucky to get 120 votes.

[TCO2]

These shameless, lying hypocrites, now spread anger, fear, resentment, hate, and panic to stampede voters in the upcoming election. We will not be party to it.

Unfortunately you are the authors of it.

[Chris]

I'm thinking option 2. Introduce the bill that lost by 12 votes today in the Senate, without all the partisanship. Let them pass it (assuming they can) and send to the house.

Another possibility would be a reform package. Suspend mark-to-market accounting for financials. Or at least add that provision to any bailout and see what happens.

Option 5 might work. Re-introduce the bill that failed today without any partisan haranguing by the Speaker and see what happens.

[BOATBUILDER]

Agreed--and he should do so with a strong expression of support for both the Republicans who worked hard to put together a workable, if unpleasant compromise in the face of extreme partisan attacks and the unpopular nature of the bill, and the Republicans and Democrats who heeded the voices of their constituents to vote against the bill. Like McCain, he should pointedly criticise the extreme partisanship of the Democratic leadership. The country will know who and what he's talking about.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Was the Bailout Vote a Partisan Set-Up?

[TCO2]

The problem for the house is that the bill becomes even less popular as time goes by

The next bill will be even worse than the last, and if nothing passes at all, Republicans will be blamed for any ensuing catastrophe. Congratulations to the house Republicans on a job well done! You were all outsmarted by Nan. Let that sink in for a while and enjoy the moment.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

What's wrong with Newt's suggestion of creating a lending vehicle at Treasury + 2.

[Jack]

"That would require adding a major stimulus package favored by Democrats, infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance spending, and heating and food stamp assistance for low-income Americans."

Hm, I don't think those are the things the thousands of calls from constituents are demanding. Those are traditional salves to keep the Democratic base distracted from realizing their party is the party of Wall Street now, not Roosevelt.

"She was happy to see Republicans bolt."

She sure did not look that way. This was a major defeat for a Speaker who stood side by side with George Bush for two weeks. She has lost a lot of political capital, and she knows it.

[mark l.]

"Republicans will be blamed for any ensuing catastrophe."

It should be chapter one in every political text.

[Chris]

"Congratulations to the house Republicans on a job well done! You were all outsmarted by Nan. Let that sink in for a while and enjoy the moment."

There is an alternate possibility, the Nan (and Barney and Chris) was outsmarted by Nan (and Barney and Chris).

[MeTooThen]

The real question is why did 90+ Democrats vote against the bill, and why is it unpatriotic for the Republicans only to have done the same?

Pelosi and Reid are using the Bailout Bill to game the election, and ultimately will pass the bill they want (Acorn, Slush Fund, etc.) and force Bush to sign it.

Here is Karl Rove talking about the cynicism that is Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and the 90+ Democratic "No's"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGpxUEN4RU

BTW, I have no idea what the right answer here, or if there is a right, or even best answer.

But at some point and time the politics and precedent that has been the Pelosi/Reid Congress will one day, come back to haunt them.

Just sayin'.

[Chris]

***That Nan***
Although "the Nan" isn't far off.

[TCO2]

There is an alternate possibility, the Nan (and Barney and Chris) was outsmarted by Nan (and Barney and Chris).

Why would Nan want to be responsible for an unpopular bill when she can blame its failure on the opposition and effectively saddle them with the horrors to come?

[R C Dean]

Introduce the bill that lost by 12 votes today in the Senate, without all the partisanship.

Too late for that. The partisanship is baked in.

Option 3: small tweaks to convince 12 Congressionals to switch sides, leaves 12 Congressman fighting for their lives in four weeks, completely exposed on a deeply unpopular issue.

Option 4: the Dem Christmas Tree bill, would be even more toxic than the compromise bill that just failed, and would give McCain perhaps the only chance he could ever have to win the Presidency. All his sins of last week would be washed away, and his trademark DC Outside rant would be suddenly fresh and topical as he ran against a Congress that is so radioactive it glows.

[clarice]

"She has lost a lot of political capital, and she knows it."

That's what I think.

I think she might have known when she approached the podium that she did not have the votes and was trying to shift the blame to the Reps.

[JM Hanes]

Sara:

Was the Bailout Vote a Partisan Set-Up?

Via Instapundit, Yes. Appalled and anybody slamming the "12 Republicans" needs to see that video. Now.

[MeTooThen]

Five Democratic Committee Chairs, sub-committee chairs, Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Jr, Lipinski, all from Chicago, voted NO.

Where was Obama?

Where was Pelosi?

16 vulnerable House Dems were told they could vote NO.

It seems to me that Pelosi did not want this bill to pass. If she really wanted it to pass, all she had to do was lean on her senior members to get 12 votes.

Shocking.

[BOATBUILDER]

I think that Nancy's speech and this vote are a huge opportunity for the Republicans to educate the public on a simple fact that most people still don't seem to understand---THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. Whether and what bill goes through is UP TO THEM.

And since Nancy threw the first stone, to explain the role of the Dems and Fannie and Freddie in bringing this about.

At this point, what do they have to lose?

[JM Hanes]

If 95% of African Americans are going to vote for Obama, you'd think he manage to persuade Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Jr. from his own home sweet home, and the Congressional Caucus to go along, wouldn't you?

[Pofarmer]

#3 -- Make Small Tweaks to the Bill:

Problem is, the small tweaks for the CBC include putting ACORN back in, and the small tweaks for the repubs include Capital gains tax reductions to spur investment. I don't think either side will back down, so it's a standoff. No more handouts to ACORN, we've compromised with the left quite enough, this is as good a place to make a stand as any. Too bad it wasn't 8 years ago, or even 5 years ago in Senate hearings, but, here we are.

[MeTooThen]

JM Hanes,

Thanks for making the URL easy to use.

Yes, if this wasn't a set-up, Pelosi either lost control or has not control over her own members, or she had no intention of having the bill pass.

None.

[Pofarmer]

What's wrong with Newt's suggestion of creating a lending vehicle at Treasury + 2.

I like it.

[sbw]

I'm looking at who voted against, and what was reported may not stand up to fact-checking. So I'm not done editing yet.

[TCO2]

Was the Bailout Vote a Partisan Set-Up?

No doubt about it, the Republicans were played like a fiddle. This disaster is now officially theirs. Amazing.

[Chris]

"Why would Nan want to be responsible for an unpopular bill when she can blame its failure on the opposition and effectively saddle them with the horrors to come?"

I don't know. I'll take leadership for $200, TCO. Barring that, yes, she can try to pin the "horrors" on the minority party. Good luck with that.

[MeTooThen]

Unfortunately, for reasons not known, Bush has never once fought hard against his detractors.

After years of BusHitler, and all of the monkey analogies, and Wilson-Plame, and 16 words, and all of the unrelenting shit, vitriol, and venomous spew that has been thrown at him, he has never fought back.

Sadly, John McCain seems to be cut of the same cloth.

Day in, and day out, we hear that Obama has "taken off the gloves." Good for him.

It is time for McCain, and the GOP to tell America that they, and we have had enough.

Look, the MSM is so in the tank for Obama that is obvious to anyone sensate enough to hear or read the daily news.

Get on Message.

Over. And Over. And Over.

Frank/Waters/Dodd/Obama/Ayers/Raines/Johnson/ACORN, etc.

Get on Message.

[mark l.]

pelosi wanted it to pass.

this was an abject humiliation of her leadership, especially in the light of her addressing it as a crisis, to which 90+ of her fellow dems challenged her.

if no bill is passed, her claim of raisng the minmum wage will look anemic in the face of her failure to stave off a major financial crisis.

btw-nancy is a retard, incapable of 'strategery'. Her job was to shake the additional votes out of her party but she didn't...try. It wasn't calculation, it was pure rage at the gop, and she was incapable of gathering her party due to her distractions.

[MeTooThen]

sbw

Um, looks pretty accurate to me.

[JM Hanes]

Where was Obama when the Democrats crashed the American economy? How does that help Main Street? If nothing else, the economy debate could be a game changer. McCain needs to come armed with a list of Pelosi's high profile deserters.

[MeTooThen]

mark l.

No way.

She couldn't get her committee chairs to vote yes?

Obama couldn't get South Side Chicago (and Lipinski) to vote yes?

Are you joking?

What do you think Obama said, if anything to Bobby Rush? How about JJ, Jr?

And he is going to be POTUS?

Come on.

[JM Hanes]

How does Obama plan to persuade Medbedev and Ahmadinejad to mind their manners, when he can't even talk Bobby Rush into voting Democratic?

[matt]

the plan has to be simple and sellable in single syllable words. We're dealing with a nation of economic naifs.

As to Gingrich, he should shut up. he's been way off base to date and is not offering solutions, only criticism. Most of those in Washington are not the smartest in economics. The SEC was specifically stripped of the authority to regulate many of these securities. FNMA and Freddy were served up like an 8th avenue hooker to the predations of the rip off artists courtesy of our democrat friends.

The Big 3 automotive companies were cut off from credit today. No more leases. No more auto loans from the usual sources. Maybe something will work out. In the interim, the last bastion of American manufacturing is under assault. The same will happen with Boeing next as the airlines won't get credit either. it's the way of the world. The service economy, which is now the largest sector, will tank next as no one will be able to afford services.

In investments, go for tobacco, alcohol, and chewing gum stocks. People will keep their small pleasures.

[matt]

JM;

great point. Obama is out campaigning as Rome burns.....

[TCO2]

Obama is out campaigning as Rome burns.....

This is well beyond anything McCain or Obama can influence. They're just candidates, it's Bush who still sits in the big chair. But he's not in the game, he just defers to that sweaty, terrified Paulson, who does nothing to calm Wall Streets nerves.

[Bill in AZ]

"She has lost a lot of political capital, and she knows it."

clarice: "That's what I think."

clarice, per your comment here, and re: your poll on the previous thread, you do have a good point. Pelosi is tone deaf to the people, but minds her handlers to a fault.

We observed this same thing on the energy "turn out the lights" deal she pulled. She seems to be a day late and a dollar short on tuning in and reacting to real time events - and Soros, et al, are banging their heads on their desks, sending WTF text messages, and wondering why they have to choreograph her every single move.

In the energy case, her marching orders were to drive oil prices sky high (thus, ruin economy), and she was going to by god do that, in spite of the whole country turning against her because the libs overdid it. A case of not recognizing when the country turned.

In this case, her marching orders are to ruin the economy. Once again, the libs overdid it and sentiment is turning against them, but she is too tone deaf to recognize it. A bunch more WTF's from Soros, et al, should straighten her out.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Rasmussen: Public Opinion on Bailout Now Split Almost Evenly Between Pro/Con/Don't Know

[MayBee]

Someone somewhere around the web said Bobby Rush was one of the guys that switched from Yay to Nay after the vote tally.

Did Obama want this to pass? NYT is saying he didn't call any house Dems.

[clarice]

Niters. Tomorrow's another day..

[RichatUF]

pelosi wanted it to pass

Take a second look at the members in the Dem caucus who voted no. She wanted it to fail and there won't be another vote. Including slush funds and ACORN etal would spook even more members of her caucus and she'd be lucky to get 10 R votes the next go around.

The Fed and Treasury ought to be firing up the coffee makers and use what tools they have to keep this thing clunking along through the Inauguration cause the Capitol got its 3 AM call and they hit the snooze bar.

[TCO2]

This passes easily if the public gets a taste of true calamity. No more credit cards, no more helocs, no more auto leases, mortgages climbing to 8%, etc.

Once the whiff of that stuff wafts around the nation's cul de sacs, demand for action from the public might allow congress to stick their necks out. They could push something through next week if the consumer debt engine locks up hard in the next couple of days.

If I was Paulson, and I believed that flames were truly imminent, I might entertain the notion of having my buddies in Manhattan set a financial back-fire by artificially restricting consumer credit. Just buy some time with some smoke to coalesce public opinion before the conflagration begins in earnest.

[Captain Hate]

Did Obama want this to pass? NYT is saying he didn't call any house Dems.

Then this is completely off the message that Lurch was putting forth on FNS when he was expounding in his ponderous excuse for a speaking style about how Oblahblah was in constant communication with the other donks in crafting the bill. Did he bring this up on O'Gasbag tonight or did BOR do enough homework to address this (I'm only asking because I don't have cable)?

[jd watson]

Re: Option #2
Under the Constitution, don't all appropriation bills have to originate in the House? If authorizing spending $700B is not an appropriation, I don't know what is.

[Thomas Jackson]

Option #4 please.

November is six weeks from now. I'd love to see Pelosi presiding over 6 other dims in the Congress.

[Chris]

jd,
The rules can be waived according to my cursory research.

[ben]

Gaffematic still in action...

Biden, as he exited his debate prep session:

"As he exited the hotel for his dinner break, Biden was asked “Senator, can we get your reaction to the House bill not passing?”

Biden interrupted the question with a “Hey folks,” to reporters and then said “Oh, things are going well.”

Biden’s press secretary, David Wade, sent an e-mail minutes later, saying “the senator thought you asked how prep was going” for this week’s debate with Gov. Sarah Palin.

[Joan]

For months now, people have been saying that Pelosi isn't intelligent -- crafty, wicked, and partisan, yes -- but really smart, no. So, her tirade this morning must have been hers and hers alone. Bush Derangement syndrome overtook what little common sense she has, she saw an opportunity to blast the Republicans, and she spewed poison. Well, I hope it makes her sick.

Soros or whoever is in charge of her probably pulled his hair as he listened to her.

I watched the Democrats and Clinton blame the Republicans for shutting down the government back in the 90s. They always seem to be in command of the media and public opinion. Why, oh, why, can't some filthy rich group of Republicans buy one of the major networks! We need our own stable of media partisans because it seems that few Republicans have the spirit and grit to fight the Democrats and crams their lies down their throats.

Pray God that Sarah Palin mows down the Biden the breathless blowhard during their debate. That would help us immensely. I don't think I can stand it if Obama wins the election. He'll socialize everything, plus his voice is a torture instrument all by itself.

[Publius]

Chris,

That's not a rule. That's Sec. 7, of Article I, of the United States Constitution.

But then again, the Constitution gets waived everyday, so go ahead.

[mark l.]

I'm still skeptical about pelosi engineering the vote to fail...

but fwiw-
'only' 20 of the 47 blue dogs voted against it.

[JM Hanes]

We transcribe Rove, so you don't have to. Here's a taste of the Pelosi in-crowd voting no.

Democratic Committee Chairmen, installed by Pelosi:

John Conyers, Judiciary
Colin Peterson, Agriculture
Bob Filner, Veterans
Bennie Thompson, Homeland Security
Gene Green, Ethics Commission
plus Jose Serrano (chairs a subcommittee on Franks banking committee!)

Other Senior Democrats:

Solomon Ortiz
Pete Stark (#2 House Ways & Means)
William Clay
Jerry Costello, (Illinois)

Plus Close Pelosi friends and allies:

Sanchez & Sanchez
Lynn Woosley
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Barbara Lee
Peter DeFazio

Obvious folks that Obama didn't call, but could have:

Daniel Lipinski, from Chicago
Bobby Rush, Chicago
Jesse jackson Jr, Chicago, Obama Campaign Co-chair!
Sheila Jackson Lee (major supporter)
William Jefferson
Carolyn Kilpatrick, Michigan

and Obama contemporaries:

Gabrielle Giffords
Henry Mitchell
Timothy Walz

Last but not least are the 16 (not named by Rove) vulnerable Democratic freshment told by Chris van Hollen that they could protect their own elections by voting no.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

NY Times:

The failure of the measure took both camps by surprise. Mr. Obama, who was campaigning Monday in Colorado, had already sent reporters the advance text of a speech he planned to give lauding the agreement. And Mr. McCain, at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, seemed to be taking some credit for the bill.

[JM Hanes]

Those are just the people Karl Rove mentioned in passing, BTW, and I have to say, I've never heard him that wound up about anything before!

I should have transcribed a looooong Obama ad on the subject here in NC first. I had it on pause, but it flipped out and I couldn't get it back again. In essence, this is Old Washington's fault, and Obama wants to revise the tax code so that everyone in the middle class gets $1,000 to make up for the misery. He's the change we've been waiting for!

Obama has been making a huge play for NC. He was in the state again himself, a day or so ago and it looks like he's been getting some traction.

[JM Hanes]

I sure wish we had the text of that release, Sara, because if he was lauding it, why wasn't he working to get it passed If he was lauding it, he was lauding Old Washington getting along without him, while he was off filming advertisements and campaigning for votes.

[Elliott]

this is Old Washington's fault

On that topic, here's an analysis a source of mine tipped me to:

Overall, bailout supporters received an average of 54 percent more in campaign contributions from banks and securities than bailout opponents over the last five years. The disparity also held true if you look at individual parties. In fact, the 140 Democrats who voted for the bailout received almost twice as much money from banks and securities as the 95 Democrats who voted against it. (The difference was closer to 50 percent for Republicans.)

[Elliott]

JMH,

I believe the initial draft of Obama's speech is here. ::resuming avoidance of Halperin's risible* domain::

[Tom Maguire]

Re: Option #2 Under the Constitution, don't all appropriation bills have to originate in the House? If authorizing spending $700B is not an appropriation, I don't know what is.

Well, that is why the House went first this time.

I am not a Parliamentarian but if I had to guess, the Senate *MAYBE* could amend some other House bill by striking all the existing language and replacing it with the rescue. They pass that, then send it back to the House.

IIRC, Reagan's first tax cut moved in a similar manner - the House passed HR 1 as a blank page, sent it to the Senate, and the Senate wrote a tax cut.

[Chris]

Publius,
I found the following here (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rs20371.pdf);

"...The separation between the two steps of the authorization-appropriations process is
enforced through points of order provided by rules of the House and Senate. First, the
rules prohibit appropriations for unauthorized agencies and programs; an appropriation
in excess of an authorized amount is considered an unauthorized appropriation. Second,
the rules prohibit the inclusion of legislative language in appropriations measures. Third,
the House, but not the Senate, prohibits appropriations in authorizing legislation.
While the rules encourage the integrity of the process, a point of order must be raised
to enforce the rules. Also, the rules may be waived by suspension of the rules, by
unanimous consent, or, in the House, by a special rule. If unauthorized appropriations are
enacted into law through circumvention of House and Senate rules, in most cases the
agency may spend the entire amount."

You are probably correct because that was my first reaction to the Stephanopolous suggestion. I seemed to recall that all spending had to originate in the house. But then I also remembered that each body pretty much gets to make its own rules, per the constitution. We may find out.

[Topsecretk9]

Basically this is what happened I am reasonably sure.

• Dems are given the Paulson Plan - a Dem palatable written plan.

• Dems take it and let the criminals who got us in this mess take it and rewrite Paulson into a monstrosity.

• Dems are hearing from their constituents and privately from blue dogs there is no fucking way they are signing on to this piece of shit - you getting the onslaught we are Nancy?

• Dems say knowing GOP and their own caucus would not pass the monstrosity to give them political cover say that MCCain must help.

• McCain comes in and is able to get GOP house members a fucking invite to discussions

• Dems loose their blame GOP because they weren't invited for input in the first place, so they shift and blame McCain for coming

• But the Dems are forced now to work with the GOP - bummer, they wanted to go on obstruction - and so the Dems disingenuous work on a "plan" that will at least guarantee full GOP support <--- which is all they want

• They were planning that the "letting" of republicans work on the negotiations of the bill would guarantee unanimous GOP support - they wanted to hang it on the republicans.

• So they released a large number of their important caucus to vote against assuming and banking on the OVER- welming GOP vote -- now that the GOP leaders had crafted and been apart of the negotiations...

• When it was apparent GOP was NOT voting for this in the droves they had hoped they sought to kill it and quick.

Dems and Obama wanted it to pass with FULL GOPsupport and with minimal Dem support, in order to hurt McCain.

Obama muscled or called NO ONE. His campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr voted NO

[Chris]

Sounds about right. You forgot the part about demagoguing the bill in public while making nice in private. Otherwise that pretty much sums it up.

[Topsecretk9]

Thanks Chris, not that i needed the reassurance but it's basically what happened.

The MSM (NYT) is now shoring it up for Obama, he didn't call anyone to ensure because? Well, his heart is always in the right place and those nasty republicans didn't play nice and into Obama's strategy!

---spit balling catastrophe on the lamo blogger

Wahy are the things blog commenter's would cut if it were crazy dooms day?

Internet? and cell phones?

Those seem to be the 2 most immediate eliminations which I am sure the Dems would LOVE, but has Steven Jobs thought about it? Or the Google peeps? 2 words....Ad Words.

[MayBee]

Tops, I agree.
And Obama didn't do a thing because he gets press cover like this:

As for Barack Obama, his visceral aversion to showboating did him a service. He laid out four requirements for his support of the bill--requests he had, clearly, coordinated with the Democratic Leadership (and which McCain supported). He made the necessary calls to keep up with the negotiations (as McCain did). He made it clear, without ostentation or fuss, that he supported the compromise. Even today, after the bill failed, Obama warned against panic and advised the Congress to get back to work and, "Get it done."

This was, I believe, eminently rational behavior in a moment of crisis. Obama didn't pretend that he could, or should, do something that he couldn't do. He didn't lead, but then, he wasn't in a position to lead. (McCain's games were the opposite of leadership--they were an unnecessary distraction.) There may be times in the future--in the next few weeks, in fact--when events will call for Obama to be a far more forceful presence. We'll see whether he has it in him. But this wasn't the time for that. It was the time for a cool head, something McCain has yet to demonstrate.

That is from Joe Klein at Swampland.
Obama wants to be President. Sometime in the future, we'll see if he has it in him to lead. And that's all good.

[M. Simon]

Karl Rove with John Gibson - YouTube

[Topsecretk9]

And Obama didn't do a thing because he gets press cover like this:

What more can be done to repudiate the occupation of journalist? Low polling does nothing. Stock in the tank does nothing. Zero ad dollars does nothing.

At this point I would praise my child if he chose law over journalism as a career, it seems light-years more honest. (I can't belive I just wrote that)

There may be times in the future--in the next few weeks, in fact--when events will call for Obama to be a far more forceful presence. We'll see whether he has it in him. But this wasn't the time for that.

WTF people? Insert ANY previous crisis in place and ask yourself if this would be acceptable?

[M. Simon]

Simon's Law:

It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

[MayBee]

WTF people? Insert ANY previous crisis in place and ask yourself if this would be acceptable?

Obama's most forceful moments have been:
1)When he, as a Hyde Park denizen, made a speech against a war everyone in his district hated.
and
2)When he voted for the Fisa bill, which again about 19 people cared about and those 19 people are voting for him still. Plus it got him a huge benefactor at his convention PLUS one less thing to deal with if he is elected.

This man is going to win specifically because he has never had to do anything. His MO is to sit back and snipe at the failures of those who have at least, by God, tried.

[sylvia]

Ah hah. See, I'm should be called the "Oracle" as well as Buffet. I saw this in the NYT:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/
credit_crisis/index.html

"The crisis had its roots in a previous boom and bust: the tech bubble of the late 1990's. When the stock market collapsed in 2000 and the nation slipped into recession the next year, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates sharply to limit the economic damage.
Lower interest rates make mortgage payments cheaper, and demand for homes began to rise, sending prices up."

I've been saying that for years, sometimes here, about the low interest rates. And I'm just a regular person. Did no one at the Fed see this?

[sylvia]

As an oracle, I predict, and have thought for a while now, that the era of easy money is over. After the stock market crash, people looked around for something else to get returns on and they all shifted to real estate. Now that's going bust for now, they might try to shift it back to the stock market. I think that's a mistake.

I think the era of returns are over. Our world's society is too stabilzed for any new growth. The population in the West is stable, and will stabilize in the 2nd World, the technology and lifestyle are pretty much stable. This is modern life. It is what it is. No big growth is going to happen - anywhere. Just accept it. Investment firms will decline because people will realize there are no magic bullets to make the large returns like in the old days. That is my prediction.

[bgates]

At this point I would praise my child if he chose law over journalism as a career, it seems light-years more honest.
Lawyer, mortgage broker, Nigerian bank executive...

[M. Simon]

NYTs credit crisis

[M. Simon]

I'm reminded of the old Woodie Guthrie saw:

“Some Will Rob You With a Six Gun, Some With A Fountain Pen"

[M. Simon]

In other words honest criminals rate higher.

[M. Simon]

sylvia,

Actually we are between cycles. Computers have pretty much done what they can. Biotech and fusion are still not big enough to absorb or generate enough capital to keep the high returns coming.

[Orion]

Option #4 wouldn't work because with the Senate split so evenly only a very, very, clean bill would have a chance of passage so when the House and Senate bills went in for reconcilliation all the pork would be stripped out, which would put them right back where they were today.

No, as long as the Democrats think they can get away with blaming the Republicans there won't be a bill out of Congress. There aren't enough sane Democrats left there. As long as Pelosi brings a bill to the floor and thinks she can get away with b-slapping the minority, it ain't gonna happen.

Start stocking up on essentials. It's going to get worse, much worse, before it gets better.

[sylvia]

I agree M Simon. My prediction holds for say the next 10 to 15 years, until we get another technological revolution, if we ever do in our lifetime.

[sylvia]

Some facts I'm finding for an fyi, from last Feb, so a little old:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/business/
12credit.html?scp=2&sq=subprime&st=cse

"At the end of September, nearly 4 percent of prime mortgages were past due or in foreclosure,

The delinquency and foreclosure rate for all mortgages, 7.3 percent,

...subprime loans, about 24 percent of which are delinquent or in foreclosure."

[sylvia]

I'm still trying to figure out how this problem got so big all of a sudden. So if subprime loans are about 20% of all loans, then those figures make sense. Hard to believe that 24% are bad, that's a huge number.

Now if these banks are so smart, why didn't they offer a "foreclosure" rate to the defaulters, starting about several years ago. Say half the rate, prob 3%, for say 3 years, and if the missing interest is not handed over after three years, the bank has the option to foreclose at that point. Why don't they do it now? Better late than never.

When I have tenants that want to skip out on me, I usually offer a half price rent deal to them until I find a subletter, or threaten court action. All have taken the deal and have paid me.

[sym]

why are you all only angry at pelosi for not rallying her troops? if it was a good bill, isn't boehner equally responsible? only 33% of the reps voted for it, and 60% would have passed it.

if you were in congress, would you have voted for it?

[M. Simon]

NYTs on mortgage delinquency Feb

[glasater]

Read Spengler. He always has a different take.

[sylvia]

Thanks M Simon. I should pay a fee every time you link for me. I figure it is more work for me to link it up then for someone else to cut and paste, hence I choose the latter.

[M. Simon]

Sylvia,

As always.

Honored to be of service,

Simon

[M. Simon]

If the Spengler is correct the stock market bottom will be around DOW - 5,000. House prices 1/2 of the current numbers.

[M. Simon]

Capital Spending In Electronics.

Way down. Why? The return on investment is not there. In fact there is too much capacity chasing too little profit.

As I explained up thread a ways. We are at a point in the long cycle where there is not enough exploitable technology to absorb all the capital developed over the last 40 years.

Kondratieff waves.

[saveliberty]

Any bailout is polling 3 to 1 against. The very idea of socializing the market is toxic to conservatives and a bailout out of big money is repugnant to liberals. I don't think that any of the doors will work unless the market activity changes the sentiment significantly.

[Thomas Esmond Knox]

Plan #6:

Do nothing.

I'm in the market at pe 3.

I think the prudent people will keep me out.

Maybe not.

Of course pe 3 with guaranteed cash flow. Like Warren Buffett with American Express.

[M. Simon]

One point to keep in mind is that real capital is not being significantly destroyed.

We still know how to make computers. Houses can still be lived in. Automobiles can still get us to work. Jet planes will still cross the Atlantic in 6 hours or less non-stop.

What is being destroyed is money value.

So what does that mean? The Depression of 2009 will not be as severe (in the USA) as the depression of 1929.

And if we can get fusion plants researched and deployed in a reasonable time frame Fusion Report 29 August 2008.

We might come out of this pretty quick. Go to the main page at the above link and have a look at how I think it should be done. i.e. a real program vs the boondoggles we are currently running.

Read: ITER vs The Stone Axe

[Pofarmer]

Morning.

Radio just announced they have video of Bristol Palin smoking pot at a party. Neat. They ever gonna mention Joe Biden's son, a lobbiest, is under indictment?

[Jane]

Good Morning everyone!

Just remember, another day , another trillion.

No sweat!

[pagar]

Good Morning to All!
Pofarmer, The fact that Joe Biden's son is under indictment for things that have an effect on what's going on in Washington can not be revealed under the Obama Truth Squad Rules.

I think the real worry about a new bill is
"'only' 20 of the 47 blue dogs voted against it." Meaning if the Democrats bring the ACORN stuff back and get the CBC on board, they only need to pick up a very few of the 20 blue dogs to pass their new version.

[Pofarmer]

If the Spengler is correct the stock market bottom will be around DOW - 5,000. House prices 1/2 of the current numbers.

We're already down, what, 1/4 or so on house prices? So anther half would put it 2/3's down , which is probably about right.

[kim]

Pofarmer, works for hyperemesis gravidarum. Restores maternal and foetal nutrition, something sort of important.
===================================

[Pofarmer]

Meaning if the Democrats bring the ACORN stuff back and get the CBC on board, they only need to pick up a very few of the 20 blue dogs to pass their new version.

If the ACORN stuff goes back in NONE of the bluedogs will vote for it. I think ACORN has been outed, at least in a small way.

[Pofarmer]

S&P and the Dow are up overnight.

Ag commodities are steady to up. Oil is up $2.00. In a word, Volatility. Get used to it.

[bgates]

Bristol should be careful. Pot smoking can be a gateway to the kind of hard drug abuse Barack Obama enjoyed from high school until some later, unspecified date.