Well I think it's a damned good idea - nobody wants a depression, so let's give them enough to keep the credit wheels lubed until we have a much surer, and NON POLITICAL fix on what is going on.
Paulson Guarantees McCain to Dems
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Well I think it's a damned good idea - nobody wants a depression, so let's give them enough to keep the credit wheels lubed until we have a much surer, and NON POLITICAL fix on what is going on.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I would prefer the above to rushing something like the Bush plan through. However, I would prefer they get it done now and not drag this out by waiting on a new administration.
But they need to ensure equity ownership in any bank/brokerage that participates AND they need to make sure that they are not paying much more than 65 cents on the dollar (at the most... I personally think they can get the top down to 55-60)
Spinning a strawman.
By your own admission, the indecision is based on political calculations rather than them wanting time to study it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Please tell me why democrats are following McCain's "leadership?"
What difference should it make if McCain votes for it?
I thought their nominee/leader was Obambi
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
I completely agree with this. Congress has no fuckin' clue what to do, they are just taking advice and praying they are making the right decision. So the Dems are covering their asses by making sure McCain can't use their votes against them, cause they are clueless and if something bad happens, well... McCain voted with them! Smart political move, but poor judgement in providing sound policy.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
He's waiting on the wind to tell him what to do ... but in the end, he'll support it.
Oh, okay. Well pass it NAO! Then read it and criticize it then pass it again, and again, and again.... Sorry.
Which is exactly what I wondered. And Ds are cheering it on. If that guy votes for it, so will we. It doesn't even seem to matter to them how Obama, the supposed leader of that party, will vote.
Rs, the entire thing is based on political calculation all around. We all know that. Thanks for pointing out, once again, that Democrats are politians.
I guess because they know that Obama isn’t going to run against dems on their votes.
I don’t know, I guess I am the only one who is fascinated with the actual politics of this. It’s a chess game. You have McCain refusing to say how he’s going to vote because he’s been trying to run as a populist, but he’s actually a big business guy whose campaign is being run by lobbyists. He is hoping to bait the dems into shouldering the entire political burden of passing this bill. And you have the dems, who have apparently been scared by Paulson into believing something must be done, who probably really want to vote for this because they really do believe that the economy is riding on it – but who don’t want to carry the sole political cost.
I guess I just am really interested in politics, at its rock bottom core. It’s usually a very secondary interest to my main concerns on policy, but in this case, it’s just so right out there in the open. I know that this thread is turning into a big “I’m better than you” “We’re better than them” thing. But that’s not my personal interest.
So why are you trying to pretend that I am calling for them to vote for it (or against it) without reading it?
KingCondanomation
New member
Here in America we call it Sarbanes-Oxley.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Who gives a fuck about the votes of morons?
Because you kept calling them indecisive. And firstly, I think something of this magnitude should be done with a great deal of deliberation, and I don’t find deliberation to be synonymous with indecisiveness. And secondly, I think this has a lot to do with negotiation. Which had to be done – the original proposal was absurd on its face. I think that has been widely acknowledged by economists of all ideological stripes.
cawacko
Well-known member
HaHa, so true.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The Democrats need to reject this plan and pass their own, non-totalitarian, bill.
This is basically one last attempt to loot the Treasury by the Bush Administration. I say screw 'em. Paulson says the plan is to spend $50 billion a month. Give enough to get through the next three months as Schumer suggested and then revisit after there is time for evaluation not only of the utility to which the $150 billion was put, but also how well the other bailouts are shaping up as well as how the market looks a little further down the road, all while adding every little punitive sanction and as much value to the taxpayer you can get (equity, authority to restructure mortgages, etc.).
Definitely. I wish there was much of a chance of it coming out that way.
Except that it took over five months for Sarbanes-Oxley to go from bill to law.
