The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

maxpiut — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:41:06 -0000

Hi people,

just want to introduce myself on ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.co..., hope this is the right category for that purpose.

Greez,

Max

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

jimbomel — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:40:23 -0000

Hi people,

I recently registered to this forum ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.co... and hope that somebody can

give me an advice on the forex market - I am looking for an introduction

for beginners. I have already some knowledge about shares. (Hope this is the fitting category.)

Help is so much appreciated. Most important question: can a noob make money on the forex market?

Thanks,

Jim

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

jimbomaxf — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:16:55 -0000

Hi people,

I am new to this forum ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.co... and hope that somebody can

give me an advice on the forex - I am looking for an introduction

for beginners. I have already a little knowledge about shares. (Hope this is the fitting category.)

I have the expectation that the recent turbulences in the forex exchange promise

easy money not only for the experts. What is your opinion about that site - [url=http://www.make-forex-money.in...]how to scalp the forex market[/url] ?

Any help is so much appreciated.

Thanks,

Jim

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Bapupdamma — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:31:12 -0000

I’m hoping to buy a home someday instead of renting an apartment. In fact, my fiancee and I almost bought our first home during March of 2007. We were very excited at the time because it was going to be our first house and we even drove over to see other similar houses in the same neighborhood at 3:00am! However, we decided in the end to not put any offers in because we thought the housing downturn would get drastically worst.

Fast forward 9 months, and we are experiencing one of the worst housing slump in US history. Being in California, our decision to hold off on buying a house saved us at least $50,000 and might turn into $100,000-$150,000 when it is all said and done. One side of me is relieved because of the fact that I didn’t buy the house yet, but another side of me really want to live in a nice house that I can call my own. Should I look at the house as an investment? Or should I forget about the ups and downs of my potential house price and be happy that I will leave in a nice home?

Do you consider your primary home as an investment? Take the poll and let me know what I should do!

www.moneyning.com

Laura Kauffmann

"Seven Oceans Investments Club"

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

DougEFresh — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:07:57 -0000

Here is what is great, Mr. Conscience of Liberalism, Paul Krugman, blames the defeat on Republicans; however other liberals celebrate the defeat of this bill (Stoller, Sirota, Kos Kiddies, Michael Moore, the progressive wing in the house).

The democrats are the majority party, if they were really for this, then they should have produced the votes. If they were against this, they shouldn't have had to rely on Republican votes to kill it.

If I had to pick a side, I would go with the grown ups like Krugman rather than the childish like Stoller. I realize the experts can be wrong, but some on the left seem to be following McCain-like advice: "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Wall Street".

And for the right, this plan you voted against was favored by all your boys. I am not sure where the end game is for the Republicans who voted against this. I somehow smell the stench of Buchananism in all this for the right side of the ledger.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

wj — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:30:52 -0000

Considering all the political cowardice we are seeing, I am pleased ot be able to report that some (perhaps few) individuals actually did the courageous thing.

Two years ago, Jerry McNerney (D-CA11) managed to win in a district that was designed to be safe for Republicans. (Helped, it must be said, by opposing an exceptionally corrupt Republican incumbant.) He's been hammered by ads all summer, because the Republicans think they ought to be able to win the seat back -- even this year. But he still voted for the bill.

Just want to make the point that, for all the (large number of) cowaerdly scumbags in Congress, there are still some good men and women who have somehow sneaked in.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

DrewShaw — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:04:58 -0000

Dear 4th District GA:

Vote for who you will but please, please don't send Cyndy back. She's no good for the 4th District and no good for Congress.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

4th District GA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:54:10 -0000

Deborah,

In my district we don't even have a challenger, that's how reliably Dem and safe the district is, and our dumb ass rep still voted against the measure! It makes absolutely no sense! His office is issuing standard talking points about "not wanting to bail out Wall St." It's completely insane.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Deborah — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:41:37 -0000

I'll chime in a "me too" at the Republican house members who were so put out by a Pelosi speech that they switched their vote on vital legislation because their widdle feelings are hurt. Grow. A. Pair. If we need the bill, pass it. Yes, the other side will try to hang everything unpopular on you--holds for both--that's how elections work.

From Libertarian on the above, "Republicans that were supporting the bill for the good of the country, despite their own judgement it is a piece of crap," makes no sense. If it's a piece of crap, it's not good for the country.

But I'll diverge from most people on what Obama and McCain can do. The problem is the House, in which everyone up for re-election (which is everyone) would rather have no part of this mess hanging about their neck. As gaucho says, those in safe districts are voting yes. That suggests they think this bill should pass, even if unpopular. The critical bit seems to be getting anyone facing a tough reelection to vote yes. That would be a job for the president to convince the country, but he has no credibility left when he cries "it's a crisis, and I need extraordinary powers to keep us safe." Or Paulson, but, as noted, no one is managing to explain this very well.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

4th District GA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:39:25 -0000

I live in GA's 4th district, a reliably Dem district made up of lower income folks and highly educated in-town types (Atlanta). When Cynthia McKinney got a little too batshit crazy for us we handed the torch to Johnson. Johnson has a pic of him and the O-man on his website. Curious that he would be one of the 40 Dems to vote against the bailout. He can talk all he wants about how he didn't feel like "bailing out Wall St. for Main St." That shit might fly with the low info voters, but it's the in-town types that have been registering voters for Obama and actually vote in the primaries, and it's the in-town folks that are working six days a week and scared shitless about the tanking market and additional bank failures. Honestly, most of the low info types don't even know who he is, let alone what district they live in. If our freshman congress critter wants to play stupid and bite the hand that feeds him, fine. The low info folks might not know him, but they sure do love Obama - and for good reason. He really is remarkable. Guys like Johnson on the other hand are a dime a dozen, and his decision this week proved it. I wonder what the low info folks will think next week when Obama volunteers start handing out anti-Johnson literature that shows how he's opposed to the Dem/Obama financial rescue plan? Apparently Johnson, like McKinney, doesn't appreciate or understand his constituency.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Deborah — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:24:10 -0000

Walking home I was reminded of a very prescient piece of political analysis from back in fall of 2006. It was a pair of guests on NPR, I believe two pollsters, one D one R. One stated, and the other agreed, that what the long-term strategists of both parties would really like is for both houses of Congress to be in the control of the other party by about one seat. Because clearly the next 2 years were not going to fabulous in Iraq or domestically, and as a setup for 2008 you wanted as much blame on the other party as possible.

Imagine how gleeful the Dems would be if they didn't have to answer why they didn't turn back the 2003 banking reforms, or put together a minority bailout package--if this entire thing rested on uninterrupted Republican rule. Instead, as Eve Fairbanks notes, we have the biggest prisoner's dilemma ever, in which everyone would like something to pass while they vote against it. Whatever crawls forth from this will be truly, truly bipartisan, even if it's a bipartisan failure to do anything and the worst case scenarios are on target.

For the record I've been glad to have a Dem legislature, however squichy, because I'm certain we would have been at war with Iran in 2007 without Dem brakes on the Bush/Cheney "but my gut is gettin' that feelin' again..." dramatics.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

DrewShaw — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:22:16 -0000

Bottom line: Nancy Pelosi is one pathetic excuse for a speaker.

Hold the party ranks, something both parties and particularly the Dems used to be good at, and the thing passes. Instead, she gets some Republican votes, loses 40 on her side and the whole thing goes down in flames.

The last time I saw the Dems show this kind of disarray on a floor vote, they ended up losing the House for 12 years. Things are different today but this is pretty bad.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Hicks — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:58:28 -0000

If Obama and McCain both worked on the bailout bill, they both agreed to it..not "in principle" but in all its details as it was written, and they both lobbied their respective party it would take politics OUT of the equation, because both future presidents and both Republicans and Democrats would be FULLY on board...and everybody could take credit, or if it turns out to be a disaster, nobody could point fingers.

Dunno if you're speaking to me. Yes. I understand your point. My point is why couldn't that have been done AND debates, which hold great importance re who to chose to lead, particularly in a time of financial crisis. They are interconnected. I do not see how or why one must preclude the other.

If, as you suggest, McCain's idea to not debate was wise and based on concern for the crisis, then he should have stuck to his maverick guns and stayed in Washington and hammered out what he believed was the best deal and the pall could then fall on Obama for not participating to the full extent.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

dannity — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:58:26 -0000

Libertarian, word is now coming out that over the weekend that the Democratic leadership promised 140 votes. Republican leadership promised 80. The Democrats delivered exactly 140 yes votes. Republicans came up well short, despite McCain's "best efforts".

Again, I'm not happy with this situation. Truth be told, I'm not exactly sold on the plan myself in its current form. But it was much better than it was when it was presented by Paulson two weeks ago, and is ridiculously better than doing absolutely nothing at all.

There's a lot of blame to spread here, but it's the hight of intellectually dishonesty to try to pin today on Obama not agreeing to McCain's stunt last week.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

gaucho — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:47:45 -0000

@ MagnoliaFan

My reaction to your comments is that if folks like you weren't on board, then the sale just wasn't properly made. Though I think given the timeline, that would have still been a tall order.

My view was that the bill was strong enough to probably (I use that word specifically--anyone that tells you they know everything that will happen is a fool.) get us to a new Congress. Pass the bill now, avoid a catastrophe, and amend it later when we hopefully have a Pres. Obama, and even more solid majorities in both houses.

What bothers me is that it seems that every member made the same calculation: I'm going to take a hit on this, and can I survive this? The noes are populated with a lot of freshman Dems, swing district Dems, and numbskull Republicans.

Maybe expecting better out of the House was simply wishful thinking. But I just have an awful feeling about this vote.

N.B. I would guess that the reason the bill was put with that resolution was to skip certain procedural rules that would slow down the bill's progress through the House (committee votes? markups?).

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Steel7 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:43:13 -0000

MagnoliaFan, I knew you were a vet, when I saw "sucking chest wound".

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Libertarian — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:43:12 -0000

Why not?

If Obama and McCain both worked on the bailout bill, they both agreed to it..not "in principle" but in all its details as it was written, and they both lobbied their respective party it would take politics OUT of the equation, because both future presidents and both Republicans and Democrats would be FULLY on board...and everybody could take credit, or if it turns out to be a disaster, nobody could point fingers.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Hicks — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:39:45 -0000

t is hilarious that John McCain is somehow still to blame...MAYBE if the debate had been postponed and both presidential candidates had done some lobbying and gotten their hands dirty to get a real bi partisan solution crafted, it would have passed.

Why couldn't they do both? And why shouldn't I expect them to?

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Aashish Parekh — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:35:23 -0000

T-Coates:

This observation may be a bit preliminary. McCain just days ago claimed credit for bringing Reps and Dems together to negotiate. So he claims credit for suspending his campaign and going to Washington to help and lead the negotiations. So, basicall saying if it passes, he was there to help it pass an claim leadership cred. Well, based on that, he should get part of the blame as well since it didnt pass. What the hell did he do then?

On the hand...cool, reasoned, calm, understanding his place in all of this Barack Obama. Now, he finds himself in a sweet position where he doesnt take credit or blame and he can now work with Congress on another plan. Win again for BHO...he is mis-underestimated everytime.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

dannity — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:29:47 -0000

Libertarian, you know as much as I do that this isn't true. The problem wasn't in the Senate. It was the House, and specifically the Republicans in the House. Obama and McCain sitting in Washington would not change that. In fact, the Presidential race is a HUGE distraction to this whole process.

This is a crisis of leadership and trust. It's indicative of just how broken Washington right now. I'm not happy about either side in this, but it's disingenuous to think that bringing Presidential politics into this would have helped it.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

MagnoliaFan — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:25:01 -0000

Also, as a veteran, I'm somewhat offended that this bailout is stuck into a bill entitled:

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Tel — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:24:06 -0000

At least I don't have to worry about a bank run. Got no money in it anyway thanks to the gas prices.

The market was over-valued. I was hoping for a slow decline so people have time to adjust. Looks like that's no longer in the cards. Dow is down ... looks like 640 as I type, will probably be 650 by the time the post hits.

Lots of people going to get a nasty reality check.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

Libertarian — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:24:02 -0000

The truth is that if BOTH OBAMA AND MCCAIN had been vested in the bill, it would have passed, because then neither side could blame the other.

The fact that you don't appear to understand the realities of how American politics actually works says a lot more about you than me.

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

MagnoliaFan — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:23:51 -0000

Gaucho -

I'm not familiar with DeLong, but I am a weekly Krugman reader and freely admit that he is smarter than I am on economic matters. That being said, Krugman doesn't believe that any financial entity should ever be allowed to fail. In his mind the Bear Stearns bailout was a good thing, and Paulson was wrong to let Lehman Fail.

Look, I consider myself as progressive a Democrat as almost anyone. That being said, I don't feel that we need to artificially prop up institutions that are failing. Nor do I think we should prop up a system that is failing.

It would be much better for everyone to fix the damn system. I think that is a long, hard process, yes. And I think the economy is going to suffer for as long as it takes to fix.

But this bill would have put a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. It would have propped the system up long enough for the Bush Administration to get out of office and say "not my fault!"

Re: Open Thread: The Bailout goes down (for now)

dannity — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:22:46 -0000

Libertarian, over the weekend, John McCain himself and all of his surrogates were claiming that "he saved the bill". They claimed that he brought the House Republicans on board, and that he deserved credit for the bill's passage.

Now, admittedly, this is a dubious claim, but it was one he was making. So, now that the Republicans have bailed, and have effectively sunk the bill, by McCain's own logic, he owns this failure.

Unless, of course, he was only posturing to get credit and a photo-op without accepting any real responsibility. Nah, couldn't be.