Originally Posted By DlandDug Finally! Consistency in Washington. So here we are in the midst of a financial crisis, the President asks both candidates to join in on the talks, McCain suspends his campaign, Obama heads to Washington, everybody sits down at the table and... Spin time! It's like a Choose-Your-Path work of juvenile fiction. Republicans go one way (r), Democrats go the other (d). John McCain announces he will suspend his campaign which is: r) a bold move consistent with his can-do attitude OR d) a cynical political maneuver designed to force Obama to follow his lead. In Washington, Congressional leaders have: d) manipulated events to favor McCain OR r) reached fundamental agreement. McCain: r) does all he can to achieve accord OR d) grandstands, thereby destroying any hope of accord. (Alternate (d) as of late last night: does nothing, thereby proving there was nothing to his offer to help. Obama: (r) shows contempt for the process by refusing to suspend his campaign by rushing off to the debate OR (d) refuses to give in to the GOP's scheme. The plans: (d) fall through after the GOP fails to make it appear that McCain has saved the day (r) fall through after Democrats refuse to work with anyone as long as McCain is in the room. Anyway... there it is. It's like peeling back the layers of an onion and finding increasingly larger onions inside. Stinky, smelly, unpleasant onions. Anyway, here's the thread. Blast away.
Originally Posted By DlandDug And my partisan post on all this: Many here have no qualms about heaping scorn on the Republicans for anything. But I will say that if I were a Democrat, I would be hard pressed to defend Harry Reid. He is easily the most transparent phony in this whole mess.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Correct if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush actually side with the Dems on this one this morning?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/bailout.talks/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...dex.html</a> To loosely sum up the link, both parties in the Senate and House Dems are generally on board with Bush here. The obstacles are being provided by the House Republicans.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Correct if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush actually side with the Dems on this one this morning?<< Frankly, I don't know what to believe this morning. This whole event was so totally hijacked that I don't think we will ever know the truth. Even the partisans can't get together. Talking points seem to be crossing in the mail. So, did McCain do nothing (as the Obama camp claims), or did he derail the process with his meddling (Reid's take). Was it the Democrats who bailed at the last minute (as the GOP claims), was it the House Republicans who bailed at the last minute (as the Dems claim), or was there no accord all along? As I said in the OP, it's Choose-Your-Own-Story time.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Correct if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush actually side with the Dems on this one this morning?<< He did indeed, as did *some* Republicans. I'm sorry your candidate's campaign is in a tailspin, Dug. Don't lose heart yet - there's still over a month to go.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...both parties in the Senate and House Dems are generally on board with Bush here. The obstacles are being provided by the House Republicans.<< I'll see that CNN and raise you a USA Today, which says on today's front page: "...the good feelings seemed to evaporate about the time a new player entered the fray: Arizona Sen. John McCain...<< It's this kind of instant analysis that is making this well nigh impossible to decipher.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I heard KNX radio's political guy, Dick Helton, say that it was bizarre to hear Bush side with the Dems' story on things (I didn't hear Bush myself, just Helton's summation), so that's where I got my info. Helton said that as much as he could, without completely outing the House Reps, he was seconding the Dem version that someone (McCain presumably) is urging the House Reps to muddy up the works.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, after reading post 7, which I didn't see until after my post 8, there's two different sources fingering McCain (so to speak).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Amazing that the Republicans don't understand the Bush strategy here: dump a ton of money from the treasury into the economy for his final quarter in office to try and stave off a negative GDP quarter. Bush doesn't really care how the money is spent, just so long as he gets approval to run the printing presses a little longer to keep him out of the "official" recession definition. I'm not pleased that Congress appears to be playing along with this scheme. It solves no problems, and probably makes a number of problems worse.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Another correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that while no one is particularly happy about a bailout, the gamut of feelings going from genuine anger to resignation, the consensus was it needed to be done in some form.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox McCain ditched on Letterman and lied about his reasons in order to do Palin damage control with Ms. Katie. Then he stays overnight in NYC to attend Clinton's summit the next morning before flying to Washington. McCain strolls into the White House as if nothing happened the day before. No mystery here why the "good feelings" would evaporate. McCain is playing stunt politics of the worst kind and anyone with half a brain can see it.
Originally Posted By hopemax > So, did McCain do nothing (as the Obama camp claims), or did he derail the process with his meddling (Reid's take). < I don't think these two are mutually exclusive. There are two places this is being played out. Inside the room, and I believe this is to where the Obama camp is referring. During the actual White House meeting, McCain did nothing. Then there is everything that is happening outside the room. And IMO, it appears that outside the room, there has been meddling, which other's not McCain, have taken inside the room.
Originally Posted By dshyates I believe I heard that the reason it took McCain 22 hours to "race back to Washington", was that the McCain campaign has switched to alt. energy transport. Something called a bicycle.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Another correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that while no one is particularly happy about a bailout, the gamut of feelings going from genuine anger to resignation, the consensus was it needed to be done in some form.<< That was my understanding as well. I listened to the author of a Newsweek article on Paulson on NPR the other day. He made it pretty clear that Paulson was no dummy, and he was pretty much all business. I'm not nearly the financial expert others are, but it seems to me that for once, Bush is acting quickly to do the right thing. Even I'm not cynical enough to believe it's just to spare the GPD for his last months in office. But, I don't even qualify as an amateur at this stuff; what I don't know about the markets could fill many, many books
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm not nearly the financial expert others are, but it seems to me that for once, Bush is acting quickly to do the right thing. Even I'm not cynical enough to believe it's just to spare the GPD for his last months in office. But, I don't even qualify as an amateur at this stuff; what I don't know about the markets could fill many, many books " This describes me as well. I generally stay out of the heavy economic debates here, because I'd be out of my depth by a mile. However, if this is getting stalled yet again by some partisan ideology, which is the sense I'm getting, I'd really like to see some consequences for those responsible for stopping it. I don't know what that would be, but not getting elected or re-elected would be a start.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << He made it pretty clear that Paulson was no dummy, and he was pretty much all business. >> Paulson is a political tool. He has no business giving advice or pulling the strings in the world's largest economy.
Originally Posted By queenbee I just don't think this bailout addresses the primary problems. Lying, for one. No one really knows how deep the doodoo is with banks. Banks should be forced to reveal what is behind "door number 3", more transparency with level 3 assets. It does nothing to address the failed theory that stagnating J6P's wages, drowning him in debt while concentrating the wealth in the hands of few greedy people will provide great jobs and a higher standard of living for all. Turns out the ultra-wealthy did not build factories, start businesses, or invest in communites. They bought an island somewhere and we've not heard a word since. The bailout creates another short-term bubble. What happens when that goes pop?
Originally Posted By Mr X Queenbee there is a blogger out there who offers a 3 point solution with your level III suggestion being one of them (aka transparency). His other 2 suggestions are force the leverage of institutions down to the traditional 12-1 (he claims Freddie and Fannie died at 80-1, and Bear Sterns at 30-1, amazing numbers!), and finally put ALL derivatives on an exchange with a qualified counterparty. Those three points make a lot of sense to me. Unless those things happen I agree that the banks won't trust each other enough to loan to each other and the credit markets will continue to lock up (700 billion or no...since this is really a multi-trillion dollar issue).
