This bailout deal is bad news for us on election day

Is is just me, or is this really bad news for Democrats?

We have great advantages in this election season and we've been struggling to try to capitalize on them. Now this - a bailout of the financial sector, which the majority of the public is opposed to.

I can see why Pelosi didn't want to do it without GOP support. But I can't see doing it at all, unless its made clear that this is Bush's plan, or "The Bush Bailout" or "Bailing Out Bush" or something to that effect.

We could get fried at the polls for pressing so hard in favor of this while so many GOP so-called leaders are openly against it.

I don't see any political gain from going ahead with this now, and I see a lot of downside to it - appearing in getting out in front and taking credit for getting it accomplished. Not the kind of credit I'd be looking for with 39 days to go!

And now right-wing radio finally has soemthing to focus on to try to get out their GOP vote.

WTF???

That's the only counter argument we need -- we're cleaning up their chaos.

And I haven't got another decent thing to say about anybody who doesn't get it.

"The Bailout Plan" - Uniting Hardcore Freepers and Some DUers In Opposition.

Thing is, this plan is not at all the plan that was introduced by Chimpy-Paulson. How do some folks not get that?

for a variety of reasons, from youth to ignorance to freeperism to just plain anarchy. They sound like libertarians who want to have no government interference all the way to the building of roads, with rich maintained highways for those who can afford the tolls, and potholed dirt roads for the rest of us. The truly rich rarely get hurt no matter what the economy is doing and I don't see why they can't figure that out. Yeah we've let the rich get away with not paving our roads too, but that doesn't mean we say to hell with taking care of ourselves in the future, even if they end up with some of the paving contracts.

I just wish they´d made it dependent upon ceding control of Iraq immediately to the UN, to give the domestic and international communities some assurance that we'll be able to pay for the bailout.

If the banks and all financing options fail then businesses fail. Nobody can buy anything without the banks. A company couldn't make payroll without borrowing at some point. We have to do something. We have to be happy that Democrats will make sure that there are regulations in place so that nobody makes out with a bunch of tax payer money. We have to have some sort of bailout...there is no other option.

But not this.

I think we are going to have a very hard time explaining this one on the campaign trail.

Which would you choose?

This is Bush's problem. Nothing has to be done that might give the election to McCain.

If this could tilt the election to McCain, they need to hold out as long as needed.

If McCain wins he will have 4 or 8 years to destroy the economy, start wars, and destroy American health care. People will die. That is far worse than a few people losing their jobs temporarily, right?

If we think we've got this thing in the bag - then we are in big trouble. We need to keep fighting like we are ten points down. We need to keep hammering on OUR message of Hope and Change and the end of the Bush/McCain doctrines both at home and abroad.

This thing ain't over by a long shot!

They want to protect their precious greedy base and don't want any regulations or limits on their greedy CEO's salaries or bonuses. It has nothing to do with protecting the taxpayer. Since when do they care about anyone other than their rich friends? If they are against this it makes me feel it is the right thing to do.

Regardless of whether this is "the right thing" to do or not -- the American people do NOT understand it, they don't necessarily believe it, and the Democrats are more visible on pushing this than the Repubs.

Easy.

But I'm telling ya, this could come back to bite us. Notice who Pelosi is giving credit to as "field general", etc. -- Democrats.

that got us to this point. Some Repugs who are runnings scared will try to spin it otherwise, but they lack credibility.

Americans are upset about this bill, but the big question is, who are they upset with; those who caused a need for it, or those who felt they will do what is required in order to quash a pending calamity?

I believe that when everything is said and done, Bush, Wall Street, Republicans, and Washington DC, in that order, is how the blame will be ordained. Barack Obama, not really seen as having been in Washington long enough to have contributed to this, will be the last person blamed, no matter the spin. He has made clear that he is running to clear this shit up, and wasn't part of how it got to where it ended up.

Those who attempt to vote NO on the rescue bill will need a very good back up story, with Republicans being the shakiest of ground....as a NO vote coming from there will be seen as political calculation laced with artificial outrage...by anyone with a 1/2 wit of sense. Some of them might survive, but as incumbents, I doubt it.

How do I come to this conclusion?

Because there is tangible evidence that Wall Street is going into the toilet. Large firms like Caterpillar (equipment firm), Ford (auto firm) made moves that show that they are in real trouble. Washington Mutual failed, and Wechovia is on the verge. The Chinese Banks have been given directive to stop lending to American banks, unless there is a plan in place. There have been many big time players stating that a rescue is not an option but a requirement to avert impending doom. CNN and folks like Warren Buffett are verifying that this is the case.

In otherwords, this "crisis" is not made up, as there is proof of such, nothwithstanding the public witnessing the failure of ALL investment banks as well as the largest insurer in the country, AGI.

The people will vote for the ones who weren't directly responsible and if nothing else, negotiated a better position for the taxpayers.

Remember that Bear-Stearns was bailed out recently...as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So this ain't this is happening in a vacuum. It is true that the Congressional Democrats have had their face on Television more than I would have liked....but I understand this was done to reassure the market.....as a large part of solving the crisis is re-establishing confidence, which is the real reason that congress has been publicly speaking on the progress every step of the way.

Also remember what there is this to point to, which John McCain is directly affiliated to:

The U.S. Savings and Loan Crisis

Bailout date: August 1989
Amount: Estimates vary widely, but $200 billion (in 2008 dollars) is a reasonable figure.

What happened: The “S&L” debacle of the late ’80s and early ’90s was long in the making and long in the unwinding. U.S. taxpayers were first put on the hook when then President George H.W. Bush (right) signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which radically reformed the savings and loan industry and federal regulations. When the dust finally settled in 1995, more than 1,000 small lending institutions known as “savings and loans,” also called “thrifts,” had failed. Half of the federally insured thrift institutions in the United States had gone under in less than a decade, and the associated slowdown in new home construction and the financial fallout contributed to the 1990-1991 recession. The underlying causes of the S&L crisis are complex and disputed, but most scholars generally agree that high, volatile interest rates, reckless lending practices, rapid deregulation, and lax oversight paved the way for the greatest banking disaster since the Great Depression.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4470

Remember, a lot of these people think Palin's qualified because she's like them or she can shoot moose. They can't digest all the details that you give, however accurate. All they see is that they're paying their mortgages, and somehow there's been a bill to bail out irresponsible people who don't. They see Democrats on TV saying this is a "good bill". Don't shoot the messenger, I am only playing devil's advocate here. It is sad, but that is the way a lot of these people think.

to be punished by voters for this, you are mistaken.

The RW media guys are out there saying the opposite of what you are saying.

The political benefit is going to go to whoever is seen as protecting taxpayers from this $700B bill.

Americans should be braced to feel economic pain well into next year.

More people will lose their jobs, foreclosures will go up, paychecks will be strained and home values — people's single biggest asset — will keep falling, experts predict.

Even if the plan is successful, many predict the economy will probably shrink in the final quarter of this year and in the first quarter of next year, meeting the classic definition of a recession. The unemployment rate — now at a five-year high of 6.1 percent — is expected to hit 7 or 7.5 percent by late 2009. That would be the highest jobless rate since after the 1990-91 recession.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26929443/

The really bad thing is that this plan is necessary at all due to the utter incompetence of Bush and the GOP. The only people (who know about economics) who don't support the plan are the extremely conservative House republicans. I don't believe a damn thing Bush or any other Republican tells me, but I do believe Obama, Warren Buffett, Jim Cramer, every other economist I have heard asked about it including Paul Krugman, who now says this final plan is okay. The final plan is the not disasterous plan that Bush/Paulsen initially offered up. The milk has already been spilled so there is no sense crying about it now -- we have to fix it.

If the American public is unhappy, maybe they should give a little more thought into the people/idiots they vote into office. They helped to create this disaster by electing the deregulating, me-and-my-rich-friends-first crowd who don't know shit about how to run an economy.

The House Republicans, who mostly oppose the plan, are the ones who said last Friday that they would just as soon see the stock market crash. So, those are the morons we have to deal with.

from voting for Obama. What's the fricken alternative again? Rigghhht. Nothing to be concerned about.

His neck is on the line on this thing too. He and his camp take credit for the current direction the bill is going. If it passes, how can he say it was wrong?

Or maybe she said "shined" through, I don't remember. Whatever, it was dumb....but she did credit him for the bailout bill.

Although very few support this bill, Democrats generally understand that Government intervention is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. The Republican reps who will vote for this bill (and they will vote for it) face a less sympathetic jury.

Our leaders should have told Bush "thanks, but no thanks!" They should have told Bush and the GOP "when you are prepared to get behind a bill WE can accept, let us know, but until the public demands it, we are not passing anything."

But, as usual, our Democratic leaders fall all over themselves every time Bush says "but it's an emergency!"

We need to pick up as many seats as we can. And I think this gives imperiled GOP candidates a ray of hope that they don't deserve.

:shrug:

Study up on the 1930s.


We'll be reliving them if the bailout doesn't happen.

The R pres and R SecTres asked for this bailout. The Rs should provide 90% of the votes!

Don't any Democrats in Washington know how to play this game?

sit here like bumps on a log and let the entire economy go into the ditch wih possibly no way out.

We've got energy problem, roads and bridges in disarray, we're rapidly falling behind in education, no industrial base, we've got tens of millions without healthcare and many more to come when the jobless rate skyrockets, and probably a majority of people living paycheck to paycheck. If we take this hit now, we've got few if any ways of climbing back up.

This is not the F- homework assignment Paulson presented and needs to stop being addressed as it is.

Imagine the anger if the Democratic Congress did nothing, p[laying politics, and the wheels come off. Why do you think we'll have serious Republican votes? Doing nothing is the biggest gamble.