Honest question: why can't this "$700 Billion bailout" wait until after Nov 4th?

If these privateers can wait on their thumbs for a week or so, as they're showing that they sure as hell can - in fact, enjoying every second of it - why can't they wait on their thumbs 'till after the Nov election, when there'll be political stability?

Why should the Dems "cave" on +$700 Billion - kinda popped outa the air like this, a month before the election?

REALLY. people. Why shouldn't Dems push for a stay on this decision? Why should the Dems accept a timetable that, from the start, has been absurd in every way - and beyond absurd given the scope of this thing Bush/Cheney are trying to ram down the US's collective throat.

If I were directing the Dems, in the most general of ways, I'd direct the movement toward pausing, taking a second look, making this an election issue, and refusing to cave.

FDR refused to be tied to Hoover's plans and that worked out alot better for the country than if he had. I wonder if Obama shouldn't do the same. Of course this is not up to him, and in today's world I'm not sure if that would be best way to go the way it was in 1932.

on Iraq just before election time?

and this is their last bid chance to rob us. Also, they want to make sure Obama's hands are tied.

The timing of this is highly suspicious.

It should never be assumed that it has to happen at all!

Do you still believe that the lying liars aren't lying to you AGAIN when they say they "need this money" and they "need it NOW".

It's all a sham/scam. Don't believe it.

where they are blamed for inaction as the economy gets worse (it likely will).

They should be shouting your thread title from the rooftops, and pre-emptively exposing the Republicans' cynical ploy for what it is - a handout.

But there is going to be a bigger bailout coming AFTER the election that will make this look mild.

the Dems will be in a much better position to define terms. A trillion $ is rather a large bit of money to be flipping in a panicked rush, 40 odd days before a game changing election. What kind of patriot would play that kind of game, whether out of avarice or fear of losing, or for whatever reason?

than it actually is - so then people will not be as angry with Bush/McSame policy as they should be.

That's what one of the financial experts said - I forget who, I watched so many. Also that we're on the point of payrolls not being paid, and there being no money in ATMs. It wasn't spelled out, but I got the impression that the other central banks are cutting us off.

Why should the gov't step in now, no matter how pressured (by their own people!) "if you don't, the world will end!" Why should the gov't artificially support institutions that, we are told outright, ought to fail, because they've been criminally irresponsible?

Why should the neocon plan be the only plan on the table? Why should the neocon timeline, which is totally geared to their plan to ram their (absolutely incredible!) policy thru' as fast as possible in an atmosphere of artificially generated panic and fear - why should that neocon timeline be the only timeline that we're capable of considering?

Why a "bailout", leaving the corrupt system intact? E.g., if these companies are going under, why shouldn't the gov't BUY THEM OUT at bankruptcy prices which are more in line with their actual assets, consolodate these assets and continue the actual BUSINESS under new name, new management?

they would be less likely to get this done after the election and they know it.

:grr:

Let me preface this by stating that I believe the elections are rigged and they (the PTB) will decide who "wins" based on what happens with the bailout.

Since it has been revealed that they have had a plan in place for months and that the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailouts triggered the credit default swaps to be paid out thereby putting AIG in a bind (see http://www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/what-hell-just-happened), I believe this whole thing is a setup and the timing is on purpose. Now they're just waiting to see what happens with the bailout before they decide who to put in office. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that if they get the bailout, they'll put McCain in, after which they'll ask for more and more and more bailouts until there is nothing left. If they don't get their bailout, they'll put Obama in and let him deal with the mess, blaming him for any and all problems with the economy. Please note that I am not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination and I'm still trying to weigh out who they would decide to put in office depending on how it would benefit them (the PTB) the most but that's kind of my take on it at the moment. Call me a cynic (I've been called worse) but that's the way I see it.