If the bailout is such a bad thng, and Obama supports it... WTF

So at first I was against this thing, because I see no big diference in my life one way or the other.
Personally, it think it just buys us time until January so that Pres Obama will have to deal with the REAL shitstorm.

Now - Is this thing written in stone? can't Obama re-work it once he is in office ...?
Maybe he knows something we don't
perhaps he is helping delay the real chaos so we can at least still have an election, otherwise the shit hits the fan, Chimpy declares Martial Law and we are screwn even more...

Does anyone think there could be an upside here we aren't looking at?
I hate the banks and the corporate crooks as much as the next guy, I don't like saving their measly asses while people are still struggling on the street more & more... but perhaps Obama is crazy like a fox here... He knows he can change the game after January...?

jus sayin...

Bush proposed a ridiculously bad bill and Chris Dodd improved it.

It's still a terrible bill, but now it's a compromise bill.

I'm against the bill.

"this bill has problems, but we need it anyway"

to contain the the credit crunch and stabilize the economy, even if politically unpopular. Politicians of integrity, like Obama, put their country ahead of their careers. Time will vindicate it.

I really really hope you are correct but I do not believe that to be so. I think time is going to show that this was a blunder of humongous proportions. The ones that will be saved are the Bush* Cabal and Republicans. This will have zero effect on Usurious interest rates by Credit Card Companies and that is one of the very biggest problems. With fuel at such historic highs and the price of everything climbing as a result, people can not afford to make their payments as they once could. Until that problem is fixed bailing out the banks is only a very temporary fix at best.

Since yesterday, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Iceland, and Luxemburg have all enacted similar bailout legislation. It's necessary as an intermediate solution. The long-term solution will be the legacy of the next president and Congress.

and I think that I have no idea how global economics works, or doesn't.

Who said, "The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?

Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls."

Here's a link to a very short article in Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/29

While they will not contain the immediate crisis, they will be the legacy of the next president and Congress. His comments, though, belie the need for a short- and intermediate- intervention, the quadruple bypass, if you will, so that there's an economy left to fix come January.

It was a clever move on the neocons' part. What they hoped was that Obama would not support it, the Democrats would be disorganized, and no bill would pass. From that point, Bush could engineer a series of "Sky is falling" mini-crises and point to Obama as the villain. Had that unfolded, there was a very good chance that the fascists would remain in control if the WH come January.

They picked an outrageously large amount and an outrageous amount of power for the SoT in order to assure that Obama would step into the trap.

But he didn't. Instead, he turned the tables on Bush, basically giving him what he asked for, bu at the same time maneuvering McCain into the position of having to support the bill, including a set of improvements that take it from utterly outrageous to merely extraordinary.

Of course, the price he had to pay for this gambit is that Bush and Paulson are in a position to funnel $350B to their friends on their way out the door. But Obama calculated, correctly in my opinion, that this is a price worth paying in order to but an end to this Reagan reign of terror. If this pays off, we will have 8 years to correct the problem, and more than that if Obama can stay away from the interns.

Is this thing written in stone? can't Obama re-work it once he is in office ...?

For starters, he will likely (hopefully) be picking a new SecTrez, as part of forming *his* cabinet.

a Daley Democratic and has been a part of that machine since he he was a "community organizer." He is ordained by the handlers of such affairs to be the next president and as long as he doesn't demonstate an original thought or opinion he will be.

There's people without handles or levers like H. Dean and the Kooch then there's folks with. Those "with" get to be president. It's the difference between integrity and expedience.

Of course this is just my opinion and like all posts at DU it will change nothing.