What is with so many DUers siding with the Repugs on the bailout?

[MellowDem]

The first bill should have passed. Now this bill has an additional $160 billion of pork and tax cuts for businesses on it to compensate the REPUGS. There is a reason why Republicans oppose this bill, it is because they think that MARKET FORCES should be relied upon to eventually restore the market to equilibrium, and we all know how well that worked in the 1930s. Why are you supporting that MORE FREE MARKET CAPITALISM be used to solve this crisis? Do you even know what you're saying?

Here are a couple things to keep in mind:

- Americans will get back all of their tax money, NO MATTER WHAT
- The bill does not bail out Wall Street, that's the incredibly ironic and hypocritical notion being spread by certain populist REPUBLICANS. It bails out America's whole fucking economy, with your and my ass on the line.
- The bill is not perfect, because there is not enough time to make it so. If credit markets start shutting down, that will be far more costly than this short-term loan, which will look like piddly shit in hindsight.
- The cause of this crisis CANNOT be addressed in a week's time, it will take many months, maybe years, to pass all the necessary legislation needed for new regulation requirements, and those themselves take a while to have any effect on the economy.
- The REPUGS who are against this bailout are Ron Paul type Free Market extremists who should be shouted down for their idiocy.
- The Dems who have opposed this bill are more interested with their election than what is best for the American people.
- Just because a majority of Americans are against a "bailout" plan, that doesn't mean it should not be passed. Hell, the American people are stupid fuckers, especially when it comes to the economy. The vast majority of you agree, yet somehow now this actually makes the case as a reason to oppose the bill. For me, it makes me for it. The plan was poorly explained and worse has been wrapped up in bullshit populist rhetoric (by lots o' Repugs) to make it sound like something it is not. If you think Ron Paul knows what's best for this crisis, God help you. What's popular is not always right, ESPECIALLY in this interest, where the vast majority of Americans do not even UNDERSTAND what they are opposing. What I have seen these last few days is Populism at its fucking worst.

PLEASE don't give in to the populist rhetoric, from the stuff I read on here I think I'm on a Ron Paul website. Dems are smarter and more nuanced than that. We can see the grey area.

[RoccoR5955]

1. I suppose Dennis Kucinich is a Ron Paul type.

Bite your tongue!

If my congressman, Hinchey (D-NY22) is against it AND Kucinich is against it, there is something it that is not for WE THE PEOPLE. Plain and simple.

This bill only bails out corporations who made bad decisions with other people's money. WE THE PEOPLE should not be responsible for billionaires' bad decisions. They should bail themselves out, and stop being so greedy!

[Curtland1015]

3. You know how businessmen bail themselves out of financial trouble?

They fire people.

[elocs]

8. Good senators voted for it (Obama, Biden, Clinton)

and good senators voted against it (such as my own Senator Feingold). The same will happen in the House. Once it is done there is no point in trashing and retrashing our Democratic candidates over this because we have an election to win.

[MellowDem]

14. It's not so simple

and Kucinich should be ashamed for presenting as so. Sure, it's easy as hell to oppose this bill, makes you look real nice. But it's not dealing with reality. The problem is that the corporations cannot bail themselves out, they have fucked up so royally. And if something is not done, we are all going to feel the pain, but mostly the poor and the middle class, you and me.

[TexasObserver]

78. Every poll here shows you're the minority viewpoint at DU.

As in the general population, there is little support for the bill in terms of percentages. The pro bailout folks start a disproportionally large number of threads on the topic and wail loudly, but they are a small minority here.

DU opposes the bailout, generally, same as the population.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

84. So....

You trust the asshats who have fucked us over (both sides) for the last 8 years.

I do not trust Bush and his felons for a second.

Obama is FOR it because he is trying to be moderate - How lame is that?

Lame, real lame.

Kucinich is no fool. He has what so many lack in D.C. - it's called integrity.

[Epiphany4z]

2. because it is confusing and scary

It basically feels like we are giving our lunch money to the school yard bullies and trusting they have our best interest at heart.

I don't understand enough to say if this thing is a good or bad thing...I do know I have learned over the nearly 8 yrs not to trust a word that comes out of the boy kings mouth...it is freaking terrifying that we have to believe there really is a mushroom cloud this time...ya know its the boy who cried wolf thing..a crisis of trust and a lack of genuine leadership.

so I pinch my nose and dive in....time will tell.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Where are they?

In GD?

We are united behind Barack Obama.

Dems know who got us to this place, and it wasn't Barack Obama.

[Curtland1015]

10. I wish that were 100% true.

In the past couple of days I've seen more than one poster saying they "wouldn't vote for anyone who voted for the bill"... and yes that includes Obama.

If any of you who said this are reading my post right now? Go fuck yourselves.

I understand not liking it. I understand needing to vent. But not voting for our candidate? Fuck that.

[1corona4u]

16. And you know what I say to those people....

I hope they don't lose their job, because I sure as hell don't want MY tax dollars going towards THEIR unemployment check. :-)

[vaberella]

34. Thank you!! n/t

[Yuugal]

82. Its rich vs poor

In our party and also on the repuke side. Trust funders, house flippers, people with houses and 401ks, wall st types, fat cats........yeah, they all love the bailout. Poor people who have no house, no job, no pensions, and NO HOPE of ever getting any of the above just don't want to see their kids picking up the check for all of you who partied hard the last ten yrs but didn't invite us to the same party.

I don't need to fuck myself, rich people from both parties have been doing that for along time now and we are tired of it. All us poor people need now is our own party. We have shown that the meek can indeed inherit the earth, if only we stop listening to the go along to get along types who keep us poor with their lies and greed.

Fuck the rich, Fuck the bailout, Fuck you!

[TankLV]

31. The two are not inextricably intertwined...

I don't like a FEW of obama's positions - but I back him STRONGLY...but you've got to look at the whole package...

I just have serious legitimate doubts/concerns about the bailout that I've expressed many times elsewhere...

as I'm sure everyone does...

[vaberella]

38. Obama clearly went with this because of what he was told and what we weren't.

There's a lot of things we weren't explained by Paulson/Bernanke or the fool President. I'm sure Obama knows and doesn't want to set panic but he inforces this. But I am assured by his position and what he has said in the past that he will change this bill. I actually think he might nationalize everything.

[FreakinDJ]

55. Obama did what was politically expedient

And so did McSame

Obama’s people have already started a whisper campaign suggesting 1 of the first orders of business for Obama will be to revisit this issue

[FreakinDJ]

5. Its a FUCKING Republican Deregulation problem

Thats why

How many MORE times do you want to Bail out these Greedy Cork Soakers ????

Every 10 years or so

You would think SOME PEOPLE could learn after getting Ripped Off a couple of times

(edited for politeness)

[MellowDem]

18. I totally agree, not the point however

That's what caused this mess. But what will fix it? The corporations literally can't. So if no one fixes it, who suffers? We the People. We need to make sure the market is stable now so that we can fix the causes of this crisis later.

[FreakinDJ]

37. You CAN NOT spend your way out of a REGULATORY problem

Its like Paying Burgerlers NOT to Rob you house

Install the Securities Exchange Transfer Free

Repeal Phil Gramm's Deregulation Bill that got us in this whole mess

Allow Banks a specified amount of time to divest speculative assets

Use HUD and FHA to asses Home owners that deserve Federaly Insured Loans

[msallied]

89. So let's say we put the regulations back in place right this second.

Great. NOW what? Do you think that makes those bad loans from the previous seven years just up and go away??

[European Socialist]

6. No need for name calling--intelligent people on both sides.

I think Wall Street could and should bail themselves out, and save their casino.

[MellowDem]

19. No name calling by me was implied or intended

And Wall Street got us into this shit, what makes you think they can get us out? I'm not so confidant.

[Binka]

69. Wrong Word Mellow

It is confident. Enjoy your stay. CONFIDANT? :wtf: A confidant is one whom a secret or secrets are trusted or confided to. Grab the clue phone phony. Take your outrage POUTRAGE elsewhere.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. I'm voting for Obama, but I stand with Dennis & Bernie on this one

Fuck Wall Street. They did this to themselves AND us. Bail out Main Street, if anyone's getting bailed out.

[MellowDem]

20. Not so simple...

As I've said, if there is no credit market, who gets hurt the most? You and me.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. If you bail out the people first, the credit companies get paid.

Their goddamn pig sit on their ass and do nothing CEO's don't get trillion dollar bonuses, but they don't go tits up like WaMu, Wachovia, Lehman Brothers, and the rest just did.

Now that all of Henry Paulson's Bohemian Grove buddies just got their 5th mansion subsidized with taxpayer money, and the next depression STILL starts as soon as the Bush Crime Family has safely fled to Paraguay, how do we the people benefit from that?

[liberalmuse]

9. I was ready for revolution a few days ago, but...

After hearing 3 speeches from Obama, 1 from Clinton, and a couple shorts of Krugman's opinion, I have to say, even though I agree with Kucinich (this IS Immoral), Bush fucked us BAD, and now unfortunately, we have to do something to stop the Titanic from sinking. I've seen too many good people around me get hit with Bush's meltdown. It's awful to watch. Marriages, jobs, savings, losing a house deal after looking for months because my co-worker found out belatedly that Lehman Brother's had held the mortgage. This shit has to stop. I guess the free market ain't free.

[DJ13]

11. uh.....because the solution was a Bush proposal?

Just a wild guess.

Bush's proposals dont have a good track record.

[MellowDem]

21. They don't

and this one is only necessary because of his and his party's shitty economic philosophies. But what choice do we have? If there is an economic meltdown we all get hurt, and more importantly, the chances of Obama being able to do much politically once he is in power diminishes a ton as he has to deal with a recession or depression.

[TankLV]

36. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner...

that's my MAIN point of concern...

[FreakinDJ]

47. LOOSER LOSER LOSER - It was the Bush proposal

With a few candy coated add ons that drives us and the whole country further into debt

Bye Bye American Dollar

Maybe you'll understand when your wheeling a Wheel Barrow full of cash down to the Chinese owned 7-11 to buy a loaf of bread

[democrat2thecore]

12. Bernie Sanders? Russ Feingold? John Tester? Ron Wyden? Debbie Stabinow?

All voted on principle - from the left!

The single largest transfer of wealth in history.

By the way, I have no doubt that had Obama not been running for President, he would be on this list.
I understand his vote - but I honestly believe his heart is with Feingold, Sanders, etc.

[MellowDem]

22. Not so sure

I understand the principle of it, but it is not practical. It ignores what would happen if we do nothing.

[magdalena]

52. Feingold usually votes on principle.

I trust this man quite a bit. Remember he is the ONLY senator who voted against the Patriot Act. He is not up for re-election. He issued a statement as to why he didn't think that Congress should support the rescue plan.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/09/20080930.htm

[mtnsnake]

13. "Siding with the Repugs" is just your way of spinning it

We DU'ers are known to be independent thinkers and we don't walk in lockstep if we don't agree with it.

[MellowDem]

23. Not all, as I said

Just a lot that I've seen posting in opposition to it are using some of the same populist arguments that Republicans are using. I can totally emphasize with the feeling, but it is not practical.

[TankLV]

40. July 24, 2008.

All I need to know...

"thanks"...

[NotGivingUp]

58. Exactly! n/t

[BuyingThyme]

15. Here's a couple things to keep in mind:

1. This bill did not originate in Congress.
2. This bill came from the Chimp.

[MellowDem]

25. True and true

Believe me, I know. Now Congress has done its dirty work to it, and viola! It is the same basic bill with pork. All we need to do is stabilize the market, we can pass as many bills as we want to over how to leverage the banks and make sure the common person gets a fair shake in this afterwards. That will take a lot of time, time when people will be losing their jobs.

[BuyingThyme]

42. It's a great bill now. Republicans will love it.

The key to protecting the taxpayers is in putting more burden on the taxpayers.

It's just astonishing the things that can be achieved when you get the ritht people for the job.

[Beregond2]

17. I'm baffled by this too.

It's incredible to me that people who call themselves Democrats are behaving like this. This bill seems to have triggered such a huge wave of hatred of the rich, that people can't even see where their own interests lie. Pretty ironic, since that is exactly what we have been mocking the Republicans for for years: cutting their own throats.

[democrat2thecore]

45. I KNOW my interests - it isn't a trillion-dollar giveaway to Wall Street. Thanks anyway. -nt

[MercutioATC]

24. Why are you siding with Bush by supporting his bailout plan?

See, it's not that simple...

[MellowDem]

29. I agree...

But Bush has nothing left to worry about, nothing left to lose. I know HE didn't propose this bill, he just chimped for it. I always take it as a bad sign when Bush supports something, but think of what he's supporting, a very liberal principle of having government closely involved in the economy. Hell, he's supporting a Democratic concept! Makes it seem less thorny to me.

[MercutioATC]

50. Most "anti-bailout" people aren't "let it burn" advocates. We WANT a fix.

This bill is NOT a Democratic concept. The "oversight" it mandates is loosely defined and has nothing to do with implementing real regulatory changes on the financial industry. This is a stereotypical "Let's throw money at corporations and it'll make everything better" REPUBLICAN creation.

We DO need a legislative solution, but this bill does absolutely nothing to address the issues. Not only is it outrageously expensive, it won't cure the problem.

Why not craft a real solution. Sure, it will take some time. In the meanwhile, federally back $150B or so for lending to keep the credit markets moving. There are ways of dealing with the collateral issues that don't involve handing piles of taxpayer money to the same corporations that created the problem.

[shireen]

74. damn bug ...

I keep trying to chase it away from my computer screen! :rofl:

[baldguy]

26. Reality check: THE BAILOUT IS **GEORGE FUCKING BUSH'S PLAN!!!**

How big can I make this?

EVERYTHING BUSH HAS EVER TOLD US IS A LIE! THIS IS JUST ONE MORE! IT DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE IT SUPPOSEDLY CONFRONTS, AND MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE! IT'S ECONOMIC TERRORISM AT ITS WORST: THEY PULLED A NUMBER OUT OF THEIR ASS AND ARE BASICALLY SAYING "GET IT TO US, OR ELSE!"

AND SIX MONTHS FROM NOW WE'LL BE BACK WHERE WE STARTED!

[Curtland1015]

28. Jesus Christ, calm the fuck down.

You somehow managed to make my eyes deaf with that post.

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. Jesus Christ would have opposed this bailout plan.

If Jesus were here today and He said "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven", Congress would want to spend $700 Billion to build a Big Fucking Needle that the camels could walk through without any difficulty, just to cut the fiancial vampires another break.

[1corona4u]

43. And, my response to you IS...

There was a Shepherd Boy who tended his sheep at the foot of a mountain near a dark forest. It was lonely for him, so he devised a plan to get a little company. He rushed down towards the village calling out "Wolf, Wolf," and the villagers came out to meet him. This pleased the boy so much that a few days after he tried the same trick, and again the villagers came to his help. Shortly after this a Wolf actually did come out from the forest. The boy cried out "Wolf, Wolf," still louder than before. But this time the villagers, who had been fooled twice before, thought the boy was again lying, and nobody came to his aid. So the Wolf made a good meal off the boy's flock.

[baldguy]

53. Even after 8 yrs of this shit - you don't get it. Bush isn't the Boy Who Cried "Wolf"

Bush *IS* the wolf.

[1corona4u]

66. I think the story told it well.

[baldguy]

70. And you want to *GIVE* the wolf $700 billion

Trouble is, what do we give him 6 months from now when he wants more?

[1corona4u]

72. 6 months from now, Obama will be in office.

I think people are worried about things that may not happen. But, hey, if worrying about shit you have no control of appeals to you, then by all means, knock yourself out. This hasn't even passed congress yet, and you're worried about 6 months from now?

No, don't answer me, just think about it.

[baldguy]

75. If you really think Bush's bailout will work as advretised

I've got a new investment consultant for you



He guarantees to double your money in 3 months

[TankLV]

27. Because a lot of us have LEGITIMATE concerns about any bailout?

I know it's hard for you to understand...

[MellowDem]

35. I understand...

and I wish we had all the time in the world to address those concerns. It's just that the concerns over the economy have much more dire consequences for us. A 700 billion dollar bailout will add 700 billion dollars to our already bloated debt, but it would be nothing compared to the trillions we could lose, mostly hurting the poor and middle class, in an economic meltdown.

[1corona4u]

46. I have concerns about my tax dollars going towards your unemployment check

when you lose your job.

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. Why would you say something Freepish like that?

Let alone twice in the same thread. Who the fuck are you to judge someone for being unemployed??

[baldguy]

57. Well, everyone knows the unemployed are intrinsically more immoral than *real* people.

:sarcasm:

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. And definitely more so than Wall Street Speculators and overpaid CEO's

Why every time that bell rings at the Stock Exchange, another billionaire gets his wings O8)

[1corona4u]

65. The point is,

If you don't want to help the country with a rescue plan, why should anyone pay for other people's unemployment? I think it's hypocritical to suggest that YOU don't want to help the country with your tax dollars, but if YOU lost your job, you would indeed need help from the very people you are slamming for supporting the rescue plan. See?


(*not YOU personally, because I wasn't actually talking to YOU, but you meaning, anyone slamming people who accepted the bill)


Oh, and I'm not judging anyone. What I am saying is, all of those people who aren't behind this bill, and think it's bogus, may just find themselves without a job, if it doesn't pass. That's my issue. They fought it, called their congress people, bitched about it here, yet, if they lost their job, they themselves would need help.

I hope I made my point clear.(er)

[Forkboy]

76. nevermind....so not worth it.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

32. The banks are lined up ready to fail...

If you have substantial deposits and they are not structured appropriately, you could risk great loss.

This bill is not about helping the average American buy a car, it's about salvaging the wealth of the moneyed few.

As I posted earlier, many in The House and Senate are hardwired into the the group most likely to actually be "bailed out."

[MellowDem]

39. Its to stabilize the credit market...

If banks stop lending, lots and lots of bad things happen, especially to the common guy or gal out there. Businesses stop being able to pay their employees for one.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

48. This is rhetoric...Any business that depends on credit to make payroll

deserves to fail.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

54. How are things going in the 8th century?

[donco6]

62. I depend on credit to make payroll.

I'm a public school district. I don't have two months of cash saved up to make payroll during January and February - our lowest tax months. I used to, but we've been cut so much I had to spend down our fund balance to keep people employed. Now I have to borrow for those two months.

You might want to think before you make a dumbass statement like this. I'm just trying to keep my people here.

[msallied]

91. You're an idiot. I would try to be nicer, but when I read statements rife with such ignorance

I lose my patience.

[democrat2thecore]

33. "Populist" can be of the LEFT persuasion

Think Thom Hartmann, David Sirota, Brian Schweitzer, Russ Feingold.

Read The Progressive Populist newspaper...raising hell since 1995:
http://www.populist.com/

[MellowDem]

41. That's true...

and I agree with a lot of their sentiments, but in this situation, what some populists propose is not practical.

[DemReadingDU]

81. The credit bubble is going to burst whether a bill is passed or not

Please watch the excellent Crash Course videos by Dr. Chris Martenson.
They are a series of 20 chapters that tell how we got to where we are now...the creation of money, debt, and the giant financial credit bubble.

Martenson shows how this bubble is like all bubbles, it will burst.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse


Passing a bailout bill is only going to delay the bursting of the financial credit bubble. The bubble will burst, no matter how many of our tax dollars are taken to save the economy.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. You really don't make your case.

"Americans will get back all of their tax money, NO MATTER WHAT" - despite the use of CAPS - there simply is no such guarantee. Perhaps you meant, over the long term, the us government might recoup some or all of the unknown amount of money we are about to hand over to a select group of wall street investment firms.

"The bill does not bail out Wall Street, that's the incredibly ironic and hypocritical notion being spread by certain populist REPUBLICANS. It bails out America's whole fucking economy, with your and my ass on the line."

Well no. The bill as proposed directly bails out a select group of wall street investment firms by purchasing their rotten investment assets from them. We are told, without any proof or even much evidence, that doing so will somehow rescue the rest of us from a crisis that has not happened. So perhaps, and no particular evidence has been presented, bailing out a bunch of billionaires from their own self inflicted disaster might keep us from suffering the consequences of their greedy irresponsibility, or not. The irony is that nobody actually losing his or her home due to being a victim of a predatory loan is getting any help at all, even though simply bailing out those people, none of whom are even remotely rich, would cost something like 100B dollars, rather than the 700B to start that the billionaires apparently need.

The cause of this crisis was quite simply the repeal of Glass-Steagal, New Deal legislation that regulated the mortgage industry and commercial banking and most importantly established an absolute firewall between mainstreet commercial banking and wall street investment firms. There is no effort at all to reregulate the mortgage industry and to re-establish the firewall between commercial banking and wall street. After we spend 700B and rescue wall street, there is absolutely nothing to prevent these same firms from continuing to invest in and profit (short term) from another round of irresponsible mortgages.

Before you chew us out for 'siding with repugs' you might want to at least attempt to understand why we are against this bullshit bailout. We have made reasonable cogent arguments over and over again here, and elsewhere on other boards, and in our Congress and on the few media outlets that give us a voice.

[NotGivingUp]

60. Very well said. n/t

[OwnedByFerrets]

64. Thank you SO MUCH...that was a well reasoned response.,,nt

[Gregorian]

87. Wow, I hadn't heard this until now. Thank you.

Another Reagan disaster. I wonder why it took so long to come to fruition.

Argh! It wasn't Reagan. It was Phil Graham! McCain's guy. A veto proof bill that Bill had to sign.

[IndianaGreen]

56. There are legitimate objections to the latest variant of Paulson's plan

from both the Left and the Right. Several Democratic Senators voted against this travesty that will do nothing to alleviate the credit crunch and will sink us further into the hole while providing additional gooddies to the very people responsible for this mess.

The Senate approved a $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the bill that would put Wall Street’s burden on the backs of the American middle class. “The bailout package is far better than the absurd proposal originally presented to us by the Bush administration, but is still short of where we should be,” Sanders said. “If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people.”

Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on families with incomes of more than $1 million year and individuals earning over $500,00 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout. Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.

In a Senate floor speech, Sanders elaborated on the bailout bill’s flaws:

"This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

"This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

"This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

"This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

"This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

"There is one issue that is even more profound and more basic than everything else that I have mentioned, and that is if a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, whose money should it be? In other words, who should be paying for this bailout which has been caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street operatives who have made billions in recent years?

"The American people are bitter. They are angry, and they are confused. Over the last seven and a half year, since George W. Bush has been President, 6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and are in poverty, and today working families are lining up at emergency food shelves in order to get the food they need to feed their families. Since President Bush has been in office, median family income for working-age families has declined by over $2,000. More than seven million Americans have lost their health insurance. Over four million have lost their pensions. Consumer debt has more than doubled. And foreclosures are the highest on record. Meanwhile, the cost of energy, food, health care, college and other basic necessities has soared.

"While the middle class has declined under President Bush's reckless economic policies, the people on top have never had it so good. For the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth, and at the end of 2007 owned over $1.5 trillion in wealth. That is just 400 families, a $670 billion increase in wealth since Bush has been in office.

"In our country today, we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth, with the top 1 percent earning more income than the bottom 50 percent and the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We are living at a time when we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthiest people in this country, when, among others, CEOs of Wall Street firms received unbelievable amounts in bonuses, including $39 billion in bonuses in the year 2007 alone for just the five major investment houses. We have seen the incredible greed of the financial services industry manifested in the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on campaign contributions and lobbyists in order to deregulate their industry so that hedge funds and other unregulated financial institutions could flourish. We have seen them play with trillions and trillions dollars in esoteric financial instruments, in unregulated industries which no more than a handful of people even understand. We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America.

"Most importantly, we have seen the financial services industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which is one of the basic reasons why we are here tonight.

"In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman, and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the “Masters of the Universe,” those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.

"If we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation, those people are the people who should pick up the tab, and not ordinary working people. I introduced an amendment which gave the Senate a very clear choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane, we can ask them to pay for this bailout. That is one way we can go. Or, we can ask the people who have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes have been soaring under president bush, to pick up the tab.

"I proposed to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. That increase in the tax rate, from 35 percent to 45 percent, would raise more than $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout. If what all the supporters of this legislation say is correct, that the government will get back some of its money when the market calms down and the government sells some of the assets it has purchased, then $300 billion should be sufficient to make sure that 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this bailout.

"Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or make over $100 million in total compensation in three years, as did Henry Paulson, the current secretary of the Treasury, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in total compensation over the past five years as did Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers. Most of my constituents did not cash out $60 million in stock after a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns after that failing company was bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a $161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neill, former CEO Merrill Lynch did.

"Last week I placed on my Web site, www.sanders.senate.gov, a letter to Secretary Paulson in support of my amendment. It said that it should be those people best able to pay for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent years, they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be the middle class. To my amazement, some 48,000 people cosigned this petition, and the names keep coming in. The message is very simple: “We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to pay for the bailout.”

"The time has come to assure our constituents in Vermont and all over this country that we are listening and understand their anger and their frustration. The time has come to say that we have the courage to stand up to all of the powerful financial institution lobbyists who are running amok all over the Capitol building, from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Bankers Association, to the Business Roundtable, all of these groups who make huge campaign contributions, spend all kinds of money on lobbyists, they're here loud and clear. They don't want to pay for this bailout, they want middle America to pay for it."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=303980

[frylock]

61. where's the guarantee that this bailout is going to do jack crap?!

[baldguy]

67. Because George Bush said so, that's where.

And he's NEVER EVER EVER lied to us, has he?

:sarcasm:

[frylock]

71. thanks for setting my mind at ease

[OwnedByFerrets]

63. .....

"Americans will get back all of their tax money, NO MATTER WHAT" I wont say what I really think of that statement because I'm bigger than that. I will say, however, you are crazy if you believe that.:silly:
This bill could have been a good one. We, the dems, could have done something really really good. Instead, we fucked up again. And btw, this country is SUPPOSED to be a fucking democratic republic. In case you forgot, that is SUPPOSED to mean that our elected leaders vote how we tell them to. THEY DIDNT!!! So much for fucking democracy.:mad:

And, I sure as hell dont like being called a STUPID FUCKER just because I disagree with you.:mad:

[ShadowLiberal]

68. I opposed it from the cost, but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it's a necessary evil

The national debt is a big issue to me, and try as they might to make sure we get all our money back, it won't matter. When we get the money back congress will just spend it as part of the budget of whatever year they get that money back, rather then using it as money to pay off a loan (and we are effectively taking out a massive loan to pay for this).

[shireen]

73. i used to agree with you

But I changed my mind.
:banghead:

I'm all for Bernie Sander's plan. The man totally gets it.

[TexasObserver]

77. We progressive DUers have these folks like Kucinich and Doggett we believe in.

We agree with their approach to many issues, and on this one, we agree with them.

If you really want to know the answer to your question, you will look up those two, read what they say about this bill, and then you'll know the answer to your question.

If you really want to know the answer to your question.

[bhikkhu]

79. Because Bush is soooo for it. Enough?

[chicagoexpat]

80. Imbecilic stupidity and rank ignorance are the best guess for why people would flirt with disaster

& ignore the counsel of Obama, Dem leaders, and nearly every major media outlet

[moodforaday]

93. And Bush! And Bush!

And Paulson! And Bush! Did I mention Paulson?

IMO where you are going wrong is the appeal to authority. There are authority-based opinions on both sides of the issue. You can point out that many Republicans oppose the bill (so it must be good), I will point out that Bush supports it (so it must be bad), so we're even, and still getting nowhere.

Then you say Obama supports it, so it must be good. Shouldn't it be the other war around though? I know or try to have an informed opinion about what is "good" (obviously a catch-all term here; things are more complex than that), and I will support the people that agree with what I believe in. You are asking people to believe in what some party leaders are supporting. In my almost humble opinion you have it ass-backwards. What if Obama is wrong? What if you are wrong about Obama?

Bush and Paulson want this bill first and foremost. Obama is just there for a ride.

[moodforaday]

94. Oh, and that was good too:

ignore the counsel of Obama, Dem leaders, and nearly every major media outlet

So the media are telling the truth now? That started to happen when exactly?

You of course realize that your whole argument could be cut and pasted into a debate about IWR, ANWR, FISA and narly every other major debate of the last 7 years?

I'm not even suggesting that you are consciously siding with Bush. Only that your argument is empty. If you can apply it anywhere without changes, it means nothing.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

83. Me, Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich and every hard left liberal

is against this dumb assed bill.

Bail out my ass - it is paying off GAMBLING DEBTS FOR THE RICH.

Have fun trolling.

[dpbrown]

85. Make them pay for it themselves - these are not "bad risks" they are people who got screwed by Bush

If you want to spend $700 billion, then pay down everyone's mortgage by $100,000 and force the banks to renegotiate the terms.

[Alpharetta]

86. Side with the bailout or side with the Republicans ?

That what you're saying?

/sounds familiar. I think I've seen that tactic before...

[whatchamacallit]

88. A better question is "why are so many democrats siding with the neocons?"

As far as I can tell most republicans are lying, thieving, dicks (yes the women too), but none are more lying and thieving than the cabal at the top.

[renie408]

90. Because the safest position to be in when you want to feel superior is to be against

something that will almost certainly happen. It is an easy way to feel smart. Just ask John McCain. That position is a win/win. If the bailout fails, you win. If the bailout succeeds...you win.

[johnlal]

92. Why don't you go help load up Bush's car with stolen money?

We're talking about $700 Billion of our hard-earned tax dollars being stolen by the Republicans on the way out the door. There has been no explanation as to how this is even going to work.

Our economy (for the normal person) has been crap for several years now. Good paying jobs have gone over seas. Health Care is unaffordable. Gasoline is expensive. People can't afford their mortgages. WE have felt the crunch for quite some time.

The problem isn't that the economy is crumbling. The problem is that RICH people are starting to feel the pinch. That's why they're howling now. They never felt the urge to do anything about the economy before (except cut taxes for the rich). Well guess what they did to "sweeten the pot"? Cut taxes for the rich again!

If you believe everything Paulson and the politicians told you, we would have been plunged into the Great Depression two days ago. It didn't happen. Their bluff was called. Wall Street and the government are holding our economy hostage to force us taxpayers to take billions of dollars of bad debt off their hand.

Congress and Wall Street are conspiring to hold our economy hostage in attempts to get the American Taxpayer to take bad debts off the hands of American and Foreign Banks. We can play this in one of two ways:
1. Treat this as a "Do what we say or die" threat, and give up any hope of bettering our situation, or;
2. Play their game of chicken and see who blinks first.

Honestly, since Congress is going to do what it wants to do anyway, our opinions don't count for much. So what does it matter whether I'm for it or against it?

[Laelth]

95. um ... I trust Kucinich and Sanders more than Pelosi and Reid.

Isn't that enough?

There must be a better way. I say give up a dime now, and let Obama do the right thing when he's President. I don't trust fear-mongerers, and that's what Paulson and Bush are.

-Laelth