Why are we willing to even make available $700 billion to them?

[BuyingThyme]

Woolsey Rejects Bailout Package
September 29, 2008

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) today joined a majority in the House of Representatives in voting to defeat a $700 billion economic bailout package. The legislation was defeated by a vote of 228-205. Woolsey’s statement on today’s vote, as issued from the House floor, is below:

“There are some major questions, Madame Speaker, to be answered by a bailout package that fails to address the root cause of the financial crisis facing our Nation - one that does little or nothing to secure the underlying problem of mortgage foreclosures, and economic suffering that hardworking Americans are facing every single day.

“Question one: Where is the comprehensive economic stimulus package that will assist 95 percent of the taxpayers - a package that includes unemployment benefits, food stamps, infrastructure investment, and of course, foreclosure relief? Stability should come from the bottom up. We need an economic package that will allow those in foreclosure to pay their mortgages and stay in their homes, bringing value back to the mortgage-backed securities that are clogging the financial system.

“Why isn’t Wall Street paying for the mess they created? By reinstating a one quarter of 1 percent surcharge on stock trades, we could raise nearly $150 billion a year from those who have actually caused this mess and profited from it.

“Finally, question three: With only 3 months left of this current Administration, why are we willing to even make available $700 billion to them? President Bush and Secretary Paulson have been wrong from the start on just about everything. If you think they will be responsible with this money, think again.”

http://woolsey.house.gov/latestnews.asp?ARTICLE5110=2834414

[polichick]

1. She makes great sense to me - on all counts!

[Uncle Joe]

2. I believe Representative Woolsey makes some good, logical points.

Thanks for the thread, BuyingThyme.:thumbsup:

Kicked and recommended.

[chicagoexpat]

3. People lining up w/ Freeper line are SO MUCH smarter than Obama -->see thread www.democraticunderg

You should get her to run for Prez!! & u can be her vice!!!

McCain Campaign Soliciting Trolls to Invade Web Site Forums

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7262075

Hope you can bail out all the states w/ ur personal check book.I'm sure u can afford it

State of Massachusetts denied credit!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7256498&mesg_id=7256498

[BuyingThyme]

4. So people who are not in support of a corporate bailout are only

against corpporate bailouts because they want to destroy Barack Obama?

I think that's the stupidest thing posted here today. Nice work!

[chicagoexpat]

5. I didn't say destroy,just you find common cause w/ those who do want to destroy him

& ur SO MUCH smarter than Obama, I'm PRAISING u!

what's wrong w/ that?

[BuyingThyme]

6. Read this carefully:

If you think people like Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, and I have come out against corporate welfare in order to find a common cause with Republicans, it only shows that you are a fool. I'm not calling you names; I'm just letting you know you're a fool.

Bye the way, being that John McCain takes the same position as Barack Obama, what is it in your tiny little mind that makes you believe that this somehow benefits Republicans?

[chicagoexpat]

8. I think right wingers spreading their cause use any ammo available, & this issue is a perfect exampl

[BuyingThyme]

9. Who told you that the right-wing "cause" was to block corporate welfare

and the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts?

I want a name.

[chicagoexpat]

12. Who told u that was their wish? They want to end ALL regulation, cut ALL taxes, & they'll use u

to help'em stop any bill the Democrats put up that might counter that

[BuyingThyme]

13. The bill coming up tomorrow will extend Bush tax cuts and

propose more tax breaks while expanding FDIC coverage for depositors.

Are you sure you know what side you're on?

[chicagoexpat]

15. Yeah, w/ Obama. Ur standing w/ the bomb throwers & right wing talk radio

[BuyingThyme]

I'm standing against s sweetened version of the bill written by George W. Bush and company.

Were you aware that they wrote this bill that you're so fond of?

[chicagoexpat]

17. Now u sound as truthful as McCain's speech writers; the bill was changed by the Dems, Paulson & Bush

fought it -- but were forced to accept the changes.

You'd know that if you read anything outside ur own journal

[BuyingThyme]

18. I see. Can you provide a link to show that Bush EVER fought it?

[chicagoexpat]

21. Not that I can expect facts to affect ideology, but I'll try once

Knowing full well you won't accept anything that counters your position, or that doesn't already exist in ur personal journal.

From an obscure publication called "The New York Times", discussion on how the Dems forced Bush & Paulson to make changes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/business/29bailout.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

All sides had to surrender something. The administration had to accept limits on executive pay and tougher oversight; Democrats had to sacrifice a push to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages; and Republicans fell short in their effort to require that the federal government insure, rather than buy, the bad debt.

The final version of the bill included a deal-sealing plan for eventually recouping losses; if the Treasury program to purchase and resell troubled mortgage-backed securities has lost money after five years, the president must submit a plan to Congress to recover those losses from the financial industry. Presumably that plan would involve new fees or taxes, perhaps on securities transactions.

“This is a major, major change,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday evening as she declared that negotiations were over and that a House vote was planned for Monday, with Senate action to follow.

The final version of the bill included a deal-sealing plan for eventually recouping losses; if the Treasury program to purchase and resell troubled mortgage-backed securities has lost money after five years, the president must submit a plan to Congress to recover those losses from the financial industry. Presumably that plan would involve new fees or taxes, perhaps on securities transactions.

...At one point, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, was thumping the table, demanding to release the $700 billion in installments. At another point, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, was shouting at Mr. Paulson, accusing him of trying to undermine the limits on pay for executives.

[Celebration]

11. LOL-not!

When the word "economy" is mentioned in ANY context, Obama wins, hands down. Their positions are identical on the bailout but McCain is associated with the party that caused this.

[chicagoexpat]

14. The freepers are getting less interested in having McCain win than purifying their ideology

and doing what Gingrich did, shut down gov't or cripple it -- preferably using any on the left as allies whom they can fool to go along w/ them

[girl gone mad]

7. Are we demanding a guarantee from the banks that they will loan to MA?

Nope.

So why throw that red herring into the debate? MA can cut out the middle men and get a loan directly from the government.

Stop blaming this crisis on people who want to ensure a good bill passes, and put the blame where it belongs.

[MadrasT]

16. Your concern is noted.

[davidthegnome]

19. The fact that Obama supports this bill

Troubles me. This bull (sorry, I mean bill) is also supported by John McCain and George Bush. The Republicans opposed to it are (in my opinion) attempting to forget and dismiss eight years of corrupt, idiotic leadership. They are attempting to distance themselves from this failed administration. This is at least in part because many of them will soon be up for re-election and dems are pulling ahead in the polls.

There is no proof that this bill will solve the problem, there is no proof that the money will be used with a measure of responsibility. There is little if any credibility remaining within Washington.

As I personally don't factor into this, I don't care whether or not they pass the bull (I mean bill). I can assure you, however, that when and if they do so, your approval or lack of it will mean nothing to them.

[Hannah Bell]

10. hear, hear.

defazio & some others have an alternate plan.

defazio says the white house is involved in deliberate locking up of credit.

[dapper]

20. I wish she was my congress person!

I totally agree with her.

I do not want to bail out Wall Street, I don't want to pay for 2 wars and a 700b bailout for the rest of my life.

Dap

[xiamiam]

22. the last paragraph sums it up for me

Finally, question three: With only 3 months left of this current Administration, why are we willing to even make available $700 billion to them? President Bush and Secretary Paulson have been wrong from the start on just about everything. If you think they will be responsible with this money, think again.”

[PVnRT]

23. I suppose we could just sit back and cross our fingers

That seems to be the hip position now. Hope you guys are right.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Who Said That?

Do you honestly believe that people with little background in economics and finance, (yeah even the advisers who are working in politics not finance) can put together a sure-fire plan to solve this problem in 1 week.

If that were true, why change Paulson's proposal at all? He's supposed to be an expert.

I don't see anyone here saying there is no problem and we should just cross our fingers. The overwhelming sentiment of the anti-bailout faction is that we should be patient enough to put together a package that actually addresses the underlying causes and is not just a band-aid.

And as someone who has background and experience in both economics and in banking, i don't think the data supports the "crisis" tag with regard to liquidity. There are hundreds of sizeable banks with sufficient liquidity and strong cap/asset ratios that have the money to lend. The capital squeeze is just that. Not a crunch. Not a freeze-out. For reasons of confidence banks are tightening credt, but with no numerical basis on which to drive that decision. The community banks and credit unions are seeing this as an OPPORTUNITY to expand their small business portfolios because their stricter regulatory environment resulted in even better capital and liquidity positions.

The money is there. Don't be fooled by the doom and gloomers. No need to cross your fingers. The problem took 25 years to develop. We're not going to fix it with a plan thrown together in a week. That's a fool's game.
The Professor