Why do you think Obama was in favor of the Bush/Paulson BAILOUT SCAM??

[polichick]

Most of the country saw right through all the Henny Penny stuff and knew better than to trust Paulson or anyone else in the Bush administration ~ and yet Obama was all for it. Sure, he listed a few protections that should be included ~ but supported the bill even though those protections were not included, in spite of endless emails and calls from wise voters.

The bailout amounted to yet another pillaging of this country by a band of criminals ~ an early October Surprise.

It makes no sense to me that someone as intelligent as Obama would fall for this scam. Why do you think he supported it??

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. When a guy wearing the fire chief's hat comes screaming in,

claiming that your house is on fire, and it will burn to the ground, with your kids inside, UNLESS you give him the water HE NEEDS RIGHT NOW, and when you have little power except to grant him that water, it makes the choice very simple.

[polichick]

3. I would check to see if the house really was on fire - as most voters wanted to do.

[thewiseguy]

61. No you wont. You are not in the position of power or responsible for anything.

[polichick]

65. Lol - I was talking about checking for fire before hosing down my house...

...which is what Congress SHOULD have done when Paulson came in screaming ~ so WHY DIDN'T THEY?

Do they mean to be enablers of Bush & Co, or do they STILL not get that these people can't be trusted ~ or WHAT??

[thewiseguy]

68. Even Warren Buffet supported the bailout plan

I guess he could not see through this "scam" either. You have no way of saying the bailout did not work. Without it maybe we could have been in a far worse situation right now.

You are trying to oversimplify things.

[polichick]

69. Buffet said the gov't should buy stock - like he did.

[thewiseguy]

76. The gov bought stocks in financial institutions

In fact they have lost a third of their value in one month alone.

[polichick]

77. Preferred stock, as Buffet advised??

[thewiseguy]

82. You are getting away from the point. Buffet said that Paulson's plan was absolutely necessary.

Well, there's just no telling what would happen. Last week we were at the brink of something that would have made anything that's happened in financial history look pale. We were very, very close to a system that was totally dysfunctional and would have not only gummed up the financial markets, but gummed up the economy in a way that would take us years and years to repair. We've got enough problems to deal with anyway. I'm not saying the Paulson plan eliminates those problems. But it was absolutely, and is absolutely necessary, in my view, to really avoid going over the precipice.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/26867866/site/14081545/

[polichick]

84. I heard him on NPR say we should buy preferred stock, like he did...

But my question is not why Congress did something, but why Congress (including Obama) would trust Paulson with our money without precise specifications and oversight.

Here's an article about the way banks are using our money. How does that help people from "going over the precipice"??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/banks-have-no-intention-t_n_137785.html

[thewiseguy]

85. You do realize that they were in a rush to pass this bill?

This bill had to pass very fast. I am sure there are things there that we may not like but at least it averted a catastrophe.

Things are still bad right now. Nobody claimed that with this bailout our problems would go away, but at least we are not dealing with a catastrophic meltdown.

[polichick]

86. Actually, imo that was the problem - Congress took the bait...

...which was the idea that the bill had to be passed quickly ~ exactly like the rush to war and the Patriot Act. Scammed again.

The way the money was used didn't avert anything ~ but it did line the pockets of Paulson's banker buddies.

[thewiseguy]

87. Again Buffet disagrees with you. This bill had to pass very quickly.

You are just throwing stuff out there. Bush...Paulson's banker buddies...scam...

Funny thing is that you have no idea what would have happened without the passage of this bill.

[polichick]

88. Did you read the article about how the banks are using the money??

[thewiseguy]

93. They are not using the money the way they should but at least the credit market is not frozen

[BzaDem]

135. Exactly. People are so naive to think that just because things are bad now

means that they wouldn't be much, much worse had we not passed a bill immediately. All the basic facts about economics point to the necessity of passing an immediate bailout, with time being the MOST important factor.

[Radical Activist]

131. That sums up Naomi Klein's argument well

in the Schock Doctrine about how they get good leaders to do real shitty things.

[Skinner]

2. Probably because he realized we are facing an extremely dire economic crisis,

and he understood that something needed to be done.

[polichick]

4. But there was no evidence that it would help...

...and no protections/oversight to make sure the money went where it was supposed to.

His infrastructure plan makes so much sense ~ this never made a lick of sense.

[cali]

5. There were plenty of experts who said it was neccessary and would help

And many have said that the credit market would have completely closed if nothing was done, precipitating a situation even more dire than the one we're in.

I don't know what the right thing to do was. I opposed the bailout package because it didn't help ordinary people. Having said that, I am certainly no expert.

[Skinner]

6. I think the problem here...

...is that nobody really knows for certain what is going to work. Not Obama. Not Paulson. Not Bernanke. Certainly not me. And probably not anyone else here on DU.

We are in totally uncharted territory. The only thing we can do is try *SOMETHING* and see if it works. And if it doesn't work -- or if it doesn't work well enough -- then we'll try something else.

Yes, the lack of oversight was a mistake. And now, in hindsight, we have the luxury of being able to see that the bailout has not worked as well as we hoped.

But at the time, Obama was right to support the bailout.

[polichick]

23. imo you don't make enormous moves without knowing why...

If we did that in our own lives, we'd be in big trouble.

There seems to be a missing piece ~ Bush & Co have ZERO credibility, and yet our guys cave to them time and time again.

[polmaven]

73. With the crisis at hand, though,

doing nothing, or waiting around for proof that it would work may have been much worse. The "why" is because we would be in worse trouble now than we are, if nothing had been done. Sitting on your hands is never an answer.

I think we don't know yet if it will work as well as had been hoped. It took a long time to get where we are. It will take a long time to get out.

You used the term "Henny Penny" in your OP. It was/is not Henny Penny at all, IMO. The crisis is real. Ask the 1.3 million people who lost their jobs in the last 3 months if it is imagined or not.

[polichick]

80. Paulson's performance in front of Congress was the Henny Penny act...

...meant to incite them to take action quickly and recklessly, which they did (not quite as quickly as he'd hoped, but without the specifications and oversight required to ensure that he use the money as intended). Same sky-is-falling scam they used re the war and the Patriot Act.

[polmaven]

90. But the sky

really WAS falling, and would have if action was not taken. Congress did not pass the same bill presented by Paulson. Micro-management would not have been wise either, though.

Paulson may not have been the best person for the job, but he is what there was. This would NOT have waited until January.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

152. We know what doesn't work, however.

Lack of regulation. √
Non-progressive tax code. √
Privatizing profits, socializing risk. √
Allowing the problem-makers be the problem-solvers. √
Using the stock market as an indicator of economic health. √
Top-loading the bailout (trickle). √
Allowing monopolies. √
Allowing virtually no oversight. √
Ignoring history. √


All of these, and more, are part of the current bailout scheme crime.

[polichick]

155. That's a scary list - but you're right.

[BzaDem]

10. The evidence is that we are not currently (yet) in a great depression.

You can still go to the store and use a credit card, or go to the bank and get money out of your atm, or cash a check. Some people and businesses can still get loans. Unemployment is below 25%.

At the time, we were on the verge of massive financial institutions failing, one after the other. The failure of a single institution of the size of say Citi would have caused cascading failures. Eventually, businesses would not be able to get short-term loans to pay their employees. Given that many businesses do not have cash reserves big enough to pay all employees immediately, there would have been massive layoffs and/or bankruptcies of otherwise perfectly solvent businesses in all industries. Banks would have stopped overnight loans to each other. These loans are required for you to cash a check from a bank other than your own, or to even take money out of a non-bank atm.

I consider the fact that the above didn't happen somewhat conclusive evidence that the bailout helped.

[drm604]

18. Thank you Skinner.

You're always a voice of reason on DU.

Our economic system is still functioning (even if it is limping somewhat), quite possibly because of the bailout. People don't seem to understand that just because a solution doesn't totally solve a problem it doesn't mean that the solution didn't prevent even worse problems. We'll never know for sure what would have happened without the bailout but I strongly suspect that things would be much worse than they are now.

No solution is ever perfect and maybe this one could have been carried out a little differently but I have little doubt that it, or something similar to it, had to be carried out.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy and you can always, in hindsight, find problems in an action of this magnitude. That doesn't mean that we should be paralyzed by the fear that our actions will be imperfect. We have to accept that they will be and move forward with our best efforts.

We have a long way to go yet but my debit card still works, I can still write checks to pay my bills, and I can still withdraw cash from my bank account. That in itself is a major victory and without it the next steps would be much more difficult.

[Top Cat]

56. I agree Skinner....

If he had opposed the bailout after a large percentage of ecominist stated that it was needed he would have experienced a bigger fallout.

[riqster]

154. We did nothing but talk and study the last time

...and wound up in the Great Depression.

[irislake]

7. Because Obama is right-of-centre

as Naomi Klein (Shock Doctrine) has pointed out. You shoulda voted for Dennis Kucinich! Folks are going to be disillusioned by Obama if they think the U.S. is going to change course much.

[cali]

12. lol. I'm amused that people are still harping on Kucinich

who never ever had a prayer of a chance. And no, I shouldn't have voted for him. He ran a for shit campaign. He teemed up with that pig Ron Paul. He's a good Rep, but hardly a leader.

And no, Obama is not right of center. I'm not sure those labels are even terribly useful. What we do know, is that he's very intelligent, that he's tempermentally well suited to leadership, that he's reflective rather than reactive and that he listens. We further know that he has real concern for the poor and disenfranchised. You simply don't go into the work he went into after college if your mentality is all about getting yours. We also know that his record- yes his actual record does not reflect a center right philosophy.

And useful as I thought "The Shock Doctrine" was, it's hardly the fucking gospel.

[Shiver]

13. THANK YOU!

Just because she wrote a book with some fascinating ideas and explorations, does not make every single fucking thing she says true. Goddess knows I love the woman, but the way some people hang off her every word as if she breathed precious gems...

I agree with every other point made in your post as well; voting for the bailout does not make one right of center. It was the smart thing to do, however much we hate it. Those companies represented a lot of money, and that much money vanishing from the economy would have sent us spiraling into another Depression. Is it gonna work? That remains to be seen, but it's stopped the major hemorrhaging long enough for us to come up with an actual, permanent solution which helps the middle class more directly.

[lostnotforgotten]

64. Actually Many Of Us Firmly Believe That Kucinich Would be A Better President

We only go along with wafflers like yourself because we expect the country to move left eventually.

[cali]

79. oh, goody, more pathetic petulance.

sorry, dearie, I'm no waffler. I do, unlike you, no the difference between reality and sick fantasy. Kucinich would make a truly shitty president. How's that for waffling? He has zip leadership skills. As one of 435, he's actually a good thing, in that he brings up issues that most others don't. Frankly, I think it's as much showboating as integrity, but it doesn't really matter. He's not a particularly reflective person either.

And many of you? think again. YOU are a tiny, insignificant minority in so far as people who want Kucinich president. Thankfully.

[lostnotforgotten]

83. More Middle Of the Road Waffling And Insensitivity

Proud of yourself today?

[FrenchieCat]

133. Not that many.

[Radical Activist]

132. Kucinich would have run this country into the ground

just like he ran his campaign. Being right on the issues isn't enough to make a good President.

[BzaDem]

8. I would find it very hard to vote for anyone who voted against the bailout

at least if their vote was decisive.

Massive cash infusion to banks was necessary to prevent a sudden and vast worldwide collapse of the economy (which would make conditions right now look like the 1920s). Whatever the problems with the bill were, the alternative is not acceptable. Therefore, for those who voted 'no', we must ask if and why they would vote for such a catastrophic collapse.

I think there are 3 general reasons why people voted against the bill:
1. Some congresspersons were right-wing ideologues who were afraid that if we socialized risk now, we would socialize profits later, and they wouldn't let the gravity of the situation get in the way of their free market absolutism.
2. Those who trumpeted populist rhetoric over all else, despite the gravity of the situation (see OP). I don't consider these people to be that different than the people who were against the bailout due to reason 1.
3. Those who understood the need for a massive bailout/rescue package, but felt that this package had problems that needed to be fixed first.

I would find it very hard to vote for anyone who opposed the bailout for reasons 1 and 2 (unless their vote was merely a formality). I still have some problems with reason 3 (for example, if a congressperson was going to risk the country's future over a single provision, I would be concerned), but I respect those who voted against it for reason 3 much more than I do those who voted against it for reasons 1 and 2.

[Clio the Leo]

9. He needs the auto industry in good shape to enact his green car initiative. NT

[polichick]

21. I meant the bank bailout. The car bailout makes sense only if the gov't...

...takes it over imo - the stock of all three companies isn't worth nearly what they're asking.

[keep_it_real]

11. What would have happened it Obama came right out and opposed the bail out?

How would the media have reacted? How would the politicians have reacted if Obama opposed the bail out? How would the repuks have reacted to Obama opposing the bail out? How would democrats have reacted? How would main street have reacted to Obama opposing the bail out?

[Kokonoe]

16. Obama would have taken responsibility for the whole shebang.

Defying the the current president, and the experts would have made the whole crisis obamas fault.
It was a trap.

[polichick]

25. So it's all politics? That doesn't even make sense, since most voters...

...were against it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. because opposing the bailout at that time would have caused an economic catastrophe

It would have been utterly irresponsible.

It is absolutely true that there were more progressive alternatives suggestions about how the impending economic meltdown could have been tackled. But there were no plans that were any more progressive that would have had the backing of the Bush Administration, the Republican leadership and also the entire Democratic congressional leadership.

At the time of the passing of the rescue package, Lehman Brothers had just collapsed and the world markets were in a state of total panic. A string of further bank collapses on scale or greater than Lehman Brothers was immanent. Without a strong bipartisan response along with responses from governments and central banks around the world - further major collapses would have lead to a situation of almost total capital flight from the markets and most importantly from the financial instruments and institutions that support the credit markets. This would have completely paralyzed the credit market far worse then they were already and triggered a complete economic meltdown. We would now be in a depression.

If America had a more progressive economic consensus, it might have been possible to respond with considerably more progressive alternatives. But, unfortunately, considerably more progressive alternatives were not an available option in mid-September and the clock was ticking. There was simply no time to piss around. Something had to be done at once, even if it was something that fell far short of the best possible options.

[polichick]

26. So in your opinion the bailout worked?

[GarbagemanLB]

28. The question is how much worse could things have gotten? We will never know.

[polichick]

29. The money wasn't used to loosen credit as intended, so we do know.

[GarbagemanLB]

31. Really? What graduate school did you go to and what degree do you have in this field?

[polichick]

33. Good grief, read man. The switcheroo has been well documented.

[Douglas Carpenter]

125. in the very limited sense that it stopped the immediate hemorrhaging, yes it worked

If you see someone suffer a severe gash to a major artery, you don't wait until you have sterile gauze, much less a team of medical professionals and an antiseptic operating theater, you grab a dirty rag if you have to.

There simply was neither the time or the political will to advance a progressive alternative that could have actually passed quickly enough to prevent a market free fall.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers really did spook the markets into thinking the sky was falling. With markets, if the markets believe something to be true then it becomes true. The only reason why a one hundred dollar bill is worth more than an old piece of newspaper is because the markets hold a general consensus of what that a one hundred dollar bill is worth.

However mishandled the 700 billion dollar package was, the 700 billion along with the actions of governments and central banks around the world was enough of a response to stave off an immediate meltdown that would have happened within days with consequences equivalent to the hemorrhaging of a major artery. If Sen. Obama had insisted on a more progressive alternative, we would still be fighting for that more progressive alternative now, while more collapses equal or greater than Lehman Brother's spooked the credit markets into total evaporation and the economy grinds to a complete shutdown of catastrophic proportions.

I do hope that now that the election is over and the patient is still alive - albeit with an unstable pulse and blood pressure - genuine long term progressive treatments for this very sick economy can begin. But we need to always remember that economics is far from an exact science, and we always face the reality that existed in mind-September, that if the markets believe something to be the case - then it becomes the case.

[polichick]

127. Well, that's something I guess - hope they don't fork over the rest of the money...

...until Obama is in office.

[Diamonique]

15. The protections Obama listed were included in the bill.

But the oversight hasn't been implemented. That's not Obama's fault.

[jody]

17. Because the corporatists control key Dem & Rep leaders in our government. n/t

[cali]

19. yawn. more empty, pointless and mindless sloganeering.

dog, I'm sick of stupid.

[jody]

30. Perhaps you are just sick as your post suggests. n/t

[polichick]

22. They do seem to - I just don't see why. Especially in Obama's case.

[stray cat]

20. Because we don't know what would have happened without it?

I don't know if it did any good - you can't prove a negative that wasn't done. Regardless, companies are beginning to close, people are not buying cars many because they can't get loans, 1 in 10 households with unpaid mortgages are in foreclosure or missed a payment, unemployment is climbing. We could do absolutely nothing and see how that worked as well - its just that you won't get a do over or no the true consequences of not acting unless we don't act.

Also the fact that some people were skeptical doesn't sway me much unless I know their credentials and their access to information. Feingold was against it - I respected that. Joe the Plumber or Palin - not so much.

[high density]

24. This is exactly the case

Where would we be if we had not spent that money? We don't know, but things could be worse if we had done nothing. Whether or not we can afford to do nothing about the auto manufacturers it he next hard decision.

[polichick]

27. The money wasn't used as it was intended, so how did it help anyone but Paulson's banker friends?

[polichick]

32. Put a different way: WHAT'S THE MISSING PIECE??

Why do our guys (even the smart ones like Obama) keep caving to a bunch of arrogant criminals with zero credibility??

It can't be because they keep believing that the sky is falling ~ so what's the missing piece?

[leftstreet]

91. What do you think it is?

I agree with you, by the way.


We're all missing something here and it's hard to read through the lines of the punditocracy to find it.

:shrug:

[polichick]

92. I don't know, I've been wondering - that's why I started this thread...

But I agree with this, from post #78:

"I am disappointed though that he exhibited the same kind of gullibility that the "democrats" in Congress exhibited toward king george for the last seven years. That gullibility is so head-scratchingly inexplicable that one's thoughts inevitably stray toward the word "accomplice." "


I think Obama went along this time because of the election, but it truly is inexplicable how Congress has enabled Bush & Co.

[leftstreet]

95. "head-scratchingly inexplicable "

True enough!

[polichick]

162. Maybe this is the missing piece...

Came across this last night ~ the article is about Barack and Hillary, but there could be a bunch of Wall Street "darlings" in Congress. Pretty naive of me not to have thought of this before I guess.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

[leftstreet]

164. That's a nice find

(Although the info moves from "missing" to "ignored, denied, don't-wanna-think-about-it." It was always out there.)

LOL, I forgot about this:

And Clinton’s ties to the financial services industry extend beyond donations...A senior economic advisor to her campaign is Robert Rubin...

Let's all party like it's 1929!

[polichick]

166. "Let's all party like it's 1929!"

:party: :woohoo:

[ProSense]

34. Here we go again, confusing the legislation with the administration.

The bill was not a scam. It was altered significantly from the Paulson presented. It could have been a lot better, but the executors would still have been the Bush administration. They are criminal, and they continue to do everything to harm the country. Inaction and incompetence is the problem, not the bill.

The Bush administration isn't going to lift a finger to help the bailout

[polichick]

35. Not at all. Since the administration WAS Bush and Co (a discredited band of criminals)...

Voters realized that they weren't to be trusted ~ Congress should also have known not to trust them.

Seems to be a missing piece here.

[ProSense]

36. "Congress should also have known not to trust them."

Congress needed to act. The Bush administration is still the executor of any plan. Your suggestion "Congress should also have known not to trust them" implies that they should have done nothing, that is unless you believe Bush would have acted any differently given another plan?

The Bush administration is not going to helpful for the remainder of his term.

Some people wanted Congress to do nothing, not believing the severity of the crisis. It's interesting to watch others now critical of Obama for moving cautiously with the auto industy bailout.





edited word

[polichick]

37. So Congress acted by giving our money to a band of criminals...

...who failed to use it as intended because Congress didn't specify exactly how it was to be used or even to oversee what Paulson was doing.

Why the complicity??

And why would they even believe Paulson's Henny Penny claim that they needed to act?

[ProSense]

38. Are you suggesting that Congress should have sat on their hands and watch the free fall?

Really what are you suggesting? Nearly all the Democrats, including Hillary, supported the bailout.

Complicity in what: trying to help the country? Or, are you suggesting that Congress should be prosecuted as the criminals in this fiasco are likely to be?

[polichick]

40. You are forgetting who was telling Congress that the sky was falling.

[ProSense]

41. What? Every economist in the country recognized there was a crisis

It doesn't take an expert to realize that the U.S. economy is in crisis.

[polichick]

43. And yet Congress wasn't planning to act until Paulson showed up...

...in a crazed fury exactly like Henny Penny.

[ProSense]

44. Nonsense.

People like Kerry have been warning that something needed to be done since 2004 when the credit card industry showed signs that trouble was brewing.

[polichick]

46. Sure, in a measured and sensible way - not overnight in a bill...

...that handed billions of dollars over to criminals ~ without specifications or oversight. That's complicity. My question is WHY?

[ProSense]

49. The money wasn't handed out overnight and the bill included oversight.

You seem to believe that short of removing the Bush administration from office the outcome of any action would be different.

[polichick]

53. No oversight took place - Paulson did what he wanted with the money.

[ProSense]

105. Paulson would have done what he wanted anyway.

Again, what should Congress have done? You have two options: act or don't act.

Now tell me which one of those two options would have made the situation better or worse?

[polichick]

109. See post 108 - there were lots of other choices.

[natrat]

45. given that they won't account for the money or loan it out as intended

you kind of have to assume the worst. Obama might be a good guy but,unfortunatly, most of congress is owned by the oligarchs, just look at the last 8 years of legislation. I'm sure people want to be hopeful but when fact stare you right in the face denial seems to be an all to human response.

[ProSense]

47. "or loan it out as intended... Obama might be a good guy...when fact stare you right in the face"

Fact: The Bush administration is criminal.

[polichick]

52. Exactly - which is why Congress should be stopping their scams...

...not enabling them.

[ProSense]

106. How? n/t

[polichick]

111. Saying no to Bush/Paulson and yes to another approach.

[ProSense]

120. What other approach exclude the Bush administration?

Is there another President?

[polichick]

123. It's up to us to bring bills to the floor or not...

Dems could've heard Paulson out, and then come up with an entirely different bill ~ one that was focused much more on Main Street (as the Cal. Dems wanted to do).

Even if Bush had vetoed it, we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now and we'd be 350 billion less in debt.

[polichick]

50. Yep - sad stuff. God bless America. :)

[blue_onyx]

39. He probably felt something needed to be done

Personally, I wasn't against the bailout but I was worried by how quickly everyone was pushing it without even questioning the financial institutions. I think talking with the CEOs and requiring plans is the correct way to go when someone is asking for taxpayer money. It's really annoying, however, that there was one standard for the financial institutions (blank check) and a different one for the automakers.

I'm actually more annoyed with the fact that nobody is trying to stop the financial institutions. They aren't doing what they were suppose to do with the money. They aren't really lending like the were suppose to. They aren't eliminating bonuses and CEO pay. The Congress just acts like, "Well, there's nothing we can do." Stop giving them money. Do something other than stand there helplessly while the country's money gets flushed down the toilet.

[polichick]

42. Yes, that last part is what I don't get...

Bush & Co could not have pulled off ANY of its scams without complicity (intended or not) on the part of Congress. Sometimes the negligence of Congress is so striking that it looks as if they mean to enable those criminals.

[w4rma]

48. It was a mistake, but you'll notice the thief isn't getting the other half of the $700B. (nt)

[polichick]

51. I sure hope they don't cave on the other half!!!

[gravity]

54. Because the bill wasn't a scam

Just because something comes from the Bush administration doesn't mean that it is automatically a scam. Bush was too dumb to even have say in it, and Paulson was forced to accept the fact that his economic philosophy was fatally flawed.

This bill wasn't popular with any politician, both Democrats and Republicans, but something had to be done about the situation or else the financial system would completely collapse. There wasn't much choice in the matter and Obama saw that this was a necessary course of action. He is a smart man and knows what he is doing.

[polichick]

55. You know that Paulson failed to use the money as intended...

...and Congress failed to use specifications and oversight to make sure he did, right?

[gravity]

57. He prevented a financial collapse

which was the intention of the bill.

There should have been more oversight but you can't tie a bill down in some muddled bureaucracy. The treasury needs to be flexible to deal with the ever changing nature of this crisis.

[polichick]

58. How did he prevent a financial collapse??

[gravity]

59. By interjecting capital into the banks

[polichick]

60. But the banks are using it to buy other banks, rather than to extend credit...

I don't see how that helps anyone except Paulson's buddies.

[gravity]

63. That is why there should be more oversight

but it prevented the banks from going under which would have created a much worst situation. We avoided a depression, but still have to face a serious recession.

There needs to be more done to help get the gears working again and it is a work in progress. The Fed's recent plan is going to help banks give out loans which should be a big help.

[polichick]

66. So why do you think Congress looked the other way...

...when they knew (or should have known) that the administration can't be trusted??

[polichick]

62. Here's an interesting article...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/banks-have-no-intention-t_n_137785.html

[Uzybone]

67. Because he was running for office and is a responsible man

if he was against the bailout and the market took its ball and went home, he would never have been elected. He was in a no win situation there and the only course he could responsible take was to support the bailout. Hell I supported the bailout because the financial sector was on the brink of collapse at that point. Polls showing that people were against the bailout are meaningless because public opinion polls really should be discarded by leaders. The same public was 80% in support of the Iraq War. 90% of the same public once though Bush was doing a good job.

[polichick]

70. Okay, I'll buy that - so why do you think Congress looked the other way...

...instead of making sure Paulson used the money as it was meant to be used. Over and over again Congress has enabled Bush & Co in their scams ~ WHY?

[Uzybone]

71. I hate the term but the "pink tutus" of Congress always shows

Congress is soft, very soft. Apart from a few standouts, most of them always look the other when crimes are being committed. Remember that if not for Obama's insistence on our side the idiotic RW pukes who voted against the "bailout" for juvenille reasons, it would have passed with almost no oversight whatsoever.

[polichick]

72. That softness is mind-boggling...

...and leaves me wondering who they actually mean to work for. Maybe Obama's plans for transparency will change things.

[newspeak]

74. Paul Krugman has said that if will take government intervention to bailout the economy

I believe the 700 billion bailout should have had some strict strings attached. Especially, agreements with the banking industry to release funds for loans to keep businesses and families afloat. Decrease interest rates so there is some economic relief for families and businesses. The banks in no way should have been given carte blanche with our money. If they didn't like the terms, then screw'em--don't take the money and sink!!! Not one bank asking for money, should take that money to predatorily grab another lending institute. As, Krugman was explaining, the remedy for this poor economy won't be coming from investors, or a domestic manufacturing base (profits from war like WWII--it will be from the government-in bailouts and much needed public infrastructure projects. If we are going to bailout the private sector, then I want to see major strings attached to the money, strings that help families and small businesses in this country; and major accountability. I don't care if they have to hire government watchdogs for every corporation that takes money!!!!!

[polichick]

75. I agree with that 100% - it's been good to see Krugman on Keith and Rachel's shows.

[leftofthedial]

78. He's a free market true believer and a die-hard supporter of corporations.

He's basically a supply-side kind of guy, so this mumbo-jumbo made sense to him.

His top economic advisors would not be out of place in a bush administration (except for their competence).

I am disappointed though that he exhibited the same kind of gullibility that the "democrats" in Congress exhibited toward king george for the last seven years. That gullibility is so head-scratchingly inexplicable that one's thoughts inevitably stray toward the word "accomplice."

[polichick]

81. Your last sentence says it for me.

[cali]

89. oooh, aren't you the little expert. I'm with Skinner on this

I doubt you know anymore about complex economic issues than I do, but it's always a laugh to see the little experts- who in reality are anything but- running around with their mindless talking points.

[leftofthedial]

101. oooh. I'm mindless.

if you think he's not a free-market corporatist, prove it.

By his own words on multiple occasions, he is a self-declared free market believer.

His appointments and voting record show that he's a corporatist.

If you think it was not gullibility (at the very least) to hand Paulson a $750 billion blank check, then you need more help than I can give you in a post at DU.

[FrenchieCat]

94. I would suggest that you make certain that you have an honest understanding

as to all sides of this complex issue before making a proclamation as to what "should" have happened.

In other words, you are setting up the "vote for or against" option that was offered at the time and equating Obama's choice as though he wholeheartedly supported the TARP package vote, when in your eyes he should not have. The problem with that kind of thinking is that you are not discussing the ramifications as to what would happened under the other option (voting against it), and are only looking at what did happen to date.

As an Accountant whose husband is involved in the finance business, I say to you the same thing that Obama stated on 60 minutes when asked basically the same question as you have framed it. he responded, it's easier to make pronouncements about what happened then to contemplate what didn't happen.

I think sometimes some of us think we are smarter than what we truly are, and make statements like "It makes no sense to me that someone as intelligent as Obama would fall for this scam."

Perhaps the question should be, since Obama is so intelligent, is it possible that there is something that we are missing, and that perhaps we are not as smart as we think we are, and that we really don't have all of the answers? What would others have done in the same situation, assuming that like Obama, your only power at the time (that of being a candidate) was to stipulate safeguards and to insist over and over again that they should be part of the package?

To some degree, Obama is like someone sitting on a bus behind the Bus Driver, telling the bus driver to turn left in order to avoid careening over a cliff. He may be sitting behind the driver, but he still doesn't have control over the steering wheel. And so the driver does eventually steer to the left, but perhaps not fast and hard enough. So the cliff is avoided, but perhaps there is damage to the bus that would not have occurred if the turn would have been executed differently. Does that put Obama at fault? And would it been better for Obama not to have said anything to the driver at all (which is what I equate as Obama's only other option; voting "no" on the package)?

If something wasn't done, could there have been catastrophic consequences? Are you taking those consequences under consideration in your hindsight analysis? Because if not, then aren't you doing anyone any favors by the way you have framed your wonderment?

[polichick]

96. Millions of voters knew not to trust the Bush administration...

We had learned from the war scam and the Patriot Act scam not to trust these people when they came to Congress with a sky-is-falling scenario. imo it's important to ask why Congress keeps falling for it ~ and Obama is not exempt from questions (imo he went along with a rushed plan because the election was coming up).

We would have been much better served if Congress had taken the time to ensure proper specs and oversight. Voters knew it then ~ why didn't they?? (That's my question.)

Here's what banks are doing with our money: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/banks-have-no-intention-t_n_137785.html

[FrenchieCat]

97. You just ignored everything I wrote in my post.

and are still asking the easy question because you can.

So let me say it this way. What is it that you would have wanted Barack Obama to do? Since the options were to vote for it or vote against it....

and

The question you are NOT asking is,

what would have happened to our financial markets if the measure would not have passed?

Do you really know?

[polichick]

98. I felt your post ignored the point I'm bringing up...

...which is WHY Congress (including Obama) keeps enabling Bush and Co., even though voters know ~ and Congress SHOULD know ~ that the administration is not to be trusted. (Paulson didn't use the money as intended ~ no surprise to voters.)

[FrenchieCat]

102. How many banks and financial institutions have failed to date?

How many points has the dow lost in the last three months?

How many people have been put in foreclosure in the last year?

How many taxpayers have lost their homes in the last year?

How many have lost their jobs in the last six months?

If you know the answers to these stats, as did congress, then your OP is based on building an entire fiction surrounding very real events represented by very real stats.

I believe your answer as to why so many in Congress voted for the rescue package lies in those statistics, that Bush may have helped cause, but were real numbers, not made up ones.

If you cannot know how those numbers would have looked like IF a rescue package would not have been passed, then your whole point is only one sided.

[polichick]

103. The choice wasn't between doing nothing or handing over billions of dollars to Bush & Co...

...to use as they wanted.

Because Congress trusted Paulson, we are down 350 billion without addressing the problems you list.

[FrenchieCat]

104. So what is your suggestion as to what Congress should have done?

Because it is very clear based on real statistics that were not made up by the Paulsen & Co. crew that the shit really was falling apart and nearly hit the fan.

Of the percentage of Americans who opposed the Bail out in principle, many did so because they simply didn't appreciate their tax money being given to big business....not because they didn't think nothing should be done or that nothing dire might not happen. But of course, when an individual such as you and I hold an opinion about something that someone else has to decide, then we are free of having to take responsibility of being wrong later on.

Congress and Obama didn't like the idea of the bail out, I'm Sure (same as the American people) BUT....they obviously were informed enough to realize that something had to be done....and unlike the public, they didn't have the luxury of simply not deciding, and letting someone else take the fall if all hell would have broken loose.

The fact that a majority of Americans opposed the bail out, but congress did it anyway, might mean the opposite of your premise. Congress didn't do what was politically convenient to do. In this case, they did what they felt was neccessary under the circumstance. Now, why do you think that was, to go against popular opinion right before an election?

[polichick]

108. There were plenty of other ways to go...

California Dems had good ideas:

“With only three months left of this current administration, why are we willing to even make available $700 billion to this administration?” Woolsey asked during Monday’s debate. “Where is the comprehensive economic stimulus package that will assist 95% of the taxpayers, a package that includes unemployment benefits, food stamps, infrastructure investment and, of course, foreclosure relief?”

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/01/nation/na-califdems1

House Dems had an alternative plan:

We've tentatively called it the "No BAILOUTS Act" which would be bringing accounting, increased liquidity, oversight and upholding taxpayer security.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/bailout_alternative_offered_ho.html

Michael Moore even came up with a plan:

I would like to propose my own bailout plan. My suggestions, listed below, are predicated on the singular and simple belief that the rich must pull themselves up by their own platinum bootstraps. Sorry, fellows, but you drilled it into our heads one too many times: There... is... no... free... lunch. And thank you for encouraging us to hate people on welfare! So, there will be no handouts from us to you. The Senate, tonight, is going to try to rush their version of a "bailout" bill to a vote. They must be stopped. We did it on Monday with the House, and we can do it again today with the Senate.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2008-10-01



If I had to guess why Congress went the way it did, I'd say too many members depend on Wall Street fat cats for political contributions.

[FrenchieCat]

112. Yeah...OK.

Whatever.

You questioned Obama's Bail out vote on a scam. And how come he didn't know what we knew if he was so smart. That's what your OP boiled down to.

So you are basically saying that it was because he wanted to help the wall street Fat Cats due to political contributions, I guess. I will disagree with that implication, and we can leave it at that.

[polichick]

114. I didn't say it was Obama's reason - earlier I mentioned that he had to...

...consider the election. But, since Congress knows the Bushie's aren't to be trusted, it would be silly to think their Wall Street connections didn't play a part.

If Barack is who I hope he is, he probably agrees with the Cal. Dems' view given in my last post to you.

[BzaDem]

136. If Bush told you not to jump off a bridge, would you jump because you don't trust Bush?

Seriously. That is your entire argument. Frenchiecat gives you tons and tons of reasons why we needed to act quickly (hours/days), and you keep saying "but Bush was against it! omg omg omg omg." How are you any different than the people that voted for Iraq reflexively because Bush was for it? You simply look at Bush's position, and vote accordingly, regardless of whether or not outside facts support or detract from his position.

All the plans you posted would not have solved the problem. While giving money for unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc is a good thing, it would not have come anywhere near solving the problem. If you don't have a BANK, you cannot DEPOSIT your unemployment check. You cannot BUY food.

As for Michael Moore's plan, he doesn't have a plan. As far as he is concerned, he would rather see the entire country suffer just to ensure the rich would also suffer. Maybe the fact that you are quoting such a cruel "plan" indicates that you feel similarly. Don't vote for the plan because it helps the rich (even though not voting for it will devastate everyone else). Who knows.

[polichick]

137. LOL What a ridiculous post!

The point is that Obama is an intelligent person and must've known that the admin. couldn't be trusted with the money ~ but voted for it anyway.

There were lots of other approaches to this problem, some much more in keeping with the values Obama espouses ~ so he made a strategic political move in view of the election. It wasn't the only political decision he's made ~ he did it with FISA and oil drilling too. In spite of those here who seem to believe that the guy can do no wrong ~ Obama is a shrewd politician, not a saint.

(Do your homework ~ the banks are buying other banks with the money, which compounds the problem down the line and does nothing to loosen credit.)

[BzaDem]

142. You do your homework.

Just because the banks are using some of the bailout money at the moment to buy other banks doesn't mean we weren't and aren't in a dire credit crisis, where action needed to be taken immediately to simply preserve the solvency of many financial institutions. Massive liquidity injections into financial instutions are going to be the norm, and this is what experts like Roubini and Krugman were calling for from the beginning.

You keep assuming that it was somehow a bad thing that Obama voted for the bailout, and that doing so was the 'politically shrewd' thing to do. I for one am happy that Obama did not play politics with the stakes that high, and did the responsible thing and voted for the bailout. I would suspect and hope that had he known everything he knows now, that he would have done the exact same thing given the choices available at the time. I am happy that enough of our representatives did the responsible thing and ignored the "not just no but hell no" whining populist crowd at the time.

[polichick]

146. Where have I said it was a bad thing that Obama voted for the bailout?

I've concluded that he did the strategic thing ~ which, if it helped him get elected, was a good thing.

Still, this was in no way a "responsible" bill ~ as many in Congress have since admitted ~ and I'm sure Obama knew it at the time.

[yurbud]

99. if you had a psychotic, crack-smoking monkey threatening a crowd with a gun

you have to be careful what you say and do until you get the gun away from the monkey.

That doesn't mean Obama will do the right things once the gun is taken away from Bush, just that it is a possible reason for not making waves.

[polichick]

100. LOL - and I thought it was Congress' job to take the monkey's gun!

[yurbud]

116. they've decided to wait until he gets tired of the gun and gives it to someone else

[polichick]

117. Chickenshits! (You really stirred up some funny images in my head.)

[yurbud]

119. that's an insult to chickenshit--and Democrats wonder why they have a reputation as wimps

it was one thing to cower before Bush when he was wildly popular--it's something else when he is the lamest of lame ducks in human history.

[harun]

107. He didn't really have an option. He opposes it and everything bad that happens after it

the opposition uses it to say "If Obama had supported it we would be on the road to recovery". He knows he will be in the drivers seat in a month, so he can fix it then.

[polichick]

110. Well, the election was a bit too close (timewise) for comfort...

I'd like to think that Obama might've teamed up with California Dems if there had been more time. (See post 108)

[TexasObserver]

113. He was making the smart move. He didn't want to misplay that hand.

I don't think he was convinced at all that it was wise or necessary, but that the political stink bomb the Bushies had tossed into the mix was the October Surprise. The Bushies set up the credit crunch, and there's pretty compelling evidence they sat on FDIC and FED funding for a few weeks to make the crunch appear much worse than it was.

Bush wanted a slush fund for his friends, and he got it. Obama wanted to appear presidential in all respects, to appear measured, and reasonable. He did. Obama knew that in all things, including the bailout, his job was to outperform McCain. So that was his goal.

He felt that he could not oppose the bailout without owning whatever became of the marketplace after such a measure might fail.

[polichick]

115. I agree with you - a strategic move...

I'm glad you pointed out how much Bush & Co. contributed to the scam.

If the election weren't so close at hand, I'd like to think Obama would have agreed with Cal. Dems (post 108).

Is it too jaded of me to think plenty of Congress members were somewhat influenced by their ties to Wall Street?

[TexasObserver]

130. Remember that Paulson gave top Democrats the "there will be marial law" spiel

Recall that many of us here were warning "it's the Bush team once again acting like the world will come to an end if congress doesn't (pass the Patriot Act, vote for the IWR, pass the bailout)."

It was a sucker punch, but apparently many members of congress were convinced that we would have millions in the street and martial law unless the passed a bailout.

Even so, clearly some members, like Barney Frank, are bought and paid for by the lending industry.

[polichick]

139. Even Barney Frank? Didn't realize that - wow.

[TexasObserver]

153. Barney is right on many issues, but he's gotten huge dollars from lenders.

I forget the figures, but it's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per election.

[slipslidingaway]

118. Great question because without his support the bill would have

been harder to pass.

I would like to pose another question though, if Obama and Democrats were really against the bailout of financial firms where was their plan? This crisis did not just appear in September '08, there had been numerous warning signs for quite some time.

Saying we had to go along to avert a crisis, then I have to question what they were doing and saying while this whole house of cards was being built. What was their plan to keep the financial system flowing when it became apparent things were beginning to collapse as so many had warned?

Sure this may have not been discussed very much in the mainstream media, but to think the problem suddenly appeared in September and to use the excuse that we did not have time to look at other solutions is rather disingenuous IMO.

And I have to laugh when the other excuse of how much value the market lost was used, who was pointing out the significant gains when the bubble was being inflated.

:shrug:


House of Cards? Nahhhhh! -- A House of Paper!

The Paper Chase or John Houseman 101

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/reality/2005/4R0404.html

Seconds Anyone!
http://contraryinvestor.com/2005archives/moapril05.htm

"A couple of our avid readers sent us the link to a great piece of work by the Bad Boys over at Contrary Investor on real estate mortgage finance and the residential housing market with some great chartwork! While a lot of the stuff contained in this great essay is not new under the sun if folks follow two-tiered structured finance and financial markets from every Prudent Bear's Prudentbear at Credit Bubble Bulletin, the guys at Contrary Investor penned a superb piece with some awesome graphics. For me, it helps solidify the Fraud of Appraisal Regulation, FIRREA 1989, which helped to make all of this possible in the game of ABS sold on the global markets. When we consider the amount of fraud that it takes to create an ABS portfolio in the millions and billions of Federal Reserve Notes in the current realty mortgage and realty valuation market -- the Seconds Anyone? analysis of real estate derivative Ponzi finance should scare the Living Daylights out of normal, sane folks with money in the bank, and money in a Wall Street money market mutual fund, most of which are invested in ABS paper of some sort. GM and GE are more financial companies than they are builders of Buicks and Microwaves! So is Ford! When Ford-Lincoln-Mercury finances your Navigator Lincoln SUV, they are actually making more money off of financing the asset, than building the asset. Something is wrong here, ain't it!..."


April 2007

It's Delightful, It's Delovely, It's Deleverage!

http://contraryinvestor.com/2007archives/moapril07.htm

"...Again, in very simplistic characterization, we believe the impact of leverage is a key focal point for the here and now. In our minds, the process of acceleration of leverage among the global investment community has been a huge positive for both real world economic outcomes as well as financial market outcomes in recent times. So too will an ultimate, and even temporary, process of deleveraging be a big negative. A very big negative. We've never before lived in a global environment, let alone the US specifically, characterized by so much in play leverage, both in real economies and financial markets. So although we won't be able to keep ourselves from watching the day to day market character of volume, moving averages, new highs and lows, put/call averages, etc., we suggest it is vitally important to both recognize and monitor the manifestations of leverage in the global investment community. Leverage that has already turned against its practitioners and former benefactors in the land of US sub prime mortgage paper. From a macro overview standpoint, we can't overemphasize how important it will be to keep an eye on fixed income credit spreads as well as emerging market debt and equities. These have been the primary areas most heavily influenced by macro leveraged investment/speculation over the last three to four years. So too should they be the areas to "tell" us change, in terms of potential deleveraging, has arrived..."

[polichick]

121. There were other plans AFTER Paulson came to Congress (see post 108)...

...but there didn't seem to be a comprehensive plan earlier ~ maybe they were biding time until a new president was in office.

It was incredibly frustrating to me in September that alternative plans were simply ignored. The election was close and maybe some (like Obama) decided there wasn't time to consider all the plans, I don't know.

[slipslidingaway]

122. And then the question is, should our party have been reactive or

proactive. When you think back to the Shock Doctrine and having plans on the shelf ready to implement when the shock occurs, it appears our shelves were empty on this issue.

[polichick]

124. Maybe Dems in Congress are too close to Wall Street...

The following is from an article in the LA Times (March 08) that talks about Hillary and Barack, but I'd guess that lots of Dems are "darlings" of Wall Street:


Obama and Clinton have been talking for some time about addressing the mortgage crisis. But some Democrats complain that they have been too timid in speaking out about what they see as the Bush administration’s unwillingness to help homeowners even as the Federal Reserve moves to help major financial institutions.

“What that Wall Street money means is that few people in Washington, including the leading presidential candidates, say a thing when the government moves to bail out Wall Street before it helps homeowners,” said David Sirota, a liberal activist and former congressional aide.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

[slipslidingaway]

129. Yes, I think that it is part of it... we need to change how much

money it takes to be elected.

[camera obscura]

126. Krugman was in favor too.

ultimately it was a horrible choice but I think he made the better decision.

[polichick]

128. Well, if the choice helped to get him elected it will pay off.

[Shakespeare]

156. Thanks. I was just about to post this.

It's a horrible solution, but we needed some kind of solution, and that's the only one that was immediately available.

At least Obama will step in in time to hopefully exert some control over how that money is spent, or at least get better oversight on it than we have now.

[depakid]

134. Because he (and the leaders of other nations) wanted to avoid collapsing the financial system?

:think:

[polichick]

138. So he/they signed on to a bill that didn't protect our money from Paulson's folly??

They moved too quickly, obviously.

[depakid]

145. I'd rather we had gotten voting rights and paid less for the equity interests

like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did- but Britain operates under a parliamentary system, and so were in a better position to call the shots when the need arose. Even so, several years down the line, US taxpayers may well make money on some- maybe even most of the bank deals.

I don't know enough about AIG's businesses to make a reasonable judgment about how that will turn out- but what from little I've gleaned, it was, unfortunately necessary- not just for the US, but also for Europe and Asia.

Here at home, it good to see county timber payments extended for 4 years in the bill. Had that not occurred, there'd be a LOT of local governments slashing essential services- and likely going bankrupt, at the worst possible time.

Like everyone on DU, I'm pissed off that this came to pass- but unlike most, I recognize (as other world leaders and reserve bank members do) that prompt and collective actions were required to prevent a systemic collapse.

In Gordon Brown's case, his leadership might just save Labor from being defeated by the Tories in the next election....

[polichick]

148. Good that the guys on the other side of the pond had more control...

...over the situation. Hopefully our guys will be much more specific and use better oversight before forking over the rest of the money.

[depakid]

149. I suspect things will be under a bit more scrutiny when the new sherriff gets to town...

;)

[polichick]

150. Let's hope they don't give up the loot before he gets there!

[Yavin4]

140. The Bailout Was To Prevent Economic Catastrophe. It Was Not about Bringing Economic Recovery

Several nations around the world infused money into their banking systems, not just the U.S. I also think that it's abhorrent to bail out Wall Street financial institutions, but to let them fail would create systematic catastrophe.

[leftofthedial]

141. the other nations regulate their banks and regulated the distribution of money.

we just gave it to a bunch of criminal fat cats with no control over what they did with it.

[polichick]

143. Yes, and that's a big difference...

It would be interesting to see how many of our Congresscritters are funded by Wall Street ~ hadn't thought of that until posting on this thread. Just felt there was a piece missing in this puzzle ~ hope that piece isn't Wall Street political favors.

[Yavin4]

157. Not True. Link

Other nations pumped trillions of dollars into their banking system to prevent catastrophic failure.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2008-10-13-germany-aids-banks_N.htm

[polichick]

159. The difference is they didn't turn taxpayer money over to criminals...

And they were specific about how it was to be used.

From your link:

"As part of making taxpayer money available to bail the banks out, European governments are requiring they lend to companies and mortgage holders."

[leftofthedial]

161. What is "not true"?

I didn't disagree that European governments pumped money into banks. The difference is that most of those countries had far stricter requirements than Paulson for what the banks could do with that money. Also, most of those countries have far stricter regulations on banks in the first place.

It is clear that the US bailout amounted to a laissez faire, unrestricted giveaway to Paulson's friends. The rich got richer at taxpayer expense (as usual).

[Marie26]

144. Because Wall Street funded his campaign?

It's not that difficult. That's the same reason most other Dems supported it too.

[polichick]

147. Ya know, that didn't even occur to me until I started posting on this thread...

I just kept thinking there was a piece missing.

Though I'm not one of those here at DU who believes Obama can do no wrong, I'd like to think he went along with a bad Paulson bill because the election was looming. Still, this article I found last night is interesting.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21


"Obama and Clinton have been talking for some time about addressing the mortgage crisis. But some Democrats complain that they have been too timid in speaking out about what they see as the Bush administration’s unwillingness to help homeowners even as the Federal Reserve moves to help major financial institutions.

“What that Wall Street money means is that few people in Washington, including the leading presidential candidates, say a thing when the government moves to bail out Wall Street before it helps homeowners,” said David Sirota, a liberal activist and former congressional aide."

[YvonneCa]

151. Systemic collapse was not an option. n/t

[Yavin4]

158. Most People Cannot Comprehend Systematic Collapse

And it wasn't just the U.S. that pumped money into their banks. Governments all over the world did the same thing. Global economic collapses are how wars start.

[polichick]

160. The choice wasn't limited to a bad Paulson bill or nothing...

Here's one way European taxpayers were protected (from your own link above):

"As part of making taxpayer money available to bail the banks out, European governments are requiring they lend to companies and mortgage holders."

[YvonneCa]

163. Systemic collapse could include...

...state and local governments, which are financially intertwined. Do we really want to see hearings with our governors begging for a bailout to keep the state functioning?

[mwei924]

165. Because then he'd have to come up with another solution, which is a lot harder than people think

[stillcool]

167. Every economist..including Paul Krugman..

agreed the something must be done. I don't know much about global finance, or the consequence of lenders freezing up credit so the economy grinds to a halt. I don't know if Congress was willing or able to hammer out some other kind of deal that would do what the bail-out was intended to do, without giving Paulson carte blanche. So..I guess my answer is I don't know.