I admit to being ignorant. I have no fucking clue if the bailout bill failing to pass is good or bad

[Danger Mouse]

:shrug:
I mean, Republicans were against it. Why? Why are we on their side?
Is this good or bad for Obama? I'm not claiming to be some expert. I just want to know what's going to happen next.

[Starry Messenger]

1. Same here.

But I can't even balance my checkbook.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. I say pass it. Scrap it in Jan. and do what we want after we win.

[Vincardog]

17. Second that I say pass it. Scrap it in Jan. and do what we want after we win.

Next January we can start to re regulate the financial system. WE have to put competent people ion charge of oversight and fund their agencies.

After we have reintroduced the regulations that kept the parasitic corporations at bay before the Ray Gun revolution gutted FDR's policies; then we can start to lubricate the financial markets.

[endthewar]

35. Can't just hand over $250 billion now and ask for it back in January

[kirby]

3. I guess we will see...

The Fed / Treasury is spending massive amounts of money already. The FDIC just transferred Wachovia to Citibank. Not widely reported, but the FDIC absorbed $42 Billion in bad mortage loans from Wachovia to get the deal through.

If the market melts down and seriously hits the economy, the next President might have to spend $4 Trillion instead of the $700 Billion.

We are in unknown territory. Like most things in America, we only do stuff AFTER the crisis.

[JuniperLea]

15. Economists are already saying $700 billion isn't near enough...

To have any effect at all would require a minimum of $5 TRILLION!

$700 billion won't do jack. It's throwing good money after bad.

[kirby]

22. The plan was for $700 Billion outstanding at any one time...

They could have bought $100 billion, held them for a year until things stabilize and sell them for $80 billion. Repeat that cycle multiple times and you can purchase trillions of dollars over the lifetime of the program within the $700 billion limit.

The big assumption is that if you pay 30 cents on the dollar for mortgages, what everyone is calling 'fire-sale prices', is that really realistic. I mean if housing has another 50% to drop, that might really be a fire-sale after all.

[JuniperLea]

23. You need to read the whole thing... the tranches were a big joke...

They would have been able to take it all at signing.

[kirby]

28. Did you read my post?

I said they could take the money and reuse it over and over.

It would be like if I gave you $10 and you bought something and then sold it for $8. Then you take the $8, buy something else, and sell that item for $6.

You just input $18 into the economy with the $10 I gave you and you still have $6 left.

[Sodan]

37. why is it 700 - not 694 or 714? how'd they come up with that?

[kirby]

38. It was a SWAG. n/t

[TXN in WA]

4. Thank you

You echoed my sentiments exactly.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. THere are many sides to this "diamond". Dennis even voted against it.

Good luck trying to make out the binary about it.

[Inspired]

6. I want to know if this is good or bad for us.

Sure I want it to be good for Obama but he'll be OK. What about me...us? My entire retirement savings is sitting in a 401K right now. Whatever is left of it.

[tekisui]

7. Good for Obama.

Many Dems were against it, too. It wasn't a good bill. No one liked it, really. Action needs to be taken, but not fear mongering rush to hand over loads of inflation cash.

This gives everyone a chance to take a breath and hit it from another angle, hopefully a better one.

[RoyGBiv]

8. We're all ignorant now ...

This is new territory.

Anyone who tells you they *know* what is going to happen next is trying to sell you some mortgage backed securities built on sub-prime loans.

The answer to your first question, though, is a political one. The enormous unpopularity of the idea of a bailout of this magnitude puts them at risk in the upcoming election. The votes on this were cast less for "do what's right" reasons than "do what makes me look good" reasons. That's not true of *all* of those votes, of course, but it is true of a significant number of them on both sides of the aisle.

Whether it is good for Obama is a short term/long term question. In the short term, it probably helps him because it keeps the disaster that is the American economy front-and-center and constrasted sharply against John "the fundamentals are sound" McCain.

Long term, who knows?

[Bucky]

9. They'll put together another bail out--this time with the Bob Rubin crowd & our liberal wing

It's a more reliable voting block since the Republicans would rather tank the economy than admit they're ideology is flawed.

[Erin Elizabeth]

10. Yep.

Financial stuff is where I am probably the least well-informed in all areas. So I'm just completely lost trying to follow this stuff. It sounds like "blaaaseee blooosee wooodeeee dickle purple pickle!"

[Jade Fox]

11. Nobody knows for sure.....

The only person I've seen admit this is Paul Krugman.

I can't get excited about lots of people opposing the bailout when so many of them are one-issue "no new taxes" types, clueless as to how complicated are the issues involved. Rush and friends are egging them on, trying to make the Democrats look bad. It makes me sick that they are using this serious crisis to do their usual "blame the Libs" thing.

[Arugula Latte]

12. Me too. I have no clue. I don't know who to believe.

:crazy:

[BrotherBuzz]

13. It had the Bush/McCain Good Houskeeping Seal of Approval®

that is to say, DOA.

[Patsy Stone]

14. Two choices:

1) Revote on Thursday on the old bill to see if anyone's minds have miraculously changed over Rosh Hashana.
2) Write a new bill or re-negotiate the issues.

We're in the same place we were, but credit's getting tighter, and it's worse for McCain.

Republicans and Democrats agree that we don't want to bail out Wall Street, but it will begin to affect Main Street (already is in some cases) and it wasn't explained properly, so people don't realize they won't be able to borrow money for cars and college, and they'll have to start paying cash for everything.

The pressure from people who don't agree with the bailout scared the Republicans who are up for re-election, and some Republicans and Democrats are morally opposed to it on principle.

My two cents.

[JuniperLea]

16. In times like these we have to go with what we know.

We know Bush lies. Go with it.

[Danger Mouse]

30. But then why are Repukes AGAINST him?

It's liars vs. liars.

[JuniperLea]

36. i see two possibilities

either they are finally tired of carrying water for the rat bastard, or it was some sort of evil scam/plot as noted elsewhere on DU. a third possibility is that there are a lot of seats coming up to vote... perhaps they were listening to their constituents for a change.

[Sparkly]

18. Me too.

Confusing.

There's got to be a better way to go, but if this is the only possible way (for whatever reasons) to go, is it necessary?

What happens IF... (- insert multiple scenarios here - )??

Don't know if it's good or bad for Obama, but I do think it's bad for McCain, who's looked like an idiot through all this.

[whistle]

19. If Bush and the repukes look bad, then a failing bailout is good. Democrats were in a win/win

...because to have passed, the bill as modified by the House democratic leaders would have made certain conditions mandatory and kept taxpayers from paying the full shot. By failing, the investing banking industry will continue screaming for a bailout which really ought to be paid for by Wall Street, so the next option Plan B will be to propose a .65% surtax to create a trust fund reserve for recouping the $350 billion in bailouts so far and additional bailouts down the road. More regulations and oversight are necessary as well and repukes will have to eventually give way to bringing Glass/Steagall(sp?) back to protect investors against the wild speculations and foreclosure freezes, etc. They will be squirming all the way into the elections and the House leaders can keep congress in session forcing this legislation right up to election eve if necessary. All this will help democrats win by a landslide if played right!!!

[kestrel91316]

20. I'm no economist, so I don't know enough about the issues to decide.

I hate the idea of bailing out corporations that made so many bad decisions that it caused them to fail. Nobody would bail MY place out if I did the same,

BUT

I don't like the idea of a total banking collapse leading to another and greater Depression........

I DO like the idea of helping out the little guys who were wrongfully caught up in this mess through no fault of their own,

BUT

how the hell do we determine exactly who the deserving and undeserving little guys are?

I definitely support strict REREGULATION of banking (and all the other deregulated industries).

[Sodan]

21. I don't think ANYONE really have a clue.

That's the scary thing.

[Bryn]

24. We have Michael Moore

go and check what he says on this one. Like you I am no expert.

[Bryn]

25. Ooops!

www.michaelmoore.com I am going to read it now.

[mokawanis]

26. I can't buy a fucking clue

and don't understand this mess either. I try to be objective and I'm listening to all the commentary but opinions all over the map and it's next to impossible to decipher things at this point.

[Sodan]

29. This is what chaos is like I guess.

[NC_Nurse]

27. Me too. It's quite a cluster. Who knows if it would even work if they passed it.

[msallied]

31. This is why we don't put these issues on voter ballots. lol

And for the record, though I like to think I have a minor grasp on these issues, I'm being told by several that I do not. But then again, I don't know if they are any more right than I am. So when it all comes down to it, we're all kind of full of shit. Except you, because at least you're courageous enough to admit that you simply don't know. lol

[Danger Mouse]

32. I doubt they know any better than you do.

:P

[democrat2thecore]

33. If anybody says they do --- they're LYING

It's unprecedented.

[msallied]

34. This is all about selling the best guess. lol

[Elidor]

39. Here's my simple (non-economic guru) take

We're being stampeded into a bad bill. Not only that, but the GOP wants the dems to pass it so they can campaign by pointing at the dems and saying they give money to rich people while only the republicans truly care about your family. They want to set us up the bomb and milk it for all it's worth.

That asshole Bush just dumped more money on the problem - what was the figure, $650 billion? There's plenty of time to stay calm and fight for a better bill. The House democrats would be stupid to fold now, without getting better concessions from the shadow bankers. Which is exactly why they will. There is almost no conceivable outcome where we, the common man, don't get royally screwed before this is over.

Only if the dems are willing to fight tooth and nail can this become a good bill, and even then, we have to make sure the GOP votes for it in equal measure. They will do everything they can to hurt us on it no matter which way we vote.