Again, why not a loan?

Why no oversight?

Why not restrictions on how much of the money can be given out as golden parachutes, and if the company's execs disagree, they don't really need it that bad, do they?

Many of us a recognize the seriousness of the issue. We just don't like the solution.

Ben Stein (yep, a right winger) brought up a decent point yesterday. Let's say that the financial industry really does NEED the 700 billion dollar injection, right now. Why can't we loan it to them? Other bailouts we've heard about were loans with strict conditions (airline industry after 9/11), how come this isn't?

Why is this different?

p.s. trolls, it's really sad that for the last 30 years we've had no Republican presidents or congressmen that could do anything to change the direction the country is headed. It makes your team look even weaker than the Dems have become.

Also, this isn't about Freddie and Fannie (who's McCain's campaign manager again?) that's done. This is completely unrelated, Fannie and Freddie didn't force Countrywide to give my coworker who makes $30 an hour a negative amoratized loan with no down payment a 750,000 loan for a home. I thought it was dumb of him to get in over his head, but I can't feel too sorry for any bank that bought that loan....

Your idea is a good one...especially since McCain's buddy Lindsay Graham suggested gettting rid of the VP debate entirely and replace it with McCain and Obama to make up for the missed debate.

Andrew, Krugman is linking to you, even though he doesn't quite agree.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-trust-problem/

Wow, I especially like the little note that compares Keillor and Moyer to pharisees. LOL.

I also love that the R's tie Raines to Obama, just because Raines supports him, and yet McCain's campaign manager is Davis, who was a lobbyist for Fannie & Freddie, and still being advised by Gramm, one of the authors of this mess...Gramm, who works for UBS AND lobbies for UBS, a foreign bank who will get bailed out, too.

There is a ton of anger out there on this.

But maybe not, the Dems are amazingly out of touch.

The level at genuine anger and disgust at the proposed bailout is high, and yet the Dems rush to help the unpopular Bush.

Meanwhile, the Repubs will claim they fought it.

Obama has to oppose this deal, no one likes it, it's not seen as political, it's seen as theft.

If Obama supports it and McCain changes his mind and opposes it, McCain will get the independents.

This is a big deal, this is not nuanced, there is no excuse.

So far, Pimco got a 1.7 billion dollar profit in one day from the Fannie and Freddie bailout. So far, on the books, Pimco should lose 785 million on Lehman, less than half of their govt. sponsored profit from a little while back.

To tell you the truth, I don't trust the numbers on the loss side, yet. Lehman got a liquidity injection of 87 billion dollars last Monday in the form of a loan from JP Morgan...a loan that was then repaid in full by the govt. on Tuesday. All the while this is touted as letting Lehman fail without govt. intervention.

I have no idea how the losses on Lehman's books are being handled until the dust settles, I just know the cream of Lehman's is being handed over to other firms, like Barclay's.

Even if the "bailout" fails, some of these guys have very creative ways to be repaid, all without congressional approval necessary.

I'm at a loss here. This is wholesale looting.

Of course they want the Iraq war on the budget now. Adding the war onto the books along with the proposed bailout kills ANY chance we had at fixing Social Security next year. There is a good chance we would have had a Dem President and Dem majority (though this bailout might change that) and the Republicans DO NOT want any new deals.

Majorajam, Bill Gross bought up a ton of Fannie and Freddie debt when it was failing, so it was both risky and cheap, and still private. He then went out and said he bought it under the implied protection of the US government. He made a fortune off of it.

Everyone knows this is a real crisis and something needs to be done. There is probably no good solution to this crisis, there will be pain all around. That doesn't mean we have to accept the first bad idea given and run with it.

What's funny (as pointed out elsewhere) is that the financial institutions being "rescued" are setting the terms with a wishlist. You can't touch exec. compensation or bonuses, etc. or they don't want the help. Well, if they really needed the aid, they wouldn't be in position to dictate the terms, would they?

When companies are lining up and lobbying to get "aid" the terms are too easy. Way too easy.

Nobody I knew supported the crappy FISA deal, but most people would yawn if it was discussed in detail.

This bailout is different, this bill enrages the people that know about it, and for some reason, people are hearing about it, even if the Emmy's were on this weekend. I heard all types talking about it at the airport last Friday and rarely do you hear that kind of animated discussion of politics.

This bill is easy even for the politically uninformed to grasp and Obama better get it and oppose the damn thing, because McCain will probably vote against it whether it's a guaranteed winner or loser...to show his maverickyness and anti-Bush cred.

BTW, both CNBC and Bloomberg estimate the new revised (over teh weekend) bill to be closer to 1.8 trillion, not 700 billion.