Or do the people who just loved Dubya these last 8 years have serious reading comprehension difficulties?

-- Svensker

Apparently, in order to still be a supporter of Bush, a person must have the following maladies: 1) an inability to reason; 2) a complete failure of self-reflection; and 3) an inability to understand anything that goes beyond the level of simple soundbytes that make him/her feel good about him/herself.

Because, honestly, a person who is capable of making a cogent, well-reasoned argument in response to a post by the likes of Glenn Greenwald probably wouldn't be moronic enough to still support the disaster that currently resides in the White House.

I bet these two emailed you, as well:

http://redjenny.blogspot.com/2008/09/misspelled-signs-at-rnc.html

"Congress, Bush team agree on bailout terms" (link @ sig).

They apparently agreed to "strong congressional oversight." As if Congress even knows what oversight means.

Regarding Dodd's proposal:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/22/marshall-dodd-stares-down-paulson/#more-31916

Thanks for getting Digby to talk about that post. What the bailout means to the election (October surprise?) is something that needs to be discussed and discussed. And, then discussed some more.

I often hate these campaign strategy debates (I'd rather have leaders actually lead), but I don't know how we'll all bear it if the Republicans walk the Democrats right off the plank on this one.

...but Stirling Newberry has a great essay explaining the collapse and why it happened (hint: it rhymes with schmeregulation and schmiraq).

Part 1 of the essay is linked @ sig. Part 2 is not posted yet.

So, are you saying that the CEO's should be able to take the government bailout money and pay themselves handsomely with it?

I don't think there should be any gov't bailout money.

-- Motrek

This is what you said: "One thing I haven't heard discussed much is the idiotic notion that executive compensation at these companies needs to be limited somehow." I think we all understood you to be speaking to the discussion about a specific proposal in a bill to limit the CEO compensation for those whose companies received bailouts.

Is your whole point that, outside of the bailout, just as a genral proposition, CEO compensation shouldn't be limited?

If you want to argue about that, maybe you should find some people who are making that point (i.e., that, outside of the bailout issue, CEO compensation should be limited) to argue against. No one here is doing so.

On the other hand, you said "these companies." It sounds like you were referring to those who are would-be recipients of the bailout.

So, your response that you don't agree with the bailouts was totally, well, unresponsive. So, I'll ask you again: assuming that the bailout happens, should the CEO's of the companies who receive some of the $700 billion be able to line their pockets with the money?

Re-read Glenn's response to you if you need further clarification: http://tinyurl.com/3t4qud

Ian Welsh has a post up regarding Barney Frank's proposal on the bailout, entitled "FISA all over again as Barney Frank Undercuts Dodd" (link @ sig). Frank's plan does not provide the equity stake. Per Mr. Welsh:

"Why? Because the language about taking warrants in exchange for buying up toxic assets is only for direct purchases and not for reverse auction puchases, which will be the majority of the purchases. As Soros points out, in any reverse auction, the government will get stuck with the most toxic of toxic waste because of information asymetries. In exchange they should at least get stock, equal not to what they paid, but to the face of the crap they are buying.

There is quite a bit of language about helping mortgage holders, but it is almost all qualified with words like encourage and request, rather than require. Since the Treasury is bailing mortgage holders out, the idea that the Secretary must "encourage" and "request" is just BS. The correct response is to make help for mortgage holders a requirement of participating in the program at all. If financial institutions don't like that they don't need to participate. Good way to make sure that companies that don't really need help don't swill at the trough.

...

Nonetheless, overall, this is a stab in the back, an attempt to give public money to private concerns with almost zero upside for ordinary citizens. If Reid doesn't back Dodd, hardcore, or if the House doesn't revolt, this is probably the bill we're going to wind up with."

Fan-freaking-tastic. Oh, and we don't have the actual language of the bill, either.

The WSJ reported that WaMu went under because so many of their customers withdrew funds.

Federal regulators said the exodus of deposits left WaMu "with insufficient liquidity to meet its obligations." As a result, WaMu was in "an unsafe and unsound condition to transact business," according to the OTS.

(Link at sig.)

I wonder if that had anything to do with all the dire warnings given by Paulsen, Bernake, Bush, et al. The incompetence continues to astound. The fact that they're now trying to blame WaMu's diversity practices (the NR article is so blatant that you can't even call it a "dog whistle") is just... I don't even have the words.

Meanthwile, is there anything done by the right wing that the the true believing 26% won't degrade themselves defend? There are some things that are indefensible, and this NR article is one of them.

I was just about to post the poll results, but you beat me to it.

On another note, when I was looking at Rasmussen's site, I saw an article entitled, "The Brilliance of McCain's Move By Dick Morris." I couldn't bear to read it. ;-)