I've said it before, and I'll say it again, with evidence. *Not every congresscritter who voted against the bailout did so out of political expediency.*

Isn't this the same site (if not the same column) that enjoyed Marcy Kantur's videos so much last week?

And check this out:

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=438

If you disagree, fine. But do not assume that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of ignorant, politically calculating sellout. There are a few of the other kind out there, too.

You don't have a small stock portfolio or 401(k) plan, I assume. If you did, and took a look at your assets lately, then you'd probably swallow your justifiable anger at the Bush Administration and Wall Street and accept an imperfect deal which would go a long ways toward protecting your assets.

Of course, you could be rich, too; the Fat Cats will only be hurt a little, rescue plan or no. They have their money already; they just would make a few less millions to add to their tens of millions of holdings.

This whole issue needs a lot less heated rhetoric and political posturing, and a lot more common-sense pragmatism. What is the consequence of inaction? What is the risk-reward of the amended Paulson Plan as compared to the other ideas being floated about? Chase took over WaMu and Citicorp now has Wachovia, but how many sound financial institutions remain -- and it's not really clear Chase of Citi fall into that category -- to assume the decreasing assets of those which are going under?

Increased regulation of derivatives and non-depository financial institutions will be necessary, but that is in the long term. The short term is happening today; millions of Americans lost a lot of money today, and the next couple of days looks no more promising. The plan rejected by the House today is far from ideal -- although considerably better than that which was first proposed -- but it provides a clear commitment which should calm the markets and protect the dwindling assets of working Americans.

Punish Wall Street later; today it's necessary to keep the survivors of a sinking financial ship from drowning.

Only eight of the 38 members in competitive races Silver looked at backed the bailout -- or 21 percent. (Some observers would say there are more competitive races -- the Cook Political Report counts 54 -- but Silver used the races tracked by the Swing State Project blog.)

This is actually inaccurate. SSP lists 38 incumbents in the Lean Dem, Tossup, or Lean GOP categories. Cook has 54 races (including open seats and 27 incumbents) in the Lean or Tossup columns.

If you check SSP's competitive race ratings, SSP has 57 races (including open seats) in the Lean or Tossup columns. So we actually do see a slightly bigger playing field than Cook does.

James L.

Editor,

Swing State Project

$700,000,000,000 - that is, 700,000 million.

Hmmm ... which U.S. cities have about 700,000 residents?

#15 Columbus, Ohio 747,755

#16 Austin, Texas 743,074

#17 Fort Worth, Texas 681,818

#18 Memphis, Tennessee 674,028

So imagine the population of Austin or Fort Worth, each & every person a millionaire ...

..."Pass Go and Collect $700,000,000,000.00/Get Out of Jail Free card" instead of "Pass Go and Collect $200.00/Get Out of Jail Free card."

Also, please excuse my French. Ahhh. Fuck 'em anyway.

...bailout or no, the only losers will be the taxpayer. That's you and me. We lose either way if this plan ever passes. And I'd rather see the riff-raff in Wall Street go down in flames than hand them a Pass Go and Collect $200.00/Get Out of Jail Free card so they can go their merry way at our expense. I say we keep our $700B+ and let Wall Street sort it out on their own.

We've all been struggling with this administration's BS for way too long, and Congress needs to wake up and start listening and representing the taxpayer instead of playing lip-service to us, and rolling over every time Walls Street and the dork in White House threaten us with fear tactics and more empty promises. I say let Wall Street and these politicians go down in flames. In the long run we'll be better off. It might hurt for a bit, but we'll manage. Our parent's parents survived the Great Depression, and, if it comes to that, so will we. It's time time to put our foot down and say enough is enough.

Fuck 'em.

I'm not delighting in any of this. My spouse and I have been hoping to finally buy a house next spring -- that may not happen, even if we're both still employed. I have a small TIA-CREF retirement account that's been taking a beating for months, and is probably now bleeding like a stuck pig but I can't bear to look.

I'm not an economist, but from what I understand this bill was not an it's-better-than-nothing compromise. This wasn't a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It was a case of the bad not being clearly better than the nothing, and potentially being worse.

And I am really fucking tired of being presented with false either/or choices, generally by people with a vested interest in ignoring third (and forth and fifth and ...) alternatives.

Dennis Kucinich spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. He stated that NO relief for mortgage holders was required, only "encouraged." Basically, he described the bailout as a massive trickle-up relief package for corporations.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/stream

That's not just me speaking. It's the judgment of most professional economists. Nouriel Roubini, who predicted this mess in detail in 2006 and knows more about it than anyone, wrote a blog post yesterday in which he pointed out that in 42 similar credit crises around the world, having the government buy up the bad paper is the one plan that DID NOT WORK.

This bailout is like having your house on fire and the fire dept shows up with buckets of gasoline. Congress spoke to no economists; they considered no alternatives. This is a bad plan for America and the House Repubs did us all a favor in shooting it down.